https://forum.mafiascum-staging.net/
Why do you feel this way? I also scum read them, but not enough to definitively vote.
The conversationIn post 97, Geyde wrote:Spangled's posts on the subject of the RVS add nothing of note to discussion in any meaningful way other than 'it was unlikely that they would be quickhammered since it takes 5 votes', prolonging a conversation which could have ended in the span of one post. Scum had definitely prolonged the thread discussion of RVS; Spangled fits the bill considering their post adds nothing but fluff to the conversation.
Additionally, their townread on UrVeggie's question comes off as TMI given that the question was definitely not out of a scum's range to ask.
VOTE: Spangled
So are they your top scumread? If so, why not vote? Pressure is pressure, and the more of it there is, the more it helps.In post 103, Jamelia wrote:Why do you feel this way? I also scum read them, but not enough to definitively vote.
Because they haven’t responded to their already two votes against them. I’ll vote when I see how they respond to how people feel about their posts.In post 105, Spangled wrote:So are they your top scumread? If so, why not vote? Pressure is pressure, and the more of it there is, the more it helps.In post 103, Jamelia wrote:Why do you feel this way? I also scum read them, but not enough to definitively vote.
It's more a thread direction based tell than something inherent to RVS.In post 101, Draynth wrote:I've never really seen someone be called scum for prolonging a reasonably harmless discussion, let alone for something like RVS wagoning. I personally don't see it as particularly scummy. It came across to me as his reasoning as to why he wasn't scumreading the wagon. Geyde, Is prolonging discussions like the RVS one usually a scum tell on the other site(s) you've played on?
Like I said I don't remember someone being scumread for something like this in any games I've played so I'm intrigued at the very least
I bolded a part I found interesting.In post 104, Spangled wrote:The conversationIn post 97, Geyde wrote:Spangled's posts on the subject of the RVS add nothing of note to discussion in any meaningful way other than 'it was unlikely that they would be quickhammered since it takes 5 votes', prolonging a conversation which could have ended in the span of one post. Scum had definitely prolonged the thread discussion of RVS; Spangled fits the bill considering their post adds nothing but fluff to the conversation.
Additionally, their townread on UrVeggie's question comes off as TMI given that the question was definitely not out of a scum's range to ask.
VOTE: Spangledwasall fluff at that point,but you still have to post. I answered some questions, and that was literally all Icoulddo. What would you have me be doing at that point, rather than answering those questions and give context?
In post 106, Jamelia wrote:Because they haven’t responded to their already two votes against them. I’ll vote when I see how they respond to how people feel about their posts.In post 105, Spangled wrote:So are they your top scumread? If so, why not vote? Pressure is pressure, and the more of it there is, the more it helps.In post 103, Jamelia wrote:Why do you feel this way? I also scum read them, but not enough to definitively vote.
Thread seems to be somewhat set up for a lynch on Spangled, and I don't like that since there isn't a present "counterwagon" in thread direction.In post 71, faüstiv wrote:Scumreading Spangled so far.
LOL I was like wtf are you talking about
Sounds like the second half of a question on an exam — the subject something pretentious-sounding, like Meta and Theory, perhaps the question would be: ‘Why do you have to post while playing mafia? Could you explain this thought process in the context of your plays?In post 109, Geyde wrote:I bolded a part I found interesting.In post 104, Spangled wrote:The conversationIn post 97, Geyde wrote:Spangled's posts on the subject of the RVS add nothing of note to discussion in any meaningful way other than 'it was unlikely that they would be quickhammered since it takes 5 votes', prolonging a conversation which could have ended in the span of one post. Scum had definitely prolonged the thread discussion of RVS; Spangled fits the bill considering their post adds nothing but fluff to the conversation.
Additionally, their townread on UrVeggie's question comes off as TMI given that the question was definitely not out of a scum's range to ask.
VOTE: Spangledwasall fluff at that point,but you still have to post. I answered some questions, and that was literally all Icoulddo. What would you have me be doing at that point, rather than answering those questions and give context?
Could you explain this thought process in the context of your plays?
Use [.uv] [/.uv]In post 110, Geyde wrote:Seeing massive red flags on the Spangled push since more than a few players who aren't close to pure have expressed interest in the wagon already.
Not sure how to unvote but I'd do it if I could
Since this is over the internet and people don't have things like tone of voice and facial cues to go off of, I'm trying to ensure maximum clarity. YMMV on whether less words should be used. Also, do you think explaining reasons behind reads doesn't amount to anything? I thought justifying a read on someone would be pretty important?In post 95, Geyde wrote:In post 34, UrVeggieM8 wrote:Thanks for your insight Airan!
As the person receiving Spam's vote, when I first read their post my gut reaction was "that seems a bit lhf-ish. Maybe they're doing that to try and get information out of everyone"... which is not necessarily a scum move. To me personally, Spam doesn't quite read as scummy... just suspicious.
