Mafiascum.net

I'm actually thinking that his reason for voting Feysal is a bit too unorthodox for scum to likely use and more likely genuine. Not a strong townread, but not a scumread anymore.



I don't really have anything new to say about him though.

↑ Rob14 wrote:But that's not a fair binary to create. You're suggesting your choices were to defend him before he defended himself or when he was already dead. You could also have waited and defended him after he defended himself but before the lynch occurred. You had a third option. This is a false dilemma. Not only do you deprive yourself and others of Feysal's response by doing what you did, but you also deprive yourself of the responses of others to Feysal's response. Even if you 100% knew Feysal was town (masons or w/e), you as town would still want to let him defend himself to see how his wagon adjusts. You can see if anyone is tunneling, using bad logic, looking for a quick and easy lynch, etc. As scum, you don't care much for all that jazz, so you don't mind as much cutting off discussion with an early defense.

It was sarcastic. Clearly I was not going to let him get lynched. I could have done anything, but chose not to.

meh, If you want to talk about false dilemma, we could make on of your own point. Having a wagon on feysal is not the singular and only way in existence to get a read on people. Every game does not start with a feysal wagon, yet people can somehow magically get reads on other people and feysal as well. Amazing!

Jabb wrote:You said you didn't like d3x's posts. We asked why. Obviously we have no interest in expressing my opinion on the d3x slot before you explain what is it that you did not like from his posts, because doing so is an easy way out for you. Stop dodging and whining; no one ever said that we need to engage in a dialog with you. Unlike you, we do not make major appeals to our biggest scumread for that scumread to read us as Town.

Is this empire speaking? Anyways, you're being annoying and also have a weird superiority complex going on. Engaging with me instead of just spewing pedagogy lets you figure out my alignment and let me figure out yours. I don't automatically assume everyone I initially think is scum is scum at all. I've asked you many questions you've ignored, yet you act as if they never happened. (and Easy way out of what?)

And yeah, I have a scumread on sotty, but I've change my mind in mafia games. I'm not making a major appeal for anything. I want to figure out if my read is solid or not.

Other head here, reporting for duty. Managed to go through this thing (man, you guys wall more than I do) and talk it over with Tierce. Here’s where I’m at now with my reads, if you guys need clarification or elaboration on anything, let me know.



Very much liked his entrance into the thread and discussion regarding the “inverted teams” towntell as it comes off as a genuine attempt to learn more about the game, reinforced by his response to Herodotus in #25. Rather than try to suck up to the more experienced players in the room, including our slot which he played with in a recently finished game, he locked himself into taking an against-the-grain stance on Feysal and his wagon by calling him town. I think, as scum, he would have been more willing to sheep the wagon. The townslip in #28 regarding fakeclaims also comes off as very unforced. #97 is a wonderful post – his explanation for demanding an answer to his question comes off as a legit attempt to try and read us and I’m loving the rationale he puts forth for voting Ludi (esp. the “false dilemma” bit).

I think his criticism of Ludi in #75 where he focuses on the exaggerated nature of Ludi’s defense of Feysal is a very valid one. I also like the way it develops naturally in the second half of the post where he waxes theory on the purpose of early wagons and criticizes Ludi for interrupting the process by defending Feysal before he has a chance to defend himself (complete with the distinction between defending someone and supplying one’s defense). His read on Herodotus and the way it develops comes off as very natural and genuine – from thinking his reasoning for voting Feysal sucks to ultimately voting him for his passivity while also being conflicted over the way the wagon is forming.

I think the points Zach brought up in the early game re: Ludi’s quick defense of Feysal is entirely understandable and the way he expresses them with frustration in #23/#49 to be genuine (e.g., “I hate this wifomy defense. I hate the fact that it's coming from you and not him even more.”). Sotty coming in and clarifying the reasoning behind pushing along the Feysal wagon as a way to get the game out of RVS was fairly townie too. And I actually rather liked the question Sotty pitched to Feysal in #50 as it forces Feysal to take a stance on what has now become the focus of the conversation. Overall, I think the criticism they bring up against Ludi’s defense of Feysal re: its timing is perfectly legitimate and I like that they are still trying to figure him out (see: Sotty’s line about him possibly having “a case of the egos”).

