I was looking back at Zack's votes as a whole, and to be honest his entire vote history is a little bit sketchy.
Thanks, person who seemed agreed with everything I said until I started voting for you.
Day 1: Zack followed me onto Finster, and left his vote there until day end.
Lie. Don't make it seem like I merely piggybacked your "I don't like your day start vote" vote against Finster when I had completely separate reasons for voting for them.
I pressured Finster for being wishy-washy and making useless comments for a long time (starts from around
#194). Shortly thereafter, you said I was "making some decent points" (
#347).
Your alleged suspicion of Finster started because you were splitting hairs over the random votes at day start, singling out Finster's and confirmed townie-rac's for arbitrary reasons (
#103). Then you mentioned scumreading Finster (
#614) among a group that also included Billy, rac, and a green-checked player, but didn't give any reasons for it other than the day start thing. Then you agreed with Zordon (hey-oh) in that other players needed scrutiny (at a point in which
Jason was under the heavist scrutiny), and mentioned wanting to switch your vote to Finster (
#621), again without expanding on it. And then you finally voted against Finster (
#629), whom you described as your "strongest scum read".
Day 2: Defended Jason pretty heavily, but left his vote on Trini (who ended the day with two votes) as a "symbolic gesture".
Lie. I never "defended Jason", much less "defended Jason pretty heavily". I'd link you to a post that proves my point here, but I can't, because there is no post in which I'm talking about Jason in a positive light at any point in that phase.
If anything, you should fault me for not looking properly at Jason. I spent my D2 focused on my suspicions of Trini (
#1159,
#1175). I was against the Jason lynch because my main suspects were the ones pushing that train (
#1556), but not because I was defending them. Regarding Jason themselves, I literally said I didn't mind that lynch, but was bothered by it because it seemed unopposed (
#1276).
D2 is clearly my worst day (it's also Kimberly's and Rita's), and you could've just played it straight with your criticisms of it, but you didn't. You're misrepresenting what I actually did during that phase by claiming I "defended Jason pretty heavily". Hell, I would've probably let this pass if you had just said "defended Jason" without the "pretty heavily" part, but your wording really shows your intent.
Day 3: Created the big push for voting for Zordon, but backed off after about 100 posts on the basis that he didn't trust the people following him on that vote, just as the vote was becoming big. Instead, he helped make the Black Ranger into a viable lynch.
I backed off of the Zordon vote at that point because I'd put it down tentatively after rereading D1, but four people I was scumreading at that point had already followed me before I had the opportunity to reread D2, as I said I would (
#1962).
These are the players that followed me against Zordon and that made me wary, and the respective posts on why I suspected them at that point in the game: Rita (
#1701), Black (
#1861), you (
#1159), Green (
#1863). You may not like the fact that I backed off of Zordon, but after being followed by those players, from my (well-documented) perspective, it felt like the right move.
After that, I went back to reread D2. If I came out with a worse or similar impression of Zordon during that phase, I'd simply have accused them again and put my vote back down. But I came out of D2 with a better impression of them (
#2030), and instead decided to go for someone who had looked bad on both D1 and D2 (
#1861,
#2061). My case against Black was so reasonable that even Black themselves agreed that one of its main points made them look really bad (
#2064).
Day 4: Put on a blargesque rock concert show of voting for Zordon, while sneaking in unexplained votes on me. Ends the day without a vote.
I already had my eyes on you at that point. Regarding the way I ended up without a vote,
I already explained myself to Kimberly.
Day 5: Votes for me, but makes sure to leave in wiggle room in his post that he thought the Yellow Ranger was also a good lynch target.
Lie. I'd raised those points against Yellow early on in the phase, but I made it very clear that I'd lost interest in that lynch throughout the phase, even though I missed the biggest part of the final day and was in a hurry close to EoD.
I had already made note of the post that ended up pushing me away from wanting to lynch Yellow in the very same post in which I made my case against them (
#2576). Later, I brought it up again, explaining why I was losing interest in that lynch (
#2705). Afterwards, my vote against you was literally accompanied by a line in which I defended Yellow against people who were accusing them of being too defensive (
#2731). After some other votes moved around, I even came back and made it very clear that I was not interested in moving my vote away from you (
#2769).
I was so clear in my disinterest at the Yellow lynch that
you even acknowledged it yourself that you understood why I was backing off of Yellow! (
#2741) How can you claim that I left "wiggle room" in my vote with a straight face after that?
I have strongly town read Zack in the past, but I find that trust has been erroding. Sure, part of that is certainly because he is barking up the wrong tree with me, but a good chunk of it is due to a lack of conviction that is coming across in his votes.
For both Zordon on Day 3, and the Yellow Ranger on Day 5, Zack put in the effort to give detailed arguments as to why these players were scum. Both times he won over other players, including me, with those arguments. But both times, he ended up moving his vote to a completely different target whom he didn't put in a tenth of the effort to justify voting for.
More lies.
On D3, I wrote
a lot of stuff about Black (
#1861,
#2061). I put in exactly the same amount of effort rereading them than I did rereading Zordon.
On D5, uh: I never voted for Yellow during that phase. The fact that you're criticizing my "lack of conviction" in a vote I never made is very funny.
But I'll go into it anyway: I focused on deciding between voting for you or Yellow over the way you two unvoted off of Finster and voted Goldar on D1. I reread Yellow because I'd overlooked some of their stuff, but I already had you in my mind since earlier, as those D4 votes I sneaked in against you prove. I didn't have the time during that phase to actually write a lot of stuff up, but I was debating between the two of you the entire time.
It reeks of a player whose actual conviction behind his votes doesn't match up to the effort his is trying to show. Zack types up those detailed arguments, but doesn't actually believe the stuff he wrote.
Since I don't know anything for sure, I have very good reason to second-guess even my own arguments. I was right about Zordon, but one phase before I could find that out I learned that I was wrong about Black. At the end of the day, I'm mostly spit-balling here, and I will gladly go back and reconsider stuff that I wrote before. I see that as a clear example of "wanting to figure things out", and it's something that makes me townread other players when I see it in their posts.
I can say, though, that I strongly believe you're:
1 - Reaching;
2 - Scum;
3 - Going to have a really bad time if trying to get town to mislynch me is your only way out of getting caught.
