Mafiascum.net

In post 1222, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1218, JamSV wrote:

In post 1217, Battle Mage wrote:ah damnit, it's Jam and 72o aint it? all that shade on Looker from Jam yesterday was just trying to set him up as the mislynch in LyLo, and Jam is sticking with that strategy now, rather than simply following his buddy and outting himself by voting for me.

TTJT - it's all over to you to win it (again)...

Very nice try, quite incorrect. Do you really think, I'd plan that far ahead, as to be "suspicious" of him D1, to "throw shade" D2, so that I could hammer him Day 3? He has yet to address the issues I've had properly, the tiny bit of addressing he has done, was delayed so much, that it basically confirmed he was scum. As a "town" Battle Mage, can you actually say, what Looker did during D2 was Town aligned? Can you try to validate it being NAI? Is it in no way scum indicative? I'm going to go through all of Looker's posts now, explain how he's scum. You're free to do the same and to explain why he's town. You won't be able to, as he is scum, but regardless, I invite the attempt.

As Dunnstral and I both noted, your issue with Looker was just how he is. It's NAI because he does the same thing regardless of his alignment, but it feels to me like maybe you've targetted him without taking account of his meta, seeing him as an easy target because of this. This is borne out by your play today. Trying to challenge me to make a case in defence of him when I've said it really has no bearing on his alignment either way, is strawmanning me. Moreover, your description of your own actions seems perfectly feasible to me, and is exactly the sort of approach I would take as competent scum looking to line up mislynches without attracting too much attention. It looks a lot more likely than your suggestion that I'm scum who tunnel-visioned and then intentionally killed off my suspects to damage my own credibility, before deliberately making a gambit to try and out fakeclaims, which serves literally no purpose as scum.

In post 1224, JamSV wrote:

In post 746, Looker wrote: Flip preferences: 29% Porkens | 20% JamSV | 16% Raya | 14% ThirteenthJT or LicketyQuick | 12% Battle Mage | 9% 72offsuit | 0% ClarkBar

---

Reminder I said to keep an eye on BattleMage's and ClarkBar's %s. 36 -> 12, and 12 -> 0. Unfortunately, I was planning on bringing up to 12% -> 0% for ClarkBar, once he actually bothered to explain his %s. He never did. He explained why he scum read me and Raya, sure, alright, I don't quite recall asking for them 2 in particular though, oddly, I recall asking for ClarkBar's and 72's explanations considering 0% and 9% respectively, and them being the lowest.

In post 751, Looker wrote:My percentages are based off who I think are most likely to flip scum based on who they've tried to flip and who's tried to flip them. Clark is at 0 because he's basic and there's no interaction to influence me to flip him. Especially at the time of that post. I

am

a replacement, though, so, if I've missed something, let me know.

Right, okay, that makes sense... Wait... Am I reading that correctly? Hmm... Clark is at 0 because he's basic and there's no interaction to influence you to flip him. I may be remembering this incorrectly so I do apologise. For your initial %s to be at 12% for ClarkBar, and not 0. That means initially, he wasn't basic enough, and had too many interactions to influence you to flip him? Wait... That can't be right... There's no logic there surely? I must be missing something...
Looker is scum.

In post 1221, TheThirteenthJT wrote:This game comes down to 72 and Looker or BM with either looker and jams. I have to do a reread and I'll figure it out. Should have eliminated me last night over Clark in all honesty.

In post 1207, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1201, JamSV wrote:EBWOP
I might be absolutely terrible at reading players, very stubborn in terms of tunnel vision voting, and still very inexperienced, thankfully however, it seems vacuum Mafia Mechanics are what I'm good at.

Everything you posted was obvious, with the exception of the bit where you tried to persuade me to move my vote off 72o. Likewise, if 72o was town and not your partner, why would he listen to you and move his vote off me?

The "I might be absolutely terrible at reading players" is a loose appeal to emotion, to invoke a feeling of sympathetic town - actually your reads and voting record hasn't been so bad this game, compared to say, me, and you're also a very good player for a newbie, so I don't buy this as genuine.

In post 1227, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1221, TheThirteenthJT wrote:This game comes down to 72 and Looker or BM with either looker and jams. I have to do a reread and I'll figure it out. Should have eliminated me last night over Clark in all honesty.

dude i'm town, it's 72-Looker or 72-Jam. either is possible, and it's flippin obvious it's 72o over me. Look at how

both

Looker and Jam are saying it's me over 72 - one of them is definitely scum and lynches me for the win. Mason-swear.

