Mafiascum.net

In post 98, Nobody Special wrote:Just to be pedantic, his vote is valid. Whether or not you think it's a

good

vote is, perhaps, what I think is at question.

FoS: Rikablu

It would be a vote, but I'm too lazy to count, and I don't want to hammer.

Did you mean gene? I don't think Rikablu has any votes...
Either way, gene is currently at L-1 (if Rikablu's vote counts despite not being bolded), so not voting is the way to go.

I did not mean gene.

VOTE: Unvote

I'm gonna ease off the pressure on gene, I don't want an insta

In post 101, Nobody Special wrote:I did not mean gene.

Oh cool, happy for a break in the Me v yessiree dialogue.
I have a pretty strong town read on Rikablu so I'm interested to hear a case to the contrary!

In post 99, JKMatthews wrote:I feel sorry for whoever has to catch up with what is essentially our dialogue, but

In post 97, yessiree wrote:

In post 95, JKMatthews wrote:So... you agree that your vote looks opporunistic, but it's illogical for me to vote you for an ooportunistic-looking vote? Forgive my confusion...

The way you arrived at your conclusion from your reason showed a lack of consideration.

I see you making a vote that I think is opportunistic and just trying to get on a bandwagon, and I'm meant to think "oh well it may be innocent, so I'm not going to worry about it"? That's just not how this game is played...

In post 97, yessiree wrote:[

In post 90, yessiree wrote:

In post 57, JKMatthews wrote:Hi all, looks like I'm late to the party!
VOTE: yessirree
Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary.
Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it, clearly just jumping on the bandwagon.
I agree that gene's squirmishness is pretty scummy, but yessirree's vote makes me think gene's just lynchbait.

You jumped to conclusion that I implied that behavioral analysis is secondary.
You jumped to conclusion that I voted gene without mentioning it, jumping on the bandwagon, when I had good reason to do so.

Hence why I don't think your vote is valid.

I jumped to the conclusion that you implied something...? That's not how implication works. The words you said have an implication. By the definition of imply.
I witnessed the fact that you voted gene at the time you did, and the reasons you gave. Those things are fact. The only conclusion I reached is that there could easily be scummy motivation behind the vote, and so I voted you. I really don't understand how you can call that illogical.

It's perfectly fine to vote on me if you think I'm being an opportunistic voter. Hence why I'm not nitpicking on doctorpepper.

However, although you had a logical motive,

In post 57, JKMatthews wrote: Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary.
Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it, clearly just jumping on the bandwagon.

the way in which you worded your motive wasn't as logical. "Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary." I really hope you were being sarcastic with this statement, as behavioral analysis is KEY to progress through a game, it's what we play for; I don't know why people would play this game otherwise. "Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it...", was there a need to state? I trust you can read as well as doctorpepper?

Okay, I think I decided it would look most town of me to just ignore everyone voting me and their reasons.
And instead I will just try to look at who I think could be mafia.

in post 62 he comes in and jumps right on with what everyone else is saying about gene and yessir being maf. I think that's too obvious for maf to do, especially for someone with a little experience. so, my strongest town read right here.

despite having only two posts. mainly because he was the first to call a certain someone out on conveniently jumping on a bw, instead of doing so himself which would be beneficial if he was mafia.

. I think it's cute you use statistics. fyi it kinda makes you look like maf. but, you know I'm totally going to refer back to your statistics later on in the game when I'm looking at who could be scumteams. just to know if I have probability on my side in my hunches.

. a little scummy for voting me in post 39. I still feel like no one really had good reasons at all. and I still hink this whole bw started just to push pressure on me to watch my reaction. townie for post 42 for calling someone out for not having a good reason for joining bw. ppl joining bw is good for maf. post 52 could definitely go either way, either maf trying to set me up to look more maf, or town putting more pressure on me to see how I'll react.

. really the only posts of any worth are post 75 and post 96. scumread because he's not taking a stance on anything one way or the other, trying hard to remain neutral. but also town because his reasons seem valid.

. the only two posts that interested me were post 19 and post 53. the first I think is just slightly scummy by the way he went about dismissing the statistics thing, just seemed like being contradictory. and the second one for how he also contributed to this bw. maybe he was just trying to put pressure on me, in that case it could be town. but the way he gave me advice and told me what to do to seem town was odd. maybe he was saying it because he was trying to help. maybe it was because he knew I couldn't do it and would inevitably look more maf.

