Mafiascum.net

↑ Thor665 wrote:@MoI - is asking Snake to defend his play in a game that's over and he was town in really going to go somewhere? It doesn't matter if you agree with him that it's good scumhunting, it only matters whether or not he honestly believes it is.

No, I'm doing scum-hunting here Thor. Ssssshhhhhhhh.

Don't be a wet blanket and ruin things

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:
So why did you vote enomis over Thor when you had ‘good’ (as defined by you) justification for your Thor vote and this rather pointless assertion that bandwagonning is a Newbscum-tell.

Because the enomis case was stronger than the Thor case.

Look, I’m going to take a page out of the Iceguy handbook –

“OH MY GOD ICEGUY IS MAKING UP SCUM-TELLS. THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS THAT SO CALLED NEWBSCUM-TELL. HE’S SCUM HE’S SCUM”

I just wanted to give everyone a taste of the crap we can expect from you later on.

Let me just remind you this "crap" caught scum-MoI redhanded.

And look – it’s typical Iceguy use of generic Wikitells (misrep – which in Iceguy’s world is any statement he disagrees with) that don’t actually have any actual application …

MISREPCEPTION!

A misrep of what I call a misrep!

Why is ‘sheeping me’ the safe route when it drew him so much immediate scorn?

Because it normally doesn't.

Do you seriously suggest he was serious about Policy Lynching Whisper?

He followed you onto SC, as well.

Why did you dodge the following question –

Is bandwagonning just for the sake of it, especially early Day 1, a scumtell?

I already explained it approximately seven hundred times.

Yes, technical error there. My mistake. Here is the proper link to your fluff – Post 41

That's not fluff. I could just as well call everything you've ever posted "fluff".

---

↑ Thor665 wrote:
You also gave out poison cookies on the lurking issue - do you really think that's a legit scumtell? If so, do you have any names that stand out in that regard as the scummier pushers on you?

In general, I find the pushing of flimsy cases to be a scumtell, if the player keeps pushing them even after he's been shown many times his case doesn't hold water. It's an attrition technique: engage the mislynch of your choice and hope he says something you can twist into a scumtell. If you have called him "scum" often enough, no matter with what justification, something will stick in the minds of other players and they'll start thinking of him as scum.

I'm waiting for SC's explanation to pass judgment on him.

↑ enomis wrote:

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Yes. I agree that he seems pretty scummy and I'm not really worried about soliciting a claim first simply because I'm going to lynch him regardless of what he claims. Why shouldn't I hamnmer?

A hammer on page four? No way. UNVOTE: Strangercoug, do you think the advantage of hammering now really outweighs the disadvantage of hammering now. Really?

Lynching scum now as opposed to letting him wriggle away later is always preferable.

jerobbo wrote:Why are you going to hammer regardless of a claim?

Because I sincerely doubt that any claim StrangerCoug can come up with will sway me.

Why are you so certain he's scum after 4 pages and with your 2nd post?

Because he's scum. The number of pages in the game and the number of posts I have don't change that fact.

Why should you hammer should be the question?

If I had posted an intent to hammer and no one unvoted in response, then that means a serious wagon was formed on SC on page 4. And any player who has a wagon on them comprised of serious votes on Page 4 is either scum or a serious liability.

↑ SnakePlissken wrote:OK Nacho his vote is back down to L-2 so you still willing to put a vote on him if you are convinced enough to hammer? Enomis, I know what I'm doing. You play your way and will mine.

No. It's a useless vote if the town's not willing to lynch him.

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:...Yeah. Not claiming on page 4.

IceGuy still needs to talk to me about how enomis was lurking, because best-case scenario it's hypocritical. I understand the bit about the wagoning.

No one asked you to claim.
Why are you ignoring the wagon on you?

Magna wrote:I want a full opinion – there is no role in the game that you would not hammer if claimed? Please answer in your next post.

This is correct.

Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.

I haven't voted yet, so you can't judge the logic behind my votes. Also, I haven't expressed an opinion in this game approving of pressure votes.

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:

Why are you so certain he's scum after 4 pages and with your 2nd post?

Because he's scum. The number of pages in the game and the number of posts I have don't change that fact.

I Think it does, I fail to see how anyone can be so sure that someone is scum after 4 pages.

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:

Why should you hammer should be the question?