I liked #48 where he admits he has no scumreads. I think as scum he’d have fabricated reasoning to move his vote elsewhere and especially would have taken advantage of the conflict going on revolving around Ludi/sottyrulez or even moved his vote onto Herodotus. His keeping his vote on Feysal while pondering his reads comes off like he is genuinely trying to figure the game out. I also think him admitting to using Feysal as a vote parking space is fairly townie – scum are generally more image conscious and wouldn’t want to draw attention to that kind of act.

I find that DV’s a pretty tricky one to figure out as I think he plays a capable scum game – that said, based off my (very rudimentary) understanding of his meta, he tends to be very tryhard as scum and I’m not getting that impression this game at all. I think he’d have been more involved with his reasoning for suspecting Ludi/Herodotus in #40 as scum. I also liked his criticism of Herodotus in #40 since I got the impression from Herodotus’ reasoning (see below). Also, the other less pretty head is telling me that #30 is typical town DV – post something to draw attention to himself as a way to dig into the game and gauge reactions. His follow-up on Ludi in #40 (“ML, why did you FoS me before attempting to understand my thoughts, assuming I did not have a reason to vote for Herod?”) reinforces that idea.



Another player I find difficult to get a handle of mostly due to the meticulous nature of his posting style (and which I’m told is generally perceived as scummy). I thought his first post, in light of what the other head posted re: MLP meta, was fairly scummy and seemed like a naked attempt to grab some cred. While I didn’t like his later response in #33 (e.g., “Fascinating. My opening post seems to have generated all the discussion I hoped for, although not for the reasons I expected.”) as it felt like a lolreactions backpedal-type defense, I do see his reasoning regarding his Rob townread/his Herodotus vote and his recognition that the “inverted teams” tell didn’t work in the other game checks out. Need to see some more from him to be able to gauge his alignment here.

Really conflicted here. I agree with the general sentiment that his “lowering town morale” reasoning for joining the Feysal wagon in #17 was really terrible – comes off like he’s trying to distance himself from the reasoning behind the wagon while at the same time stretching himself to join it. However, I do like his #38 as it comes off like a genuine attempt to analyze the Feysal wagon and I like his interpretation of DV’s line of inquiry – it doesn’t read like he’s trying to placate DV but rather actually trying to figure out his alignment (also, the vote parking admission thing applies here too). I think my main issue here, much like d3x’s, is the passivity of his play but that could just be his playstyle (note to self: meta-check Herodotus).



Really not getting how some people are on the fence here, fairly sure this guy is scum. As so many have pointed out, his premature defense of Feysal at #14 when he only gathered two votes and well before Feysal had an opportunity to respond was very anti-town, unnecessary, and ill-timed. His case on sottyrulez is frankly terrible (no, the question to Feysal isn’t filler – see above) and I agree with the other head that he comes off as he’s trying to shoehorn scum intent into their posts rather than trying to analyze their motivations. Even funnier still is the premature FoS on DV in #37 without making any sort of effort to try and discern his motivations for making the post (ironically, this is what he’s accusing sottyrulez of doing re: himself). His reactions to pressure are ridiculously exaggerated and filled with overblown and hollow rhetoric. Choice cuts include: #46 (“And stop being so damn pedantic”), #59 (the entire sarcastic brush-off), #65 (“I am not ‘oddly concerned’ (whatever that means)”), #67 (“I play how I wanna play, I say what I wanna say”). His appeal to sottyrulez in #83 is terrible – there is literally no town motivation to appeal to your top scumread in this fashion – and his chiding lurkers in #84 is completely disingenuous and unnecessary given that two of the three slots are V/LA. #91/#94 contain more puffery posturing and mudslinging language (e.g.,” I'm not spinning everything into scum motivation, that's false and a lie.”/” You're not trying to engage in any sort of dialogue here…”) especially considering that Tierce has been responding to what he’s been saying and is just trying to discredit our push (ironic considering that he has dodged the question re: his read on d3x). Please for the love of god vote this guy off the island.



