Mafiascum.net

Hey, busy weekend (due to Father's day) and then a long day today. I'll be sure to post tomorrow evening after work.

In post 112, likeabauss wrote:Lynx_Shine - A wise mafia man I once knew said "When in doubt, hang the lurkers." Mostly because their actions are not pro-town (they are either lurking intentionally as scum, or not helping the town by way of not contributing, so TL;DR HANG THEM.) How would you feel about us stringing you up for failing to help the town?

I've played under the same guideline, I've just let other things be more prominent at the moment and MS isn't on my auto-pilot "check this site before school." In this case it being Day 1 I'd sooner sub out than be lynched (or preferably in my case get off my ass and check the site) since there's about two weeks left until the Day ends, according to the vote count. If I don't post, then yeah by all means lynch me instead of somebody more proactive. Otherwise calling for a lynch now is jumping the gun quite a bit.

Morthas I was looking at as scum, but he replaced out instead of continuing with sparse and nearly useless posts, so I don't have much on Trollie based on Morthas's posts. He seems okay.

In post 94, TheTrollie wrote:jason n' caps are town

You gave reason for caps, specifics on Jason?

In post 122, Kueshina wrote: I believe the word you were looking for is "rude". Anyway, I prefer to avoid giving out private information on the internet to strangers in public fora.

Not sure if child overly offended at being called out for acting childishly, or overly-offended and stubborn adult due to being confused for a child.

In post 79, Kueshina wrote:I would except scumbuddies to buddy, but I hear it's common of mafiascum for the to distance so as to seem more town.]

I've only ever seen/heard of uber-newb scum buddying each other on the thread. One of the first things people usually do after somebody flips scum is check their posts over the Night phase for defense and buddying. There's no reason to hang on every word a player says when you're going to talk to them privately later. (I'm not entirely sure about here, but where I play, white-knighting is really popular and most scum make a point to not bring up their partners at all.)

In post 82, Kueshina wrote:Lynx_Shine seemed to think this was wrong because it was impossible for massclaiming d1 to ever be a good idea.

Regardless of how bad of an idea I think it is, was massclaim really necessary as the first thing on a list of things we could do in this setup?

Ran a quick ISO on ffery; I can remember the other players for the most part but she stuck outspecifically as "she posted a lot maybe what even did she say." I found several posts arguing against RVS's usefulness, several about meta, spoke with Trollie a bit about reads on caps.

In post 26, fferyllt wrote:I have a tentative town read on you for instance.

"You" being sikon. This was early and a tentative read, no reason needed to back it up.

In post 108, fferyllt wrote:Agree on 85 and 97. I may be too much a part of the topic to judge re 81.

Agrees with Trollie when he offers his proof on caps after ffery specifically asks him for the reason, but never gives her own reads or reasoning. The IC is claiming Town reads on two players, shows no proof of her own hunting or clearing?

EBWOP ffery coming in ninjaing me a few minutes before I got that posted

In post 125, imkingdavid wrote:Hey, busy weekend (due to Father's day) and then a long day today. I'll be sure to post tomorrow evening after work.

Glad you are back.

Re my thoughts on cAPS check post 118

I'm not really into big reads lists after 6 pages of day 1. Some games I never do post a compendium about all players.

Hey, guys. I just found out that my grandmother died. Can't really deal with both that and this mafia game. Will probably not post until Saturday at the very earliest. Hope you understand.

That feels good.

I believe you to be scum. I have many reasons that I will share when the time is right. For now, I will wait patiently while others weigh in and share their opinions.

What say you all? Is fferyllt scum or am I crazy?

In post 132, likeabauss wrote:

VOTE: fferyllt

That feels good.

I believe you to be scum. I have many reasons that I will share when the time is right. For now, I will wait patiently while others weigh in and share their opinions.

What say you all? Is fferyllt scum or am I crazy?

You are my strongest scum read atm. Your vote adds more doubt about the accuracy of that read. :/

Condolences sikon. Take care.

In post 133, fferyllt wrote: You are my strongest scum read atm. Your vote adds more doubt about the accuracy of that read. :/

I can assure you that this logic is faulty.

Please review the post #127 Lynx_Shine made and offer up your thoughts on the concerns presented about you.

Also, cAPSLOCK's post #114 rings true with me. Having reread my previous games here, you'll notice that I strung up an IC mafia goon on Day 1 on an almost identical maneuver.

In post 135, likeabauss wrote:

In post 133, fferyllt wrote: You are my strongest scum read atm. Your vote adds more doubt about the accuracy of that read. :/

I can assure you that this logic is faulty.

