G-Man wrote:A preface is in order to understand where I'm coming from.
I don't usually look for teammate behavior until I have vote data pointing me in that direction. I also don't track people's meta because I've never been the best at it. When looking at Nutella, I saw individual behavior that looked bad to me. My theory on Glorfindel is built around similar observations.
Check out his
post history.
His first four posts include the following:
-Whoops I missed the start of the game
-Whoops I didn't read the rules
-A slight civ vibe based on skim reading
-A funny post of no substance
-Whoops I missed the vote
Then two mechanics related posts, and an "I'm catching up (43 pages in) but totally lost" post, lowering our expectations for Day 2.
On Day 2, we get:
-a post where he says he feels good about Matt and Zebra
-a mechanics related post on Toaster allegiance
-another mechanics post
-an oy, complicated show lore + complicated game mechanics = headache post
-another mechanics post
-a big long post where he hands out some civ reads but comes up empty on suspicions
Then there is the post where he says he finds it hard to take IAWY seriously without explaining what that means. Does he think IAWY is bad or just acting differently?
Then a "don't call me a slacker" kind of post responding to my LRD vibe pickup. He says he's trying but it's hard but he's not very good at the whole forming baddie reads.
Then he takes two posts to help DrWilgy sort out what thoughts were about IAWY to help him better understand the situation he's walking into. Helpful for Wilgy but not the big picture.
He says he thinks LC might be trying to get lynched (agreeing with SVS) but that LC's sortie hijack makes him as unhelpful civvie at best and mafia at worst.
He votes Long Con Day 2 for "reasons already stated" but his prior post didn't even label LC as suspicious. He just viewed him as a liability to the civvies. The way he worded it is shady because, rather than restate his reasons, he puts it on the reader to go back and find his reasons on their own. Because, you know, it's easy to remember the mild suspicions of a quietish player in a game with 2,500 posts.
When Silverwolf presses him for justification of his vote during Night 2, he finds a handful of detailed points that made it a reasonable choice for him. Where was all this info when he cast his vote? Nowhere. When he voted, he said "reasons already stated," which alluded to a post that only covered maybe two out of the five points he unloaded at night.
Then you've got a bunch of empty banter and trying to pitch in with the sorties overnight and into Day 3.
Later there is a post where he agrees with JJJ, calls a few people civ, and throwing shade at Sokoth without committing to calling him sus. Then a post defending sig, a post clarifying his stance on mechanics, and a post where he thinks something JJJ proves his point about either sig or mechanics (I'm not sure which).
He apologizes to LC for his vote and lists a few players he thinks LC is wrong about. Finally he chastises Sokoth for finally forming some opinions because Sokoth takes aim at Glorfindel for what looks like a hasty "NO U" reaction.
Early on, he sounds like someone trying to figure out game mechanics but he focuses solely on Toaster mechanics. There's the complete lack of calling anyone suspicious three days into the game. Fluff banter to look helpful and pad that post count too.
Any one of these on their own would seem harmless but all three of them combined sets off alarms in my brain. Asking questions and discussing no -suspicion related issues without the willingness to put some skin in the game just feels wrong.
Does any of this sound reasonable or am I working up another Keyser Soze?
Fiddler on the Roof
