Or to avoid killing the IC as long as there are two scum, so that they can keep their Daychat. If the kill the IC, they lose it. One way or the other scum has a strong interest in knowing who the IC is. Which is also why, on second reading, trent's urging to reveal the IC is more helpful to scum than to town.
You are trying to twist something that is not true. Here is a quote directly from the OP "There are exactly two mafia players in the game and they are allowed to day-chat as long as the Hidden Innocent Child remains hidden. Once they request mod confirmation
or they get Night-Killed, whichever happens first, the mafia day-chat will transform into a standard Night-only chat
That benefits Town more than it benefits scum, and trying to twist it to seem like a bad thing is to me sound like scum trying to keep their Day chat going as they know how beneficial it is.
Who is twisting words now? You confirm what I write. Scum lose their Daychat if they kill the IC. So they have a vested interest in working who the IC is. Therefore your softclaim, if you are Town, was a bad thing. It gives scum information without deprieving them of their Daychat. Sure, if the IC requests confirmation the effect is also a loss of the Daychat. But your way, with softclaiming vanilla town, is the worst of all choices.
I grant that your idea to have the IC claim and get confirmed is not necessarily an anti-town move. But your softclaim was and it would have been worse, if more soft-claims had followed. And I still think that my risk/benefit analysis about when to claim as an IC holds true. As I said, if the IC claims now, we get a confirmed Townie for Today and Tomorrow and Scum lose their Daychat. If they claim later, the impact of that confirmed Townie grows significantly.
Actually I feel more comfortable with where my vote was before. Nmillar voted quite opportunistically Yesterday and goes right back Today to the same principle. He's just going along with other player's suspicion, picking GH as convenient target, without making an own point. That's not Town scum-hunting. That's someone going along with an easy target. Either out of disinterest in the game - or out of scumminess. I choose to assume the latter.
Has this opinion changed? Why do you say he voted opportunistically Yesterday? I've done it often myself in previous games, but at what point does "I've nothing to say that hasn't been said by others" go from literally nothing to say and not wanting to parrot (and be accused of riding on coat-tails) to scummy? It seems to me to be akin to the proverbial Rock and Hard Place if you can't find some OC.
Anyway, not saying you are wrong but please list why D1 was opportunistic?
Opportunistic voting is going for the easiest target. Nmillar wasn't invested D1, as he admits himself. He just went along with the flow. Which doesn't add anything for Town. ... At which point does a disinterested playstyle become opportunitstic? That's a matter of feeling. I had the feeling that nmillar was taking it too easy and was just testing for easy targets to see what might stick. Therefore my accusation. However, with todays performance from nmillar and explanation with his low investment with RL stuff, I had to re-rate my reading of him.
For now, with trent's reaction, my vote stays where it is. But I'll switch to GH tomorrow if necessary.