Mafiascum.net

In post 999, Firebringer wrote:i think UT has by far the most hurts.

So?
Also pagetop

In post 1000, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 999, Firebringer wrote:i think UT has by far the most hurts.

So?
Also pagetop

I am going to feign i don't understand the purpose of ur question because ur question is wasting my brain power when i am tired.

You’d better respond sometime though

We have 5 days. If Elsa decides to duel anyone prematurely, denying us time, please murder them.

In post 236, DVa wrote:How is there more value in having a pointless stealth IC than there is in townclearing the next day's lynch or mislynch?

And you are ignoring the possibility that the *next consensus scumread is scum* in which case we get a GUILTY and the sword is unclaimed and then we get to use the test again.

Do you not get that?

You guys are not playing toward best case scenario.

Best case scenario:
We force top two scumreads to gladiate
The winner is forced to claim sword
But they're scum so they don't and it remains unclaimed
Then we lynch them and rinse, repeat the next day

Like you all are thinking only of sword giving us an IC but it's *way more valuable* as having the potential to give us guilties

Effectively it gives us the chance to have a public daycop and a lynch each day phase

So no, "everyone claims the sword" is a shit plan

So here’s the counter plan Auro mentioned
I’ll wait to pass final judgement but this looks better yeah. I feel like there’s some sort of offset between the two that makes judging them as is a bad idea though. That probably makes no sense but if anything comes of it, then it should make more sense.

In post 239, Varsoon wrote:Shortens the lynch pool, nothing wrong with it.
But I'm of the mind that more ICs early is better than not having them.
Regardless, Merlin has to claim if survived to D2 due to Arthur info not flipping on Merlin's death; so long as both are in setup killing Merlin before claim wipes 2 ICs off the map.

@DVa: If we consensus catch two scum on D1 in this game then scum have already fucking lost.

We’ll get to the “we got two scum” thing when we get there, as I see that as impeccably rare.

In post 254, Varsoon wrote:@Dunn: Except it fuckin' confirms them as ICs what don't you understand about how IC works

@Auro: Setup Spec doesn't help us do very much here and just informs the scum kill, imo. I think Cakez is more likely town for wanting the game to move away from it. We've got like 10 pages of shit that should be obvious.

@DVa: Or more realistically understanding that it's fucking hard to reign in 13 other jackasses and not hinging an entire plan around it.
Stop shading me with that ish.
HURT: DVa

So despite being alright with her plan you go apeshit at DVa for that?

In post 258, Varsoon wrote:I want 3 mod-confirmed clears with a hidden Bulletproof rather than a single maybe-cop that fails if we don't hit double scum with it OR if a single town isn't on board with the plan.
In fact, fuck you, I'm going for the sword no matter what you say, so your plan can eat shit and you can die.

That’s where you’re wrong
It’s not single use cop
Also are you still going for the sword?

In post 1004, Gamma Emerald wrote:So here’s the counter plan Auro mentioned
I’ll wait to pass final judgement but this looks better yeah.

You should start convincing people not to take the sword if they're not the winner of the gladiate.

I'm up for that.

In post 888, Auro wrote:

In post 867, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:Is that necessarily a meta thing though or could the difference in her play be possibly be a result of the different and complex mechanics in this game?

But you’re right about her being more serious than usual in this game.

Have you played with scum!DVa before and is “seriousness” a part of her scum meta?

Not necessarily a meta thing, and not a strong tell, as I have stated.

I've played alongside scum!DVa before, and "seriousness" is a part of her scum meta -- just check her games. What makes this stronger is that she won't deny that she *finds it harder* to be chummy as scum. Just ask her that.

This makes it not a small-sample meta, but an admission that there's a certain behaviour she finds it HARD to adopt as scum.

What do you think now?

I will have to check out one of her scumgames. However, I also think my point about the heavy mecnanics component could possibly account for that.

I will have to sort her mainly by play and I’m not really seeing anything that’s especially pinging me about it so far.

In post 889, Auro wrote:

In post 868, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

In post 737, Auro wrote:

In post 733, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:Being aggressive doesn’t make you town. Ever played with scum!Thor?

