The discussion does seem to be getting a bit stagnant and I'm at a loss as to what to do.
Just realized that besides this being a heavy time involving exams over the course of past and oncoming weeks, it is also
graduation season! I mean like, the entirety of the island of Oahu's high schools are all basically graduating in the next 3-4 days. I'm certain activity will be more sustained once the summer rolls in and all the end-of-school hubbub is over and done with.
Now, I would like to address Oak's defense and accusation "speeches," and in addressing them, I will say but one thing: they are... interesting, to say the least.
I will first admit that, I didn't think such a reply/defense was really necessary, but that's purely because I don't exactly have (or had have) you high on any suspicions list, and thus, didn't really need any more convincing, though it was good to defend against the other accusations.
It hasn't exactly changed my opinion of your role/stance/whatever... but the accusations
were interesting... though I'm not exactly convinced either on GmK, though that doesn't necessarily mean I'm not suspicious, I just feel like at the moment, its not strong enough either for me to vote on him.
Here are my reasons why:
Note, I may simply be misreading or misinterpreting due to how the post is laid out (using quotes/screenshots would be much neater to understand xD ) but I'm basing this on both your post Oak, as well as reading back to the pages where the quotes were pulled from, as well as their context.
Firstly, some of your arguments feel a bit... well, flawed, in some regards. Again, may be my misinterpretation, but from reading back, they don't exactly make sense.
Case A:
I had to go back many a time and reread your first post, and I couldn't wrap my head around what you were talking about here. At first, i thought you were referencing, in your notation found at the bottom of that picture ^^, of the quotes of GmK following your little notation, but even there it didn't make sense: you're notations feel out of place in between both quotes.
Out of both, the sentences boxed in orange, and the quote proceeding your notation after you're "end quote" (in red), the red, underlined section of your words don't necessarily make any sense. This is due to both not exactly having any reference, at all, that "2 people originally suggested that pirates may not have been able to talk to each other." His first sentence involving "vote based on information before him" doesn't exactly cut the cake for me on you're accusation either, seeing as this sentence implies moreso that Sploorky got his vote to vote you, Oak, from others, when that didn't exactly happen beforehand: Sploorky started the lynch.
NOT TO MENTION I see no hint of GmK actually implying or bluntly stating that it is misinformation / this is false???
I looked back and didn't exactly find anything of GmK saying it was "false," especially when it came to his vote on you toward the end of the day:
It's less of saying it's "false" (or whatever that means), and moreso just... well... following the bandwagon, like he basically was, and has still to this moment without really explaining himself. In fact it was also just following the bandwagon of "
omg guise, lynching is better than not lynching guise, we should lynch, it's the best choice even with no information, bandwagan timez!" sort of mentality going on during that time on Day 0.
If anything I would say that is MORE suspicious that he hasn't exactly explained much and has simply gone back and forth, basically following Notty (or Notty following him) then changing votes; it is more suspicious here than say, with Swate, due to having significantly more experience than Swate (hosting 2 games and playing in some ain't no small feat!)
But even then, such a suspicion is small, and I've never liked that "Back and forth voting = scum" idea, isn't enough to really make me vote (though I do keep suspicions).
Plus, being... I believe basically one of the last to vote on you, which at that point, had essentially become a "lost cause" as I am
certain very few of us would've changed our stances on votes at that point in time, and would have just let the deadline run its course, that a scum would simply take up a vote at such a volatile point in time, especially being one of the last players to vote on you're particular lynch.
--------------------------------
I do believe you're not anti-town Oak, at least for the time being, and I feel the arguments against you are too weak to really justify, in my mind, a vote. I also do believe you have good intentions in pointing suspicion at GmK, whom arguably,
IS suspicious, but I just don't believe you're particular arguments are that strong either; Better, Yes!, but they don't really make sense, at least, not to me anyways.
I wouldn't say he's bad... at least not yet. He's been acting fairly strange/shady since Day 0 in my opinion, so I think simply "keeping an eye" on suspicions is a better idea in this case, unless you want to re-explain to me what I've gotten wrong in regard to your post (which I don't believe I have; I've tried to understand where you're coming from, but reading back it really doesn't make sense in places xD )
I may vote GmK should something be explained, perhaps in your 3rd installment post, but at the moment, not yet.
I'm more inclined to vote Jivvi; he's my personal FoS and my gut just says its a better choice. I'm still waiting for a good response from him (probably busy, don't want to say anything cause that's probably the case), but I just don't think he's telling us the whole story, especially after so many "hints" at things that don't make sense; random threats out of thin air over no reason, etc, etc.
Feels like a cover-up if you ask me, but no one really was, were they? x)
Now time for some "me" time. *woosh*