If I had posted an intent to hammer and no one unvoted in response, then that means a serious wagon was formed on SC on page 4. And any player who has a wagon on them comprised of serious votes on Page 4 is either scum or a serious liability.

So now that people got off you don't think he's scum anymore?

You seemed so sure he was scum yourself after a mere 4 pages, now you're basing it on other peoples thoughts? What gives?

It's the absoluteness of your posts that gives me a funny vibe. It also appears that's against your meta.

jerobbo wrote:I Think it does, I fail to see how anyone can be so sure that someone is scum after 4 pages.

Scum have been lynched on page 4 before.

So now that people got off you don't think he's scum anymore?

My opinion of his alignment hasn't changed since my first post.

You seemed so sure he was scum yourself after a mere 4 pages, now you're basing it on other peoples thoughts? What gives?

Your interpretation of my read of him was wrong; it still hasn't changed.

It's the absoluteness of your posts that gives me a funny vibe. It also appears that's against your meta.

It is.

IceGuy wrote:I'm waiting for SC's explanation to pass judgment on him.

This doesn't make sense. If you're waiting for SC's defense, then you obviously believe the attacks against him have some merit.

MoI- IS for some bizarre reason I thought that Internet Stranger was in this game, but he isn't he's in the Ghostbusters game which Im currently modding and some of the other players in this game are also in that, so Im getting mixed up. My bad.

Oh and for the record MoI just because you have that best newbie badge by your name doesn't make your opinion automatically right and I would rather that you and Thor dont patronise me either.

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:

Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.

I haven't voted yet, so you can't judge the logic behind my votes.

Technicality. You threatened to hammer - which is INTENT to vote. My argument and concerns remain valid.

↑ Yates wrote:

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:

Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.

I haven't voted yet, so you can't judge the logic behind my votes.

Technicality. You threatened to hammer - which is INTENT to vote. My argument and concerns remain valid.

I disagree. There is a very strong difference between hammering and threatening to hammer.
Hammering is equivalent to lynching.
Threatening to hammer draws pressure votes off a wagon, which means that I can see who's serious and who isn't.

Again, that has nothing to do with anything. Go reread the post because I am not going to argue in circles about context. CONTEXT is everything.

Nacho wrote: This is correct.

Really? Hmmm … I think I may have to vote for you after all …

Nacho wrote: My opinion of his alignment hasn't changed since my first post.

So you think he is scum but refuse to vote for him ….

--

Iceguy wrote: Let me just remind you this "crap" caught scum-MoI redhanded.

And it also 'caught' Town MoI red-handed. Convienant you omit that little fact, huh?

Not to mention the fact that ‘caught scum’ MoI coasted to win at endgame while Town Vengeful MoI was lynched and managed to take down more scum than you.

Kthksbye ….

Iceguy wrote:MISREPCEPTION!

A misrep of what I call a misrep!

Look, fluffly filler. Are you saying you aren’t using misrep in the term it is generally accepted here on MS – that of a purposeful statement that does not reflect the actual intention of the person being commented on?

Iceguy wrote:He followed you onto SC, as well.

So what? Do you find his ‘following’ unwarranted by the posting in thread (aka he has no reason to find Stranger scummy)?

Iceguy wrote:I already explained it approximately seven hundred times.

More fluff. Quit dodging the question – it is a simple Yes or No answer … can you not handle that?

↑ jerobbo wrote:I Think it does, I fail to see how anyone can be so sure that someone is scum after 4 pages.

What arbitrary page number do you prefer to use? Some people are fond of 10 pages. I always say 1 page.
I suspect we're all wrong and the actual answer is 'after a good scumtell, which can come on any page' but I choose to ignore that because I'm too awesome for logic.

↑ SnakePlissken wrote:I would rather that you and Thor dont patronise me either.

I never patronized you or passed judgement on any action you took this game. So I can't really apologize - all I said was if MoI thought your reads were bad, yadda, yadda.

What's your read on Nacho?

@Nacho - threatening to hammer is still stated intent to vote, which he can certainly react to. Do you think his vote is bad? I actually am taking it as a town tell currently.

The MoI and Icy walls are going to become a problem soon, aren't they? Stay on target guys - I don't care about the other game stuff because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:

Iceguy wrote: Let me just remind you this "crap" caught scum-MoI redhanded.

And it also 'caught' Town MoI red-handed. Convienant you omit that little fact, huh?

