Mafiascum.net

In post 1074, EddieFenix wrote:Unless you were discussing my reaction to the "gambit" claim.

derp.

You're right.

I wish I could edit that now.

OverS.

Day 1 fake claims are generally stupid and dangerous, but at least you tried one that wouln't be all that bad.

In post 1074, EddieFenix wrote:So, my next question is, why was there not a whole lot of change in your reads from pre-gambit reveal to post-gambit reveal? Was it because the players attitude stayed the same? Their play style stayed the same? What...?

I haven't given my full reads yet impart because I want to see people's responses to various things.

Plus I am still fleshing stuff out.

If you mean my town reads/scum reads on those players I just mentioned it does boil down to their reactions were something I more or less suspected and didn't really change much of my perspective on them.

It is an addiction Baby Spice. You haven't lived on the wild side until you've done it.

In post 1075, Oversoul wrote:

the people that I asked to talk about the mass claim, I meant my gambit claim.

In post 103, BeautyAndTheBeast wrote: Thor wagon is probably just a half-assed attempt at a pressure wagon.

I'm not sold on OS either.

You should vote Cephrir. If both parties of the Flowchart are voting it, you know it's probably scum.

In post 322, BeautyAndTheBeast wrote:AA9's reaction to the Oversoul wagon makes her town.

Read between the lines.

you guys. Thor is being kinda lurky.

Oversoul- I acted as though your info was true because even if you were scum, you would know whether there are (probably) multiple killing groups. I had you figured for an SK or a member of a less-than-6?-man-mafia. While I still believe you are scum, I'm more suspicious of both B&B and AA9. Now that I think in a comparative light, maybe Fuzzy and Ryu as well.

In post 1075, Oversoul wrote:

In post 1074, EddieFenix wrote:Unless you were discussing my reaction to the "gambit" claim.

derp.

You're right.

I wish I could edit that now.

the people that I asked to talk about the mass claim, I meant my gambit claim.

The reason I ignored it is because to me, it felt like a BS claim right from the start. I figured, if he's REALLY an informed townie, he's gotta have more specific info than what he's laying out for everyone. He would have SPECIFICS to help back his claim up when people started cross-examining him.

Then why didn't you do anything about it? Question him, voice your suspicions, anything other than keep silent? That was something important that may have a lot to do with finding scum, and you did absolutely nothing about it.

In post 1077, Oversoul wrote:

In post 1074, EddieFenix wrote:So, my next question is, why was there not a whole lot of change in your reads from pre-gambit reveal to post-gambit reveal? Was it because the players attitude stayed the same? Their play style stayed the same? What...?

I haven't given my full reads yet impart because I want to see people's responses to various things.

What "various things" are you talking about in specific?

OverSoul wrote:Plus I am still fleshing stuff out.

Elaborate on this.

Oversoul wrote:If you mean my town reads/scum reads on those players I just mentioned it does boil down to their reactions were something I more or less suspected and didn't really change much of my perspective on them.

Ok... Walk me through your PRE-reveal thoughts and reactions from those who rejected it and those who supported it. Those who you might be waiting on to respond, you can react as they come in and catch up.

In post 1075, Oversoul wrote:

In post 1074, EddieFenix wrote:Unless you were discussing my reaction to the "gambit" claim.

derp.

You're right.

I wish I could edit that now.

the people that I asked to talk about the mass claim, I meant my gambit claim.

I wasn't here yet. By the time I had read the pregame stuff and caught up to the present, your claim was more like a footnote to CTD's mass claim suggestion, and all of the relevant arguments had been made and responded to.

I'll make an effort not to break the "1 content post a day" rule though.

This is a content post.

Not a Proddodge.

I will refer to it later to explain just how it ties into scumhunting but for now I must post only this!

Okay, so I need to read from Page 12 and the game is on...Page 44.
Poop on me.

Here comes a quick pile of thoughts as I read;


I like Om's reads push, not insomuch as I agree with them, but rather some of the logic behind them - specifically his CTD as town which is at least not a normal push (indeed, it's a push on a playstyle tell) but which feels very genuine and attempting to scumhunt.
Om can be town.



I may even agree that B&B's list is weak...but to have Cephrir show up after a lengthy jiatus, just sideways attack the list in a vague way, and then disappear. Well, it makes me wonder why anyone thinks that slot looks townish.

I am forced to admit his 320 is decent though, and provides basis for the attack.




Om is more townish in his reactions to calling B&B scummy though, Ceph feels fake "oops, forgot I didn't really suspect who I was voting for" Yeah...sure.
I support the wagon though - probably would have voted it.

- Majiffy doesn't buddy? Since when?



Kinda want to lynch Fuzzy now, just because he's playing without any desire to show his alignment.



I would policy vote Bacde at this point.
Ceph is really odd in his playstyle, he's been around since 2006 and apparently thinks everything anyone says needs to be treated as hard fact. The hell...didn't I ask him about this in RVS/Confirm...I think he dodged answering.

- Address that, pl0x.



Really, silence Nero?
Lulz.



