Alright so, now that I'm all caught up, my top suspects are Cacti, Xiivi and MacMan, in really no particular order.
Cacti's attempt to dismiss the initial discussion surrounding the double voter rubbed me the wrong way. Anyone else who was against discussing that should be looked at with greater scrutiny in my opinion. What advantage is there in trying to keep something like that underwraps? If people aren't aware that there is a double voter, people could "accidentally hammer" and pass it off because they didn't realize that the anonymous vote was there. Furthermore, people could put others at L-1 without realizing the danger of an anonymous hammer (if the double is allowed to do that). Any attempts to stifle discussion about publicly available information (ESPECIALLY something as important as a double voter which has a large impact on how voting plays out during the day) should be checked out and grilled for it. That kind of behavior can not be allowed to slide.
Xiivi is giving me a scum read because of his general "whimsicalness" so to speak. He has initiated/jumped on a handful of wagons all with little to no reasoning. I was especially caught off guard by him initiating the Chaco wagon, since it literally seemed to come out of no where. Basically, I just feel like Xiivi has been a driving/starting force behind a bunch of arbitrary wagons, yet has hidden in the shadows by just fading away after voting during the discussion of almost every one of those wagons. Seems like attempts to drive discussion where he wants and create conflicts that he wants without having his name attached.
Macman caught my eye when he suggested that a cop not CC if another existed in the game after Chaco claimed. (
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9062547&postcount=351) This makes absolutely no sense to me. I'll trade a cop for a scum any day of the week, and I'm sure my fellow townies agree. There is absolutely no reason for a cop NOT to CC chaco if he was lying. To offer such a poor suggestion with no reasoning behind it looks really bad in my book. I was also a bit offset by his "strange" attitude coming into the game. As was previously mentioned, his off color comments almost seemed as if they were designed to establish a very belligerent "pre-alignment" attitude, so that we would attribute any future non-cooperativeness in the future with simply HIM as a PLAYER, but not associate that with any particular alignment.
I'm definitely down with pressuring/discussing any of these three.
Lastly, a few other comments:
I'm getting VERY strong town reads from mentos. His analysis of Chaco's play that he offered post claim was spot on IMO. It can be found here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9064121&postcount=372 Other than that, not too much specific but he's very low on my scumdar.
Same goes for Gheb. He's just as abrasive as always but he's doing the right things. Though I'm seeing as a general trend, he tends to attack people for their playstyle and/or attitude and not necessarily legit scum tells, but regardless, he's asking good questions and hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. I rarely see eye to eye with him but I'm also getting strong town reads from him, even if I'd like him to focus more on gameplay and less on how he wishes others would play.
The discussion about who we'd want to be with in endgame needs to stop. Now. All you're doing is telling the mafia who to kill off to create a late game with the most distrust and discord. Let's not spoon feed them that luxury and use our head alright?