In post 178, Barleycorn wrote:what conclusions have you drawn from that conversation about dog's alignment?
I think DogWatch is going to be an easy player to lynch on THIS site.
If I was scum I would have jumped on this like:In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain?
Why would scum-DogWatch want us to pick apart 3 naked/unsupported RVS votes?
I read it better as: DogWatch didn't understand the true nature of mafiascum RVS and wanted to find out if he'd overlooked something.
DogWatch is not a new player to mafia, thus, I cannot see scum-DogWatch playing 'dumb'.
DogWatch later says:
DogWatch is seeking the SUPPORTING REASONS behind people's naked votes and unexplained suspicions.In post 177, DogWatch wrote:transcend, how did keyser scum claim?
- I read this as Shadow Step implying that DogWatch was playing the LAMIST card. There was no need for anyone to answer this question. Only agree or disagree with the implied observation.In post 48, Shadow_step wrote:Concerned townie much?In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:
- DogWatch's question was so ridiculous to my ears that Shadow Step is allowed to flag this as suspicious (I DO NOT agree with his conclusion though).
- I think DogWatch is stuck in confirmation bias here. In regard to Dogwatch's vote, Shadow Step described it as: "Scum are survivalistic, town are less so. As town you're not as worried about getting lynched as you are as scum. As scum you quickly want a CW.". THUS, Shadow was reading Dogwatch's non-alignment play as scummy.
- bottom line: I lean on stubborn-town Shadow projecting what he thinks is conclusively scum-indicative on DayWatch's non-scummy play.