Well, if you wouldn't have behaved so scummy (and later explained it away as "oh I wasn't caring too much whether I appear town because I'm vengeful" because you, for some reason, are unable to admit you've played anything less than STELLAR) you wouldn't have been lynched.

Not to mention the fact that ‘caught scum’ MoI coasted to win at endgame while Town Vengeful MoI was lynched and managed to take down more scum than you.

Let's not forget MoI wouldn't have won if there wouldn't have been quickhammering town idiots.

But go ahead and keep spinning your failures as successes.

Look, fluffly filler. Are you saying you aren’t using misrep in the term it is generally accepted here on MS – that of a purposeful statement that does not reflect the actual intention of the person being commented on?

I'm using misrep in the common MS sense. You're misrepping me, saying I'm using misrep in another sense. That's misrepception.

So what? Do you find his ‘following’ unwarranted by the posting in thread (aka he has no reason to find Stranger scummy)?

I found it suspicious enough to say I'd be ready to put my vote on him two pages into D1. Make of that what you want.

More fluff. Quit dodging the question – it is a simple Yes or No answer … can you not handle that?

IS BANDWAGONNING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT, ESPECIALLY EARLY DAY 1, A SCUMTELL?

Stop asking loaded questions whose non-loaded versions have already been answered a million times, and you'll get an answer.

Magna wrote:So you think he is scum but refuse to vote for him …

Voting him would be a detriment to lynching him. No other player in this game at this time would be willing to put down the hammer vote.

Yates wrote:Again, that has nothing to do with anything. Go reread the post because I am not going to argue in circles about context. CONTEXT is everything.

Yes, it is.

Thor665 wrote:@Nacho - threatening to hammer is still stated intent to vote, which he can certainly react to. Do you think his vote is bad? I actually am taking it as a town tell currently.

Yates is town, and the vote itself certainly isn't unwarranted.

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:So where was I?

@Pops

– while I appreciate the meta-humor in you adopting a aura of Cool Inscrutability in a Darox-Mod game I think I’m going to see something in the way of actual reads from you.

It's page four, I don't have m/any reads yet. When I get some, you'll know about them.

MoI wrote:
Is RBT scum? You seemed to pick up on her pretty quick in Box Office.

The mere mention of that game ignites primal rage from the depths of my soul. Please refer to it as "the game we do not speak of". Or better yet, don't refer to it at all.
I don't have a read on her yet.

MoI wrote:

Pops wrote:Serious image management when he metas himself, survivor-scum tell.

His position on the RVS stage seems like a wave that appears like a particle if you observe it. It's unproductive, yet he participates in it, thus encouraging it.

I'm either 0/2 or 1/2.

I’d give you credit for 2/2 there but you didn’t vote Coug so no cookie Pops …

To be perfectly honest, there's some players I feel I can read leaps and bounds better by LyLo than I can with a day or two posts. I try to reorder lynch decisions (inb4lininguplynches) so that I'm lynching people that my opinion is unlikely to change about with more material before people that are much easier to read with a large amount of material. I guess you could say it's the opposite of lynching killa 7 d1 - it's lynching a player who has an abundance of info on Dlast last, rather than lynching someone who will have 0 info on Dlast first. (killa 7 might have been before your time, guy basically never posted anything that remotely resembled content.)

Since I last posted about Coug, he has crossed the line into somewhat-scummy-even-for-coug territory, but I still don't like him as a Page 4 lynch.

↑ IceGuy wrote:

Everybody who still claims "BUT YOU WERE ALSO NOT ACTIVE FOR A DAY SO YOUR POINT IS INVALID" gets a scum cookie. A delicious, poisoned scum cookie.

Really now? Because they're wrong, and therefore, scummy? Wrong =/= scummy, and failure to understand your point is something that I'm not remotely surprised to see from town players from a variety of skill levels. You seem like you're more concerned with creating a platform of righteousness and jumping onto it to stay dry from the flood than you are concerned with actually discerning the alignments of the people attacking you.

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:
If I had posted an intent to hammer and no one unvoted in response, then that means a serious wagon was formed on SC on page 4. And any player who has a wagon on them comprised of serious votes on Page 4 is either scum or a serious liability.

It's our old friend, Sufficiently Stupid VI Townies Are Scum Too. It's usually just a mafia theory flaw/disagreement, but you only mention it here, in several other places you describe Coug as straight up scum.

nachomamma wrote:

Yates wrote:What? This is very unlike the Town-Nacho that was recently lynched in an ongoing game. The Town-Nacho was much more logical with his votes and was against pressure votes Day 1.

