Poyser Scum Case - Part 1
Poyser and RDK
So firstly, I thought I'd split this up into a few post. Mainly, it's so that I can be lazy if I decide I CBA writing more, but it's also easier to read this way. After RDK's flip, I went back through when he claimed, to see what actually transpired. See the below exchange.
My initial read of this was "this looks very comfortable for RDK". A few questions come to mind. Why does Poyser even care for his flavour? I had a quick skim, and while it's possible I missed some posts, I didn't see him express any interest in anyone else's flavour. To me, that comes across as scum going through a checklist of what they "should" be asking, without really any regrd for whether it would be something they actually think is important. More telling than that, though, is that his reaction to the cop claim is to throw his hands up and offer no actual opinion on it. He fencesits. One would think that, if he were suspicious of the claim, his reaction to it would include that. Instead, he just says he doesn't know what to make of it.
Then, we have a few posts from just before RDK claims. At this point, the wagon is shifting over to him.
He pretty much begins laying the groundwork for a defence. He claims that he doesn't like that he hasn't shown up, but then offers a vague "doesn't feel right" to suggest that he's not a fan of the direction. Then he asks Gad what his argument on RDK is, and decides that its "not mentioning any of the flipped scum". Not only did Gad never say this, it's also something he would know is not true. This is part of a wider point, but it essentially gives RDK something soft to defend, and Poyser has given himself room to defend RDK and push elsewhere. It should be noted that RDK has a cop claim breadcrumbed - scum probably would have thought that it would be fairly effective in swaying the votes. And also, the issue that Poyser himself has given about RDK's play, that he didn't show up, doesn't actually do a credible job of establishing his suspicion. It ties his suspicion to his activity, which avoids getting into his posts and thus making him look bad. RDK doesn't miss his chance to defend against both of these points - Poyser's, and also the post of Poyser's where Poyser is attributing something obviously false to Gad.
One thing that struck me here was that RDK was content with simply answering duly - he makes sure that he's responded, but he doesn't do anything with it. I mean, he could turn it back onto Poyser - "why are you suspecting me for something that you know better on" etc. The reverse of that of course would be to appeal to Poyser - a Town Poyser that's in flux and seems to be sort of siding wth him, you would think he would be, well, appealing a bit more. He might be looking to turn the first post into a post gainst Gad for saying that, because it's demonstratably untrue, or he might want to smooth over his activity reasoning so Poyser can buy into that and agree.
Most telling of all here though is that, despite Poyser claiming it's RDK's actvity that bothers him, he never follows up with RDK's response.
Instead, Poyser feeds him content. RDK has come back, claimed, and then is prepared to check out again. Poyser notices that, and instead of asking why he isn't offering anything, he feeds it to him. You may have guessed this one, but of course, there was no follow through from Poyser on this either. RDK's response below:
As an aside, I have a hard time believing that scum RDK is content with offering something this half-baked in response to a Poyser that's town. In what world would "I dunno, who forced Rugrat to claim, lynch him" be compelling? Poyser doesn't press this, he just leaves it.
This whole interaction feels to me like scum theatre. They're just going through a checklist to make sure bases are covered, but there isn't really anything to indicate that either are concerned with beating or catching the other. For Poyser to be town here, he's sleeping at the wheel - he identifies some areas of concern but just let's them go without even so much as a prod, and RDK for his part has Poyser leaning in favour of him, and offers the bare minimum in terms of getting him on his side and keeping him there.
Nothing really to add to this, doesn't move the needle either way.
So first thing to note here is that Poyser is still yet to actually take a position on RDK's claim. He just fencesits, and joins the wagon that RDK starts. They have some interaction where RDK brings Fang to the table, Poyser tells RDK his claim, RDK corrects a minor point in an attempt to "convince" Poyser of his direction, then Poyser agrees and joins him. It's again, a checkbox excercise. It reads like it's been scripted in the scum chat, RDK gives a direction like he should be, Poyser hums and hars about it, but then comes on board, and still fails to give any real read on the situation. He does, however, make sure that he treats RDK's claim as solid when discussing what it means for Fang.
So first thing here, I've already stated my suspicion of the claim, and said I found it weird RDK just followed his results without being a bit suspicous of them. Poyser had nothing to say there. Ultra enters, and he also finds the claim weird. And Poyser... is skeptical of the claim in isolation? What? What part of anything he has said here up until now gives the impression that he doubts the claim? He hasn't took any position, he's just sat on the fence and then followed RDK on his lynch. Now that the claim has some momntum against it, Poyser moves to make sure that he's on record about his concerns. Why not make these concerns evident when he's, you know, reacting to the claim?
Poyser is the first one to bring up the issue with the scum case - why does RDK clear Watson and not the Godfather. Slight issue with this though - if there is no Godfather for him to know he can safely claim Cop, who would he be using it on? All of them would check Guilty. While I'm at it, what part of the claim does Poyser even object to, because it's not the results and it doesn't appear to be the existance of a cop either. And it should be noted, this defence comes when the claim is receiving momentum against it. Before this, he was all "brain hurts can't think".