Did I townread someone for aggression?
Gladiating without town consensus is anti-town, not just aggressive.
What are you asking me, exactly?

Are you townreading UT for opposing hurt tags? Anti-town play more often than not=scum play.

No. Read UT's later posts. I can totally understand his perspective. You have people going "Oh stop discussing mechanics, just make reads and play the game" and getting TR'd for it. Why does UT get SR'd? Like hell, he even said he wouldn't yolo gladiate as an IC because he wants town for have fun, and is open to using hurt tags in a controlled way, and even volunteered.

Nancy, anti-town in *this* game is a lot less simple. "I don't want to cooperate on a lame ass town governed plan because I want to have fun actually playing the game's mechanics" is an argument that can genuinely come from a town player, no?

He has seemed to have a more reasonable stance on that, so I’m feeling a bit better about him now.

In post 901, SirCakez wrote:

In post 853, Auro wrote:

In post 850, SirCakez wrote:-I think the meta case on D.va is pretty weak. One or two games does not make a good sample. cases that revolve around "oh you were funny earlier that game but not this one" always fall flat to me. like auro's analysis of "chumminess" based on like two games feels pretty flawed.

It's not based on just one or two games. It matches with pretty much every game DVa has played. Around 5 games at least, just observable evidence - check her profile.

She's an alt, and she would admit that she finds it significantly harder to be "chummy" as scum.

Do these reasons make it stronger to you, Cakez?

Even w/more game evidence I still don't consider someone being more funny in one game then another to be great evidence because that can change entirely dependent on the game playerlist, how fast it gets serious, and the rolelist. also in personal experience I have never actively considered being more serious as scum to appear more town or whatever.

In post 854, Auro wrote:I mean 5 games where if she's town, she's a bit chummier, and as scum, pretty serious.

You said my push on her felt genuine to you. Is this something you can explain a bit more in specifics? What would change in my push for it to look fake, for example?

it's kind of gut and tone, and your posts on this page are reinforcing it w/how engaged you are. like I don't feel you would pick this duel at all if you were scum. that said I don't know you very well.

In post 876, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:Why? Have you read any of my scumgames on this site? I’m guessing no.

no and I don't need to, this game is this game. you still haven't given any scumreads that I can see.

I am suggesting that you might possibly be able meta confitown me by reading them. No, I haven’t yet. I
generally don’t have strong scumreads this early in the game and that is true for 98% of my towngames.

I rarely have strong scumreads on D1, I am truly envious of those that do and I’m trying to figure out why that is.

In post 903, Auro wrote:@Nancy: Either you're scumreading me or agreeing with others scumreading me.

I'll ask you now to take a stance, and explain why you scumread me, or not.

This post is both untrue and kind of manipulative sounding tbh. I haven’t formed a read on you yet but I definitely don’t like you, or anyone else telling me what I think. If you’re trying to piss me off here, then congratulations, you’ve suceeded. I will never allow anyone to ever manipulate me into doing anything. When I have formed a read on you, I will let you know but this is the first thing from you, that has really pinged me. If you are actually trying to get me to scumread you here, then definitely keep it up.

If you want my help in gladiating you, then just keep pushing me.

P.edit. I am not townreading nreading you and I wasn’t scumreading you either although I thought being too “serious” in a games seems like a really bad reason to hard scumread someone. However, I find this last post to be highly manipulative and possibly scummy. If you don’t retract your request and continue to pursue it, I will “HURT” you.

In post 1013, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:P.edit. I am not townreading nreading you and I wasn’t scumreading you either although I thought being too “serious” in a games seems like a really bad reason to hard scumread someone. However, I find this last post to be highly manipulative and possibly scummy. If you don’t retract your request and continue to pursue it, I will “HURT” you.

I rarely have strong scumreads on D1, I am truly envious of those that do and I’m trying to figure out why that is.

This quote was part of my response to Cakes, for not having any strong scumreads yet. What part of this, do you or anyone not understand?

In post 1012, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:This post is both untrue and kind of manipulative sounding tbh. I haven’t formed a read on you yet but I definitely don’t like you, or anyone else telling me what I think. If you’re trying to piss me off here, then congratulations, you’ve suceeded. I will never allow anyone to ever manipulate me into doing anything. When I have formed a read on you, I will let you know but this is the first thing from you, that has really pinged me. If you are actually trying to get me to scumread you here, then definitely keep it up.

