Vitek: In other words, it is good safe vote if you find nothing else to point finger at.
Anti-town behavior only help scum, so, yes, voting for people that tend to act in anti-town ways is certainly a 'safe' vote if one is working in the town's best interests.
Vitek: What does it say to you? That he was played by different person on D1? :-)
It tells me that something has changed his behavior in some way, and it is something I should keep track of. He might be scum, he might be a power role, he might have gotten interested in something said in the thread more than usual (which is what he says it is this time), or it could have nothing at all to do with the game. However, when taken in conjunction with other scummy behavior, it might mean more.
As is the case with your strong defense of him here. It means little on its own, but maybe it will mean more later on, Maybe it won't. Either way, I have at least noted it to myself.
Pre-post edit:
JMich: Whoah, reaching I'd say.
How is it reaching?
Ixamyakxim: And if you "tested" him, and he's in your group then your group has multiple scans...
He is talking about a group that has a 'scan', which I interpret is his way of saying 'investigation'. How do you read it, if not like I did?
JMich: The group investigation though is an interesting concept, which someone else from the same group should be able to confirm or deny.
It is interesting, isn't it? Perhaps we just have anyone deny it if it, in fact, isn't true. No need to reveal too much if everything is on the up-and-up, after all. Same as any other role-claim, really.