This takes me to my first round of psychological profiling. Tell me, dearies. In a scumteam with what amounts to a super-powerful Godfather, what do you think you would do with the role? The answer is rather simple: at all costs, keep that role alive, and yet try to avoid drawing attention to it. A notable post on the matter is fliggy's, here:
In post 9, The Rufflig wrote:Ok, 1 point for PeregrineV (who has a broken link in his sig) and 1 point for Squirrel Girl.
And it is entirely viable for fliggy to mention both scumbuddies in his post.
In post 38, The Rufflig wrote: In post 33, Aunt Jemina wrote:Though I am in fact town, you are not. You are pulling the same opener as last game and expecting me to townread you for it. You are also far more active early-on than the sweet-Grinny I am used to seeing.
What? Damn it! You two have had a game together since the last time I've seen you. Back to the drawing board.
This, about Grinny, also serves to be noteworthy about an interaction suggesting Grinny's sour. Note fliggy and Squirly's early lighthearted conversation.
In post 96, Squirrel Girl wrote: In post 95, Josh_B wrote:Sheeping is convenient. -for scum. How about I promise to vote exactly opposite on every one that you vote for except for the times that I come to the conclusion on my own that I should vote on the same person that you are voting for. And even then, it will be voting in opposition.
In post 97, The Rufflig wrote: In post 95, Josh_B wrote:Sheeping is convenient. -for scum. How about I promise to vote exactly opposite on every one that you vote for except for the times that I come to the conclusion on my own that I should vote on the same person that you are voting for. And even then, it will be voting in opposition.
Wouldn't it be easier just to vote him for sheeping? How did the Umbrage analysis go?
Note how both are, in contrast, drawing attention towards vetty's slot, Joshy. Thus, vetty is already an unlikely candidate for being sour.
In post 549, The Rufflig wrote: In post 260, beastcharizard wrote:ZZZX was saying they were voting for info and not because they thought the person was scum. At least that is what I got from their explanation. I didn't agree with this so I was saying someone doesn't vote a town read for info they only should vote scum reads/null. That is what I found odd about what they did. The fact that didn't say they had a scum read but rather the vote was purely for info.
@beast: I'm confused by this post. ZZZX did state that he was voting Yates for info. I don't recall ZZZX ever stating that he had a town read on Yates. It appeared that ZZZX did not have any sort of read on Yates. So, ZZZX was voting for a null read. Did I miss something?
As if we needed more reasoning for Beasty to be sweet, this post is drawing attention to him that would be a bad idea.
This does much the same, and reduces vezzy's chances of being sour.
Especially given daytalk, this is another reason vetty's slot is unlikely to be sour: it's drawing attention to Joshy unnecessarily, and not in a positive way. The main danger to a Godfather is either the lynch or the nightkill, so it is best for the Godfather to remain out of sight.
In post 797, Squirrel Girl wrote: In post 793, Josh_B wrote:I think this post decently sums up the entire argument between Yates and SqG. and to think it all started with
In post 140, Squirrel Girl wrote:I don't have much of anything to off Pidgey on, but will admit to a slight gut townish on him moreso than Yates simply because he appears to be trying to scumhunt right out the gate which Yates did not. I would neithe rparticularly support nor oppose either being lynched at this stage.
It was very peculiar for SqG to say Pidgey was scum hunting at that time, and the "[he] doesn't say that he wasn't scumhunting
at all
disclaimer looks like back peddling. The "right out of the gate" scum hunting claim was negated.
I have never changed from my opinion as expressed there. The disclaimer you're talking about is something Yates said I believe - not something I said. The 'right out of the gate' was not negated except via Yate's misrep.
This is another vetty-slot interaction that does not seem sour. The only post which so much as remotely seems to suggest as such would be
841, and even then unlikely that heavy-handed.
846 alone shows why the Squirly interaction with vetty's slot is not that of a sour player with their scumbuddy.
853 takes it even further. Again, this is a drawn-out exchange that does nothing except put attention on both of them, attention that they desperately wish to avoid.
In post 1063, Squirrel Girl wrote:I've called the following scum and still believe that; Josh, Umbrage, Displaced, TheAdmiral
I have a generally positive vibe towards Aunt Jemina though she feels hard to read. Basically I feel like she could fake me out easily. I sort of generically am okay with the pushes on ZZZX, beast, and maybe even Unfriendly.
Most of the rest of the crowd I don't think I have a very good feel for, a lot just feel like they...well, exist. I mean, they've done stuff but they don't feel like they stand out. I am pretty much content with the idea of flipping one of my scum reads until I hit a scum and then reassessing at that point though, because otherwise I can't figure out how you're supposed to sort this many people - there's too much we don't even know yet.
This is a particularly important Squirly post. Keep in mind that the scumbuddy is likely to be kept out of sight, meaning either not mentioned (vezzy, Grinny), or in the positive (objectively only I qualify for this aside from the dead fliggy, though I think Squirly avoided putting her second scumbuddy there). Putting the Godfather in the negative as she did with Joshy (vetty's slot) is particularly bad play. This does give slight evidence in Zexxy's favor as well, albeit not strongly. (Not to mention, yet again Beasty.)
So what we learn from this is that vetty is incredibly unlikely to be sour. However, there is more to the day than just that: there is the activity of the user and the posts that player made. The latter will be my next post, but off the top of my head, I can tell you that the Godfather is likely to have kept a low posting rate, in order to avoid drawing attention. While there's virtually no player who does not fill into this category at least partially, the player who least fit into it for D1 was Joshy, as he was posting frequently and in the spotlight rather a fair amount: not where you want your Godfather to be. Thus, vetty's already sweet.
Have a cookie. It makes everything better.
Back up to where it needs to be.