Sunflower has been interesting (here, mainly meaning contradictory), so I'll go next with them.
31 starts a pattern of reckless, risky play, so such future plays aren't as notable as people make them out to be. The assumption that we can't be partners based on the voting behavior is one such example. (More generally, eliminating potential scumteams based on single tells is unwise for the chance of error in attempting to apply this strategy to multiple candidate scumteams. This is also why my reads are focusing on single players rather than scumteams.)
67 starts Sunflower's most interesting thought pattern though.
In post 67, Sunflower wrote:
optimal play imo is to day 1 lim the person who is town but feels like they have the worst reads or are least agreeable to townblocking bc then it's easier to consolidate day 2
this is mostly a joke
A bizarre post in a similar vein. (I got kind of angry at this, so I wrote an unnecessary refutation. It's here if you want to read it, though it isn't worth much):
If you're so confident in your own reads that you'd eliminate a player because you think they have bad reads, why not just eliminate your scumreads? Why not eliminate a scummy player with bad reads? Why would you assume that such a player you want to "optimally" elim exists in the first place? This might be a joke, but I'm less inclined to think so after similar posts from them.
193,
194 and
195 are also bizarre in themselves, and then they snugly fit
198's conceptualization of how scum will play.
Dumbtells are also a pattern,
66 seems like an almost forced attempt at towniness and innocent, never mind any of this though, as I said before.
My central reason is how Sunflower engages with other players.
70 and
78 deflects from questions by asking the questioner about them, eventually resulting in a weak final response from Sun.
94 parrots Black without advancing the discussion by making their own observations, analysis or content. This is an easy place to pocket her. The unexplained read that is
95 is in a similar vein. They (both heads!) soon pivot to scumreading Black in
102 and
109, while keeping their vote on another player instead of their mutual SR. (The "other player" is me, but I want to dissociate myself from this in my mind while I analyze.) When pressed by
113 to explain the read on Black, we end up again with the near-non-responses
114 and
115. I don't agree with
131, the further explanation, at all. It seems forced and illogical, and refusing to elaborate until asked to is also anti-town. I'm not convinced by his reasons to townread in
132,
191 and
192 either. Reads based on a few posts aren't good and are frankly lazy. It's easy to make a town-seeming post, especially knowing what your intuition will feel is town, but harder to create a pattern that seems town, especially one that keeps changing to keep seeming towny throughout the game. Further,
199 (no one asked) seems forced, though it's not a read.
235 is another reading post I don't agree with, relating to the "too scummy to be scum" point I touched on in the post two of my posts before this one.
In post 195, Sunflower wrote:
i probably shouldn't clear enchant off things like having opinions they care about and pushing for reads but i also am going to do that anyway until i find a reason not to
(Also see
231) Shouldn't this be your best reason to TR someone? Too bad you want WL dead anyway, but can this be connected to the elim strategy posited in
67
in any way? Relating
239 to
67, what would you characterize WL's reads as, and would you be opposed to them? I'm not opposed to voting WL, but Sun's justification for voting them (see also [post]252[/post)] isn't good. Let's just focus on who we SR for now.
In conclusion, I want to vote for Sunflower more than I want to vote WL. This late in the gameday, it's unlikely that Sunflower realistically is voted out, but I'll see what people think of Sun after this post. I'm exhausted and tired so I'll finish my posts tomorrow. I don't intuitively feel the other 3 players are worse than the 2, but I'll also look into them later.