Mafiascum.net

Gork is cool. I felt like it was said in jest at the time (He was legit scumreading me) and he apologised after. I sigged it in endearing manner

In post 121, Dannflor wrote:

In post 116, mbaki wrote:Dannflor, how competent of a scum player do you reckon you are? Can you link your most recent 2 scum games please?

I reckon I'm pretty shit as scum.

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=24421
https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=24395

Not very recent unfortunately but these are my last scum games

What about 2 town games?

The first one looked pretty pathetic, though you probably already knew this as you resulted in being the day 1 lynch.

The second wasn't bad though, a lengthy iso with lots of content, the standard day 3 bus resulting in a scum win. Granted, I didn't read in-depth, but your iso seemed relatively fine. Nothing like your Mewtaph case in it that I saw.

In post 125, Xtoxm wrote:Gork is cool. I felt like it was said in jest at the time (He was legit scumreading me) and he apologised after. I sigged it in endearing manner

I agree.

Yea, I also replaced out of that first one, so maybe not the best example, but those are my only two scum games on the site

Town Games:

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=25526
https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=31030

All my other games are town too if you want more

Probably no meta recent enough to be relevant. I think your posting this game is most like the second scum game you linked, but I don't think meta reading you is the route to take. Side note: I enjoyed reading the latter town game, good ol' sk setups and Nacho / gm / DRK are all cool.

That's fair. Second scum game I didn't even know who my scum buddies were until the very end so I assumed I just played bad and got lucky my team carried.

And yea I remember that game was fun despite going out early

Tangent aside I’m interested in hearing Mewtaph’s rebuttal to my last comment in our exchange. I think Mbaki is town.

Feel free to feign interest the moment 4/9 players are willing to lolwagon me for bad reasons. You're going to end up short changed.

In post 124, mbaki wrote:

In post 122, Xtoxm wrote:

In post 120, mbaki wrote:Scum, I would guess.

Nope. Town XD

Oof.

If it makes you feel better Gorkington (and his alt accounts) has been carried in I believe all minus one of the games I have seen them as town in.

Why are we discussing this

In post 104, podoboq wrote:Yeah, both things are incredibly taboo. I haven't played on here in a year and a half, and I remember lolhammers still happened. lolclaims are more common, and I don't think highly enough of Mewtaph to assume that they wouldn't do it.

Shit like this just straight up pisses me off. Don't be a dick.

In post 131, Mewtaph wrote:Feel free to feign interest the moment 4/9 players are willing to lolwagon me for bad reasons. You're going to end up short changed.

Oh, gross. I’ve been on to you since page 1. You can’t act like you haven’t been in my sights until the wagon lmfao

In post 134, LolWagons wrote:

In post 131, Mewtaph wrote:Feel free to feign interest the moment 4/9 players are willing to lolwagon me for bad reasons. You're going to end up short changed.

Oh, gross. I’ve been on to you since page 1. You can’t act like you haven’t been in my sights until the wagon lmfao

You definitely aren't interested in what I have to say. So don't expect cooperation from me if you're going to pop the old "I can't wait to see their thoughts so I can blow them out of the thread".

VOTE: Gamma Emerald

Let's discuss this then.

7 posts in your iso.

1) rvs; irrelevant
2) theory post; irrelevant (queue the "why are we discussing this")
3) agree with someone else; relevant, though not starting discussion nor scumhunting
4) random 1-liner; irrelevant
5) agree with someone; relevant, as this post l-1s someone
6) random takeaway; irrelevant
7) "why are we discussing this"; irrelevant

In conclusion, there are exactly two posts relevant to the game in your iso. One of them puts a player at l-1, and one of them agrees with something another player says. Neither advances discussion, provides insight, or affects the game-state... other than bringing a wagon to l-1.

Why aren't discussing , and why is #124 the thing you choose to comment on when there is game relevant content around and after it including from me?

I’m not discussing because this game is honestly rather boring rn. I’m curious why you poked at Xtoxm’s sig and why you spent so much time discussing such frivolity though.

Why are you openly admitting you aren't discussing the game and then questioning mbaki for exactly the same thing, when he's done much more than you

In post 137, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m not discussing because this game is honestly rather boring rn. I’m curious why you poked at Xtoxm’s sig and why you spent so much time discussing such frivolity though.