(Literally voting him again, that’s how confident I am in this dude being scum. Needs more sheeping please.)

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:Is this empire speaking? Anyways, you're being annoying and also have a weird superiority complex going on.

Actually, the post below you is the only thing I have posted this entire game so far. But thanks for making a baseless assumption about my personality, really adds to the whole scummy discrediting us thing.

Asking if you were empire is not making a baseless assumption about your personality. You've literally got everyone who think I am scum as town and anyone who thinks I am town scum. The last time I had to deal with this tunneling was with mastin, and that was not enjoyable at all. You are claiming really outlandish things. 67 was a randy moss quote, which is why is was directed at the two who live in Minnesota.

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:Asking if you were empire is not making a baseless assumption about your personality.

It is when you follow it up with claims that I'm "being annoying" and having a "superiority complex" (well, I am both of those things, but that's besides the point).

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:You've literally got everyone who think I am scum as town and anyone who thinks I am town scum. The last time I had to deal with this tunneling was with mastin, and that was not enjoyable at all. You are claiming really outlandish things. 67 was a randy moss quote, which is why is was directed at the two who live in Minnesota.

This is a gross oversimplification of my stances. If you actually bothered to read my post (and there's no way you possibly could have given the amount of time it took you to reply), you'd have seen that my stances on those players are independent of our scumread on you. While yes, some of them do reach the (correct) conclusion that you're scum, it's the process that counts.

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:meh, If you want to talk about false dilemma, we could make on of your own point. Having a wagon on feysal is not the singular and only way in existence to get a read on people. Every game does not start with a feysal wagon, yet people can somehow magically get reads on other people and feysal as well. Amazing!

That's stretching what I said quite a bit beyond what any reasonable person would take it to mean. I never said that we had to choose between wagoning feysal and not scum-hunting at all. The implication that I did is just...well, I'll let it speak for itself.

We didn't to have a Feysal wagon to start the game, of course. But the reality is we have one. What you do from there is what determines how I'm going to view your play. And what you did was waltz into an ongoing wagon and attempt to shut it down before any useful information could be gained from Feysal or the members of his wagon.

↑ sottyrulez wrote:Okay I see I have to be a little clearer about this. Feysal, what do

you

think of ML's defense of you before you had even posted and his subsequent attacks on us as a result?

So that was what you meant, makes more sense.

I don't think Ludi's early defense of me was nearly as suspicious as has been claimed. I could see a town player expressing an opinion on another player, particularly one they were familiar with, without waiting for said player to comment himself. For instance in Dance with Dragons where I actually was scum, my supposed multiball slip was defended by town both before and after I had commented on it, while my entire team bussed me. I'm less certain of how well Ludi thinks he knows me, since we have only played once before, it was months ago, and the outcome was not pleasant.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure how well you know me either. I can only remember playing against you in Stars Aligned III two years ago. I seem to have gained a reputation of being poor as scum, which I believe I deserve, and easy to read as town, eventually. Given that, I highly doubt any partners would stick their neck out for me if I stuck out like that in my first post, making your chainsaw accusation sound quite absurd. You will need to do your homework if you expect to read me correctly.

I think Ludi is more likely town than not. From my personal point of view his actions seem town motivated. There is of course the possibility of white knighting, but scum don't really want to succeed at it, they just want to look good when the town they defended is lynched. I think Ludi's defense was too strong for that and showed too much effort, when I would have expected it to be more half-hearted if it came from scum. I can see some examples of posturing in his posts however, and I don't really know how to read him. I tried to get a meta read on him, but after skimming a few games, I had to conclude he was simply unpredictable.

Something I find strange is Ludi's defense of Herodotus. Ludi declares him to be unimpeachable, and I have no idea what his reason is.

I don't have a read on you yet either way. I'm not sold by Ludi's case on you, and I could explain away some of your oddities by not being familiar with my play, but I don't have much reason to believe you are town either.

↑ Herodotus wrote:@Feysal: Do you think town sometimes use poor excuses to join an easy wagon?