If you want my help in gladiating you, then just keep pushing me.

I don't care for manipulation and shit.
Don't gladiate me without me having majority hurt.
Sorry if you got pissed off. That's not my intention.

I'm not telling you what you think, I'm inferring off the sentiment, feel free to tell me I'm wrong. You did say my scumgame felt similar to one you read, and I hope you read that other towngame as well.

Is your dislike of me just because I said you're either scumreading me or agreeing with people who are?

There's absolutely nothing manipulative in asking someone to take a stance. "I'm keeping you at null" is also a valid stance.

In post 1014, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:This quote was part of my response to Cakes, for not having any strong scumreads yet. What part of this, do you or anyone not understand?

They don't have to be strong, or even accurate.
It's harder to fake when you're scum, and whatever you say in terms of stances on things, leans, what's pinging you, etc becomes useful content to analyze later.

For example, if someone's scumreading someone else because X, and you're still having that person at null, there's a chance that you disagree because you don't think X is sound/correct. One instance being the meta case I was making.

Do you agree?

In post 1013, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:P.edit. I am not townreading nreading you and I wasn’t scumreading you either although I thought being too “serious” in a games seems like a really bad reason to hard scumread someone. However, I find this last post to be highly manipulative and possibly scummy. If you don’t retract your request and continue to pursue it, I will “HURT” you.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't hard scumread, I made a weak FoS.

Your keeping me at null also means you don't think DVa's accusation of my push being scum-motivated isn't convincing to you. See? From your stance, I was able to make a deduction.
(And if you haven't made a judgment off that yet, I'm imploring you to do so and take a stance)

You can go ahead and "hurt" me.

In post 1017, Auro wrote:You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't hard scumread, I made a weak FoS.

Me saying you're either scumreading me or agreeing with people who do is manipulative.

I've repeatedly said that my meta case on her wasn't strong, it was only a FoS, and I'm open to changing my mind on it after asking other people, and even asked you about it then.

When you're telling me what *I* think, wrongly, does this not look equally manipulative to you?

In post 1015, Auro wrote:

In post 1012, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:This post is both untrue and kind of manipulative sounding tbh. I haven’t formed a read on you yet but I definitely don’t like you, or anyone else telling me what I think. If you’re trying to piss me off here, then congratulations, you’ve suceeded. I will never allow anyone to ever manipulate me into doing anything. When I have formed a read on you, I will let you know but this is the first thing from you, that has really pinged me. If you are actually trying to get me to scumread you here, then definitely keep it up.

If you want my help in gladiating you, then just keep pushing me.

I don't care for manipulation and shit.
Don't gladiate me without me having majority hurt.
Sorry if you got pissed off. That's not my intention.

I'm not telling you what you think, I'm inferring off the sentiment, feel free to tell me I'm wrong. You did say my scumgame felt similar to one you read, and I hope you read that other towngame as well.

Is your dislike of me just because I said you're either scumreading me or agreeing with people who are?

There's absolutely nothing manipulative in asking someone to take a stance. "I'm keeping you at null" is also a valid stance.

I didn’t say I wanted to gladiate you. I said I absolutely would if you kept pushing me. I will always willingly gladiate/lynch anyone who I feel is wrongly/unfairly pushing me, in any game I’m in.

Yes, because it did look similar. I will happily read a towngame of yours as well. It’s just that Varsoon made it easy for me by actually linking it.

The way you phrased it was definitely manipulative - whether that was your intention or not. You said that I need to explain why I’m EITHER townreading you OR scumreading you. Like you were literally forcing me to pick one or the other. It should be obvious that I was nullreading you, because I obviously would have “HURT” you already, had I been scumreading you or said it right in the thread if I was townreading you.

I am trying to decide rn if you actually believe DVa is scummy or if you’re just hard pushing her for bogus reasons. I haven’t made up my mind yet, either way.