Please review the post #127 Lynx_Shine made and offer up your thoughts on the concerns presented about you.

Also, cAPSLOCK's post #114 rings true with me. Having reread my previous games here, you'll notice that I strung up an IC mafia goon on Day 1 on an almost identical maneuver.

I don't think you parsed my statement correctly. Your vote on me makes me think my scum read could be wrong. I've felt that your approach was indirect, and that you are basing your FoSes on what other players dig up. This is similar in that you're vauting off cAPS and Lynx' posts, but you're not being indirect now.

IME, I tend to either pick up votes in the early phases of day 1 or go more or less unnoticed until there's more data to work with. I don't usually key in on specific posts for scum reads. It's more about body of work.

@JasonWazza, your recent posts have an active-lurky feel to them.

Sunday you said you'd catch up on the game in a minute. How did that go?

In post 136, fferyllt wrote: I don't think you parsed my statement correctly. Your vote on me makes me think my scum read could be wrong. I've felt that your approach was indirect, and that you are basing your FoSes on what other players dig up. This is similar in that you're vauting off cAPS and Lynx' posts, but you're not being indirect now.

IME, I tend to either pick up votes in the early phases of day 1 or go more or less unnoticed until there's more data to work with. I don't usually key in on specific posts for scum reads. It's more about body of work.

You are correct, I parsed that incorrectly.

Again, I find myself underwhelmed by your response. Two different players made logical and coherent observations about your behavior and illustrated why it was questionable. I'm not basing my vote on their posts alone:

In post 132, likeabauss wrote: I believe you to be scum. I have many reasons that I will share when the time is right. For now, I will wait patiently while others weigh in and share their opinions.

But why should I articulate an additional case against you if all we can expect from you in response is, "Read my old games, this is always how I play, I don't scum hunt until the end game, blah blah." I don't care how you play/played other games, I care how you play this game. And in my opinion, you're trying to contribute to the thread without adding anything that's helping the town identify and hang scum. This is not pro-town behavior, and I want to hang you for it.

Don't scumhunt until the endgame? Hardly. I'm actually pretty pleased with how often I pick out a scum or two on day 1.

Substance and quantity is a little lacking in some quarters still, and it's primarily experienced players who seem to be holding back. I'm done waiting for content.

In post 132, likeabauss wrote:

VOTE: fferyllt

That feels good.

I believe you to be scum. I have many reasons that I will share when the time is right. For now, I will wait patiently while others weigh in and share their opinions.

What say you all? Is fferyllt scum or am I crazy?

Why are you voting and asking then rest to support your vote? You asked for my reasoning in an I'll show you if you show me fashion.

Why not tell us why you suspect her?

Why are you withholding info from town?

These are not rhetorical questions... Maybe you have a reason?

In post 130, sikon327 wrote:Hey, guys. I just found out that my grandmother died. Can't really deal with both that and this mafia game. Will probably not post until Saturday at the very earliest. Hope you understan

My condolences. If you ever need someone to talk to I am usually around... Rach

Also if you find you need to replace out let me know via PM I certainly would understand

God bless. Sorry for your loss.

55 - Post starts with a preemptive apology for not posting as much as some people do and ends with a mild FoS on sikon. I like the stuff in the middle, mostly, but both the apology and the FoS don't sit right. I don't get an apologetic sense from sikon's early posts at all. Insecure, maybe, but I think that's par for the course for a first game at MS.

87= asking for Morthas to be prodded, is a little ironic given it's imkingdavid's 5th post in the game.

75 and 125 are more apologies for inactivity, and 125 promises content later.

19 Almost replied to this when I read it. I rolled scum in my first newbie game and intentionally held back confirmation for several hours so my scum partner and I could take advantage of some pre-game time on the quicktopic thread. Even so, I was not the last person to confirm. A couple of town players lagged behind iirc.

65 Genuine rage? pings a bit.

67 67 overall is a townish post, and contributed to a (now stale) town read. Pedantic digression: Example of a game that didn't start with RVS. http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=27515. First vote (post #8) was a self-vote by a town player who claimed he was anti-town. Two pages later another vote happened in post #59, and it was a "true" RVS vote. The game ended on day 2 after lynching scum two days in a row.

69 and 76 are more ragey stuff that comes off as posturing.

Most of the rest of his posts are theory. His vote is on cAPSLOCK because cAPSLOCK had unrealistic expectations of how fast replies should be showing up.

