When is inactivity scummier than activity?

[Majiffy]

Are there any events in a mafia game that you think probably cause scum or town or some subset thereof to be disproportionately active/inactive?

Continued active pressure in regards to explaining previously unexplained reads that don't seem to make sense will cause inexperienced or non-charismatic scum to attempt to lurk away the pressure.

Aside from this and a few other scenarios, activity is not an objective scumtell and I never understand why people try to perpetuate the claim that it is.

It can, however, be a valid meta tell.

[Majiffy]

Growing bandwagon early in any dayphase, but more typically in early days where there are still MLs, scum will sit and see if the wagon will dissipate. If it won't, they'll hop on with weak arguments that don't actually support their vote earnestly. Especially prevalent if the wagon is on their partner.

[Majiffy]

You do realize that in compiling and publicizing all of this data, scum will actively subvert all of the findings, right? And all your work will eventually be for naught?

[Majiffy]

Naught means nothing, zero, meaningless, etc.

[Majiffy]

This seems less about activity than voting patterns.

Whether that is the case, do you think voting patterns are more productive than activity patterns for identifying scum? How much?

I don't disagree, I'm a heavy VCA player.

I think VCA is probably one of the most important objective standards one can use, but you still have to look at the underlying given reasons and trajectory in reads when considering it.

Basically, you're trying to isolate single factors when the key is to find a number of points that all hit at the same time.

Then

you can point and say "that, for certain, is scum".

[Majiffy]

Meeeyow kitty's got claws.

[Majiffy]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to misread my intentions and get pissy or if you're genuinely just not realizing how poorly you're conveying whatever it is you're trying to convey.

[Majiffy]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to misread my intentions and get pissy or if you're genuinely just not realizing how poorly you're conveying whatever it is you're trying to convey.

I believe his point is that he's being intentionally opaque so as to avoid people determining precisely what it is he's attempting to measure

But if his sample size is small enough to be determined artificially then his sample size wasn't large enough to be comprehensive or reliably accurate to begin with.

Activity levels with a wagon on themself?

Bandwagons rarely give reliable information on the wagonee, I find.