I haven't voted yet, so you can't judge the logic behind my votes. Also, I haven't expressed an opinion in this game approving of pressure votes.

[/quote]
First off, Yates, Don't Talk About Ongoing Games. Sitewide rule.

Second, if anything Nachomamma has been discouraging pressure votes, he forced pressure voters to unvote Coug by threatening to hammer. He is consistent on that matter.

Thor wrote:The MoI and Icy walls are going to become a problem soon, aren't they? Stay on target guys - I don't care about the other game stuff because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Yes, this is probably good advice. I need to remember that Iceguy comes at the game from the “I am better than anyone else” stance regardless of alignment. I also need to look at XKCD Mafia for some things now that it has ended.

--

Iceguy wrote:I'm using misrep in the common MS sense. You're misrepping me, saying I'm using misrep in another sense. That's misrepception.

Asking questions to clarify positions isn’t misrepping. One day you’ll learn that.

Otherwise the rest of your response is couched in “I’m going to avoid actually giving solid answers here so I can’t be called on it regardless of how things turn out”. Noted. Done wasting pixels on you currently.

--

Nacho wrote:Voting him would be a detriment to lynching him. No other player in this game at this time would be willing to put down the hammer vote.

That’s a pretty stupid assumption. Meanwhile I’ll go on record and say your absolute commitment to not voting when you have someone you are calling scum is in-itself scummy.

--

Pops wrote:It's page four, I don't have m/any reads yet. When I get some, you'll know about them

Perfectly fair. I’ll be waiting.

Pops wrote:To be perfectly honest, there's some players I feel I can read leaps and bounds better by LyLo than I can with a day or two posts. I try to reorder lynch decisions (inb4lininguplynches) so that I'm lynching people that my opinion is unlikely to change about with more material before people that are much easier to read with a large amount of material. I guess you could say it's the opposite of lynching killa 7 d1 - it's lynching a player who has an abundance of info on Dlast last, rather than lynching someone who will have 0 info on Dlast first. (killa 7 might have been before your time, guy basically never posted anything that remotely resembled content.)

Let me see if I can summarize this –

You’d rather lynch those players who will not change your early opinion of them with a wealth of material (aka living to LYLO) before those players who will give you more readable information if they live that long.

Is that correct?

--

Snake wrote:Oh and for the record MoI just because you have that best newbie badge by your name doesn't make your opinion automatically right and I would rather that you and Thor dont patronise me either.

You may think it is patronizing you but I’m very interested in your thought process.

You, as Town, played in a certain manner in that game. A manner that I think objectively could be described as not working out. I’m wanting to know – did you learn anything form the process? Did you go back, look at what conclusions got drawn from the gambit, compare them to actual results, and look to revise either your analysis process or your general game-play.

Magna wrote:That’s a pretty stupid assumption. Meanwhile I’ll go on record and say your absolute commitment to not voting when you have someone you are calling scum is in-itself scummy.

Why is that?
I'm clearly taking a position.

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Why is that?I'm clearly taking a position.

Because you are taking a position that your actions don't back-up. Not voting your scum suspect because no-one else would be willing to hammer (especially considering he isn't even at L-2 right now AFAIS) is a pretty poor reason why IMO.

It's the same core reasoning why FOS Partner, Vote Town is still a fairly viable scum-tell.

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:

Thor wrote:The MoI and Icy walls are going to become a problem soon, aren't they? Stay on target guys - I don't care about the other game stuff because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Pops wrote:To be perfectly honest, there's some players I feel I can read leaps and bounds better by LyLo than I can with a day or two posts. I try to reorder lynch decisions (inb4lininguplynches) so that I'm lynching people that my opinion is unlikely to change about with more material before people that are much easier to read with a large amount of material. I guess you could say it's the opposite of lynching killa 7 d1 - it's lynching a player who has an abundance of info on Dlast last, rather than lynching someone who will have 0 info on Dlast first. (killa 7 might have been before your time, guy basically never posted anything that remotely resembled content.)

Let me see if I can summarize this –

You’d rather lynch those players who will not change your early opinion of them with a wealth of material (aka living to LYLO) before those players who will give you more readable information if they live that long.

Is that correct?

Yes

Ugh... lost my response to MagnaofIllusion. I'm being rushed, so let me get dinner before I respond.

