What about your read?
Too early to tell, really, but so far:
Toaster: scummy.
Ottofar: neutral.
Why?
Toaster is suspicious first because of his immediate kook claim. He seemed too eager to get on the ground floor, preempting any actual kooks claiming ahead of him. This is the best way to play it if you are scum fakeclaiming it, and Toaster is savvy enough and hard enough to read to get away with it. If Ottofar had claimed first, then Toaster would, I think, not have claimed at all. But that's not all. Toaster's posts so far have been noncommittal and give me the impression that he's trying to attack without fully engaging, which is how I've seen him play scum.
I don't know him to be scum, but he's at the top of my suspicion list. He doesn't have any clear scumtells so far, so it's just my intuition based on the tone and timing of his posts, rather than actual evidence, which is why I'm not presenting a strong case against him or trying to convince others yet.
For reference, anyone who doesn't claim kook d1 and tries to claim kook later on is scum. End of story. There is no reason whatsoever not to claim kook d1. [...] Alright, I'll bite. What good reason is there to not claim Kook? I can't even imagine.
We've had this conversation
before. We clearly don't agree, but we don't have to. There are good reasons for claiming (what you cite), and for not claiming (not to deal with the 'hard-headed idiots', etc); there are good reasons for scum fakeclaiming it (some consider it a "slight town tell" and is an alibi against inspection), there are good reasons for scum not fakeclaiming it (attracts attention). Just as you oppose my finding it suspicious, I oppose your "lynch non-kook-claimaints-D1" policy. Everyone will vote however they want. No matter how many times you say "end of story", everyone writes their own story.
Feel free to question kooks since there's a higher than normal chance they're scum, but you can't do a lynch-all-kooks program.
Yes, I'll question them, and vote them if I find them suspicious. I'm not advocating a policy lynch, unlike you.
@Book: Why made you think Jokerman said MBP was town. You definetly glossed over the issue, which I find to be VERY scummy coming from you since I know it was intentional.
He did mean MBP was town. Let's look at the exchange in detail, with context restored:
Finally, to get back to scumhunting; I'm reading everyone post intently, and looking for clues. I'm not asking much question day 1, since nothing much happened yet. You'll see later on
What if everyone takes the "wait and see" approach? If no one jumps out and takes the initiative, how will you find scum?
Someone always jumps out; someone like you, Toaster. For one thing, I'm a big proponent of the "wait and see" approach, and your attack on it is the same level of bullshit that it's been every time you've used it on me: it works for me, I know what I'm doing, and it's never been a tool I've used as scum because, guess what, scum has better things to do, like painting town to be the bad guy for doing something else. Like what you're doing here.
He's saying to Toaster "your attack is [...] bullshit", referring to his attack on MBP, since he ends it with "like what you're doing here." What's he's doing here is attacking MBP for "wait and see"; which Jokerman calls this "painting
town to be the bad guy", clearly indicating in context that the "town" is MBP. Am I reading it incorrectly? What "attack" of Toaster is bullshit, then? Which "town" is he painting as the bad guy?
I didn't gloss over the issue; I asked him the direct question: "Do you think MBP is town?" He replied in the negative, so I let it go.