In post 1019, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I didn’t say I wanted to gladiate you. I said I absolutely would if you kept pushing me. I will always willingly gladiate/lynch anyone who I feel is wrongly/unfairly pushing me, in any game I’m in.

Yes, because it did look similar. I will happily read a towngame of yours as well. It’s just that Varsoon made it easy for me by actually linking it.

The way you phrased it was definitely manipulative - whether that was your intention or not. You said that I need to explain why I’m EITHER townreading you OR scumreading you. Like you were literally forcing me to pick one or the other. It should be obvious that I was nullreading you, because I obviously would have “HURT” you already, had I been scumreading you or said it right in the thread if I was townreading you.

I am trying to decide rn if you actually believe DVa is scummy or if you’re just hard pushing her for bogus reasons. I haven’t made up my mind yet, either way.

"Scumreading or not" was the exact phrasing I used. A null read is also a "not scumread", to clarify.

You shouldn't gladiate unless there's a majority hurt IMO, so don't. If you're actually willing to yolo gladiate just because someone's pushing you, that's anti-town.

Good. Make up your mind and temme your thoughts!

In post 1016, Auro wrote:

In post 1014, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:This quote was part of my response to Cakes, for not having any strong scumreads yet. What part of this, do you or anyone not understand?

They don't have to be strong, or even accurate.
It's harder to fake when you're scum, and whatever you say in terms of stances on things, leans, what's pinging you, etc becomes useful content to analyze later.

For example, if someone's scumreading someone else because X, and you're still having that person at null, there's a chance that you disagree because you don't think X is sound/correct. One instance being the meta case I was making.

Do you agree?

Not having ever played with scum!DVa, I can’t put too much stock on a meta case based on “seriousness” or the lack thereof. I did say that UT had been pinging me but now I’m feeling better about him. I didn’t like Arianne’s post misrepping me and I would like her to quote where exactly she thinks I was actually advocating for numerous vigges by players who don’t know they’re Arthur. I want to determine if she actually just misread my post or deliberately misconstued it.

But it’s important to me, to be “accurate”. If I feel I have a strong case on anyone, I won’t hesitate to push them.

In post 1017, Auro wrote:

In post 1013, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:P.edit. I am not townreading nreading you and I wasn’t scumreading you either although I thought being too “serious” in a games seems like a really bad reason to hard scumread someone. However, I find this last post to be highly manipulative and possibly scummy. If you don’t retract your request and continue to pursue it, I will “HURT” you.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't hard scumread, I made a weak FoS.

Your keeping me at null also means you don't think DVa's accusation of my push being scum-motivated isn't convincing to you. See? From your stance, I was able to make a deduction.

(And if you haven't made a judgment off that yet, I'm imploring you to do so and take a stance)

You can go ahead and "hurt" me.

What? * really confused*

In post 1021, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:Not having ever played with scum!DVa, I can’t put too much stock on a meta case based on “seriousness” or the lack thereof. I did say that UT had been pinging me but now I’m feeling better about him. I didn’t like Arianne’s post misrepping me and I would like her to quote where exactly she thinks I was actually advocating for numerous vigges by players who don’t know they’re Arthur. I want to determine if she actually just misread my post or deliberately misconstued it.

But it’s important to me, to be “accurate”. If I feel I have a strong case on anyone, I won’t hesitate to push them.

I'll just say that I heavily relate to you here. I don't think I can read people any good especially in D1, I'm just coming from a town game where I horribly misread a couple slots.

I generally push based off pings/leans, etc to engage and help develop a read, but that doesn't mean I'm hard scumreading someone if I'm pushing them.

Also, thanks for the stances. Stances don't require you to read slots, they're simple agreements or disagreements with stuff others say. Can you see where I'm coming from, WRT the expectation of stances and not necessarily strong reads?

In post 1018, Auro wrote:

In post 1017, Auro wrote:You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't hard scumread, I made a weak FoS.

Me saying you're either scumreading me or agreeing with people who do is manipulative.

I've repeatedly said that my meta case on her wasn't strong, it was only a FoS, and I'm open to changing my mind on it after asking other people, and even asked you about it then.

When you're telling me what *I* think, wrongly, does this not look equally manipulative to you?

No. Because I’m clearly not doing that.