Ok, a case on e.
The follow up was just stream of conscious because I play (almost) exclusively from my phone so I state things as I remember them. And I did not remember things correctly.
The thing is, MiX's follow-up question was really nuanced and not even obviously directed at e. Like, it was directed at e
because it was a reply to his OMGUS vote. Here it is again, including e's answer:
Vote: infangthief
Because OMGUS is a pretty solid case at this point
Do you have a reason to think infang would vote town in RVS as scum?
That's a good point. We should flip you so that way we can ask questions like this on D2
So somehow e noticed that it was a question to him, but didn't notice that it was in the context of him voting me for OMGUS.
Ok, I can believe that - e's later confusion about whether I'd been voting for e or MiX seemed genuine.
But then the problem is that MiX's question was rather nuanced; it took me a fair amount of jumping through "other-people's-point-of-view" hoops in order to work out what relevance it had. And I think such hoop jumping would be needed by anyone.
Unless... unless that person is scum and knows alignments. Then there is an obvious, non-nuanced meaning, and allows e to answer it without needing to do hoop-jumping.
So I think e is scum and MiX is town.
And another thing. Isn't the natural, towny response to MiX's question "we should flip fang", rather than "we should flip [MiX]"?