I know it's a tough spot dude, but if you read what I've said carefully you will see it.

In post 1217, Battle Mage wrote:ah damnit, it's Jam and 72o aint it? all that shade on Looker from Jam yesterday was just trying to set him up as the mislynch in LyLo, and Jam is sticking with that strategy now, rather than simply following his buddy and outting himself by voting for me.

TTJT - it's all over to you to win it (again)...

In post 1231, Battle Mage wrote:Jam, you're at L-1 due to the formatting error - if you're town you should unvote before 72o logs in. Note I'm not hammering.

In post 1234, Battle Mage wrote:ok sweet. On the plus side, I'm also now confirmed as not being scum with Looker or 72o, otherwise I'd have hammered for the win.

So I can only be scum with Jam, meaning Jam only has 1 scenario from his POV - Looker-72o.

Which means if you're town, you may as well join me on the 72o wagon.

In post 1235, JamSV wrote:

In post 1234, Battle Mage wrote:ok sweet. On the plus side, I'm also now confirmed as not being scum with Looker or 72o, otherwise I'd have hammered for the win.

So I can only be scum with Jam, meaning Jam only has 1 scenario from his POV - Looker-72o.

Which means if you're town, you may as well join me on the 72o wagon.

So you're pitting it as me and you, or, 72 and Looker?
I also would prefer the Looker hammer personally.

In post 1238, TheThirteenthJT wrote:@looker what made you doubt my claim btw? It's just weird.

So I want to give my scumrankings as to were my mind is. I am also doing ISo reads in will be for the next couple days so don't expect my vote anytime soon.

Scum
72- for reasons continuing from day 2. I had you as confirmed scum. Only doubt I have on you right now is my own personal selfsoubt.

BM- I know you and 72 can't be a team but I see you as the second scummiest player here. I looked over your ISO and you barely looked at Looker meanwhile interacted with Jamsv all game. You and Jamsv I want to rule out but at the same time the bussing each other side a big possibility.

Jamsv I've described your play as weird and to me very bold for scum. You made yourself a target day one and for no reason. Thought you would have been a PR and we're trying to save yourself after almost being universally town read

Looker is my weakest read. I have not liked their vote progressions at all throughout the game especially that Raya/duns vote. At the end I feel like I have the least content from them to analyze.

I'm basically done for tonight.

In post 1197, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1190, 72offsuit wrote:VOTE: BM

All aboard the BM wagon!

Choo choo

In post 1191, JamSV wrote:The issue when its 3v2 of voting at all, is it actually allows potential for both scum partners to hop on and quick hammer. So I don't know how to take what 72 just did.

In post 1192, JamSV wrote:AKA. Did 72 just hit a scum slot as town or is 72 scum? It isn't town hitting town as scum would win.

I don't have lots of time tonight. 72o pulled a similar move on me in our only other game which went to LyLo (where we were both town and subsequently lost), so it's not completely certain he's scum. That being said, he hasn't actually given any reason for voting me, so I don't think there's any prospect of persuading him otherwise, and it makes my decision a no-brainer!

VOTE: 72offsuit

I think it's highly likely he's scum anyway given the quickhammer on Dunnstral yesterday before I had a chance to check my meta on him, which also prevented TTJT (who is now 100% conftown) from protecting the cop. And the early vote on me, also without discussion, which would throw the game for himself if he was town.

Hard to see why 72o-town would suddenly not care about analysis/discussion, when previously he has been very thoughtful and detailed in his efforts - easily the most I've ever seen him try. Which is NAI in itself, but the lack of consistency seems more like scum who has open-wolfed and taken one for the team, as opposed to town who spontaneously decided they don't care anymore. And #1189?

It then becomes a question of whether it's 72o-Looker or 72o-Jam. Would welcome TTJT's thoughts on that in particular.

In post 1198, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1196, JamSV wrote:I'll be courteous though and let them respond and try to persuade me otherwise.

72o-scum for reasons above, plus his paranoia about me suspecting him yesterday when I didn't, and failure to provide an argument for voting me (despite being cogniscent of all the reasons I'm town), beyond a proven-false claim about me lurking.

Also voting patterns indicate 72o-scum more than BM-scum.

