Mafiascum.net

In post 81, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 78, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Quick, if you are town i implore you to abandon this push. It’s quite a reach to assume someone is scum for claiming miller mason, and then suggesting they will only tell the truth when they’ve already stated their name has no bearing on behaviour.

In post 79, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 73, LicketyQuickety wrote:Oh, you are trying to dialog with a SR. That's interesting. "shoot first ask questions later"?

Having a dialogue with your scumread is natural and has many benefits to town. Don’t like how you’re trying to portray it negatively here.

No offense, but you are totally wrong here.

I really hate this white knite of Truth here. I've stated WHY I think they STARTED with a truth gimmick, namely, because they said they would crumb their mason buddies when there's not really a reason to do that unless you are 1) new OR 2) establishing a truth gimmick. The fact they know what a crumb is means the purpose for stating they would crumb is pointless, since it should be fairly apparent that they would do that regardless, hence, it's 2. Which means they have already broken character in favor of meeting their win con.

I would also point you to the last half of 44, which is an established pattern for me at this point in my Town play. Remember when I was tunneled on you and you were Scum? Yeah, think I am doing that here only to someone else.

can you at least accept that if he is lying about his role it will become apparent when no one claims mason with him

In post 91, osuka wrote:

In post 89, Nauci wrote:

In post 60, osuka wrote:

In post 59, Truth wrote:I can already see that osuka is approving the push and shading me. Do you think this could be him testing the room to see if there's support?

this is a retarded misrep

Are you aware that the average teenager on Fortnite is more polite than you are

yes

I feel like I agree with the content of your posts oftentimes but it's hard to support the way you put it

Like, yeah, those posts weren't smart, but I don't think somebody is remedial based on that...

In post 101, Nauci wrote:

In post 91, osuka wrote:

In post 89, Nauci wrote:

In post 60, osuka wrote:

In post 59, Truth wrote:I can already see that osuka is approving the push and shading me. Do you think this could be him testing the room to see if there's support?

this is a retarded misrep

Are you aware that the average teenager on Fortnite is more polite than you are

yes

I feel like I agree with the content of your posts oftentimes but it's hard to support the way you put it

Like, yeah, those posts weren't smart, but I don't think somebody is remedial based on that...

i mean no offense to any player personally, i actively try not to attack people but instead attack the posts themselves and their content

there's a difference between being harsh or blunt and being an asshole

In post 95, Truth wrote:

In post 90, osuka wrote:

In post 74, Truth wrote:

In post 61, osuka wrote:i'm starting to have serious doubts that you're mason

In post 62, osuka wrote:59 does not come from any town with an iq that has anywhere near 3 digits

I will ignore your insult and point out the obvious: You are shading me without advocating my lynch. You are testing the waters to see if others are open to pushing me, in which case you would join. That is what it looks like to me.

that's just not true at all. i'm calling your stupid plays out as what they are: stupid plays. I'm not advocating for anyone's lynch and if you legitimately believe that, youre delusional

That is exactly my point. You are calling me out and shading me while not advocating my lynch. This looks like a mafia play to me. If people agree with you and start voting me, I expect you will then be fine with my lynch, but right now, you are not pushing it because it may make you look like mafia if not enough people get behind it.

Calling a post stupid because it's not super logical isn't shading though... Osuka explicitly said to not lynch a mason claim today as well. I don't know why you're posting as if dumb posts are exclusively the territory of scum; they're not at all synonymous.

I feel like you've misread Osuka's posts completely. Re-evaluate your premises and logic after rereading.

In post 100, popopopopopopo wrote:

In post 81, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 78, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Quick, if you are town i implore you to abandon this push. It’s quite a reach to assume someone is scum for claiming miller mason, and then suggesting they will only tell the truth when they’ve already stated their name has no bearing on behaviour.

In post 79, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 73, LicketyQuickety wrote:Oh, you are trying to dialog with a SR. That's interesting. "shoot first ask questions later"?

Having a dialogue with your scumread is natural and has many benefits to town. Don’t like how you’re trying to portray it negatively here.

No offense, but you are totally wrong here.

I really hate this white knite of Truth here. I've stated WHY I think they STARTED with a truth gimmick, namely, because they said they would crumb their mason buddies when there's not really a reason to do that unless you are 1) new OR 2) establishing a truth gimmick. The fact they know what a crumb is means the purpose for stating they would crumb is pointless, since it should be fairly apparent that they would do that regardless, hence, it's 2. Which means they have already broken character in favor of meeting their win con.

I would also point you to the last half of 44, which is an established pattern for me at this point in my Town play. Remember when I was tunneled on you and you were Scum? Yeah, think I am doing that here only to someone else.

can you at least accept that if he is lying about his role it will become apparent when no one claims mason with him

I kinda just don't want to "wait and see" since I think my case is pretty legit actually. No one is going to come in here and claim that it's just a hood and not masons, which honestly worries me given the claim.

