It's interesting because as you say, people make mistakes and change their minds. That's the main reason why I try not to deal in absolutes (i.e. apply a particular strategy to a particular situation every time) - it's better to just evaluate things for what they are in the here and now. If you make a blanket statement chances are that you're going to end up eating your words or being called a hypocrite. But different situations call for different tactics, and so on and so forth. I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt for that reason ... I have a tendency to change my mind too.

Waffle-y voting can be pretty indicative of a Darkfriend, however, particularly waffling back and forth between votes without any real explanation. To use your example (and I didn't play in this game, so I might be describing this wrong): you posted long explanations of why you were voting the way you were and why you had changed your mind. If you give good reasons for your change, a real townie is probably not going to call you out for it - the movement against you in the game you reference was led by a Darkfriend.

Changing votes rapidly without good reasons, however, is viewed as extremely suspicious rightly so. A DF isn't going to list good reasons for voting the way they do that because they don't have good reasons (that are acceptable to the town anyway. ) So Darkfriends will switch between likely candidates, searching for the one that the other townies will vote for too. And, to be frank, this is what it looks like you're doing right now - switching around to whomever you think it's going to be easiest to lynch without giving a good explanation for why. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt right now because there aren't really any good reasons out there to vote for anyone (though actually, the evidence behind yourself is growing rather rapidly) ... all we've got is circumstantial in the extreme.



I would point out that passive-aggression is a popular Darkfriend technique. Being overtly aggressive can get a DF into very hot water the next day when the individual they led the Town against turns out to be kind of not evil. It kind of puts you in the spotlight. This is why DFs do tend to stick to the third vote like you've said. In this instance though, I think that particular brand of passive-aggression sticks out like leading a lynch since there's so little else to go on.



So to sum up, you're kind of my main candidate right now. It's not really any one thing, but a combination of a lot of different factors. There's the vote waffling. There's your denial of suggesting we lynch Ranagrande even though you clearly did suggest that very thing - usually I favor lynching liars on principal, but this is kind of a small thing. You're also getting really, really defensive, which is starting to look pretty suspicious ... the lady doth protest too much and all that.

It's hard to say, of course, because it's only expected that someone who's come under fire is going to try to defend themselves, but you're defense doesn't really jive, you know? There was the faulty denial of the Ranagrande thing, and this post, which makes some good points but is not really applicable to the situation and could be viewed as a passive-aggressive attempt to turn suspicion instead on your accusers. I don't know. You could also very well be a townie just trying to get things going, which is something I hardly want to punish by lynching! That's a good thing! Legit! And I am always wary of succumbing to my own confirmatory bias ... you can see Darkfriends in everything, you know. Or maybe that's just me.

I do want to take the time to come to a good conclusion about all of this though, and what would really REALLY help would be input from the rest of the group. HEY GUYS, POST YOUR THOUGHTS! Yes, you. And you too. And you as well! All thoughts! Everything is a good contribution! Yipppe, I love thoughts wooooooooooooooooooo thoughts! YEAH. Totally awesome.


Hmmm ... I think I ought to go to bed. Peace out, yo.