[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Secondly, faithfool not lying about her dossier doesn’t necessarily make her a townie.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t conclude that faithfool is Town because she didn’t lie about her dossier. I conclude faithfool is town because from a game construction point of view, giving a pro-town Hal Briston a scum’s dossier would be game-breakingly powerful. Giving Hal Briston a townie’s dossier is mildly helpful, but not game-breakingly so.
[QUOTE=zuma]
I still, really, don’t know how much weight to give this, but I’m just putting it out there. If anything it’s something that makes me just a little bit more comfortable with my sachertorte vote.
[/QUOTE]
Other than the fact that you are voting for me, I’m okay with using the dossier as supplementary reasoning. I outline my specific objection to the nightkill analysis below. I also disagree with your primary reasoning too: I’ve explained why I think brewha is scum. Convince me otherwise and I’ll move my vote. Simply stating that I’m wrong doesn’t help.
refutation of zuma’s nightkill matching analysis:
[QUOTE=zuma]
My theory is that they will first not kill people who have drawn interest from us, but will kill people that do not have traits matching their own actual or revealed traits.
If I were scum, which I am not, although I miss being scum, I would off people whose dossiers have little chance of being connected with the revealed trait. I would try to leave people around who had traits matching mine (if i were scum… enough disclaimers).
[/QUOTE]
In zuma’s original explanation of the nightkill analysis theory, he said that scum would kill people who didn’t share traits with scum’s actual or revealed dossiers. On the surface this makes sense, but which of the two really makes sense. Why would scum kill townies that don’t match their false dossiers? I don’t see any solid reason for it. I think only killing based on scum’s real dossiers makes sense; we can’t equate ‘actual’ and ‘revealed’ simply by hand-waving. Scum would only be interested in keeping around townies who match their real dossiers. Isn’t it plausible that scum would steal a town attribute and kill the townie from whom they stole it? While there isn’t necessarily a strong reason to do so explicitly, there is no reason not to do so.
Scum have no reason to avoid killing townies from whom they stole a trait. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that Kat, ShadowFacts, and Cookies have traits matching scum false dossiers.
I’m curious why Santo Rugger has been included in the analysis. Santo Rugger was killed on Night Zero, before he had revealed his dossier. Why is zuma (and Hockey Monkey?*) assuming that scum knew Santo Rugger’s dossier before he was killed?
Supposition: Scum was given some or all of the dossiers at the beginning of the game.
- would explain why scum dossiers contain lies, but are not easily discernible from town.
- does not explain why OAOW’s was truthful about the VWBug trait.
- would explain why zuma included Santo Rugger in the nightkill analysis, which makes me slightly more suspicious of zuma.
*Hockey Monkey’s post is not clear as to whether or not she included Santo Rugger as a scum killed Townie or not. I also note that excluding Santo Rugger does not change who has zero connections, but Santo Rugger’s matches ALL of the players listed under having three connections to murdered Townies. Removing Santo Rugger makes the max connections 2, which makes a difference, I think. (i.e. everyone has either 0, 1, or 2 connections, which I find within expectations).
But no matter, 'tis done so that we won’t be intentionally making a town lynch by default. Hope that helps.