StrangerCoug (4) - MagnaofIllusion, Thor665, farside22, SnakePlissken
IceGuy (2) - StrangerCoug, popsofctown
NachoMamma8 (2) - Riceballtail, Yates
Thor665 (1) - whispersilk
Yates (1) - jerobbo
enomis (1) - IceGuy

Not voting (2) - enomis, NachoMamma8

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:

Stranger wrote: That was pretty much it, admittedly.

So your vote on Thor was because you thought he was being serious in his policy lynching discussion.

Yes.

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Have you ever played with Thor before?

Yes. The only game that comes to immediate mind is a mini normal that we just finished but I swear we've been in more than that.

↑ farside22 wrote:@SC: I read post 44. I don't see anything about your case or reasoning other then talking about PL. Is that the reason you found Thor scummy?

Yes.

↑ farside22 wrote:If so why was it only scummy when he voted you?

It wasn't. Context implies that I considered him scummy just before he voted me. I mention that I'm anti-PL, then Thor665 goes and says he's serious about it.

↑ IceGuy wrote:StrangerCoug, what is your "case" on me again?

Re-reading/ISOing you after your answer.

I don't like the fact that you accused enomis of lurking when the two posts he made are closer together than the two posts you made. Yes, we've been through this for the millionth time now. You claim it's lurking along with "voting the prevalent wagon with a non-sequitur." The lurking accusation is still incorrect and you have misrepresented the case on you as you supporting a lurker lynch. My problem is mainly with the hypocrisy, though I've also brought up the issue about the time enomis spend without a post being too short for me to consider as being lurking.

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:No one asked you to claim.

It's common to claim at L-1. Even though I was back down to L-2 when I made my refusal, I'm not claiming when there's more discussion to be had in the day.

↑ Nachomamma8 wrote:Why are you ignoring the wagon on you?

Most of my wagon consists of people voting me either for stuff that I have defended already or out of opportunism.

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Have you ever played with Thor before?

Yes. The only game that comes to immediate mind is a mini normal that we just finished but I swear we've been in more than that.

Yeah, this feels like it has to be at least 3rd or 4th time - I usually forget people unless I've played with them a few times.

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Farside needs a refresher course in using quotes

--

farside wrote:I answered that here
In addition I don't like BW votes with no reasoning. The fact that emonis didn't disappear after being called out gives me pause on my initial reaction to his post.

I don't like Snakes vote or reasoning for his vote on SC. Weak reasoning there.......more later.

Yes, I saw that response. I specifically wanted to see if you would elaborate on the points I asked about.

Do you have difficulties in getting good reads when you play with players like faraday or CES who really never justify their votes and generally think bandwagonning is a way to get information?

I recall CES from Draft Mafia and faraday more from American Gods, although I know we were in other games. Honestly Faraday usually reads scummy from what I remember of him. CES is not someone I can say. If a person votes without a reason or follows without comments like OGML did in AG then yes I'm on them pretty hard on them.

↑ SnakePlissken wrote:

Also Faraday it's hard to be ultra detailed when several others have already voted on a person and you agree with them, especially on day 1 when its nigh impossible without a ridiculous scum slip to be 100% sure of anything, so feel free to try that on day 2, but on day 1 that isn't going to wash with me.

I assume you mean me and not Faraday. There is more then SC in the game. You could give view of others as well.

↑ jerobbo wrote:
It's the absoluteness of your posts that gives me a funny vibe. It also appears that's against your meta.

Why do you automatically believe one person who claims that Nacho's post is against his meta?

Nacho wrote:No. It's a useless vote if the town's not willing to lynch him.

This makes no sense. You don't typically not vote someone or wait till it's a lynch and I never found you thinking voting is useless unless the person is being lynched.

SC wrote:It wasn't. Context implies that I considered him scummy just before he voted me. I mention that I'm anti-PL, then Thor665 goes and says he's serious about it.

But you didn't vote him at the time it "bothered you" why did you wait to vote?



Reading Iceguy/Moi back and forth reminds me of that 70's show mafia. Both of you need to stop the back and forth and focus on others.

↑ farside22 wrote:

SC wrote:It wasn't. Context implies that I considered him scummy just before he voted me. I mention that I'm anti-PL, then Thor665 goes and says he's serious about it.

But you didn't vote him at the time it "bothered you" why did you wait to vote?

Before he said he was serious about it, I took it as an RVS bandwagon vote.