In post 170, anahit wrote:basically i mean that they have higher likelihood of being mafia together - it is like, if you thought greeting was the most likely mafia, then vanderscamp's vote pressuring edensflame very shortly thereafter without engaging with your vote on greeting in anyway would potentially be suspicious, yeah? but instead your thought was 'oh i might join that wagon', thus my question
oh! i like this question. but no, even ignoring that vanderscamp pings vaguely town to me. in a world where greeting flips maf, i wouldnt read vanderscamp as trying to avoid a wagon on their buddy, because i can easily see town ignoring my unexplained vote in favour of a case of their own.
In post 120, anahit wrote:also sircakez and mad hatters tea party i guess to much lesser extents, but mostly vanderscamp yea
same goes for cakez, like, i dont really have a read on him at all. but per above, i dont see anything wrong with picking vanderscamp's explained vote over my unexplained one.
the tea party would i suppose be more suspicious along these lines, given that they didnt really explain their radical rat vote. on the flip side, they openly said "yeah no real case" while this question is open, which would seem pretty bold if they were expecting greeting to flip maf. counterpoint, theyre probably not really expecting any sort of flip any time soon; there simply, wasnt a real threat. overall i have the tea party down as null-town, and greeting flipping maf wouldnt really change this read for me.
In post 174, anahit wrote:i mean, this is mostly because greeting's been absent since and others didn't really engage with it, which seems like kinda a strange thing for you to interpret as +town for greeting rather than +mafia,
i just didnt think my vote was doing anything there. i couldve parked it for the next few days to make doubly sure, but that didnt seem worth lol. like. do you want to vote greeting with me?
In post 175, anahit wrote: In post 162, mc esther wrote:and i assume greeting said it because he believes it's an accurate assessment of the thread
i kinda think it was a callback to the isis/vanderscamp/me talk about posts being ai
like it felt like a very intentional post from greeting rather than simply 'this is how i feel about the game'
yeah okay, i see it. the main reason i disagree(d?) is that, i think even maf says this because it's true to them -- it's much harder to know what's alignment-indicative when you already know everyone's alignment; you dont get to organically infer without that particular confirmation bias. i think this comment is typically sincere as either alignment, even though it's marginally more likely to come from maf. to be clear, this is very much theory, not experience.
i may or may not have more thoughts on rat/greeting in a sec.