In post 118, mbaki wrote:I love the Gorkington quote in your sig.

Ironically, I give town points to 118.

It was a random aside in a post that also gave a read (Xtoxm as town) (giving a read being more than you've contributed in your iso combined). Xtoxm chose to continue that chain of discussion and it continued for exactly 3 posts, I apologize that 3 posts of out of game discussion is frivolous to you.

Your turn: how is #137 helping you game solve? If you're poking at me because you think I shouldn't post irrelevant content but it doesn't help you sort me, it isn't advancing the game state, and I reckon Gamma Emerald would never partake in such frivolty.

Also Mewtaph, I still want to hear thoughts on podoboq + your vote on him

In post 135, Mewtaph wrote:

In post 134, LolWagons wrote:

In post 131, Mewtaph wrote:Feel free to feign interest the moment 4/9 players are willing to lolwagon me for bad reasons. You're going to end up short changed.

Oh, gross. I’ve been on to you since page 1. You can’t act like you haven’t been in my sights until the wagon lmfao

You definitely aren't interested in what I have to say. So don't expect cooperation from me if you're going to pop the old "I can't wait to see their thoughts so I can blow them out of the thread".

So you’re just not going to address me anymore? I don’t feel like I’ve been particularly abrasive or stubborn.

In post 140, Dannflor wrote:Also Mewtaph, I still want to hear thoughts on podoboq + your vote on him

podoboq? Was waiting for the AI content after our initial exchange but the underhanded attack on player over play makes me difficult to make objective commentary wrt his alignment currently.

In post 141, LolWagons wrote:So you’re just not going to address me anymore? I don’t feel like I’ve been particularly abrasive or stubborn.

Ok, sure. I'll go back and read it then come back to you with answers then.

In post 142, Mewtaph wrote:

In post 140, Dannflor wrote:Also Mewtaph, I still want to hear thoughts on podoboq + your vote on him

podoboq? Was waiting for the AI content after our initial exchange but the underhanded attack on player over play makes me difficult to make objective commentary wrt his alignment currently.

Alright, this is just lame. I insulted you, yes. There's nobody in this thread I know well enough to know they wouldn't lolclaim if they were frustrated town at L-1, but I was deliberately dismissive of your feelings in how I phrased that with regards to you. That was shitty of me, and I shouldn't have acted that way, but I wouldn't call it underhanded so much as insensitive.

To say that this insult makes it impossible for you to provide objective commentary, or even respond to legitimate concerns I've leveled in your direction, is unacceptable.

In post 71, Mewtaph wrote:

In post 59, podoboq wrote:Mewtaph's posts do not pass a Turing test.

VOTE: Mewtaph

Can you explain the reason behind this vote in a more digestible way?

In post 80, Mewtaph wrote:VOTE: podoboq
Speaking of L-2s, this would be considered one of them.

Your vote landed on me as I was reentering the thread this morning, and addressing things one at a time. You could have waited to see if I responded to you, but you choose not to, which is fine I guess. Then I responded, explained why I thought your posts were inorganic and didn't come from town. You disagree, sure, but the point is that nowhere did you actually explain why you're voting for me. And when you were asked pretty damn directly, you provided a pretty empty excuse to refuse.

Mafia gets a little heated sometimes. If you're going to shut down when a snide comment crosses your direction, then what are we doing here?

In post 58, podoboq wrote:

In post 26, bristep123 wrote:not sure that's 100% true, some read behavior rather than content. Good players (and I am not in any way claiming to be one) don't need walls of text to root out scum.

Townreading this.

In post 64, podoboq wrote:

In post 61, mbaki wrote:Townreading a strategic discussion comment that is completely separate of the game, Podo?

Decent scum could have just stayed quiet and let them continue to spin out.

I can't follow this town read because bristep123's presence at the end of page 1/top of page 2 didn't feel like they were diffusing a spin out but rather sidelining it.

So I am kind of concerned that you could be offering a town read there without enough justification - now I could link this to a malicious intent for the sake of making a podopoq scum case but I'm not entirely convinced that an argument of that manner wouldn't just be overall convoluted and difficult to respond to at this stage.

I'm saying I could provide commentary on my thoughts on how you're pushing on my slot, but I don't think that it would be very useful or constructive (and inherently biased/forced).