I think scum are much more likely to do so. They want to look like they are scumhunting on their own instead of just following the crowd, so they can feel pressured to come up with additional reasons to vote and join a popular wagon. Sure, town can do it too, since town can pretty much do anything, but they don't really need to make excuses.

↑ Herodotus wrote:How did you see your comment generating discussion more useful than waiting to see what someone else might say?

Someone has to make the first move. I figured it might as well be me. I'm usually much too passive anyway to the point of being called a lurker, so I should try to get involved from the start.

To respond to all this exciting accusations.

I'm actually tired of defending myself for posting a defense of myself for commenting about feysal. My post was half about you meta attacking him and also about the confusion about the flavor in this game. For reference, this was the quote that has you up in arms, to which you asked for an explanation, which is when I elaborated. Not only was it warranted, I would do it again. I fail to see how it was anti-town at the time I posted it at all. It helped, I'm sure, present a different to side of the story than you were presenting.



I can't believe you pulled out the 'shoehorn scum intent' line, considering I've tried to engage them with conversation about what they were doing and why they posted some of the things they did. Everything I pointed out that I had a problem with comes from actual fact, and from there I try and figure out if scum would rather do it than town. Just because you think scum (or town) act a little different than me does not make ME scum for thinking differently than you.

As for FOS DV, I fos a lot of people. When I see something that jumps out, as my gut did when I saw his post, I will comment on it. Like i've said before, retroactively explaining things doesn't diminish the sensation I have at the time someone posts something.

As for appealing to sottyrulex in posts 83, here is what I posted

ML wrote: As for claiming "manipulative" which I don't think I ever used, I tried to back up what I was saying with quotes and clear examples. If you think I am being the same way, tell me and I can clear up the confusion and tell you what I meant.

Which is almost exactly of what you accuse me of not doing. I try and deepen my read on sotty (and help anyone watching) by asking them what about the clear bullet points I posted they disagreed with or claimed were manipulative. That is why i find your comment about this crazy;

His appeal to sottyrulez in #83 is terrible – there is literally no town motivation to appeal to your top scumread in this fashion

there is every reason in the world to talk to someone like this. I could change my read on them depending on their response, I could entice others to vote, really only good things could happen.

And lastly, when I claim things are a Lie, I'm telling the truth. If you think you were telling the truth on something I called a lie, back it up with quotes, otherwise you're just blowing smoke. The things I said you were making up, made up.

Rob wrote:We didn't have to have a Feysal wagon to start the game, of course. But the reality is we did have one. What you do from there is what determines how I'm going to view your play. And what you did was waltz into an ongoing wagon and attempt to shut it down before any useful information could be gained from Feysal or the members of his wagon.

We had two votes, which is when I posted what I did. I still don't understand why you think a feysal wagon is the only way to get information. The town gains information by simply playing the game, its not as if you feel deprived of information because feysal wasn't wagoned, do you?

--
@Feysal; I believe we played multiple games, another game I remember is Plum's game, and I think you were in a few games I modded or help design, perhaps chrono trigger and a few others. As for Herod, one of the reasons is the excellent feelings I get from his play. I can expand further upon this, but a lot of his thought process he has I followed well and agreed with, and he looks to genuinely be looking for scum and trying to reason out who is town or not. He doesn't bs a scum suspect to simply have one, and tries to diffuse the argument me and sotty are having when scum have no real reason to do that. He appears to play very closely to Succession Mafia Two, where he was town.

↑ d3x wrote:I do take a bit of issue with this line of thought. I think it's fine to defend a player against a Wagon that you don't agree with, but I think it's more important to have the Wagonee defend him/herself {preferrably first}. A huge part of Wagons {esp early ones} is to get a reaction from the person you're Wagoning to get a better read on them. If someone steps in and tries to crush it before getting a response, I think you are largely defeating the purpose. Supplying someone's defense =/= defending someone, imo. At this point, I'm thinking null leaning scummy on ML. Nothing really hard, but worth watching.

It is worth noting that I feel like ML is trying to paint himself as Scum in sotty's eyes. I just don't get the vibe that sotty is coming after ML, just more of debating. ML is, however, trying to say sotty is painting him scummy and building cases against him. I could be wrong here, but I'm just not seeing it in sotty's posts.

