Hello Wilgy my friend!
Here's my analysis of your sig analysis.
So... First eye catch! the post that mentions Zebra from Sig happens to have way more smileys than what I'm used to from Sig. I know he splashes maybe one smiley into a post here and there, but this just feels unnatural to Sig. His reactions to Zebra seems non-committal, kinda there just to be there. I find it odd that his concern was raised, but he doesn't remember those concerns.
The Smiley thing isn't something I really connect with. Is sig THAT much of a non-Smiler that it's weird to use four in a medium-length post? My thing about this *infamous* post of his is that it's a Day 0 post. People are expecting the world of it, and condemning it for being too "fluff". Personally, I have probably done plenty of posts like this as a Civ, because I don't always have a lot to say that early. Some of these guys are just right-out-of-the-gates guys, but I have no right to accuse someone for just getting a post in there to be present.
Sig brushes off DH, stating that it is fluff but fluff is OK. Is this a NO U?
Yes it was a NO U. It's interesting that at this point in the game (Day 1), all we had from Sig were two "I'll be suspicions of you if you are suspicious of me" conversation kill tactics, Zebra hunky pokeyness, and awkward fluff.
I can't condemn him for the soft No U because I also agreed that attacking him for that post was weak and possibly baddie-predatory. It's not a No U if the suspicion of your attackers motives is justified.
This is a lie, Sig wouldn't have asked about JJJ in the non contributory post if this were true.
This is harsh. Accuse the guy of a fluff post until he says "yeah, it was fluffy"... and then turn it around to say "A-HA! But WHAT about this NON-FLUFF that I see???!" To call sig a liar for having a sliver of real-talk in the Penultimate Fluff Post is not very valid. It's not like sig was the one singling out his own post and making sure everyone knew it was 100% fluff, right?
Where does the LoRab suspicion come from?
This is a valid question. If sig is jumping on the Lorab wagon without his own reasons, then it's worth looking into. I do think that the Lorab suspicion was talked out by several people, and I must admit, she's on the baddie end of my hypothetical rainbow list because I read those opinions on her and agreed with some of them. I never delved into it and made my own case on her, but I still held suspicion based on what I read.
Sig's insentience on seemers being in play seems silly. What would pondering this do? I need to check how often Sig states "What do you think of X?" as a civ...
I don't see "insistence" in sig's post about a possibility that Z was a seemer, or that some trickery was involved. I do think it would be relevant to check out his history of "What do you think of X?" though, that's a good idea.
Anyways, this turned into a big "sig defense" post. I guess if he turns up bad then I'll look bad. And if he turns up Civ then maybe I'll look like a baddie who knew it was likely he was Civ so that's suspish. It's easy enough to come to either of those conclusions, but hey, I say things I think of to say. Wilgy, I know you put the time into that sig ISO, and I just wanted to get my opinion out there as well. I don't think sig is bad.
I'm usually pretty crappy at this though, so we shall see!
and gone to super-civ mode with your very helpful breakdown of zebra's interactions... after you have been accused. That looks like scrambling to me.
that is not good.
The flavour makes it sound like one role was responsible for all three kills. What kind of role would be able to kill three people in a single night this early in the game? I've played with the demo man role before but that wouldn't have been able to kill that many people yet. 
Truly shameful.