I tried to respond to your concerns wrt being a robot, but your followup on that showed that you were just continuing off of your first conclusion, which is kind of reasonable but at from that point I don't see how I'm supposed to appropriately respond to further interactions regarding that.

In post 142, Mewtaph wrote:

In post 140, Dannflor wrote:Also Mewtaph, I still want to hear thoughts on podoboq + your vote on him

podoboq? Was waiting for the AI content after our initial exchange but the underhanded attack on player over play makes me difficult to make objective commentary wrt his alignment currently.

Okay... This still doesn't really answer any of my questions on why exactly you are voting podoboq. If you must, remove yourself from the recent "attack on player over play" and go back to when you first made the vote. Why did you do that? And why then without any further elaboration?

PEDIT: I see you citing the townread on bristep123, is that the bulk of it?

In post 102, LolWagons wrote:

In post 100, Mewtaph wrote:Well, now I see you're suggesting OMGUSing twice is scum-indicative, for when asked to elaborate, you referred back to the timing; when asked to elaborate on

that

, you referred back to my votes following when another player has voted me (essentially just saying OMGUS is scummy). Is there a more player-specifc reason why you're scum reading me?

OMGUSing twice on people who have players on their bandwagons within four pages is scummy. Yes. Player specifics do not matter. It shows a focus on lynching those that suspect you and those that are also vulnerable to a lynch which is literally the cookie cutter way to play as mafia.

Normally I wouldn’t really count my wagon in the two because it was the transition from RVS but your push on it came across as contrived, in addition to being opportunistic and OMGUS. The subsequent backing down felt unnatural as well.

I think just for the sake of calling OMGUS scummy for the sake of OMGUS being scummy, you are saying my focus on this game is to lynch those that suspect me and are vulnerable to a lynch. I think this is unapplicable in this case because my intent in voting you was clearly not to lynch at that stage but have reached that point without a satisfying response or sequence of interactions - so that doesn't mean that it would have reached a vote with intent to lynch or that I was even self-focused on shooing votes away from me in the first place.

I disagree with the principle of OMGUS being inherently scum indicative, but the more important reason why I'm seeking out for more "player-related" reasons is that buzzwords can help strengthen an argument but probably shouldn't be the basis of one. The difference between me pressuring you on an OMGUS vote is going to be different from you trying to lynch me based on making OMGUS votes. If you aren't willing to go back to your previous thoughts re: scum!Mew in your original vote post on me, then there's nothing there I can realistically defend against.

In post 146, Dannflor wrote:

In post 142, Mewtaph wrote:

In post 140, Dannflor wrote:Also Mewtaph, I still want to hear thoughts on podoboq + your vote on him

podoboq? Was waiting for the AI content after our initial exchange but the underhanded attack on player over play makes me difficult to make objective commentary wrt his alignment currently.

Okay... This still doesn't really answer any of my questions on why exactly you are voting podoboq. If you must, remove yourself from the recent "attack on player over play" and go back to when you first made the vote. Why did you do that? And why then without any further elaboration?

PEDIT: I see you citing the townread on bristep123, is that the bulk of it?

I thought that their thoughts overall (on me and bristep123) leading up to the vote was a bit jarring in some sense so I was fine with voting there to see how they would respond wrt them looking towards themselves to explain the L-1/L-2 vote philosophy and unvote.

In post 139, mbaki wrote:

In post 137, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m not discussing because this game is honestly rather boring rn. I’m curious why you poked at Xtoxm’s sig and why you spent so much time discussing such frivolity though.

In post 118, mbaki wrote:I love the Gorkington quote in your sig.

Ironically, I give town points to 118.

It was a random aside in a post that also gave a read (Xtoxm as town) (giving a read being more than you've contributed in your iso combined). Xtoxm chose to continue that chain of discussion and it continued for exactly 3 posts, I apologize that 3 posts of out of game discussion is frivolous to you.

Your turn: how is #137 helping you game solve? If you're poking at me because you think I shouldn't post irrelevant content but it doesn't help you sort me, it isn't advancing the game state, and I reckon Gamma Emerald would never partake in such frivolty.

Okay. I like shitposting sometimes but it wasn’t adding anything despite looking possibly game-impacting at the start so I was wondering where it was going.
I find the way you phrased things a bit shady, specifically saying Xtoxm continued it the way you did. Looks overly concerned with looking blameless.