At this juncture, I'm fine Unvoting and I like it here...

Vote: Herodotus

This post is why I think d3x is scum. Its a mixture of gut and what I've seen scum do. His whole first paragraph looks quite fence sitting, but designed to express some suspicion of me, so that if does ultimately end up voting me he can point back here and say he was thinking about it, but if the wagon goes away he can simply move somewhere else. And I found his action of voting Herod bad, even though he provides reason. I suspect he wanted to give the wagon a little extra push but decided it was a relatively safe place to put his vote, virtually no heat could be garnered on his slot. (and I think herod is really town here) His whole post seemed 'safe', which I've seen so many times from scum that I raised a point about it.

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:As for Herod, one of the reasons is the excellent feelings I get from his play. I can expand further upon this, but a lot of his thought process he has I followed well and agreed with, and he looks to genuinely be looking for scum and trying to reason out who is town or not. He doesn't bs a scum suspect to simply have one, and tries to diffuse the argument me and sotty are having when scum have no real reason to do that. He appears to play very closely to Succession Mafia Two, where he was town.

By all means, expand on this. Namely giving quotes and examples that support what you are saying.


Your 'meta defense' of Feysal? Feysal himself said it was incorrect, that he makes occasional mistakes. So no, it doesn't make any kind of sense that you would "do it again" re: defending him and haven't even deigned to look at his posts where he says that the basis for your defense of him was invalid. No; you just called him a Townread on page 1 (a strong enough one that you found it necessary to shoo off two votes, "or four", or "however many or waiting in the wings" or words to that effect), and never went back and reanalyzed the worth of your defense. Your "other perspective"? It was . And while Feysal has presented a capable explanation as to why he would make that first post post-MLP, you haven't taken in consideration, just your original defense with arguments that the man himself professes to be invalid.

Magister Ludi wrote:

↑ d3x wrote:I do take a bit of issue with this line of thought. I think it's fine to defend a player against a Wagon that you don't agree with, but I think it's more important to have the Wagonee defend him/herself {preferrably first}. A huge part of Wagons {esp early ones} is to get a reaction from the person you're Wagoning to get a better read on them. If someone steps in and tries to crush it before getting a response, I think you are largely defeating the purpose. Supplying someone's defense =/= defending someone, imo. At this point, I'm thinking null leaning scummy on ML. Nothing really hard, but worth watching.

It is worth noting that I feel like ML is trying to paint himself as Scum in sotty's eyes. I just don't get the vibe that sotty is coming after ML, just more of debating. ML is, however, trying to say sotty is painting him scummy and building cases against him. I could be wrong here, but I'm just not seeing it in sotty's posts.

At this juncture, I'm fine Unvoting and I like it here...

Vote: Herodotus

This post is why I think d3x is scum. Its a mixture of gut and what I've seen scum do. His whole first paragraph looks quite fence sitting, but designed to express some suspicion of me, so that if does ultimately end up voting me he can point back here and say he was thinking about it, but if the wagon goes away he can simply move somewhere else. And I found his action of voting Herod bad, even though he provides reason. I suspect he wanted to give the wagon a little extra push but decided it was a relatively safe place to put his vote, virtually no heat could be garnered on his slot. (and I think herod is really town here) His whole post seemed 'safe', which I've seen so many times from scum that I raised a point about it.

"What I've seen scum do" is crap reasoning. Either provide examples or shut it.
By taking that section of Post 75 out of context, you are also ignoring the first half of the post, in which d3x expressed what are some of the issues he has with you: the aggressiveness of your Feysal defense (and I don't really give a damn how tired you are of defending it; you are the one behind it, now deal with it) over the timing, and the way you are overreaching in the sottyrulez case; on the second half, he says that he doesn't think your defense was helpful to the Town and that he does not see your reasoning on wagons as valid, and that you are misrepresenting the way that sottyrulez is viewing/analyzing you. This is not fence-sitting, this is an attempt to analyze your actions and their motivations. You seem to be accusing him of being scum because he didn't immediately make up his mind on your alignment. Fence-sitting (oh hey, a "buzzword"!) would involve defending you at some level, which he's not doing. Having a "null-scummy" read and explaining its reasoning isn't fencesitting.

