The Illustrious Me, The Fourth Member of the Animaniacs, General of the Moonlit Tropics Kracken's Squash Team, Bringer of Chocolate Rain, Slayer of Xerxes The Gill-Less, Sacker of South Atlantis, Looper of Hoops and The Youngest Smash Brother, does herein postulate:
If you will all recall, I mentionified the following scenarioification shortly after the Blazing Hot Ball of Terror We Krackens Dare Not Name rose from the Highest Ocean.
Queran Gloomsoul wrote:The Illustrious me, Duke of Farmville, Grand Puba of the Order of the Runny Nose, Clap-On-Clap-Off The Clapper, He Who Zigs When He Should Zag, does herein profess the following postulations in regards to the enclosed quotables and notables.
Firstly, the following:
Gobnait Gingeruite wrote:Dierdre Wonderbird wrote:I'm also minorly pinged by Mainchin,
This:
Mainchin Ironbeast wrote:I pray to the gods that there is at least one mafia on each table. Otherwise some of our number might be voting a table entirely made up of good denizens. Is it possible our gracious host has made it known to the evil ones that they must seat at least one of their horde at each table?
sounds like something a mafioso would say after finding that exact fact out from the hosts.
Also, this:
Mainchin Ironbeast wrote:I know some people hate the idea, but I may just cast a random vote from the Table of Peace. I will look through their posts first to get some idea who I'm voting for.
followed by a non-random vote is a bit odd. If you are going to random, why read through their posts? This is all minor, but my gut is telling me Mainchin may not be a good guy. He's on the watchlist, let's put it that way.
Dierdre, I was also pinged by both of the posts you mentioned, and I hope Mainchin shows up to offer some explanation for them. The concern in the first post struck me as weird even if he didn't have any info. Civs getting votes isn't necessarily bad as long as they don't get lynched. "Random" voting always bothers me, as well.
I don't agree so much with your case on Laine; so far he's read somewhat confused civ to me. It could be an act, but I doubt I'd be ready to lynch him for it just yet.
And sentimentality won out; I'm going to the castle, upon the battlements of which I have frightened many a foe.
Seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, as I doubt any mafia conspirators would so haphazardly recall such information into the public pool. Secondly, the accused mentioned they "may" random post. The fact that they did not drew scrutiny from the quoted posts above. Once more I must draw from the rich and glorious history of our beloved Moonlit Tropics Krackens. Any time someone has a non-random vote, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. It means thought was put into the vote. Random voting is the stuff of cowards. And as for the scrutiny of "why read through their posts?", I seek to remind those gathered here that information is key. Reading and re-reading and re-re-reading should be encouraged, not suspected. Knowledge is power.
Finally I will address the gargoyle that agreed with Diedre's postulation. Given the vote manipulation that is out there, I disagree that civvies getting votes is something we can afford to let happen "as long as they don't get lynched".
So those two are on the radar of this King Regent.
You will all then recall The following. I will highlight the points I wish to discuss in depth, as well as cut out the flufferousity that does not pertain to my theorificating, as the original quot is rather bookish in nature.
Gobnait Gingeruite wrote:Yay for no NK!!
Moving on to Queran:
Queran Gloomsoul wrote:Attention: The Illustrious Me, King Regent of the Moonlit Krackens, Protector of the (table of) Peace, Conqueror of Squidmark the Malignant, Defender of the Crowned Jewels of His Majesty Don Cheadle-Kracken, Singer of Hyms, Rhymer of Rhymes, Maker of Lists and Rambler in Charge of the Doctrines of our Holy and Most Serene Kingdom of the Moonlit Krackens, do so cast my vote for Callic Lustroushair, Deeming the persons herein named to be of ill repute and dangerous intent. I declare this with all the sovereignty of the Kingdom of the Moonlit Krackens, from this Moon till our last, Praise be to Don Cheadle-Kracken.
Buried somewhere in this gem is his vote for Caillic, with no reason attached. When he was later questioned about why he voted Caillic by Bronwyn, he replied:
Queran Gloomsoul wrote:Delightful Bronwin Mightyfeet:
The Illustrious Me, etc. etc. Decided to vote for Callic Lustroushair after reading over their posts as I promised I would read over all posts. After doing so I noticed their post stating their vote for for Ameerah Frolicstag, with the expressed hope that Ameerah was not lynched for such an unhappy reason.
Where I come from, we Moonlit Tropics Krackens are taught by the mighty Don Cheadle-Kracken that if you truly do not wish for someone to get lynched, you will vote for someone else.
This seems, at first glance, to be a solid-enough reason to vote for someone on Day 1. As many of us have noted, pings tend to be small for the first lynch. Now we know the Caillic was just expressing uncertainty about his vote, which was totally innocent.