I think Bulbazak is town.
Town I will likely ignore and skim for the rest of the game, but town.




I skimmed the last of that page pretty hardcore - so I'm taking a break.
I'll probably assault in again later in an hour or two.

Thor, could you quote the specific post of mine you're referring to? Not sure I see where I'm saying that on page 16. Though I do tend to assume people mean what they say. As I've addressed, I was around from 2006-2009ish, then came back recently.

You're kind of painfully saying it on Page 16 - but let's focus on the actual question.

Earlier you actually called me scummy for saying I wanted to lynch someone.
You actually did this.
You then call B&B scummy for saying someone is 'confscum' and not voting them.
Because...what, you think they have the knowledge to really believe someone is confscum at that stage? That we should all believe it?

You are dramatically pedantic.
Not just 'assume people mean what they say' but 'take them to literal extremes and call them scum for it'
This is, functionally, misrepping for scum intent.
Justify this.

Thor are you town?

In post 373, Cephrir wrote:

In post 360, BeautyAndTheBeast wrote:

In post 358, Cephrir wrote:"Largely based on" agreeing with you, plus:
Slaandar: A detailed description of what he agreed with you about. Great!
AA9: A reaction that I thought was scummy. Great!

I'm beginning to grok that you aren't very good at this game.

I'm not, but I appear to at least be better at logic than you, and none of that changes how scummy you are.

I understand (albeit disagree) if you don't want to give all the reasons for your townreads, but you can't call someone 'confscum' without backing it up...

I'm calling them scummy for saying someone is 'confscum' (presumably they have "a very strong scum read" and are exaggerating) without giving any reasons. Likewise, I didn't suspect you for wanting to lynch someone, but for wanting to lynch for barely-better-than-RVS reasons.

Though I'm not seeing where I said they were scummy for not voting 'confscum' I would still defend that assertion if I did make it. Because if you have a strong enough read on someone to even make that exaggeration, you should really be voting them.

In post 1092, Cephrir wrote:

In post 373, Cephrir wrote:

In post 360, BeautyAndTheBeast wrote:

In post 358, Cephrir wrote:"Largely based on" agreeing with you, plus:
Slaandar: A detailed description of what he agreed with you about. Great!
AA9: A reaction that I thought was scummy. Great!

I'm beginning to grok that you aren't very good at this game.

I'm not, but I appear to at least be better at logic than you, and none of that changes how scummy you are.

I understand (albeit disagree) if you don't want to give all the reasons for your townreads, but you can't call someone 'confscum' without backing it up...

I'm calling them scummy for saying someone is 'confscum' (presumably they have "a very strong scum read" and are exaggerating) without giving any reasons.

Likewise, I didn't suspect you for wanting to lynch someone, but for wanting to lynch for barely-better-than-RVS reasons.

How is this different from suspecting someone for wanting to leave RVS (which, IIRC, someone (B&TB?) already called you out on and you disagreed)? If you will suspect someone for voting based on "barely better than RVS reasons," how do you suggest we ever leave RVS? Won't any attempt to leave RVS and make a series vote be based on barely better than RVS reasons by definition?

In post 1050, Amethyst Kitty wrote:Bacde, I'm hesitant to move you to my town pile this game. You have been playing like your town-self, though but there's something else there. Should Nacho flip scum though, it'll probably be enough to comfortably call you town

~Mara

are you scum?

thats the only "something else there" I can think of

thor could be scum but if he is he hasn't shown it yet

In post 1088, Thor665 wrote:

@Bulbazak

- Majiffy doesn't buddy? Since when?

I don't believe I've ever seen him buddy in a game. Granted, I might have been reading the wrong games, but from what I've seen, his playstyle is a bit too egocentric to allow for buddying. However, if you could provide evidence that I'm wrong in this, I'll concede the point.

you guy!!! Nacho is caught scum and avoiding the thread. Why is he not dead yet?

In post 1094, Desperado wrote:

In post 1092, Cephrir wrote:

In post 373, Cephrir wrote:

In post 360, BeautyAndTheBeast wrote:

In post 358, Cephrir wrote:"Largely based on" agreeing with you, plus:
Slaandar: A detailed description of what he agreed with you about. Great!
AA9: A reaction that I thought was scummy. Great!

I'm beginning to grok that you aren't very good at this game.

I'm not, but I appear to at least be better at logic than you, and none of that changes how scummy you are.

I understand (albeit disagree) if you don't want to give all the reasons for your townreads, but you can't call someone 'confscum' without backing it up...

I'm calling them scummy for saying someone is 'confscum' (presumably they have "a very strong scum read" and are exaggerating) without giving any reasons.

Likewise, I didn't suspect you for wanting to lynch someone, but for wanting to lynch for barely-better-than-RVS reasons.

How is this different from suspecting someone for wanting to leave RVS (which, IIRC, someone (B&TB?) already called you out on and you disagreed)? If you will suspect someone for voting based on "barely better than RVS reasons," how do you suggest we ever leave RVS? Won't any attempt to leave RVS and make a series vote be based on barely better than RVS reasons by definition?

A serious vote is different from "we should lynch this guy".