You don't seem to have any kind of issue with his reasoning for voting Herodotus, just with the timing. Considering that your defense of Herodotus has yet to show any kind of substance to it (there is a lot of wrapping Herodotus in fancy words and a lot of nothing where it comes to backing it up), this feels like yet more empty posturing--you are not refuting d3x's reasons for the vote, just making some vague accusations that it was a 'safe' vote without backing it up with . Like you are doing with sottyrulez, you are trying to ascribe scum intent to actions without looking into potential motivations.

-- The not-as-pretty "annoying" half who has a "weird superiority complex".

Empire, where does your understanding of my meta come from?

By all means, do expand on this. Namely giving quotes and examples that support what you are saying.

I ask you to do the same for me, but you don't see to want to do it. Have you been reading his iso? He clearly does everything I said. He claims not to have a scum read at the moment and only town ones, and comments on me vs. shotty as potentially being town on town.

Your 'meta defense' of Feysal? Feysal himself said it was incorrect, that he makes occasional mistakes. So no, it doesn't make any kind of sense that you would "do it again" re: defending him and haven't even deigned to look at his posts where he says that the basis for your defense of him was invalid. No; you just called him a Townread on page 1 (a strong enough one that you found it necessary to shoo off two votes, "or four", or "however many or waiting in the wings" or words to that effect), and never went back and reanalyzed the worth of your defense. Your "other perspective"? It was wrong. And while Feysal has presented a capable explanation as to why he would make that first post post-MLP, you haven't taken that in consideration, just your original defense with arguments that the man himself professes to be invalid.

By do it again I mean two things, 1. Defend people when I think it is warranted 2. Use meta in that situation. I call him a town read on page one, (again you just make things up) all I say is that I will not be voting there, which I strengthen only later. You misconstrue things here constantly, which is why I constantly ask you to use quotes when you claim I am saying things, especially when you have been wrong before in this game. I have indeed reanalyzed the worth of my town read on him, but his subsequent posting has all been good, and I still have my town read on him, which is no longer at all solely based on his opening post. I have never claimed I did not take new things into consideration, hell this is the first time you've brought that up.

"What I've seen scum do" is crap reasoning. Either provide examples or shut it.

I played in cyclic experiment 2 where I caught a scum who came in cautiously and I commented on it. It is what I have seen scum do, thats what It is a gut read and also why I am not voting there right now. Individual examples prove nothing, one way or the other. Just like how I'm sure my one example has swayed you to believe in my gut, (though if it did that would be nice) your one example proves nothing for me at all.

By taking that section of Post 75 out of context, you are also ignoring the first half of the post, in which d3x expressed exactly what are some of the issues he has with you: the aggressiveness of your Feysal defense (and I don't really give a damn how tired you are of defending it; you are the one behind it, now deal with it) over the timing, and the way you are overreaching in the sottyrulez case; on the second half, he says that he doesn't think your defense was helpful to the Town and that he does not see your reasoning on wagons as valid, and that you are misrepresenting the way that sottyrulez is viewing/analyzing you. This is not fence-sitting, this is an attempt to analyze your actions and their motivations. You seem to be accusing him of being scum because he didn't immediately make up his mind on your alignment. Fence-sitting (oh hey, a "buzzword"!) would involve defending you at some level, which he's not doing. Having a "null-scummy" read and explaining its reasoning isn't fencesitting.

I took nothing out of context. He claims I am only aggressive on page one, that is false (as backed up by the evidence.) Fence sitting isn't a buzzword at all when I explain clearly what I meant. I did not like his post. Your defense here is reasonable.

You don't seem to have any kind of issue with his reasoning for voting Herodotus, just with the timing. Considering that your defense of Herodotus has yet to show any kind of substance to it (there is a lot of wrapping Herodotus in fancy words and a lot of nothing where it comes to backing it up), this feels like yet more empty posturing--you are not refuting d3x's reasons for the vote, just making some vague accusations that it was a 'safe' vote without backing it up with why. Like you are doing with sottyrulez, you are trying to ascribe scum intent to actions without looking into potential motivations.