Interested in hearing what everyone else thinks!In post 38, UrVeggieM8 wrote:Not speaking for Airan here, but just wanted to put my .02 in. Bandwagoning isn't bad and it kick-started the game in this case! But I think that it can be inherently suspicious depending on the order that people decide to jump on the bandwagon. Spam put the second vote in, which (to me) makes them more suspicious than Draynth putting the first vote in. Ofc it's still not a strong indication of Spam being scum though. Just wanted to say that order matters.In post 35, Draynth wrote:Why not bandwagon? You often get some good information from it and it progesses the gameIn post 29, Airan303 wrote:Okay sure. But voting for veggie and not for anyone else is still a bit suspicious. I mean why bandwagon?Egix96 wrote:I mean, from what I've seen, RVS bandwagoning is fairly common on this site.In post 24, Airan303 wrote:I find it scummy because instead of voting for anyone else to check reactions, he voted for someone who had already been voted for.
I am not saying spam is a scum, or that you should vote for him. I am just saying that what he did was scummy
So I personally wouldn't consider it scummy, it's just a site meta thing.
Why do you find it inherently suspicious?These responses took way more words than they needed to get the point across.In post 44, UrVeggieM8 wrote:LHF because that the comment Spam made is one that vegos tend to hear a lot as a provocation. I'm not entirely sure if Spam would have commented the way they did if it wasn't following the previous comment from Draynth "I just ate a vegetarian meal". I feel that Spam may have used the previous comment as context for their reply. Hope I explained that in a way that makes sense?In post 43, Egix96 wrote:@bolded: Hm, in what way?In post 34, UrVeggieM8 wrote:Thanks for your insight Airan!
As the person receiving Spam's vote, when I first read their post my gut reaction was "that seems a bit lhf-ish.Maybe they're doing that to try and get information out of everyone"... which is not necessarily a scum move. To me personally, Spam doesn't quite read as scummy... just suspicious.
Interested in hearing what everyone else thinks!
How would you define the term LHF?
Ofc though, whether someone is vego or not is completely irrelevant here so nothing was taken seriously and no feelings were trampled onI do understand that their comment was most likely made for the purpose of gathering information, irrespective of what their actual opinion on vegetables is! LOL
Maybe it's because they're trying to get across their thoughts to newbies who may not have played before, but a lot of what they are saying doesn't amount to anything.
Think I used the wrong word there, apologies. I meant that what Spam did was something that raised question marks for me.In post 85, Draynth wrote:What exactly do you mean by suspicious?In post 34, UrVeggieM8 wrote:Thanks for your insight Airan!
As the person receiving Spam's vote, when I first read their post my gut reaction was "that seems a bit lhf-ish. Maybe they're doing that to try and get information out of everyone"... which is not necessarily a scum move. To me personally, Spam doesn't quite read as scummy... just suspicious.
Interested in hearing what everyone else thinks!
Didn't think answering that question would help us find scum.In post 84, Draynth wrote:EBWOPWould you mind answering the below please? It was literally the very next post after Spangled'sIn post 74, faüstiv wrote:You're being too passive.In post 72, Spangled wrote:May I ask you why?In post 71, faüstiv wrote:Scumreading Spangled so far.
In post 73, Draynth wrote:Have you played mafia before Faustiv?
Why are you voting me?
Why do you scumread me?In post 103, Jamelia wrote:Why do you feel this way? I also scum read them, but not enough to definitively vote.
Why me and him in particular?In post 116, Spangled wrote:Thoughts on Geyde and faüstiv so far, Egix?
Yes. Keeping my vote for faüstiv atm largely because of the lack of information coming from them. That, and because the only questions they've asked so far are either about why they're under suspicion or why they're being voted.In post 98, Jamelia wrote:Hmm. I’m not sure I’d put Spangled down as a hard “scumread” at the moment. I agree that they rambled but...so did I. I am leaning towards them trying to help vs. being scummy.
I’d lean towards a scum read of faustiv right now. Not sure how big of a fan I am of the vague questioning and responses. Is this because they don’t want to answer or are they trying not to reveal info?
Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
If you're genuinely scumreading him, vote him. If it gets close to a lynch and you're not comfortable with that (they might be accidentally lynched, they might get scumHammered, you think they might pre-emptively claim etc. etc.) then you can unvote. I understand where you're coming from but often the only way to get someone engaged / answer questions you have is to vote themIn post 106, Jamelia wrote:Because they haven’t responded to their already two votes against them. I’ll vote when I see how they respond to how people feel about their posts.In post 105, Spangled wrote:So are they your top scumread? If so, why not vote? Pressure is pressure, and the more of it there is, the more it helps.In post 103, Jamelia wrote:Why do you feel this way? I also scum read them, but not enough to definitively vote.