Day 1 final wagon was pretty much unanimous, and so 72o didn't need to be on it to get the mislynch. Yesterday wagon was definitely not unanimous and harder for scum to fashion a mislynch, and 72o was on it and hammered before discussion could finish, and despite very clearly trying to set me up as the other mislynch required for scum-win. He only quick-hammered when momentum against me had diminished.

In post 1200, JamSV wrote:There's something important to note. At the moment, TTJT is conf town. Unless if Looker wants to pop up and counter claim. Taking this into account, there are some things to realise. There are 6 scum teams in a vacuum.
72offsuit + BattleMage
72offsuit + JamSV
72offsuit + Looker
BattleMage + JamSV
BattleMage + Looker
JamSV + Looker

There are a handful we can eliminate with logic.
JamSV + Looker isn't the scum team. We could have swooped in on 72offsuit's vote on BattleMage, or BattleMage's vote on 72offsuit and won the game, by both of us voting for the same person, taking it to 3 votes, then winning by having an equivalent number of town + scum. This didn't happen, so we can rule out that potential scum team. Similarly, 72offsuit + BattleMage aren't the scum team. They would have hammered Looker after I voted for him, unless if they haven't gotten around to it yet, but I'm more of an optimistic person. That strikes off another potential scum team.
This means, no matter what, one of 72/BM are scum, and me or Looker are scum. As such. I'm willing to go down the lines of Looker himself:
Hammer priorities:

• Looker - 100%
• 72offsuit - 0%
• BattleMage - 0%
• TTJT - negative 100%

I'm not voting for anybody but Looker today, I'm going to disregard everything else anybody says to do with moving my vote. Before taking into account quality and town-iness of both of our plays in D2 (+ D1 for myself), this game comes down to two 1v1s, Looker vs myself, BattleMage vs 72offsuit, so of course, its only natural that I wouldn't move my vote. We then look at post quality during D2. Out of me and Looker, who was trying to get more information? Myself. Who was hiding information and their explanations of their reads? Looker. That's the very quick, I'm on the toilet posting this, explanation of both mine and his playing during D2. Common sense says Looker will now end up voting me, fair enough. I therefore encourage TTJT to note vote for either of us until 72offsuit and Battle Mage vote first, to limit bussing.

For what its worth, the likelihood is, Battle Mage is the partner, however I'll wait for TTJT to weigh in as to whether I'm correct or not before D3 occurs.

Finally, the last thing I'm going to say for a little while.

GG. Town wins.

In post 1219, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Not 72 and jams BM try again.

Game would be over.

In post 1227, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1221, TheThirteenthJT wrote:This game comes down to 72 and Looker or BM with either looker and jams. I have to do a reread and I'll figure it out. Should have eliminated me last night over Clark in all honesty.

dude i'm town, it's 72-Looker or 72-Jam. either is possible, and it's flippin obvious it's 72o over me. Look at how

both

Looker and Jam are saying it's me over 72 - one of them is definitely scum and lynches me for the win. Mason-swear.

I know it's a tough spot dude, but if you read what I've said carefully you will see it

.

In post 1139, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1135, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 1096, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1094, 72offsuit wrote:Lol. At the time of my I r winnar post above, BM was logged on, as per the bottom of the "board index" page, which lists the players currently logged on.

At the time of this post, he is no longer on.

Zero posts after logging in and seeing he has votes on him.

Scum.

seriously?? I was responding in detail to a post as above.

And in any case, I'm V/LA (i.e. I may have time to see something and not respond because I'm busy).

I'm done for today if this is the kinda crap I'm contending with.

No. Your name DISAPPEARED OFF THE LOGGED IN PLAYERS list,
BEFORE you posted.

As if you realised you had logged in without hiding status, so logged out and then relogged in.
Scummy +++

This is factually untrue and self-evidently untrue given I posted a huge post, seconds after you falsely declared I'd disappeared off the site.

I have no idea about how the "logged in players" list works - if you're being straight, perhaps it doesn't record you as being online anymore if you are 'inactive' which I would have been if just typing? Also I've never hided my login status - and have no idea what you're suggesting my motivation would be to do so, given it's quite obvious I was responding, as I eventually did. This is a ludicrously weak avenue to be pursuing, and stands in stark contrast to your detailed ISO of me earlier where it was pretty obvious I was town, barring some implausible swerve.