It's somewhat counter-intuitive for me to analyse somebody the way I think I need to analyse Adel. I'm normally much more "big picture" in my approach, but the deliberately strange patterns that she tends to adopt have forced me to look more at the fine details of her posts to find clues to her alignment. I feel that the key here is to filter out the deliberate strangeness and look at what's left. Deliberate strangeness is not indicative of alignment, purely because it's intended (at least partially) to create a certain impression.
Note that post numbers are from viewing Adel's posts in isolation.
On day 1, Adel was the second vote on armlx's lynch, apparently following ckd. She did push him a bit after she voted, but she never directly called for a hammer as she does on day 2 with TG. She also approved of the Beep! wagon for most of the day (see below).
On day 2 she pushes the TG wagon all the way to the bank, partially based on what I think is fallacious logic (again, see below).
On day 3 she started off being certain that shaft.ed was scum, switched to Near for very little reason and then unvoted altogether and apparently let the clock run out. I'm not sure whether the late vote was deliberate or accidental, but I don't see this as a tell for reasons I've already explained.
One thing that has characterised Adel's play in this game is failed theories:
- In her 6th and 9th posts (as background to her TG vote) she thinks that scum are more likely to have joined the first team (L-Unit) than the second. When I point out the flaw in this theory she semi-agrees in her 12th post but keeps her vote in place anyway. This all seems like poor cover for her early wagon thing, though I tend to think that she wasn't anticipating the stated reasoning being questioned since she missed it the first time I asked.
- She spent a lot of time talking about how scummy Jive around the time the teams were split (29, 31, 33). In 44 she's less sure, thinking he might be befuddled town, then in 46 she asks me for a meta read on him (possibly because I was in another game with him at the time). I don't believe she ever comments on my response that he seems different from the other game. In 48 she says again that she thinks Jive is town, but after Beep comes in and drops the hammer she implies in 54 that she doesn't believe his vote was accidental, then says in 55 that she wants to lynch him tomorrow. After I put the second vote on him, she says in 58 that she endorses my vote. By post 61 she's swung around, saying "If you want to identify scum look at Beep! Beep!'s wagon", then discredits her own case in 62 when I point out that she supported the wagon, but again doesn't move her vote. She eventually pushes TG's wagon all the way to lynch.
- In post 78 she advances the theory that armlx delayed his hammer to give his buddy some breathing room. Again I point out that this is incorrect and she goes for the ongoing game defence before eventually admitting that she didn't check her facts.
- Proposed lynch order in 114 results in town loss in traditional endgame (irrelevant here, but I don't think she knew that). Uses the "whatever" defence for this one.
- Case against me today has been one strawman or vague condemnation after another. She's using what I call the "stick and move" approach, throwing as much stuff as the she can think of at me and then dropping the points that I successfully refute (e.g. "easy target" comment in 118, false dilemma in 120, meaningless drivel in 123, poor attempt at a meta in 124, ignoring my response to craplogic from 127). You can't lose an argument if you refuse to engage the other person, I suppose. Her failure to follow up on post 124, where she asks "have you ever been this combative as town before?", is the biggest problem here. I deliberately replied without an example to see if she'd follow up, and she just let it drop. Someone who was interested in lynching the right player (as opposed to just lynching anyone) would have asked for an example there rather than just taking my word for it. This is exemplary of her entire case on me: she's making it up as she goes along, and shaping others' opinions through simple repetition rather than actual evidence.
Miscellanea:
- Adel says in 41 that she thinks that Pooky and I would be toughest to nail as scum. She later says in 84 that I'm "supposed to be a very strong player according to other players [she] respect
", the basis for which is later clarified as being BM's comments in the Scummies judging. This leads me to wonder what the basis for post 41 was, since it was made much earlier in the game, likely before BM would have made such a comment. I've played with Adel before, but if she hadn't arrived at a conclusion about my ability based on those games (apparently relying on BM's comments instead) then where did 41 come from? A comment like this out of the blue just raises my defences.
- In post 86, Adel tells a floundering Near to hammer TG. Less than 20 (game) posts later, Near does just that. Circumstantial, but notable.
There's a lot more in my head that I'm having trouble organising, but I thought I'd better post this much now in case I actually am dead.
