Okay, I am going to try something new this game. Some of you will probably know my % ranking system (I explain it below). I will put down point increases within my read, to make my reasoning and suspicion bases perfectly clear. Experimental, but I want to see if it helps. + means somebody has increased in scumminess to me, whereas minus means they look more townie (and the number shows the relative extent of the jump)
Vollkan's Read of Game
14: Right of the bat, I find it interesting that Shez would pick Juls, a newbie, for his question. Obviously, Shez joined later than Juls, but common sense would say that a less experienced player, town or scum, would be more likely to screw up an answer to such a question as Shez asks here. See my comments on post 18 for more on this. (Shez+1)
18: He now criticises her defensiveness. For starters, defensiveness is not a scumtell - and I challenge anybody who thinks it is to explain why - but also because her response is entirely reasonable; why indeed did Shez single her out? (Shez+2)
19: Not sure I understand OP's voting logic here. @OP: What link was there between Shez showing knowledge (presumably you mean of tricky play) and him being scum?
21: Without explanation, X says he thinks Juls' answer is scummy. (X+1)
22: Shez is right in his reply to OP, knowledge of play has no link to scumminess. I don't like his casting of aspersions on Juls for her saying she is generally scummy - again, she's a newbie (and her play here reinforces that) and there is nothing inherently wrong with admitting that one often appears scummy (in fact, it's probably a good thing to make people aware of) (Shez+1)
24: ugh...I don't like this post by G-Force. There is nothing wrong with aggression and there is nothing scummy about voting early (or, if there is, you don't explain it). But saying "reluctant to commit to an early vote" sounds rhetorically powerful, despite being meaningless. (G+2)
25: Yay for X's criticism of G's poor logic (X-1)
33: Ugh...panamon uses inconsistency with an ongoing game to justify a vote on Shez. This isn't scummy (nor is the alleged inconsistency, divorced of all context) but it terrible form.
35: Babygirl is wrong on Shez - his behaviour is scummy - but right that Juls is "just gameplay" - a nulltell
36: Shez pulls an "if I were scum" *vomit* (but I will be lenient since he is a newbie...but still...ugh). His justification for choosing juls ("she seemed interested in bantering with other players") is very weak.
38: CKD makes sense on the "if I were scum" (Good to play with you again, CKD)
43: Interesting. Rhinox's first post is big but only deals with the above "if I were scum" issue which, since it is pure theory, I don't want to go into. However, he makes no comment on anything else that actually is relevant. This raises the concern that he is avoiding controversy, but I'll wait and see for more evidence before making judgment.
46: Unexplained vote by Erratus. I will wait and see if he gives some explanation.
49: Juls casts an ironic vote for X, who defended reasonless voting.
==I have study to do, so I will leave things there for the time being. These are my rankings thus far:
Rankings
(0 = confirmed town, 100 = confirmed scum, 50 = neutral OR insufficient info)
2. curiouskarmadog - 50
3. Erratus Apathos - 50
4. G-Force - 52
5. mrfixij - 50
6. orangepenguin - 50
7. bionicchop2 - 50
8. PyroDwarf - 50
9. Rhinox - 50
10. Riceballtai - 50
11. Scheherazade - 54
12. Xtoxm - 50
And guess what...she lurked horrendously and I had to replace her. AND SHE WAS TOWN 
