The quote you cite is partially what I'm referring to, but perhaps it's not as elaborate as I thought it was.
This is the heart of it:
VPB wrote:I think he felt pressure that wasn't necessarily there and really did think it would refute the arguments against him.
To expound on this, scum mentality in the game of mafia (particularly coming from less experienced players) is one of a "guilty conscience". Because scum players know they are inherently guilty, they tend to feel that comments pointed toward them are more aggressive than they really are.
I think this point is evidenced in the fact that pretty much the entirity of the Hell attack at first is summed up here:
VP wrote:Raiv wrote:
probly Hellnfire & chauch.
Hell because I don't think Anon's posts were confusing and his unvote seems fishythefish to me.
Chauch because her questions seem fake.
I actually strongly agree with both of these, particularly HellnFire. He seems very apologetic and eager to appease players when he is questioned.
Unvote, Vote: HellnFire666
Plus your earlier vote.
Then Reckoner voted with no real reason and WHAMO! Hell claims. There was almost no real pressure on him to be worried about. He later says that he felt that was the only way to answer people's accusations against him...which I think is completely silly since it answers nothing (though I guess in some regard it has worked since people started to back off after that).
I think a much more common response from townies in that situation (particularly less experienced players) is to either a) lash out angerly at their attackers or b) just resign themselves to the lynch and shut down.
Claiming early is much more likely to come from scum, however, because it is seen as an easy out that will deter people from the lynch.
reck wrote:@VPB:
I don't know how to explain it - basically, I think that train of thought is pro-town and wouldn't come from scum.
Not really a selling point for me, sorry.