belief
in the vote. This can be seen both in how her votes progress and also how she presents her votes - it's formulaic and scummy every time.I called out this vote at the time - felt uncomfortable for a first serious vote. LA took Porkens post way too literally/seriously and is going after someone somewhat removed from the actual discussions/conversations happening at the time.In post 93, Lady Angel wrote:Why would you post this less than 24 hours into the game..?In post 66, Porkens wrote:too many lurkers
Bonus points for not posting anything after calling out lurkers less than a day in, too.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Porkens
In post 303, Lady Angel wrote:UNVOTE:
Still don't really tr Porkens, but I'm starting to think it's more for his style of posting than any actual read.
Not sold whatsoever on the northsidegal wagon, RC hasn't really done much to convince anyone besides practically yelling it with no substance.
Not a fan of DS's first post but more because it's arrogant than actually scummy, DS seems fairly towny to me otherwise.
the unvote here may make sense if she realized that the first post she went after was a jokey/throwaway comment, but I don't really see why she only realizes this now. I had even already poked her about this and she brushed me off in 109
The comments on NSG and DS are noteworthy given her next couple of votes:
I already also called out this one, but there'sIn post 416, Lady Angel wrote:Did my homework. Think I'm ready to present.
VOTE: Northsidegal
Something about RC and NSG's de-escalation felt very off to me, and while I can't claim to be in either of their headspaces, I wanted to check it out. So I went and read through part of Lynch The Wolves, a game in which RC was Scum and NSG was town, and here's a summary of what I found:
RC, as Scum, could've pushed onto NSG using the same tactic he did here (claiming to be able to read her 100% of the time), but likely didn't too much because it would've looked bad when NSG flipped town. However, RC did vote on NSG at one point, when NSG was the leading wagon, and unlike this game, backed off quickly. Why didn't we have a repeat of this game? Because RC knew NSG was town. He even brought up his ability to read her 100% of the time just to discredit a fellow scum's SR on her. So it makes sense that RC's different reaction indicates a different situation here.
Reading through the rest of the game, I started to see shades of this RC when he attempted to bus a partner, and while he got more frustrated there than he did here, it was still close enough for me to draw a few conclusions:
- RC gets like this when he really believes he's correct and isn't being listened to
- RC gets like this when he's trying to bus someone and isn't being listened to
Their de-escalation felt natural enough from the prespective of someone seeing it from the outside for me to think it's the first one with a slight possibility of it being a bus, but either way in this line of thought NSG has a higher-than-other chance of flipping scum.
nothing about why NSG is scum
in here. It's all about RC. Here's how she summed it up herself:
[also worth noting she hasn't gone after RC at all today, despite NSG flipping town]In post 609, Lady Angel wrote:NSG has a high chance to be scum because another player's reaction lines up with what was seen of him in previous games upon hitting scum. If she isn't scum, I'm going to try and lynch that player.
but more to the point this is not a valid case on someone, unless it's a scenario where she has a Serious Townread on RC and believes in his ability to catch scum!NSG. But she went out of her way to insist that this was
not
the case, that she thought RC may be scum as well. So it's just a really flimsy/illogical reason to be voting someone out of convenience, especially since she's not really engaging with or townreading most other players either. How would a town!NSG be expected to change LA's mind with this reason for voting her?none of these things are scum indicative. most players in the game weren't building cases. defending yourself isn't scum-indicative. the last bit is the kind of extreme reachy illogical argument that newbie scum fall into thinking sounds like town-reasoning, yet townies never organically think of.In post 490, Lady Angel wrote: Next part...
VOTE: DS
There's just... nothing here for the sheer number of posts you've made. Despite claiming to scumread me since like your third post, you've made no effort to actually build a case or even convince other people to jump on, and have spent the entire game trying to tie people to me for basically nothing or getting in a catfight with RC. You've put a pretty exorbitant amount of effort into defending yourself over a low number of votes, and about 3/4s of your post have so little content it makes me think you're deliberately doing it to take attention off of one of the other scum members.
this late into the game, voting people for these sorts of reasons is suspiciously uninspired. if this behavior is indicative and she's fine with both Porkens/Not_Mafia lynches, that leaves her with just one scum remaining out of everyone else. it's a super lazy view of the game state and shows no real engagement with the content people have provided, nor any re-evaluation after the D1 wagon and lynch.In post 818, Lady Angel wrote: VOTE: Not_Mafia
Not mafia seems to solely exist to prod dodge or otherwise place one vote and leave (Including, as of his most recent post, voting for someone that isn't even in this game...). Porkens has also done effectively nothing and I'd be fine with his lynch too, but Not Mafia's probably more egregious.
are Porkens and Not_Mafia no longer scummy anymore? why does fighting with me make FL scum?In post 1070, Lady Angel wrote:VOTE: Flavor Leaf
Did not like that entrance one bit, nor the fight with GuiltyLion.
tl;dr - I don't believe any of Lady Angel's reasons for voting people have made sense from an AI standpoint, and further I don't believe that
she
believes that they have been either. She's taking paths of least resistance to vote easy targets. And furthermore, when she moves from one vote to another - there's never any solid reasoning or evidence as to why her read on her prior vote changed.