However, the timing of this explanation pings me pretty sharply. Again, no reason was given for the vote,
and this was produced when asked for. It concerns me quite a bit. Now for Bronwyn's response, with a bit of setup. In a previous post, Bronwyn had mentioned her intent to randomize among possible candidates unless something else came up, then after Queran gave his reason for her vote, this:
Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote:
O Great Illustrious You, etc. etc. I did notice the expressed hope that Ameerah was not lynched and thought it very odd. I also noticed s/he did not respond to the vote placed for her earlier, giving us her side of the story. In gypsy land the innocent always defend themselves. As a member of the Table of Peace I look toward Caillic Lustroushair for a vote, unless the votes come in for me or do not come in before i have to vote from the two missing Table of Happiness voters. Without knowing how they will vote or if they vote for me I will be forced to vote for Poisondart in defense. We shall see how it goes, and again Praise to your leader!
She says Ameerah would have defended herself if she were innocent, implying that she believes Caillic voted for a baddie. Then
she agrees completely with Queran and says she'll vote Caillic unless she needs to save herself!
The strategy here is truly mind-boggling. If Caillic truly voted for a baddie, as she seems to believe, why on Earth (or whatever planet we all come from) would he be baddie himself? That just wouldn't make sense on Day 1, as Ameerah had virtually no chance of being lynched anyway. Thus, she implies Cailllic is good while also voting him. She throws in a bit about saving her vote for self-preservation, which again doesn't make much sense as no particular suspicion was directed at her.
The back-and-forth between her a Queran, and even the similarity in the style of their posts (throwing titles back and forth, etc.), looks very much like something cooked up in BTSC to me. I believe that, with so many candidates to choose from, Queran picked one he knew was good and saw whether he could pick up a few easy civ votes. I've done this before as a baddie, and when the victim flips civ it's easy to later accuse your followers of bandwagon voting to make them look bad instead of you. I'm not sure yet whether Carmen fits the duped civ profile yet, I'll want to hear her response to what I said about her first. Bronwyn's vote interests me the most of all. Her going along with Queran's reason so easily after never mentioning Caillic before looks very bad indeed to me, but her strategy just seems so bad if I imagine her as bad or civ that I'm really not sure what to make of it. When she voted she decided Caillic over Jorhan, so I think if she's bad then Jorhan is too and she was protecting him. If she's civ I doubt it says anything about Jorhan.
I'm sorry for this book, I know you're busy people. To summarize, based on the above evidence I believe very strongly that Queran is bad, and I don't exactly feel great about Bronwyn either. If they do both prove bad, Jorhan is a likely compatriot, but that's still extremely speculative. Thoughts?
And now, On to my deductionations!
Firstly, let me lay out what I believe is the case here:
I believe, after seeing that I placed Her Stonieness on my radar, Gobnait Gingeruite panicked and, in an attempt to "nip it in the bud" whipped up a fancy enough looking flimsy reversal. Known in the common tounge as a "No U".
I can deduce it's flimsyhood based on the following.
1. Her Magnificence, The Statuesque, Dodger of Pigeon Poo, used as one of her points against me that I produced an explanation for my vote when asked. I will admit that not immediately explaining my vote beyond "I get a bad feeling" was short sighted. But, I think it would have been exceedingly more suspicious had I not produced an explanation after being asked, don't you?
2. I find it most curious indeed that Gobnait claims to have spent a whole morning looking through the lynch results and building this case against myself and Mightyfeet. I find this curious because a larger point of her case, which I have again highlighted above for ease of access, possesses a grand, if not case-crippling flaw. I will requote it down here, for comparitory purposes.
She says Ameerah would have defended herself if she were innocent, implying that she believes Caillic voted for a baddie
A very good point, if it were in any way based upon factual happenings. Below is what Bronwyn Mightyfeet actually said:
Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote:Caillic Lustroushair wrote:I shall vote for Ameerah Frolicstag, as they were the last one to sit at the Table of Happiness, in hopes that they are not actually belynched for such an unhappy reason.
Caillic, was there anything you wanted to say about the vote for you?
As is plain to see, Bronwyn did in fact question Caillic about the vote for Caillic. And, found the lack of response unnerving. I bring this up not as a defense of Bronwyn, but to note the curious mistake made by someone claiming they've read over things and have built a strong case.
I think this case was done up to discredit myself and to throw the scent from Gobnait. How would it discredit me? I believe Gobnait needed to make me look suspicious, hence the mentioning of my lack of vote reason until I produced a vote reason. I think to strengthen this case she looked to tie me to someone, hence the noting of the similarities between the humorous posts of myself and Bronwyn Mightyfeet, She Without Socks, Stomper of Dirt, Maker of Toe Jam. But it wasn't enough to tie us together, I think Gobnait sought out a reason to make Bronwyn appear just as guilty as she wanted me to appear, once again placing a false face of legitimacy on her case. Unfortunately for her, she sloppily chose a very weak and clearly false piece of evidence. Now, I hear the calls of "Oh well honest mistake" already. Yet, good friends, It is clear throughout Gobnait's post that she had done a great deal of reading and research before placing her theory out for all to see. She makes reference to a great deal of posts, indicating such. So, if she'd truly read through it all, she would know Bronwyn's concerns lay with Caillac, not Ameerah.
