My first take on this (I have not yet read your comments other than a skim to see you'd made them) is that this translates as:

Townie: He's as good a candidate as any other, apparently better form what you said, I'm not ready to vote for him yet... since you emphasized you were trying to get him to talk, my saying I'm willing to vote for him as is can only furhter encourage him.

DF: He's as good a candidate as any other, apparently better form what you said, I'm not ready to vote for him yet... but if the case get's stronger, he'd make a good frame-up.

Thoughts: Comments are insufficiently long to determine specific intent, originate from a player with no established MO, and do not seem particular out of the ordinary. However, base don your own aggressive approach on it, and your comment that "While I'm not entirely suspicious of him, I really want him talking. If he doesn't talk, we might as well lynch him anyway if we end up with no one else to vote for." could easily be seen as an outright request for support, or easily be viewed by a sympathetic townie as reason to join you in taking a firm stance to get Hieshyn talking.



Well, his response is stronger than player-average, but not out of the ordinary, I've seen parallel levels of aggression from townies and DFs, no real pattern to it, I'd go so far as to say townies do this more often then DFs, of course they make up the majority of the players so it's not exactly contradictory evidence. But yes, I definetly see what is being regarded as suspicious there, but I'm inclined to think he was just engaging in active, threatening support to get Hieshyn talking than really trying to say, against all common sense, that he was fine with randomly lynching someone. DF's do make mistakes like that but I can see a pretty straight forward Occam's Razor on this one.

Just adding the text in here:


Once again, without reading your comments first. This is certainly something a DF would say, but the reason they'd say it is because it's also something a townie would say. I know you and beet didn't vote for FT, but those of us who did, this is pretty much what we were all thinking. Probably why none of us leapt on the statement, I personally said basically the same thing.



Well, I know we always say DFs tend to join a lynch late, but I'm not sure how true that's really been. That lynch went down a bit strangely because it was so WIFOM, we argued about it for days trying to come up with ideas and alternates, then we say an uptick in comments that basically were 'we're stil waiting for options, but the clocks running out and nobody's given us any' then someone voted (I think it was fist) and basically everyone else just rolled their vote in as they showed up, their wasn't really any more debate after the first vote, just people recording their reasons for the vote, mostly their excuses for voting if the vote went sour.

Take Kronin's statement, which roughly paralleled the others:



Now, this is basically the same thing ranagrande said, just a couple earlier. DK just said 'for all the reasons previously stated' which had been established as basically what ranagrande and Kronin said. Now, Napoleon, who we know for sure had townie motives, said:



Which is in keeping with all the others, no different than ranagrande's. It's not that a DF might not say that too, just that it's not a comment that can be used to distinguish them from town.





That one seems pretty clear, beet was raising other targets, and Kronin (as the other target) told beet that he'd be gunning for him next if FT turned out guilty. Ranagrande is telling Kronin why he think it's important to explore other options and maximize debate, and that Kronin's threat to beet, which gives the appearance of trying to shut down alternate debate, makes ranagrande suspicious of him. In context, it is actually a fairly pro-town comment. Now, I agree with Kronin's sentiment, obviously if FT had turned out guilty we'd have strung beet up, but it's very clear from the context that ranagrande was accusing KRonin of being suspicious because his message could easily be taken as an attempt to shut down attempts to find alternate targets. Beet was the only one really doing much on that score, at that point I'd already said I would not, as I was angry over the respons eI'd gotten from exploring FT's case, and no one was really raising anything else. No, this comment really is more of minor point in ranagrande's favor than against.



There's sounds like nothing more than usual player agitation about inactivity, which I could see your viewing as suspicious when the impression was that ranagrande himself was pretty inactive, and their for might be flavoring your thoughts, but as this was not the case...

Now, this comment actually predates FT's RC, and follows MPD discussions, and is in reply to a long post by me in which I was discussing ways to avoid tampering by the DFs while narrowing odds if we were forced to use a random lynch. I was asking people for ways to narrow down random selectees, suggesting we do our nominal potluck out of inactives is hardly surprising.



I would say I consider finding a total inactive suspicious for that reason isn't exactly the best logic, but it's also not bad either. Context being important, this comment seemed totally in place as a reply to my own comments, of course, I was getting ready to suggest we pick our 'pool of three or four' as players who posted least, as punshiment for inactivity and/or encouragement to talk more, so I viewed Blaine's comments as a handy thing that saved me having to openly say it. Now, ironically this makes his comment in reply to your Hieshyn vote more likely to have been of the 'firm support of the threat to lynch if Hieshyn doesn't speak up' scenario. Regardless of his alignment, both comments seem to indicate that ranagrande is of the 'threaten to kill people if they don't participate more' mindset (which I share, perhaps why it is easy for me to regard his comments that way) and as we've seen, his posting numbers indicate this statement is not out of place or hypocritical.




This is in reply to FT giving his reasoning for the Day 1 miller claim, immediatly in reply to my own comment to FT's original RC post. I had not yet inserted any of the counter-reasoning for why there were advantages for a DF to make this claim. This sounds like a townie expressing limited support, who later changed after arguments were presented and no alternates showed up, this seems quit ein keeping with his later statements. Let me point out DK rpeplied to say the same, later expressed the same doubts, and later voted for the same reasons as ranagrande. So did many other players.



I maintain that it was very weird for FT not to know that and certainly it makes sense to be surprised that he didn't. Only later, as I pointed out, did we have reaosn not to think that was surprising, that Miller never appeared in any title of a message and that FT had posted he was very busy and distracted in a different game thread at a parallel time. Considering he was agreeing with me, DK, and Kronin at the time, that the comment seemed unlikely and dubious, this doesn't seem out of place. Once again, all it seems to note is that ranagrande was apparently saying and thinking along the same lines as the other players who voted for FT and were talkative, namely, me, Kronin, and DK, I tihnk you'd agree, it is most unlikely all four of us are on the same side as DFs.



He changed no sides. Again, his comment sparallel those of most others who expressed initial tentative support of FT's claim then withdrew it as the possibility it might be a legit DF tactic and the lack of alternate candidates became clear. Wishy=washy posting is common to DFs, but it is also common to townies, and everyone was wishy-washy on FT who voted for him, mostly in the same way and degree as ranagrande expresses just in keeping with their own style.



Well, I appreciate your taking the time and yes, it definetly clarifies, and I'm glad to see I wasn't missing some buried comment of his that was supsicious. I just do not, as I wrote above, have an inclination to regard those comments as suspcious.