Texas on pancake: no mention early save for the occasional callouts. votes pancake on page 10, due to gutreading scummy. later post calls pancake's posting and defense scummy, on top of the initial gutread
rssp1 on pancake: initially votes for lurking, on page 4. never unvotes, later saying he's not sure what to think but not really liking the content of his posts.
hawkie: immediately starts pushing pancake after the latter posts reads. calls pancake out primarily for weak reasoning, thin reads, and (correct me if i'm wrong) perceived sheeping. was the last of the voters.
So. Let's address these from least to most suspicious.
Hawkie's reasoning was fairly consistent the whole way through. His scumread seems to have come from a legitimate place and he stuck by it. Obviously this isn't 100% proof of innocence, but a natural and consistent read looks much better than the alternative.
rssp1's vote was initially pseudo-RVS, calling pancake out for lurking at a very early stage in the game. Later seemed to be MILDLY scumreading him, but not much - the only reason his vote stayed is that he basically had zero scumreads, which is pretty sketchy in and of itself.
Texas is the person I'm most suspicious of, solely because it feels like he's been gunning for pancake from the very beginning. Before pancake was posting, Texas was repeatedly calling him out for activity. Once he DID start posting, Texas jumped on one weird bit of logic (which wasn't necessarily scummy logic btw, just dumb) and then started tossing out the term "scummy" a lot. The only two pieces of explanation (other than gut) for why he found pancake scummy were A. the aforementioned weird logic and B. pancake's scumread of Blazade - which, as I said yesterday, is not something to scumread pancake off of.
Calling someone scummy without explaining what makes them scummy, in my opinion, is a scumtell.
Vote Texas Cloverleaf
won't be super active until late tonight