First reply is to Twinks. I'll post this then go back and respond to Llandy and Adaham.
Stifling Discussion
You keep insisting that you couldn't have cut short discussion that didn't exist, but the whole point is that you can't know what posts may have come over the course of that week and your vote was completely unnecessary at that time. As I've explained, it would be very easy to explain who you will vote for without voting, explain why you think what you do without voting, basically do exactly what you did without ending the day so that nobody has any chance to try anything or contribute anything more or make a mistake that could change the course of the game. Things moving slowly is not an excuse for guaranteeing that nothing else can happen. The only reason anyone would actually think this is a good thing is if they were a wolf ? who saw a chance to hammer a key innocent. One of the last two. As you may have noticed, some of us are leading rather busy lives and have to contribute less than normal. I won't let you hide behind that as if it mattered for your behavior.
My case against Pizza
The understandable fact that you didn't want to read the whole game is not an excuse for you to pretend it doesn't exist. I've been pushing for pizza since day one. Voting for the person I've built a large case for without repeating myself ad nauseum is not the same as making no case at all. Hence the eye roll. And again, this ties into the busy life thing...
Not voting yet
We're at lynch or lose. With four players I can't give a wolf the opportunity to bomb vote by voting early outright, but I could contribute to the risk. In fact, thanks to the two votes made, Llandy is now a confirmed innocent (not that there was much doubt) and I can know that you and Adaham are the only two options.
My current arguments
You attempted to claim that my comment to Adaham didn't raise any actual points, but that's plainly false. Process of elimination is about as effective as any hunting method, especially in the endgame. The fact is that every player except you has played an important role in lynching a wolf. That is important.
I'll add another one here. It should be telling that both of vote votes, both days, have been for the only other player who had a reasonable chance of being lynched that day other than you. You've not just followed public opinion, you've voted purely for survival.
Aaaaand I'm falling asleep... Let's see what else I can get done here.
Stifling Discussion
You keep insisting that you couldn't have cut short discussion that didn't exist, but the whole point is that you can't know what posts may have come over the course of that week and your vote was completely unnecessary at that time. As I've explained, it would be very easy to explain who you will vote for without voting, explain why you think what you do without voting, basically do exactly what you did without ending the day so that nobody has any chance to try anything or contribute anything more or make a mistake that could change the course of the game. Things moving slowly is not an excuse for guaranteeing that nothing else can happen. The only reason anyone would actually think this is a good thing is if they were a wolf ? who saw a chance to hammer a key innocent. One of the last two. As you may have noticed, some of us are leading rather busy lives and have to contribute less than normal. I won't let you hide behind that as if it mattered for your behavior.
My case against Pizza
The understandable fact that you didn't want to read the whole game is not an excuse for you to pretend it doesn't exist. I've been pushing for pizza since day one. Voting for the person I've built a large case for without repeating myself ad nauseum is not the same as making no case at all. Hence the eye roll. And again, this ties into the busy life thing...
Not voting yet
We're at lynch or lose. With four players I can't give a wolf the opportunity to bomb vote by voting early outright, but I could contribute to the risk. In fact, thanks to the two votes made, Llandy is now a confirmed innocent (not that there was much doubt) and I can know that you and Adaham are the only two options.
My current arguments
You attempted to claim that my comment to Adaham didn't raise any actual points, but that's plainly false. Process of elimination is about as effective as any hunting method, especially in the endgame. The fact is that every player except you has played an important role in lynching a wolf. That is important.
I'll add another one here. It should be telling that both of vote votes, both days, have been for the only other player who had a reasonable chance of being lynched that day other than you. You've not just followed public opinion, you've voted purely for survival.
Aaaaand I'm falling asleep... Let's see what else I can get done here.
It's not bad reasoning, but it's completely wrong. I'll make a few appeals. First, i would have sacrificed both pack mates, not just Soot. And that comes with highlighting the problems with Kronic's play that led to his death. I'm cold, but both pack mates in the first two days? Insane. Second, Twinks may be the dumb wolf, but Vieira was not. And he wasn't just a lurker, his early contributions were solid. Not to mention his later uncertainty was endearing. Had Twinks played the whole game you may have a point, but he didn't. Lastly, you said you'd still consider this a good game even if you were wrong. Does that stand even if you make the decision that loses the game when all the evidence is against you? 
