Mafiascum.net

In post 1171, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 1168, Miss Midnight wrote:What would you say your main motivation was for the questioning of people scumreading Thor around that time?

I think just to understand the reads so that if I disagree with the reasoning I can voice that disagreement without jumping to conclusions.

It seems like you didn't do this for earlier wagons, such as on House or Enchant. Why?

Because there didn't seem to be people scumreading them for dumb reasons?

I didn't care that Thor had a wagon, I'm not sure if I was even aware of it. I just saw that people were calling him scummy for what looked like clearly NAI-at-worst posts.

In post 1172, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 1170, Miss Midnight wrote:Okay. Full disclosure, I think that that makes 947 mildly scum indicative. Think Titus was joking, you didn't understand that, and scum in general tend to misunderstand, completely miss or misinterpret jokes more than town do on a non-insignificant level.

What's the joke?

You say "never seen anyone draw productive information from a vote [that I placed on request]". Titus, known for VCA, takes mock offense. Yes, technically implying that you were implying that you've never seen any productive information from VCA at all when really you specifically meant from requested votes, but I think that it's still pretty decently understandable.

In post 1177, Something_Smart wrote:I didn't care that Thor had a wagon, I'm not sure if I was even aware of it.

I just saw that people were calling him scummy for what looked like clearly NAI-at-worst posts

.

And you didn't see this for other wagons?

In post 1165, Miss Midnight wrote:Question. Do you think that other people in the thread took what Thor said or revealed about you and incorporated it into their reads on you in a significant way?

Though his defense of me wasn't directly referenced, that is the point where my wagon began falling apart as players started looking elsewhere, so... I'd say that it had some effect on it at the very least.

Nah, that still doesn't seem like a joke to me. "What am I, chopped liver?" is a jokey way to make a serious claim ("you forgot about me"), so it makes sense to respond to that with a serious question verifying whether she had read it correctly.

In post 1179, Miss Midnight wrote:And you didn't see this for other wagons?

Nope. Could just be that I wasn't paying attention to the thread when people were posting about them, or that they weren't there.

I know that there was a lot of ~playing the game~ that just kinda went over my head because it felt like everyone was just going through the motions of playing mafia and not actually producing any interesting content. So it's entirely possible that I missed something during that.

In post 1180, House wrote:

In post 1165, Miss Midnight wrote:Question. Do you think that other people in the thread took what Thor said or revealed about you and incorporated it into their reads on you in a significant way?

Though his defense of me wasn't directly referenced, that is the point where my wagon began falling apart as players started looking elsewhere, so... I'd say that it had some effect on it at the very least.

Correlation, maybe. Causation, doubt it.

In post 1181, Something_Smart wrote:Nah, that still doesn't seem like a joke to me. "What am I, chopped liver?" is a jokey way to make a serious claim ("you forgot about me"), so it makes sense to respond to that with a serious question verifying whether she had read it correctly.

I would be sincerely surprised if Titus were seriously implying the exact scenario that you described had happened and you had forgotten about it. But I suppose we can just ask.

Even if she wasn't, it's still worth clarifying, and it doesn't make it a joke. I don't think I misconstrued anything there.

In post 1009, Gamma Emerald wrote:VOTE: harvey and haley
Idk about Enchant but I feel this is a decent vote seeing as I’ve seen like a few people express suspicion toward this slot and I also suspect them

Think this is a really bad justification here.

It's not really a justification.

In post 1184, Something_Smart wrote:Even if she wasn't, it's still worth clarifying, and it doesn't make it a joke. I don't think I misconstrued anything there.

I don't think that this conversation is going anywhere it hasn't already so this is probably my last post on the subject, but what do you mean "it doesn't make it a joke"? If Titus wasn't implying what you think she was, then what do you think she was doing if not joking?

In post 1186, Something_Smart wrote:It's not really a justification.

I mean, sort of my point exactly. I know it's not really meant to be a justification per se. It's just a really scummy thing to put next to a vote there, in that specific context. Which is what I was trying to say.

Presumably then she thought I claimed that nobody had ever drawn a valuable conclusion from VCA and wanted to object to it.

In post 1188, Miss Midnight wrote:I mean, sort of my point exactly. I know it's not really meant to be a justification per se. It's just a really scummy thing to put next to a vote there, in that specific context. Which is what I was trying to say.

Why? I can pretty easily see town deciding between their scumleans by picking one that might get traction, and then documenting that decision

In post 923, Titus wrote:We don't need an ironclad case D1 just >rand scum.

I'm not a fan of this statement.

Not that i disagree about not needing an ironclad case on d1, just that the way it's put across as an, "any lim'll do" kinda vibe.

In post 1190, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 1188, Miss Midnight wrote:I mean, sort of my point exactly. I know it's not really meant to be a justification per se. It's just a really scummy thing to put next to a vote there, in that specific context. Which is what I was trying to say.

Why? I can pretty easily see town deciding between their scumleans by picking one that might get traction, and then documenting that decision

You seem to be implying or otherwise under the impression that I am of the thought process that Gamma saying that he's voting HH because other people are voting HH is scummy. That isn't what I think.

In post 1190, Something_Smart wrote:Why? I can pretty easily see town deciding between their scumleans by picking one that might get traction, and then documenting that decision

As I was saying earlier, it feels lazy and devoid of any further thought. There was nothing about the reasons others had suspected me. There was no summary of his own reasoning - he had expressed a dislike of my earlier attack on him, and adding that may have strengthened his attack.

It makes it look like he was seeking to leave a comfortable votepark, rather than actually threaten me.

-Harvey

In post 1191, House wrote:I'm not a fan of this statement.

Not that i disagree about not needing an ironclad case on d1, just that the way it's put across as an, "any lim'll do" kinda vibe.

You can disagree with it for sure, but it's probably game-philosophy indicative and not alignment indicative. I say this because this seems consistent with how Titus normally thinks (though I don't remember her saying this specifically), and it also happens to be my philosophy.

In post 1193, Harvey and Haley wrote:It makes it look like he was seeking to leave a comfortable votepark, rather than actually threaten me.

He may have been. Given the circumstances, that alone is not scum indicative.

In post 1192, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1190, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 1188, Miss Midnight wrote:I mean, sort of my point exactly. I know it's not really meant to be a justification per se. It's just a really scummy thing to put next to a vote there, in that specific context. Which is what I was trying to say.

Why? I can pretty easily see town deciding between their scumleans by picking one that might get traction, and then documenting that decision

You seem to be implying or otherwise under the impression that I am of the thought process that Gamma saying that he's voting HH because other people are voting HH is scummy. That isn't what I think.

At least, not in its entirety. Primarily I think that that post is scummy for the way that it's phrased, and the lack of corresponding evidence. I still do think that the choice to put that other people also scumread a person first in your "justification" for voting someone is probably very mildly indicative that your thought process is not primarily focused on solving. Obviously townies want to vote people they scumread whom are also scumread by others, of course. But I think there's a difference between wagon building and what Gamma said there.

In post 1193, Harvey and Haley wrote:As I was saying earlier, it feels lazy and devoid of any further thought.

I mean he specifically referenced the existence of further thought... why not ask about his other reasons, instead of assuming he has none?

In post 1196, Miss Midnight wrote:Primarily I think that that post is scummy for the way that it's phrased, and the lack of corresponding evidence.

You think that townies are more likely to give explanations for their reads unprompted? That's, uh, a take I guess.

(It's not a crazy thing to think, but I would have to believe that it's mostly personality indicative.)

I'll catch up tomorrow.