3rd party behaviors normally reflect a fringe playstyle that very much goes with the flow tendency in most cases. Observable patters of this can be seen in their "hunting" because it needs to not draw as much heat. It does vary from person to person, but the players that are hardest to read, or I suppose, are being harder to read than their meta entails should be looked at. I would say you fall into this category.Epignosis wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:44 amI don't care that you "suspected" me first, and neither should anyone else. That isn't how this works, and you know that.DrWilgy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:27 am Guys.
Epi is bad and just no you'd
You are following a now you.
When did Epi want me dead prior or suspect me for being bad? What behavior of mine makes me indy before voting me?
Jack I would like for you to explain your poe. I trust you amd I do not want you to die.
I don't care that I did not suspect you of being the killer until recently, and neither should anyone else. That isn't how this works, and you know that.
What behaviors should we be looking for in identifying an independent killer?
In a scenario where the mafia or other killing parties are weaker than normal, I can also see a scenario where a 3rd party openly supa towns if their record has been good. MacDougall falls into this category, but I think this is less likely than the first due to the many kill angle nature of this game.
Lastly, an indi can be observed by unciv like tendencies. This can be observed through ulterior motives, information or ability leaking, or recognition of nonsensical conclusions. I believe Colin and Sloonei fit this one.
In spite of all this, unless Sloonei is town and knew that the kill was somehow negated, it is more likely that the kill was missed. Perhaps it was Daisy, perhaps it was Lux. Hard to say when there's a wallflower in play.