-- The not-as-pretty "annoying" half who has a "weird superiority complex".

It has more substance then a lot of the attacks you throw around. I've been pretty clear outside this game that I believe any competent mafia player can make up really good reasons to attack or defend anyone. Some players could sound reasonable voting a player and defending them in exactly the same circumstances if things warrant it. As such, I find the act to vote herod, with three votes already and the game in the state is was, an intrinsic scummy I back it up, please go read that. The vote at that time draws next to no heat and can be parlayed into a vote of me whenever the time comes, he expressed 'suspicion' enough that his vote slide wouldn't be questioned either. It is exceedingly safe. If, for instance, he tried to slam down a feysal wagon on something, he would entice comments from everywhere.

I have tried in multiple posts and stated again and again that I am trying to look into what sotty was doing, even going so far to ask them directly if anything I said was unture, which you have mocked twice and now have the gall to turn around and I claim I haven't been doing. I've taken other peoples opinion into consideration as well, used gut, and reread, quite a bit of work for page five. Obviously the point of mafia is to examine someone actions and figure out if the come from scum or town, and that's what I have been doing.

Deas, what do you think of sotty and d3x?

Ludi, if you're tired of defending yourself, why are you posting so much?

PEdit: They are pretty weak reads. Sotty is kind of townish. D3x I really want to see more from, but I haven't read jabber's reason for reading him as town, so that may affect my read.

↑ DeasVail wrote:Empire, where does your understanding of my meta come from?

Recent examples include Mafia in La-La Land (only pegged you as scum towards the end), the Pokemon UPick Mini Theme (null), the Verona Micro (incorrectly read you as scum here), and NY 157 (I followed this one a while back while it was ongoing so my memory's probably a little hazy...I I read you as town here but I can't say for sure).

I'll respond to Ludi's wall when I'm not exhausted (i.e., tomorrow).

↑ DeasVail wrote:Ludi, if you're tired of defending yourself, why are you posting so much?

Its mostly the same silly attacks I see repeated over and over masquerading in new and different ways. Everyone should always defend themselves in detail against any reasonable accusation (and against most unreasonable ones as well).

If you're town, and someone's calling you scum, either their facts are wrong, their logic is wrong, they're jumping to conclusions incorrectly, or at the very least their argument is inconclusive. One of those things must be true, and whenever someone accuses you, it's your job to say why they're wrong.

I tend to consider failure to defend yourself properly a scumtell, and defending yourself to be null at worst.

I'm also not even sure why you're voting, but I assumed you are just letting Jabb be the attack dog and agree with most of it.

For example, if I didn't respond to jabb saying I wasn't looking at Sotty's motivation, people might start to believe it is true and vote me over it, (or it would at least enter their subconscious), when this clearly isn't the case. I now have to spend some time posting and quoting the parts where they are wrong, lying, or reached the wrong conclusion. Its also a lot easier to post multiple one line attacks then to refute them thoughtfully, that requires several lines and clear logic.

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:I'm also not even sure why you're voting, but I assumed you are just letting Jabb be the attack dog and agree with most of it.

Pretty much.

Hmm ok, well I'm totally different (as town anyway) but maybe that's why I get lynched so much.

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:I

do not

call him a town read on page one, (again you just make things up) all I say is that I will not be voting there, which I strengthen only later.

In the past, you've defended your actions on page 1 regarding the Feysal wagon by saying it's appropriate to defend your This means that you had Feysal as a town read on page 1. If you'd like, I can dig up the quotes, but Jabberwock is not lying here.

↑ Jabberwock wrote:(note to self: meta-check Herodotus)

self-meta: I'm usually more aggressive, but that's because I replace into games and can start with a solid set of reads. The first 2/3 of Day 1 is a trudge for me.

↑ Feysal wrote:

↑ Herodotus wrote:@Feysal: Do you think town sometimes use poor excuses to join an easy wagon?

I think scum are much more likely to do so. They want to look like they are scumhunting on their own instead of just following the crowd, so they can feel pressured to come up with additional reasons to vote and join a popular wagon. Sure, town can do it too, since town can pretty much do anything, but they don't really need to make excuses.

