Irony OwlI can do a more thorough analysis if you'd like, but the short answer is that it's some interesting insights (if true) at the beginning followed by a lot of confirmation bias.
I'd be interested in seeing your own analysis.
Specific scum actions here are interesting if true, like Toaster pressuring people over Ottofar or Dariush's and Toaster's aggression towards yourself. The problem is that I'm not too sure of your analysis; for instance, you say Toaster was critical of Lenglon, but was he justified in being so? Unless you've got something to suggest that they were acting strangely in doing something, it's just WIFOM to speculate as to why they did it.
Speaking of which, your "lack of" observations are basically entirely in that category. "Toaster and Dariush were congenial and explanatory with each other" is interesting to note, if true. "Toaster hardly ever poked Solifuge" is not unless, again, there's something explicitly strange about it. In the same way that Toaster and Dariush buddying up is only interesting if they weren't buddy-buddy with anyone else, Toaster never hunting specific people really isn't a good clue.
Okay, to expand: when Toaster and Dariush interacted with one another, they asked a few questions, said 'fair enough' and dropped whatever it was. With Lenglon, they both kept up a long dialogue. Never interacting with a player is significant because it shows a lack of scumhunting commitment (especially several days into the game).
Then you go purely WIFOM and useless. For instance, you insist that scum is likely to want you and Tiruin dead (and apparently know about both of you) to justify saying that people voting either might be scum. But then you say that they're likely to spread out to avoid being too obvious to justify them not voting you but still being scum. Essentially, you've said that people are scum when they vote you and still scum when they're not voting you.
That's not something you can draw actual conclusions from. It's something you can use to convince yourself of what you already think is true.
Here you display amazing game-ignorance! Scum knew Tiruin's alignment because she claimed it. They knew my alignment because I claimed it tacitly to Toaster (who had the same role in the previous two games). Also, you completely misread my point about vote spread on Day 1: we know now that all three lynch targets are ones that scum would want to kill. To them, it doesn't matter too much who gets killed. In general, scum like to stay off each others wagons. I wasn't saying for certainty that scum split three-ways on this, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's worth stressing that this particular point isn't lynch-vote worthy stuff, only a cumulative piece in an emerging picture.
Again useless. You mention that it's inconclusive, so I'll skip the majority of it, but notice how, again, you're picking the explanation that confirms what you already know.
Not really. I've got the phenomena: the voting patterns, and I'm trying to build a theory that best explains what's going on. So:
Day 1, confirmed scum are voting you and Tiruin, so you say the third scum is probably elsewhere... even though you claim they explicitly wanted both of you dead.
So day 1, I say I wouldn't be surprised if the third scum is elsewhere. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they double up either. No strong conclusions here.
Day 2, you assume Okami's trying to kill you to keep you quiet, but you've got no explanation for why you'd think that beyond that he's voting you. Voting Dariush is also a towntell for some people and inconclusive for others.
Day 3, you don't have any broader conclusions, but voting Toaster is once again a towntell for some and a nulltell for others.
Okami is confirmed 3rd party, I was just speculating as to what his true motives might have been then-- it's neither here nor there. Voting for scum after it's pretty certain they're going to hang is a known scum-tactic (in fact, it's the example Leafsnail once gave me when I asked him what a genuine scumtell looked like), leading the lynch on scum when they're not otherwise suspected is not generally a scum-tactic.
Day 4, no conclusions, except that birdy's lack of vote is "hedging his bets."
Birdy has never voted in this entire game. What would you call that?
Still useless. Notice Lenglon's reasoning for voting Tiruin at the end there: She was completely opposed to it until it came down to, in her words, "a choice of you or two townies."
This is why quotes are necessary for establishing real intent. A before and after isn't going to cut it.
Lenglon made the right call in that situation. If we're talking about real intent, what's your intent on Toony? From where I stand he's looking pretty good but I'm open to complete changes of mind.
Based on all of what? You keep saying everything is inconclusive, then pull out a quick before n after to suddenly reach some conclusions?
And look at what your conclusions are. The two people going at it with now-confirmed scum are town, everyone else is scum. Shakerag's oddly in the middle there, likely because he's never done anything at all, and has thus given you neither an excuse to call him scum nor a lynch-related reason to call him town (or at least notwitch).
This is what confirmation bias does. It convinces you that what you knew was correct, and since you don't know anyone's town unless they've lynched scum, what this is telling you is that those two people are town and everyone else is some manner of scum.
In other words, it's not telling you anything.
I'm open to the idea that there might be some confirmation bias here. What I do know is Birdy and Hapah have done jack all of use with their votes all game and your vote pattern and interactions with scum are suspicious. But look, I know I'm fallible so give me a better explanation if you have one.
I did interact a little with Toaster, just not as much as I'd have liked. Never really got around to it.
Ugh, I already mentioned this the first time you asked about it.
But I just looked at all of Toaster's posts and he never said a thing to you. That in itself is unsurprising, but that you never questioned him, is. 'Never really got around to it' doesn't cut it, especially when the person involved
claimed that they were scum.
You then list off some of the accusations and counter them. I don't feel that is particularly scummy. This, however, is:
Town, it's your job to critically examine the votes against the Day 1 lynch lead. Do it.
You talk to the town as if you are not part of it. Strange, is it not? You slipped good there.
NQT, thou art caught.
DS is entirely correct here: WIFOMing about how there's no rival wagon therefore you can't be scum is scummy (and of course false; neither Dariush nor Toaster had credible wagons going at the time of their demise). Trying to convince town to reconsider wait no you're making a mistake is scummy. I don't know that I'd call it an appeal to emotion, but that final "evil wins if you don't vote someone else!" bit is certainly scummy. Referencing town as though you're not part of it isn't a lynch reason, but it's definitely something worth pressuring over.
Yes I'm glad you quoted this bit because you can see that it wasn't for that other stuff that DS voted me: he doesn't find it that scummy. What he supposedly finds scummy is me addressing town as town, which is nonsense. But look, on review, I can see why a town player might act like DS did.
When I accused Dariush he ignored me. When I accused Toaster he cooly brushed it off. You seem to be engaging with the points. This bodes well for you, so I'll
extend. I've given my appraisal of the other six players, now you give me yours.
Everyone, there are only six other players now-- please rank them in order of suspicion. It'll only take a moment. This information will be really useful for my next set of investigations.
Author
Topic: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [GAME OVER: 4/13] (Read 200922 times)