I do think obviously dumb posts coming from a smart player, as is happening with you, indicates scumminess
And why would that be? Again, stupid posts do not indicate scumminess. Though I challenge that my post have been predominantly stupid. I don't lack awareness. I have made some stupid posts, like missing that it was Earth that died. Missing that my character was Danny.
But none of that is indicative of affiliation. I challenge you to illustrate otherwise. But it would amount to cherry picking out of quite a bit of stuff as you've honestly done with some of your responses thus far.
Out of my whole case against you DP1. You pick out a proceeding post and respond to that. That being the complaint about dishonest and poor use of percentages. Which I still think is a decent indicator of you manufacturing analysis when placed in conjunction with the entirety of your behavior thus far.
When you responded to my PM analysis, you say it's dumb. Then provide a reason for it being so that doesn't make sense. Drafter wasn't implicated in my PM analysis because he hadn't divulged whether or not he could even corroborate it yet. My PM analysis hadn't been proven yet. I made sure to state repeatedly that the only way it would work is if you and maybe one other person claimed to not have characters/justification.
But as town with that PM, why would you have cause to believe others wouldn't corroborate your claim? No, you argued against it right away. Indicating you already knew it was wrong, something you would only reasonably know as mafia.
It's great that you think I'm a smart player. But being smart doesn't preclude you from doing dumb things at times. Townies, as a general whole, do dumb things all the time. I've had my share of "wtf that was stupid" moments. Your recollection of my play is not entirely correct.. and your basis for scuminess, like what you implied for rational in DP1 with recounting his actions, is pointing out actions without connecting them to underlying motives.
You are otherwise able to do it because of your read on rational where you recognize rational believes what he says, and so its clear something being dumb to you is not what actually determines the affiliation. Rather, whether or not the person generally believes what they are saying.
*Applauds* your read on Rational recently was actually decent, not anything necessarily indicative, but sensible nonetheless. Then you just had to, like utility, show that supplied reasoning was BS, and selectively apply it, otherwise belying that your reads are contrived/faked.