This is a mixed read, but I'm not impressed so far, especially with the vote.

I like her two posts. Would like to see more posts and more follow-up. In the interest of promoting follow-up

In post 64, Lynx_Shine wrote:This may be a meta thing, so two wolves typically start a wagon or copy each others' votes so hard here?

It varies. Experienced scum players tend to push the envelope in terms of doing "stuff scum never do". In my first game I was surprised that my scum partner hard-buddied me on day 1. And he kept it up all game. I always had him null, leaning scum. I think town could probably have made something of our lack of interaction and my lack of pushing a player I claimed not to think was town. But, I had been kind of underestimated from the start. Most players thought I was pretty inexperienced at the game and I didn't overtly correct them. So far, in newbie games I've seen that scum players tend to keep some distance regardless of their stated reads on each other. In other game queues it's more varied.

In post 127, Lynx_Shine wrote:I found several posts arguing against RVS's usefulness, several about meta, spoke with Trollie a bit about reads on caps.

I don't argue against the general usefulness of RVS. For myself, I prefer other ways of initially participating in the game, and exactly how I initially participate in a given game is dependent on what other players do. Based on feedback from an an offiste game that completed this weekend, I do plan to make some changes, especially to my usual first post in games. I was struck by an observer's comment that first pots are "clean", devoid of whatever baggage comes from reactions to posts, and that there is a lot to be discerned from them. Town players come into the game with little but their own questions. Scum players come into the game from their chat on a QT. Though not intentional, my usual first post (which hasn't significantly changed in something like 2 years) is too much of a tabula rasa. I'm going to work on that.

In post 140, cAPSLOCK wrote: Why are you voting and asking then rest to support your vote? You asked for my reasoning in an I'll show you if you show me fashion.

Why not tell us why you suspect her?

Why are you withholding info from town?

These are not rhetorical questions... Maybe you have a reason?

It is a bit unconventional, I know. Laying out a case gives the other person an opportunity to refute it. Let me replay what happened from my perspective with fferylt and demonstrate exactly how she "rebuked" a component of my case:

1) I vote, stay vague, and say I have some reasons.
2) She utters a no content response that says "I thought you were scum, but now I'm not so sure because you're voting for me." (which I initially misinterpreted.)
3) I escalate in response, and point her to your case, and that of Lynx_Shine (which she basically ignored from the get go.)
4) She responds again with another "no real content post." (correcting me on parsing, but then completely dodging the two arguments against her again.) An hour later, giving her plenty of time to respond to both, she asks somebody else to post more content.
5) At this point, I reply a bit more inflammatory, and hint at a piece of the case against her:

In post 138, likeabauss wrote:And in my opinion, you're trying to contribute to the thread without adding anything that's helping the town identify and hang scum. This is not pro-town behavior, and I want to hang you for it.

This is one of my key reasons I think she is scum, but how does she respond?
6)She gives me exactly what I asked for. 3 scum suspects, her reasons for all 3, and a vote for one... not before offering an excuse for why she hadn't done it yet:

In post 139, fferyllt wrote:Substance and quantity is a little lacking in some quarters still, and it's primarily experienced players who seem to be holding back. I'm done waiting for content.

"I'm done waiting for content." Translation: HERE COMES THE BOOM.

Now, solely by virtue of me telling her what she's doing wrong, she corrects it and continues on. Experienced mafia players are very good at this, and can be difficult to nail down. Case in point, fferyllt.

Please note, she didn't really respond to the 2 arguments against her from Lynx_Shine and yourself. (She basically dodged both, despite my asking her to respond.) She then launched into what I consider a play style change, after I called her out on behavior that is no pro town. This also stinks.

I hope that wall of text answers most of your questions. Additionally, I delayed a bit on my response to your read from her IC post. My case revolved around:

In post 84, fferyllt wrote: I am playing for my team to win, though, so please treat me with the same skepticism in my non-IC posting that you treat everyone else.

And on a reread, after your post, my perception was strengthened based on the other comment you highlighted (odds of drawing a scum role.) Like I said, I have picked up on similar tells in the past with success. I also wanted to see how she would respond to your case, but she choose to ignore your comment (see post 116.)

Now, look forward to post 118.

After you make an argument against her, she says "I feel good about cAPSLOCK." Hmm... this sounds vaguely familiar. Oh yeah, she did it with me later (I call her out in post 132, she responds in post 133 saying "I thought you were scum, but now I think you're town.")

Doesn't it feel REALLY scummy to anybody else for somebody accused to turn around and basically say, "Thanks for suspecting me. I think you're town now."