In post 93, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 15, Truth wrote:I have buddies

Given this ^ it's a hood and not actually masons.

this makes sense. i dont see it likely there being 3 masons right?

still, i dont think outing the hood, masons or not, is a good idea.

mason miller makes very little sense as a role no? if a cop checks, masons can just come in and say he claimed miller to us in our masonry, then what...

In post 105, popopopopopopo wrote:

In post 93, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 15, Truth wrote:I have buddies

Given this ^ it's a hood and not actually masons.

this makes sense. i dont see it likely there being 3 masons right?

if there are 3 masons there are probably no town prs

like i really doubt scum has that many prs to justify 3 mason + 1 town pr in a mini setup

In post 106, popopopopopopo wrote:still, i dont think outing the hood, masons or not, is a good idea.

Yes, I agree with this. Not until we get a couple flips at least.

Still, I think my case is decent. Your stance on my case is somewhat nuanced as well as Osuka, so that is a good look for both of you.



GL's silence is concerning me. I don't know if they are just busy or lurking at this point. Neither would surprise me. They are either Town for pressuring Norwegian, or Scum knowing Norwegian is Town.

I may have 1 buddy, I may have 2, I may have 3. Either way, I am going to use the plural form.

popo, why is it a bad idea to out if I'm just in a neighbourhood?

In post 110, Truth wrote:Either way, I am going to use the plural form.

Why? Don't you think that muddies the waters beyond reason?

In post 107, osuka wrote:

In post 105, popopopopopopo wrote:

In post 93, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 15, Truth wrote:I have buddies

Given this ^ it's a hood and not actually masons.

this makes sense. i dont see it likely there being 3 masons right?

if there are 3 masons there are probably no town prs

what is the purpose of this post. why speculate about whether there are town PRs? this post is role fishing.

In post 111, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 110, Truth wrote:Either way, I am going to use the plural form.

Why? Don't you think that muddies the waters beyond reason?

No. It gives the mafia unnecessary information.

In post 110, Truth wrote:why is it a bad idea to out if I'm just in a neighbourhood?

There is nothing wrong with that at all actually. Just that it makes your play more complicated given you said it was masons when it wasn't. This could just be based on ignorance, but then again not because you claimed millar. Which means you knew on some level that your hood (never heard of a millar mason before) could be made of Town AND Scum. If that's the case, then perhaps outing the hood would be a good idea given if you really are millar there is likely one Scum in the hood. I can see a 3 person hood with one millar and one Scum and another just Town. That's actually not far from where I see things heading with hoods given mods have tended to use them so much. I could also buy that you are just Scum, thought the hood was actually a masonry, and claimed millar as a kind of "oops" that you couldn't have known how hoods work.

In post 114, LicketyQuickety wrote:I could also buy that you are just Scum, thought the hood was actually a masonry, and claimed millar as a kind of "oops" that you couldn't have known how hoods work.

I may or may not be in a neighbourhood. I am open to someone claiming neighbours with me which I will play along with. Of course, it might also be my real neighbour if I am in a neighbourhood. This would be the Wifom element at play, and should make it difficult for mafia to decide whether I am a Mason or a neighbour.

In post 116, Truth wrote:I may or may not be in a neighbourhood. I am open to someone claiming neighbours with me which I will play along with. Of course, it might also be my real neighbour if I am in a neighbourhood. This would be the Wifom element at play, and should make it difficult for mafia to decide whether I am a Mason or a neighbour.

No one is going to claim they are masons with you unless they are, except they would never do that. If it's a hood someone MIGHT do that, but again, that would just mean that they are actually in your hood. What Town incentive is there to lie about being in a hood/mason with you?

If someone lied about being a neighbourhood with me while I was a mason, it would mean mafia would have to take a risk by trying to kill me in the night. I may just be a regular neighbour when they could be looking for other more important roles..

In post 110, Truth wrote:popo, why is it a bad idea to out if I'm just in a neighbourhood?

I would like this answered if possible, popo.

In post 112, popopopopopopo wrote:

In post 107, osuka wrote:

In post 105, popopopopopopo wrote:

In post 93, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 15, Truth wrote:I have buddies

Given this ^ it's a hood and not actually masons.

this makes sense. i dont see it likely there being 3 masons right?

if there are 3 masons there are probably no town prs

what is the purpose of this post. why speculate about whether there are town PRs? this post is role fishing.

long shot

im saying there is a very slim chance of 3 masons in a setup of this size. if there are 3 people in a group it's probably a neighborhood

In post 119, Truth wrote:

In post 110, Truth wrote:popo, why is it a bad idea to out if I'm just in a neighbourhood?

I would like this answered if possible, popo.

gives scum info they may not have

If I'm in a neighbourhood, doesn't it mean I'm lying and may be mafia? I would assume people would want to know that.

u could be lying and town. town lies about shit constantly in current site meta

I've played in other non-specific forums but not on mafiascum. It's my first game here. Isn't it better EV to NL with no info?