MovingPictures07 wrote:And why is no one ever discussing DFaraday except me and FZ.? What do players think of him?
It's hard to discuss a player who only has 11 posts so far and usually isn't a heavy contributor, but I looked over DF's posts and found a few noteworthy points:
Day 1:
DFaraday wrote:I tend not to suspect people who early game shenanigans, but if they keep it up later on it can seem like a deflection tactic.
DF says he's gonna cut the crazies some slack on Day 1. You'll recall that the big hoopla on Day 1 was about MM's early early vote. So here's DF's very next post:
DFaraday wrote:I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.
I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.
Now he's on MM's case, but for a different reason than "early game shenanigans". He thought MM was trying to do some baddie voodoo on Llama. He admits to being wary of DH, the other major candidate for the Day 1 lynch. So here's MM's direct response to that post, with DF's follow-up reply attached:
DFaraday wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:DFaraday wrote:I have found MM rather shifty, particularly his questions of Llama that seemed to be setting Llama up.
I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.
I was looking for a reaction from SVS. The question was not shifty, nor was I trying to set llama up.
That may be, but as I don't have time to analyze this DH/LC stuff, I'll still vote you because it cricked my brow.
So DF admits that he could have read MM's post wrong, but still votes for him because he didn't have time to analyze the "DH/LC stuff". He didn't have time to analyze the MM stuff either, it seems, but that didn't stop DF from voting for him in an extremely close lynch that ended up being a tie. What's odd to me here is that DF would stick to his MM vote based on faulty reasoning rather than look into the LC or DH suspicion or move his vote elsewhere. It felt like by that time DF just really wanted to vote for MM no matter what.
Day 2:
DFaraday wrote:Dom did sum it up pretty well, and I agree that Made's behavior is pretty sketchy, but I'd like to hear Made try to explain himself as well.
DFaraday wrote:Anyway, I don't know what to think of Made. I do think it's odd that he would pretend to be forced, but on the other hand, I don't see why a baddie would draw attention to themselves out of the blue like that.
DFaraday wrote:I don't see the case on Llama, but the way I see it, Made lying is suspect, although baffling no matter what alignment he is. I will vote Made because he is the only one really pinging me.
DF's three Day 2 posts, all about Made with a defense of Llama. The Llama defense checks out, there wasn't really a
case on Llama yesterday if we're being frank. But DF marched willingly into the "Made is lying" camp on Day 2.
Day 3:
DFaraday wrote:Since Zeek is indicating that Made isn't lying, I guess I feel a little better about Made, although I do wonder whether the lynch yesterday was civ/civ or civ/baddie. I do think it would be more sensible to look first at the people who voted for a confirmed civ than those who voted someone whose alignment is unknown.
Okay, so here's where I start to get worried. Is DF a baddie trying to protect his own interests, or is this his genuine thought process? As others have pointed out, DF wants to go after players who voted for Llama, a confirmed civ, rather than go after players who have voted for Made, an unknown. Yet DF was one of the deciding votes against a confirmed civvie on Day 1. By the same token of logic, why doesn't DF think we should investigate the MM voters for a possible DH save? Why start the search with the Llama voters when we don't know Made's alignment? What if Day 2 was civ/civ and Day 1 was civ/bad?
In any case, I am far from ready to start analyzing voting patterns at this stage of the game since we haven't caught a single baddie. I don't think vote based analysis is the way to go just yet. But I think there's some contradictions in DF's posts so far that merit keeping an eye on. Whether those are genuine civvie contradictions or baddie-minded ones is the question I'll be trying to find the answer to.