. because of post 57 where he votes yessir for talking about statistics, which sounds like grasping.
and post 63 for thinking Nobody Special is scummy by lurking. that's also a dumb reason to think anyone's maf, and it's not possible to actually know if someone's lurking or just away from computer. so, grasping.
and post 63 for thinking we can actually determine a scumteam this early on. how convenient.
and it's too soon to lynch anyone yet, so don't push yessire's lynch too soon.
post 87 appears very town

. it's really too soon to say scum with any real degree of confidence, but it's the closest I've got. I didn't want to put everyone at null. but basically posts 11, 20, 24, 26. I feel like he starts off this whole game with a very happy-go-lucky attitude. Not like arrogant or confident, but more like we are a bunch of little kids and he's going to have fun going easy on us. I know I could always be wrong, so I'm not saying this with much confidence. but in my experience, mafia ends up being the ones that were trying too hard to be town. this is what Bacde is here here, imo.

I couldn't resist, I still want to defend myself.

In post 75, Rikablu wrote:I think I'm caught up to speed now on the posts. From my understanding, the wagon on Gene has more or less started due to a sarcastic retort to a reaction-fishing question, leading to Gene's repeated defensive responses to scumhunting, rather than trying to efficiently retort and scumhunt in turn.

I'm not entirely sure how I should feel about self-admission to playing defensively (post 43).

On one hand, being a new player and getting a hefty wagon on you barely three pages in is concerning. On the other hand Gene, you repeated the admission once again, specifically after being told that town shouldn't try to prove innocence.

My gut reaction to that would be a vote on you, and I feel like I should follow through, because either you're being sincere about your lack of focus or you have motive to let this bandwagon build.

Unvote; Vote Gene[/card]

On the other hand, I'd like to ask yessiree a question: I see Post 46 being made immediately after Post 45 (as in, in the same minute). Why did you push your vote through without utilizing the additional post that Gene made to present a stronger case?

So is that what it takes for maf to seem town? to just not defend themselves? that is way too easy. you are thinking way too simplistically then. It is too easy for maf to know that the key to being read as town is to just not get defensive and no maf would ever be read as maf, ever.
I basically do whatever I feel like doing. and sometimes I feel like defending myself. so I do. if that makes me seem like maf to you all, then you're simplistic.

Also, directed at whoever said I slipped, I don't think there's any such thing as scum slips. I think it's far more likely that someone will honestly accidentally say the wrong than mafia who is going to be careful that that won't happen. but it happens more often when you are not watching for it because you don't have to.

Wow ok, so after thinking gene was just lynchbait, I'm pretty happy to call gene scum now.
Post 106 is bizarre. Your labels for people don't match your reads, and you start it by saying "I'm ignoring you so that I look town". That just hurts.

In post 104, yessiree wrote:It's perfectly fine to vote on me if you think I'm being an opportunistic voter. Hence why I'm not nitpicking on doctorpepper.

In post 104, yessiree wrote:"Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary." I really hope you were being sarcastic with this statement, as behavioral analysis is KEY to progress through a game, it's what we play for; I don't know why people would play this game otherwise. "Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it...", was there a need to state? I trust you can read as well as doctorpepper?

I'm confused... are you arguing for me now?

In post 108, JKMatthews wrote:Wow ok, so after thinking gene was just lynchbait, I'm pretty happy to call gene scum now.
Post 106 is bizarre. Your labels for people don't match your reads, and you start it by saying "I'm ignoring you so that I look town". That just hurts.

I'm not ignoring you. I'm ignoring the votes on me.

See I actually purposely put that first sentence in there knowing it would actually make me look more scummy. my point is that I don't think people actually want me to be frankly honest. my point is that I don't think town has to not worry about not seeming like maf, because clearly I do have to worry about it evidenced by people thinking my honesty is scummy.

In post 107, gene1991 wrote: I don't think there's any such thing as scum slips.

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

The Easter Bunny?

The Tooth Fairy?

Hey just checking in to say I'm still happy with my vote on gene!

If anyone wants to ask me why, go ahead! Otherwise, just vote for gene and thank me when he flips scum

In post 61, Nobody Special wrote:

In post 56, Bicephalous Bob wrote:

In post 49, DoctorPepper wrote:Welcome Bob, what do you think of the gene wagon.

The prospect of Gene being quiet is great,

but I don't think he's a member of the Mafia.

My vote on Channel is serious.

Why not?

