See now, Ruy, I think you mighta missed my point a lil bit
I'm not saying "don't be confident" as that would definitely be the antithesis of your desire to get people to listen to you. My point was a grander one about how your suspicions and confidence never seem to lie on a spectrum. You just kinda put it out there and want people to listen to you, most of the time. Sometimes you put a case up but that's not the standard I've seen.
But that's all immaterial, my point is simply that you have historically been just as confident about your bad reads as your good ones. Say you're in a 4man mylo and you've got a top suspect. This top suspect is scum. But your last top suspect was town, and errbody mislynched said prior top suspect, and that's why you're in mylo, and then mafia leaves you alive for it figuring they can run train over you if you get 'em or that you'll make the wrong call or both.
Let's say I'm one of the other townies and the other is, eh, Glyph or something. Let's say we also had the last top suspect on our shortlist and as such helped to mislynch him. For players like Glyph and myself (and I'm talking about playstyle things here, not skill level, again that's immaterial) reevaluation after being wrong is a big thing. We'd have reservations about going with our next best gut instinct because the game is at stake and we were wrong last time, so we'd tread carefully.
But with what I've seen of you in your town game (and we both know I have seen a lot of it), your new top suspect is going to know they're on your pike before long and you'll be just as certain as you were last time. This is just the thing. I'm not saying you can't or wouldn't be cautious, of course, or even that you can't change your mind (I don't think I've seen it, but you've probably done it) but my point is that there's never a sense that your suspicions have a spectrum at all. You just latch on and gogo. And again, this is consistent with both your correct calls and your mistakes.
Alright, you played Lost, and we both suspected mentos there. That game's got a good example. I pressed Acrostic for his interaction with mentos, as I thought it was very bad. I thought it was very possible that he was scum. But i just wasn't that sure. Not enough to vote, not enough to FoS. So I just put it out there, pressured. Tried to see what he would say about himself and what others would say about the interaction. Some people agreed with my point and voiced as much, and at least one (Rajam) even asked me why I wasn't voting for Acro. This is despite having been totally transparent about the wishywashy foundations of my suspicions.
And the wishwashery ended up being the way to go, too, because Acrostic was town. As such, I was able to feel pretty good about the fact that I never pushed him forward for a lynching. And furthermore, I feel that moderation of my own impulses in this manner, and acknowledging my personal fallibility in what wasn't a very strong suspicion, is the kind of thing that leaves people willing to trust my judgment.
Which also makes people pique up and pay attention when I rarely do go "think we got scum gogogo". Because that's not always my attitude, and that's not always how I push my agenda. **** falls on a spectrum, and acknowledging that -- coupled with a little humility -- shows a level of rationality and logic that people can appreciate. And take seriously.