How about her Lynx_Shine post? Oh yeah:

In post 144, fferyllt wrote:

Lynx_Shine

I like her two posts. Would like to see more posts and more follow-up. In the interest of promoting follow-up...

MORE buttering up to a person that is suspicious of her.

Okay, wall of text over. TL;DR - I think fferyllt is scum. Let's hang her.

Three scum suspects???

Dude.

In post 146, likeabauss wrote:

In post 140, cAPSLOCK wrote: Why are you voting and asking then rest to support your vote? You asked for my reasoning in an I'll show you if you show me fashion.

Why not tell us why you suspect her?

Why are you withholding info from town?

These are not rhetorical questions... Maybe you have a reason?

It is a bit unconventional, I know. Laying out a case gives the other person an opportunity to refute it. Let me replay what happened from my perspective with fferylt and demonstrate exactly how she "rebuked" a component of my case:

1) I vote, stay vague, and say I have some reasons.
2) She utters a no content response that says "I thought you were scum, but now I'm not so sure because you're voting for me." (which I initially misinterpreted.)
3) I escalate in response, and point her to your case, and that of Lynx_Shine (which she basically ignored from the get go.)
4) She responds again with another "no real content post." (correcting me on parsing, but then completely dodging the two arguments against her again.) An hour later, giving her plenty of time to respond to both, she asks somebody else to post more content.
5) At this point, I reply a bit more inflammatory, and hint at a piece of the case against her:

In post 138, likeabauss wrote:And in my opinion, you're trying to contribute to the thread without adding anything that's helping the town identify and hang scum. This is not pro-town behavior, and I want to hang you for it.

This is one of my key reasons I think she is scum, but how does she respond?
6)She gives me exactly what I asked for. 3 scum suspects, her reasons for all 3, and a vote for one... not before offering an excuse for why she hadn't done it yet:

In post 139, fferyllt wrote:Substance and quantity is a little lacking in some quarters still, and it's primarily experienced players who seem to be holding back. I'm done waiting for content.

"I'm done waiting for content." Translation: HERE COMES THE BOOM

indeed.

Now, solely by virtue of me telling her what she's doing wrong, she corrects it and continues on. Experienced mafia players are very good at this, and can be difficult to nail down. Case in point, fferyllt.

Please note, she didn't really respond to the 2 arguments against her from Lynx_Shine and yourself. (She basically dodged both, despite my asking her to respond.) She then launched into what I consider a play style change, after I called her out on behavior that is no pro town. This also stinks.

I hope that wall of text answers most of your questions. Additionally, I delayed a bit on my response to your read from her IC post. My case revolved around:

In post 84, fferyllt wrote: I am playing for my team to win, though, so please treat me with the same skepticism in my non-IC posting that you treat everyone else.

And on a reread, after your post, my perception was strengthened based on the other comment you highlighted (odds of drawing a scum role.) Like I said, I have picked up on similar tells in the past with success. I also wanted to see how she would respond to your case, but she choose to ignore your comment (see post 116.)

You have made accurate, though inflammatorily worded, observations about my play. So, no refutation is needed. I know my alignment, so I know that your observations are null with respect to it.

Now, look forward to post 118.

After you make an argument against her, she says "I feel good about cAPSLOCK." Hmm... this sounds vaguely familiar. Oh yeah, she did it with me later (I call her out in post 132, she responds in post 133 saying "I thought you were scum, but now I think you're town.")

Doesn't it feel REALLY scummy to anybody else for somebody accused to turn around and basically say, "Thanks for suspecting me. I think you're town now."

Discerning cAPSLOCK's alignment is of more interest to me than his opinion about my alignment. Discerning alignment will be more important to me than FoSes or votes my direction. It bothers some players. My typical lack of response to pressure also bothers some players, but I am what I am, and I'm fairly effective as a town player so I'm not likely to change that aspect of my game.

How about her Lynx_Shine post? Oh yeah:

In post 144, fferyllt wrote:

Lynx_Shine

I like her two posts. Would like to see more posts and more follow-up. In the interest of promoting follow-up...

MORE buttering up to a person that is suspicious of her.

Okay, wall of text over. TL;DR - I think fferyllt is scum. Let's hang her.

See above. drawing some suspicion doesn't trouble me. I rely on my body of work to carry the day if I make it to late game.

ffery is uber town dude.

sik and kuesh (i think it was kuesh i was reading up on my phone earlier ill double check that soon) are scummy