My reasons for voting Azza:
Day 1
50: Votes for Waterbat, 6h after game start
174: 24h later, responds to Waterbat saying he was quite suspicious of his opening post
216: 7.5h later, responds to Meiz saying why he's suspicious of Waterbat and that he has nothing else to contribute
End of day 1. Summary: Azza makes no comment on anything going on other than his suspicion on Waterbat. Noone else comments on Waterbat.
Night 1
413: 30h later, formulates his theories against me and uberfish, starts distancing himself from his suspicion of Waterbat
423: Responds to me, saying that my actions are strongly anti-town ("make no sense as an innocent") and that I should consequently be lynched whether I'm scum or town. Responds to Bigger (who commented that Azza was largely absent during day 1 and then posted immediately after that Bigger's accusation) by saying that he has more to go on now. Also states that he's not inclined to post lots, and isn't sure how into the game he'll get.
427: Responds to my statement (1. I stated that I'm suspicious of him suggesting a policy vote based on perceived anti-town behaviour 2. I argued that my actions were not anti-town, I simply guessed wrong 3. I argued it looks like he just wants someone to hang, doesn't care to dig very deeply into that player's guilt or innocence 4. I ask if my argument about thestick hanging too easily was invalid) by saying my attempt to save thestick is too damning to ignore. Basically ignores what I wrote.
430: After I argue that my actions do make sense as a townie, and point out that he pretty much ignored my arguments, he says that he keeps his posts short and sweet. He goes on to say that I'm anti-town because thestick was guilty. If he wasn't guilty, they wouldn't be anti-town.
432: I argue that anti-town behaviour has little to do with whether the lynch candidate is guilty or not, because we have no reliable knowledge about that as villagers. He argues that unpredictable shifting of votes is potentially suspicious and wants to know why I'm constantly changing my vote. Argues that jumping on and off bandwagons makes me dangerous to the town. I retorted that sticking with your vote and not reassessing is anti-town, and that I provided arguments for all my vote switches. No response to this.
End of night 1, will continue this later. Conclusion so far: He lurks with a safe vote, then during the night uses illogical arguments for both defending his actions and throwing dirt at his next safe vote.
Day 1
50: Votes for Waterbat, 6h after game start
174: 24h later, responds to Waterbat saying he was quite suspicious of his opening post
216: 7.5h later, responds to Meiz saying why he's suspicious of Waterbat and that he has nothing else to contribute
End of day 1. Summary: Azza makes no comment on anything going on other than his suspicion on Waterbat. Noone else comments on Waterbat.
Night 1
413: 30h later, formulates his theories against me and uberfish, starts distancing himself from his suspicion of Waterbat
423: Responds to me, saying that my actions are strongly anti-town ("make no sense as an innocent") and that I should consequently be lynched whether I'm scum or town. Responds to Bigger (who commented that Azza was largely absent during day 1 and then posted immediately after that Bigger's accusation) by saying that he has more to go on now. Also states that he's not inclined to post lots, and isn't sure how into the game he'll get.
427: Responds to my statement (1. I stated that I'm suspicious of him suggesting a policy vote based on perceived anti-town behaviour 2. I argued that my actions were not anti-town, I simply guessed wrong 3. I argued it looks like he just wants someone to hang, doesn't care to dig very deeply into that player's guilt or innocence 4. I ask if my argument about thestick hanging too easily was invalid) by saying my attempt to save thestick is too damning to ignore. Basically ignores what I wrote.
430: After I argue that my actions do make sense as a townie, and point out that he pretty much ignored my arguments, he says that he keeps his posts short and sweet. He goes on to say that I'm anti-town because thestick was guilty. If he wasn't guilty, they wouldn't be anti-town.
432: I argue that anti-town behaviour has little to do with whether the lynch candidate is guilty or not, because we have no reliable knowledge about that as villagers. He argues that unpredictable shifting of votes is potentially suspicious and wants to know why I'm constantly changing my vote. Argues that jumping on and off bandwagons makes me dangerous to the town. I retorted that sticking with your vote and not reassessing is anti-town, and that I provided arguments for all my vote switches. No response to this.
End of night 1, will continue this later. Conclusion so far: He lurks with a safe vote, then during the night uses illogical arguments for both defending his actions and throwing dirt at his next safe vote.