So some shit regarding one of my courses came up very recently, followed by another game on that other site ending, thus I've been sort of busy. That being said, this game is now at the very top of my priority queue right now, so even IF other shit comes up, that won't impact my activity levels.
*cough* *cough* Anyway. I find it weird that the principal point against me is the Cult Leader comment against Hellsnake, considering that it was pretty much a spur-of-the-moment reaction (it really sounded
exactly like that role), before I remembered that alignment-changing roles don't exist in this setup. Even then, this really isn't all that bad - Hellvole was terrible for several other reasons beyond just his role, and my case on him wasn't entirely based on role (though I will admit that it
was his final roleclaim that pushed him ahead of Pietro for me).
Anyway: regarding the claimed millers, I'm pretty unconvinced that
any of them are Scum simply for how the whole roleclaim nuttery came about. Our good friend Mr.Daniels here might have been a Scum attempting to force through a lynch of Hellsnake, but then Hellsnake would have flipped Miller and not Scum, and then Mr.Daniels would have looked terrible. It has all the feel of a fairly genuine counterclaim to it as well, for that matter - and really, I can't think of anything overtly objectionable from our good ever-drunk friend either, really.
Same for Seamus
AranO'Malley - given two Miller claims, Scum fakeclaiming a third strikes me as bizarre. However, a third Miller claim lends credence to multiple Millers and thus would let you avoid being copscanned and then accused for it, which means that this is less a point in his favour than it is for Daniels. The fact that I can't actually remember anything that he's
said all game vexes me as well, I will have to reread him thusly.
Now, what's interesting is that we have
two people who claim to be targeted last night and both claim to feel Euphoric over it. One of them lost his Miller status (were you Miller + anything else, Mr.Daniels? You don't have to specify what "anything else" actually
is, I'm just wondering if you have a dual/multiple role like what all the flips so far seem to have), and the other...Hutchins...hm. I'm suddenly really not liking Hutchins. Toss another one onto the reread pile.
Hayles however...that is my main point of suspicion for today. I particularly am amused by the selective attention surrounding my Cult Leader/no-alignment-changing-roles statements: first he goes after Jack for a misrep that was not a misrep, now he's going after me for the same thing, yet the whole comment is more-or-less irrelevant in the grand scheme of both mafia and this world, and yet he's using it as a
major point in two cases.
His D2 play is somewhat irksome, principally due to using a lot of words and saying little - I find I always want to yell at him to get to the damn POINT already, yet quite often it seems that he never does. His opening post actually claims that he finds Andrews scummier than Hadley, yet votes Hadley instead for a reporting charge - yet the issue he has is that his posts contain too many words and are too long and too
mixed-in with flavour (RP? What's that?
Some form of MST3K Analogue for Let's Play's? 
), which is missing the point of the reporting accusation completely. Reporting is a Scummy action if it is IIoA - Information Instead of Analysis. If there is Analysis, in good amounts, and it is sound, then large amounts of concurrent Information, while aggravating to read through, are not inherently Scummy. There's nothing objectionable about his Pietro vote, but that's solely because there quite literally is
everything objectionable with Pietro's
play. Really, probably the current top of my suspicion list, but I first want to do a proper reread through both Hutchins and O'Malley before voting (especially considering it technically is LYLO. Quasi-LYLO, yet LYLO nevertheless.)