Gene doesn't seem to be very self-aware. Because of that, it's hard to read him, but I don't think he's a Mafioso. I agree yessirree is suspicious and I'm totally down for brutally murdering him, but I still think Channel is the scummiest.

In post 53, ChannelDelibird wrote:You're right, gene, I did miss your response in 27! I apologise. However, I'm going to keep my vote on you for the time being because you strike me as slightly panicking scum.

If you're town, though, the way to make us think you're not mafia is to do precisely the thing that you think you can't do in order to focus on looking town - specifically, help us find who the scum are if it's not you!

Just look at those exclamation marks.

Also, I don't think mafia Gene would have posted that analysis. It'd be far too helpful to have a confirmed bad guy's opinion (which mafia Gene would be if we lynched him) on a few people.

Anyone else noticed Nobody Special has not posted a serious comment, other than the one where he randomly pointed finger to someone without even giving out the reasons?

In post 108, JKMatthews wrote:Wow ok, so after thinking gene was just lynchbait, I'm pretty happy to call gene scum now.
Post 106 is bizarre. Your labels for people don't match your reads, and you start it by saying "I'm ignoring you so that I look town". That just hurts.

In post 104, yessiree wrote:It's perfectly fine to vote on me if you think I'm being an opportunistic voter. Hence why I'm not nitpicking on doctorpepper.

In post 104, yessiree wrote:"Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary." I really hope you were being sarcastic with this statement, as behavioral analysis is KEY to progress through a game, it's what we play for; I don't know why people would play this game otherwise. "Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it...", was there a need to state? I trust you can read as well as doctorpepper?

I'm confused... are you arguing for me now?

Don't be confused, I will keep attacking these statements from you until you admit they are just bad statements.

"Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary.
Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it, clearly just jumping on the bandwagon."

In post 112, Bicephalous Bob wrote:

In post 61, Nobody Special wrote:

In post 56, Bicephalous Bob wrote:

In post 49, DoctorPepper wrote:Welcome Bob, what do you think of the gene wagon.

The prospect of Gene being quiet is great,

but I don't think he's a member of the Mafia.

My vote on Channel is serious.

Why not?

... I agree yessirree is suspicious and I'm totally down for brutally murdering him ...

Did you just declare your night kill target?

VOTE: Nobody Special

This is a serious vote, explain yourself now.

In post 113, Bicephalous Bob wrote:Also, I don't think mafia Gene would have posted that analysis. It'd be far too helpful to have a confirmed bad guy's opinion (which mafia Gene would be if we lynched him) on a few people.

If he's mafia, why would his opinions be helpful? Do you not appreciate he could be lying as mafia?



yessiree, what would you like explained?

@Nobody Special,

Could you explain, as someone who's very experienced in this game, why you haven't been actively scum-hunting and giving your inputs?

Your reasoning behind the FoS on Rikablu?

In post 110, Nobody Special wrote: Do you believe in Santa Claus?

The Easter Bunny?

The Tooth Fairy?

What is your point?

In post 111, Bacde wrote:Hey just checking in to say I'm still happy with my vote on gene!

If anyone wants to ask me why, go ahead! Otherwise, just vote for gene and thank me when he flips scum

And what happens when I don't? What will be your opinion then?

This is just too easy for you, isn't it?
VOTE: Bacde

I honestly can't recall why I suspected Rika. It's probably something I thought I saw in post 96. But let's do this and see if he slips again:




gene, I was basically telling you that scumslips do indeed exist, and if you believe they don't, you're as deluded as if you also believed in magical fictional characters.


Also, yessiree, I've been scumhunting. At least I don't quote statistics.

@ Nobody Special, I guess I read it the opposite way. I believe scum slips exist just like I believe all those fairy tales exist.
And I guess you do believe they exist, which is just as dumb as believing the fairy tales as well.


About the only real scum slip I've ever seen was when someone claimed doc because they forgot/didn't realize the doc was already dead. And everyone was like, oh, it's obvious. and the maf kinda realized their mistake and basically surrendered.
Saying my lynch would give useful information, or whatever it was that was a scumslip to you, is not actually a scumslip. At the most it's just someone who choice of words got twisted around. happens all the time.
In fact, FAR FAR more often than actual slipping, I see mafia trying to say that someone slipped so they can get that person lynched.
But it only benefits mafia to keep believing that actual scumslipping exists.

You're wrong, but I'm not going to bother arguing it with you.

@Nobody Special

So do you believe voting on Rika is a better choice than voting on gene then? Do you expect you can get a slip out of Rika just by your vote on him?