In post 308, Hoopla wrote:
Mmm, not really. I haven't played with many people on this list. For all they know, that's how I always am and not worth commenting on?
From reading Mafia Discussion, I know you as someone with a very good grasp on mafia theory. For you to start the game with a dice vote and follow it up with a couple of whimsical posts feels to me like you went deliberately off meta in order to provoke reactions. That everyone basically ignored it, even when you went back to more serious posting, is extremely surprising to me. It feels like more players should have responded, as it would be a good way to get some discussion started. Simultaneously, I can kind of see scum deciding not to engage an experienced player. So I really want to look for players who could have reacted, but didn't.
IAI and BBT simply didn't post at the relevant time, so it's not at all surprising that they didn't react.
Rask noticed, and attacked you over it. His reactions in the ensuing discussion feel pretty natural.
BlackVoid, Cloud and Jack focused on other points in the discussion, so them ignoring you isn't that strange.
Sotty ignoring it also is kind of logical. She knows you're just reaction fishing, doesn't think much productive will come from her discussing it, and decides to try to kickstart the game with a bandwagon instead.
I've played with Maria before, and given how she's played there, I'm not surprised that she didn't engage you. She just isn't the type to try to get serious discussion started.
The lack of actual reaction from the last three players all seem various degrees of suspicious to me:
Victor placed a random vote, without actually contributing anything useful. I've seen townies do that, but it's disappointing. Victor, why did
post #35 contain nothing but a random vote? Why you didn't give an opinion on Hoopla's playstyle at the time?
TwoFace did notice, but decided to go into a theory discussion rather then engage in an "are you scum?" discussion in post
#12 and
#25. TwoFace, why did you decided to discuss the legality of dice voting, rather then the implications of Hoopla's use of it?
It's goodmorning's reaction that strikes me as most strange of them all. Her posts
#18 and
#20 acknowledge that there are early game oddities in playstyles, but flat out refuses to draw any conclusions based on that whatsoever. Goodmorning, what was the reason that you responded the way you did?
---
@Jack: I guess in the case of BBT, it's not just his general inactivity. As you mentioned, you, me, and IAI also aren't posting much. Yet in the case of IAI, it's pretty clear that he's simply not been here. And with you and me, there is some actual content in the posts we do posts. Whereas BBT's four posts are all oneliners containing unexplained reads.
---
Overall, I find it difficult to develop good reads from the last 10 pages. There's a lot of talking going on, but a lot of it is arguing on things that don't seem all that relevant, nor all that alignement indicative. Finding clear arguments for why players hold certain scumreads in all that is like looking for a needle in a haystack, easy to glance over if you're not reading in depth (and since I was reading 10 pages under time pressure, I didn't get much chance at in depth reading).
I currently have rask (attempted scumhunting in combination with what seems like genuine uncertainty) and BlackVoid (asks good, enlightening questions) as town, and I townlean Hoopla (the way she's given well founded townreads limit her options if she's scum), but not much beyond that.
@BlackVoid: if you could expand a bit on the townreads you listed in
post #278, that would be great. Most of them are on players I currently have trouble reading, so knowing your thoughts there would be helpful to me.
There is no 'a' in Michel.
