Mafiascum.net

@Bell

Give me fruit again tonight. If I die (very likely) I take the corruption with me.

In post 993, Dumb and Dumber wrote:I have a hunch that scum have higher corruption thresholds for dying. Should we all mass claim these thresholds?
We're at 3-7 right now anyway, right? Pre-LyLo. Hm, maybe we should fully mass then?

-Dumbass

I'm somewhat uncertain on this. Thinking on the corruption mechanic, it seems highly possible for a higher number of deaths per night than normal. Based on this I think assuming a traditional role distribution would be a mistake.

How about this: If any town player is responsible for either kill last night, may have raised the corruption levels of one of those players which would have resulted in a kill, they need to do so today, and not hide it for later. If we get no claims then it's multiscum.

In post 1075, BananaCucho wrote:@Bell

Give me fruit again tonight. If I die (very likely) I take the corruption with me.

I understand this impulse but we might just want to put corruption on players we find scummy, and either they die or get caught surviving with corruption beyond the regular threshold. Would depend on if there are other potential killing roles in the setup, though.

Sorry for the spam but I'm just throwing shit around right now

No matter what, none of these players will be targeted for a night kill by scum:

- Redtea
- Starbuck
- Catboi
- Bee
- Porky
- Jackel

It's just not happening

One of these players IS being targeted tonight:

(most likely)
Me






DD
Bell












Norwee
(least likely)

If we eliminate Norwee, for example, and I die tonight. DD and Bell talk to each other a bit, game continues to be a lurkfest. I will NOT vote Norwee , anyone who wants Norwee to be voted you will need to table that for another day. There's no way there's only 1 scum, swallow your pride and help me find them

In post 1077, catboi wrote:

In post 1075, BananaCucho wrote:@Bell

Give me fruit again tonight. If I die (very likely) I take the corruption with me.

I understand this impulse but we might just want to put corruption on players we find scummy, and either they die or get caught surviving with corruption beyond the regular threshold. Would depend on if there are other potential killing roles in the setup, though.

I don't know that 1 guy doling out rotten apples will be enough to take down a scum. Unless Porky is scum for example, hammers again a 2nd time and gets a fruit. Like Bell will have to target someone 2-3 times, and he's not going to live that long

There's basically 0 reason to vote norwee and the persistence of the push on him by certain players is troubling.

To be clear: enough people have expressed concerns about Norwee that they all can't be scum, I'm willing to consider those concerns, day 3-4 and beyond

Right now I am most definitely NOT

In post 1073, BananaCucho wrote:But that's the thing Starbuck, it's not a policy push at all. Unless you want to argue that voting anyone other than myself, DD, Bell, or Norwee is a push for policy? We literally have to vote a less active player if we are not voting one of the 4 most active

So do I "policy" you? Or porky? Or redtea? Or bee? Or catboi? I guess you can throw alligator back into the more active players for day 2, they've definitely turned that around

So much this!

What I really want right now is to catch a lurker scum, and then be able to analyze that scum's interactions with others

What I really don't want right now is to hear pre-flip association arguments about anybody

This is going to sound like buddying, but i just can't stop nodding and agreeing almost everytime Banana posts anything.

In post 1078, BananaCucho wrote:No matter what, none of these players will be targeted for a night kill by scum:

- Redtea
- Starbuck
- Catboi
- Bee
- Porky
- Jackel

Tbh i think Catboi might be a valid target as well.

In post 1084, NorwegianboyEE wrote:This is going to sound like buddying, but i just can't stop nodding and agreeing almost everytime Banana posts anything.

I've embraced your buddying from the start, go ahead and continue to buddy me as you wish lol

I won't live long enough to have to make a decision on you so idc

In post 1056, Bell wrote:Limited to phone posting for next few days.
Read a little about roles. I think it would be better to claim here, I gave the fruit to Banana.

We think this claim is townie, btw

- Dumber

I think we should just do the lynch that was resisted yesterday, like Jackel. Or Starbucks (because Jackel doesn't want to vote them).

In post 1073, BananaCucho wrote:So I'm here, let's talk, let's work on it. If you wan to ISO fine, I'll give you some space and some time to do it

I appreciate this. I'll wrap up my work day and hop on a few.

In post 1087, Dumb and Dumber wrote:

In post 1056, Bell wrote:Limited to phone posting for next few days.
Read a little about roles. I think it would be better to claim here, I gave the fruit to Banana.

We think this claim is townie, btw

- Dumber

Yeah, it seems extremely unlikely that scum would get to throw corruption at people in addition to the night kill

In post 1067, Starbuck wrote:So while I've been having a ridiculous week (lots of work stuff and my fam in CT got hit hard with Isaias) and been all over, I'm just one person

I hope everyone is OK!
That being said, I think that your current contribution to the game is largely IIOA and that you're not, like, scumhunting, but rather making inane comments to things that's happened ages ago, and that these comments aren't particularly helping solve anything

I would like to hear who you think is being opportunistic

- Dumber

Like you're acting like the game is going unreasonably fast and that you can't keep up ... when just about nothing has been happening and the game is in fact going incredibly slowly.

- Dumber

Also, i'm sorry to everyone that hates me because "OMG ur pushing a lurker so scummy~~!!" but this game has like 5 fucking people not doing jack shit, and i TR most of the active people. So that's just how it's going to be.

In post 1089, Starbuck wrote:

In post 1073, BananaCucho wrote:So I'm here, let's talk, let's work on it. If you wan to ISO fine, I'll give you some space and some time to do it

I appreciate this. I'll wrap up my work day and hop on a few.

Np, we have what 5-6 days or something right? More if I warlock myself to extend it

That being said, please don't take 5 days lol

In post 1072, Starbuck wrote:Exactly, so that's why I don't get this push for policy or low activity.

That's not why I'm pushing you, really

- Dumber

In post 1075, BananaCucho wrote:@Bell

Give me fruit again tonight. If I die (very likely) I take the corruption with me.

Eh we could take some too, I think tbh

- Dumber

(Sorry @my other head if I oughtn't to have said that)

In post 1095, Dumb and Dumber wrote:

In post 1072, Starbuck wrote:Exactly, so that's why I don't get this push for policy or low activity.

That's not why I'm pushing you, really

- Dumber

It's starting to feel really scummy how people like Jackel and Starbuck are scumread for bad content/bad posts yet they keep framing it as if they're being pushed for "inactivity" (even though that is also a point against them) and trying to vote active players.

In post 1080, catboi wrote:There's basically 0 reason to vote norwee and the persistence of the push on him by certain players is troubling.

By my count 4-5 players have scumread Norwee in some capacity. I don't understand it, but it's worth looking into eventually

In post 1098, BananaCucho wrote:

In post 1080, catboi wrote:There's basically 0 reason to vote norwee and the persistence of the push on him by certain players is troubling.

By my count 4-5 players have scumread Norwee in some capacity. I don't understand it, but it's worth looking into eventually

It doesn't need to prove anything. In fact, in a recent game someone were actually arguing (correctly) that because the entire game were hard scumreading me it meant i had to be town because it was ELO and nobody was on my side.