If we were talking about additional serious reasons, I would agree with you. But it's laughable to claim that I thought I would look like I was scumhunting, especially considering the negative attention my stated reason for voting you received.

I would expect that by now, you would have more to say about the person you're voting than answering a pair of questions that I needed to refer you back to. You seem to have parked your vote. (I know I've kept my vote in one place, but that's different from a parked vote, because I've stated reasons for keeping it on you.)

The same is what I was looking for from rob13. When I said I wanted to see some things in his next post, I was expecting him to continue the conversation about his reasons for voting me, and whether he accepted my responses. Though he didn't comment on my response, he did move his vote, which I suppose is an excuse.

↑ Feysal wrote:

↑ Herodotus wrote:How did you see your comment generating discussion more useful than waiting to see what someone else might say?

Someone has to make the first move. I figured it might as well be me. I'm usually much too passive anyway to the point of being called a lurker, so I should try to get involved from the start.

A preemptive excuse for lurking?

I need to mention the fact that over half the posts in this game have been about Magister Ludi, and that makes it more difficult, not easier, to read him.

↑ Herodotus wrote:sotty7 ... I want to see her reads.

↑ Herodotus wrote:

↑ Herodotus wrote:sotty7 ... I want to see her reads.

She's kinda relaying her reads to me, but right now she's got a pecking order of Feysal/ML/Rob13 in terms of top scum reads. Deasvail, Jabberwock as town reads, Hero and d3x as weak town reads, and Mini Librarian as a weak scum read.

She doesn't really like that you're trying to separate our reads though, cause we kinda coalesce our differences to come to a conclusion.

Past that though, she has some reading to catch up on so these reads are before even that, and before we have even started discussing my own impressions.

↑ Jabberwock wrote:His Sotty case is a pile of preconceived BS and he's spinning every-freaking-thing the hydra says into scum motivation. Look at how he keeps adding to the case from every post. Sounds dutiful Town? No, that's scum going with crappy reasoning and hoping quantity will mask the fact that there is no actual Town thought put into his posts.

So much this.

, what's your mafia history?

Jabber's case on ML in 102 is very good. It puts a description on a lot of what I was feeling. Disagree with his Mini town read, but otherwise this is a good post.

↑ Magister Ludi wrote:Asking if you were empire is not making a baseless assumption about your personality. You've literally got everyone who think I am scum as town and anyone who thinks I am town scum. The last time I had to deal with this tunneling was with mastin, and that was not enjoyable at all.

This isn't tunneling.... Like at all. Also this page 5, tunneling pretty much isn't going to be happening yet.

↑ Feysal wrote:Come to think of it, I'm not sure how well you know me either. I can only remember playing against you in Stars Aligned III two years ago. I seem to have gained a reputation of being poor as scum, which I believe I deserve, and easy to read as town, eventually. Given that, I highly doubt any partners would stick their neck out for me if I stuck out like that in my first post, making your chainsaw accusation sound quite absurd. You will need to do your homework if you expect to read me correctly.

I'm doing little to no homework to read you correctly. I'm not a meta fan. I will read you in this game, and really that's all that should be expected of me.

Both Zach and myself played with you in SA 3 when you were scum and we stalked and murdered you (sorry, I like to work that into any convo about SA3 because game...) I have also played with you in one of Faraday's Game of Throne games when I was part of the Twilight hyrda I think? I know your style is wordy and thoughtful, but I also think that if you get anyone to post enough in the game you should be able to read them.

The fact that you came in and ignored ML's defense of you was pretty telling and that is why I called you out on it. Since you have given your opinion that I disagree with (RE: Scum wouldn't do it this way) but at least I have you on record now. I thought it was unusual that ML wasn't the first thing you would comment on when you entered the game seeing as he had helped make you the top subject in the thread so far. But I'm not you, just someone trying to figure out your intent.

MoI is V/LA on the site as far as I know. Hopefully he will be back soon, I'm guessing after the new year.

I'll admit to skimming ML's lastest posts, but I'll correct that tomorrow after work.

~Sotty