Ugh, less than a week until deadline.
Iecerint, you're no fun.
Every time I have a new suspect, you're like, "No, here's meta that says he could possibly be town. Now let's get back to lynching kpaca." Give me a bone, here!
When I reread the ABR exchange in context, both you and Mordy (although I dislike other aspects of his play) come off a lot better. But to answer your questions from before:
First, I checked both (all) of Mordy's scumgames on the site. I investigated Mordy's past scumplay to determine whether nullification was a scum tactic Mordy has used in the past. The result was that it was not. If Mordy is scum, this is a new tactic for him. Again, this is relevant because ABR characterized his case as gut. Meta can help to determine whether it's a playstyle quirk or a scumtell.
My problem with this was that this seemed like very weak evidence clearing Mordy--and evidence based mainly on semantics. First. how common a scum tactic is "nullification," anyway*? I appreciate that you went to the effort of researching Mordy's play, but I don't think a Ctrl+F search on the words "null tell" tells us whether scum!Mordy would mention that something is both townie and scummy. IMO, you don't need meta to know that saying the words "null tell" is a null tell.
(*After writing this, I see you mentioned that nullification is a favourite scumtell of yours. That makes more sense.)
Also, I don't think this was really a case of "nullification." Mordy only mentioned the null tell line when pushed on why he seemed middle-of-the-road on posting restrictions. I think the root of the case against Mordy was that he defended himself against the contradiction by saying, "Yeah, I believe both points"; technically, that answered my question, but it was a little convoluted and wishy-washy, so I could see where ABR was coming from.
Besides, why does it matter if ABR's case was gut? If anything, that would make Mordy's "nullification" more likely to be an unconscious change in behaviour rather than a conscious strategy.
Why do you think I have used meta in inconsistent ways?
Yeah, I didn't really explain myself here. To elaborate, I thought it was strange that you were very quick to defend Mordy with meta, to the point that you seemed to be using meta to argue that he would play scum both better than this and worse than this.
For example, when I mentioned that Mordy seemed kind of low-key, you brought up the Movie Madness game and said, "Well, actually, Mordy is a very strong scum player, so I don't think he'd lurk as scum." Later, you mentioned the other game in which he exclusively focused on easy targets--although, granted, you said as a caveat that he improved since then. All in all, your meta defences reduced the pressure on him, and made me wonder if you were trying to keep your options open.
Also, the huge exchange between them on posting restrictions came across to me as a load of nitpicky, obfuscating filler.
I dun even know what you're referring to here tbh. Post what you're referring to, please.
I was talking about your interaction with Mordy on the bottom of page 11, in which you discussed ABR's Mordy accusations. To be honest, I don't think calling it "obfuscating" was a fair assessment, because I sort of skimmed through it and thought, "Oh, great, yet MORE bickering about the theory of posting restrictions and the meanings of the word 'nullification' and 'WIFOM.'" I had trouble following your arguments, and on a gut level, it felt like you were going on about trivialities. It seemed like the kind of debate that would be easy for scum to participate in so as to pad their contribution level. Rereading it, however, the exchange wasn't as long or irrelevant as I remember it being--Mordy was addressing specific points ABR made, although not expressing himself that clearly. So, um, sorry about that. This is why I usually don't go off knee-jerk impressions.
--
To be honest, I find that I'm going around in circles this game. I'm rereading the thread, and one moment I think Player A is sincere and Player B scummy, the next I reinterpret one sentence and all of a sudden Player A is picking on poor defenceless B. This might be a backlash from several games in a row in which I've been very confident in suspicions that were horribly wrong, or it might be because I find it impossible to read players who only make two or three points all game against one easy target and don't ever react to events on the thread.
I started writing a blurb about RF, kpaca, and the inactives, but it's three in the morning here and I have to leave for work at eight, so I'll save it for another day.
