Well, let's go through them.
Things that could point to town.
1. Requested an extension when he didn't have to and got to playing as fast as possible.
2. Some of the questions he made were specific when he got in here, for example he was interested in your interaction with Thor, another goodish question was asked to N_M.
3. Indecisiveness,
647, so this didn't just pop up. It could be as you say, but it also seems like it's possible he really was just lost.
4.
818, gives a pretty good response to Tr1ckster's question. He might have been stalling though.
5. His bigger posts tend to give the impression he's trying to figure people out.
6. Sort of contradicting myself here, but while he's explaining himself/anticipating questions he also has pretty believable explanations. Which I think is usually a sign they might be legitimate.
Things that could point to scum.
1. Verboseness on irrelevant details
2. His case on N_M when I asked him about it lacked flavor(bland).
3. Some of his questions seemed to lack direction and seemingly had no point and I have a slight suspicion it was more to gauge, then it was to read.
4. He's anticipating certain questions and answering them ahead of time. which I feel is a pretty solid way of avoiding engagement.
5. I agree with you. If I'm remembering correctly. His read on Madonna and his reasons for putting her at L-1 were much stronger than our's were. you didn't even have a case, I wrote a one liner, and Tr1ckster was like, "surprise, I'm actually scum reading Belisarius!"<- he then backed it up though. It was pretty weird, that he wasn't weirded out by it, unlike BBT, who rightly called "what the fuck" on us.
6.
915 is fine until the end, where he narrows it to 3, and unlike the "I'm reading everyone as scum" thing and keeping his options open, this is legitimately narrowing the field in a way that I find somewhat scummy. However, he did make a relatively good justification for why he voted Tr1ckster over both of us. But, if I were I'd have done the same. /:
Things that point neither way that are sort of interesting.
1. Has a good track of the game, seems to want to know where everyone is going. But not WHY they're going there. At least conventionally (he's not doing much footwork/asking questions).
2. Madonna case was interesting. Still percolating on it.
3. His justification for his interpretation of his wagon analysis is very backwards from what I understand about mafia. In general, I think scum either want to follow people who make arguments and take responsibility for them, then not. Off the wagon but furthering their death, is something I can agree with some.
He then actually goes more along my line of reasoning by voting Tr1ckster, (though, in fact, Tr1ckster gave the most reasons between the 3 of us).
4. Seems to have a good track on what he says and does. Might be reading his own posts to refresh his memory.
