Mafiascum.net

In post 110, Micc wrote:What part of my posting from last night convinced you, or did you feel that way before voting me?

In post 127, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Dum at #104 and #114 doesn't feel right. It feels fake.

In post 124, JacksonVirgo wrote:Responses in red

In post 108, navigatorv wrote:

In post 101, JacksonVirgo wrote: Hey fam, check my signature.
Also I am not going to *not* defend someone that I think is wrongfully pushed just because they're a wagon, that's insane. Please do quote where you think I am trying to make you turn on each other, I literally am saying that Orc/Micc is TvT, trying to *stop* that conflict because I feel they're both Town.

The lurking isn't what gets me, it's that you went from lurking to dominating the conversation. Just seems a bit odd.
As for quotes, aside from the more active hostility that started right around the time you started posting, there's the vehement refusal to even consider a no-elimination over just voting someone that seems sus with no real evidence.

If that's your issue, why did you say that lurking was the issue. I hardly ever post much in early-game unless someone twists my soul (mainly in a bad way), just the way I play. Also as Micc has said, no-eliminating forces the Town to rely on PRs more than what is needed, and that throws the odds into the Mafia's hands which I do not want. I am assuming that you come from role-madness like games (such as Town of Salem) where there is a lot of PR roles and it's focused on night-play.

In post 18, JacksonVirgo wrote:We are not no-eliminating, that is counter-intuitive to our goals.

Then the defense of Micc in and of itself isn't an issue, but the fact that you seem to view aggressive and borderline antagonistic behavior as not something to worry about

Aggressive or antagonistic does not equal scummy, that could very well just be their playstyle similar to how someone like DkKoba plays

In post 96, JacksonVirgo wrote: It's in what I said. They seemed to be pushing what I read as NAI

Yet seem to find Dum apologizing suspicious enough to warrant a potential wagon

Firstly I already said it was mainly gut so I won't be pushing them, so you're misrepresenting my case here. There's also a large difference between why I think that read was NAI and why I think Dum's actions were scummy, which you seemed to ignore.

In post 81, JacksonVirgo wrote: I am voting Salsa since the read on Dum isn't super strong but they've been overly apologetic which I am thinking may be them doing so to "protect" themselves from any slips they make, which I also think is a subconscious act since they're new to the site.

Combine that with the fact that claiming both orctin and Micc are TvT is actually a very good way to protect a potential scum (or at least disruptive player), without attracting suspicion, it has me wary. Not enough to warrant a vote, but enough to keep an eye out.

If you read them as SvT go for it, I don't and I am not going to push what I don't believe just because I may be read as partners.

In post 102, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 100, navigatorv wrote:If I had to pick, I'd say my top 3 suspects are, from most to least suspicious, Salsabil, Jackson, and Micc. However, there's still enough doubt that I can't pick a specific person to point the finger at rn. That said

It's early on day 1, it does not matter where your vote is as long as you're voting someone you think is scummy. I have no idea why you seem to think it holds a lot of weight in who you specifically vote.

As for this, I'll let you answer your own question.

In post 68, JacksonVirgo wrote: Ignoring or

half-assing

day-play will make us lose, it's as simple as that.

Again you're misrepresenting. You clearly have scum-reads that are ranked in order, yet choose to not vote at all. Is that because you may be scared of the backlash possibly

In post 100, navigatorv wrote: Jackson on the other hand has me feeling wary. They spent most of the first two days lurking

and then suddenly began posting a ton.

In post 121, navigatorv wrote:there's just too many possibilities with little to weigh things in anyone's favor.

In post 129, navigatorv wrote:You also seem to have it in your head that I'm from another server and I'm not sure why. I've said multiple times both in this thread and in my introduction that this is my first time playing Mafia, I've simply had a large enough interest to know a number of rules and roles. The reason for me considering No-Elimination has nothing to do with PRs, it's simply based on the fact that with 7 town and 2 scum, unless someone slips up bad, our day one guesses are more likely to hit a townie than accomplish anything. I've basically stopped advocating for that anyway, you were just asking for instances of you trying to force confrontation and that was one thing that bugged me.

My bad, I thought it was you that replied saying you were from Mafia.gg or something. No-elimination has everything to do with PRs, the setup is balanced for having daily eliminations, including day 1. I can link you to a game where no-elim happened d1 and Town would have been utterly screwed if scum didn't scum-slip. An elimination is a kill that the Town controls, any other kill will 100% not be scum. Also would you rather wait for a scummy person to live in LyLo (2v3 or 1v2 where an elimination causes a loss) or would you rather clear them early-game when the stakes are less strong. I cannot word this well enough but trust that I am SE, and I know that no-elimination is bad practice.

Also I do not understand that last bit, I did ask for you to quote where I was forcing town to turn on each other or however you worded it, I am going to assume you're going to say so later in this post but if not I need that or I am going to consider you're pulling that out of your ass.

On the topic of aggressive and antagonistic not indicating scum necessarily, I actually agree. What I don't agree on is the idea that that means someone should be exempt from being voted. In my eyes, a townie that mostly causes problems and makes everyone go on wild goose chases isn't a help to the town cause and is unintentionally aiding the scum. As far as I'm concerned, Micc has done little to help in finding the scum and made us waste a good portion of time by making himself suspicious to several people, myself included, so if we can't get a good enough scumread to figure out one of the two mafia members, I don't think eliminating him would hurt us too much.

By all means vote them if you think that's scum for them, I respectfully disagree that it's scummy but if you make a case on them that convinces me I will obviously have no qualms about voting there. But as it stands right now, I think both them and Orc are Town and I would rather focus on Dum or Salsa. If you see them as anti-town, that's a fair reason to want to eliminate them but what exactly makes them scum over anti-town. I personally do not read them as being anti-town either but you do so I am asking this not because I agree with you but I want to understand.

As for the post where you found Dum scummy, the reason I didn't include your reasoning in the quote is I thought it was fairly arbitrary and seemed more like the first thing that popped into your head because I asked than an actual valid read, I never intended to misrepresent your case. I mostly quoted that because while the circumstances were different, yes, it struck me as odd what you consider a valid AI and was one of the things that made me start suspecting that you might be trying to spark unnecessary infighting.

If I really wanted to spark fighting I would be aiding in the push of Orc or Micc not try and start a new wagon as that would put attention more on myself which would be counter-intuitive.

With the orctin v Micc situation, it wasn't that I read it as SvT, it's just what I already stated: it's a very good way to protect a potential scum, without attracting suspicion and wouldn't have been an issue if not for the oddities that I'd noticed at that point.

I am not saying your logic is wrong by saying it could be scum protecting, but saying it won't attract suspicion is wrong, going against the Town's overall conscious does attract suspicion so it wouldn't be something I'd do. If you wanted to check my scum games, I am very strategic/methodic with how I play but I'm going to stop self-meta right now since I don't like doing so.

I fail to see how me using your words against you is misrepresenting. Even if my way of playing cautiously doesn't align with your sense of how to play well, it doesn't change the fact that that's why I have been so focused on being careful even with an early day 1 vote. In my mind, since hammering could come at any time for someone with high votes, voting carelessly early on is a mistake which is why I've been such a stickler for needing a good reason to change my vote.

It's misrepresenting because they have nothing to do with each other if you added context. Voting itself does not hold much weight at all without intent, for example saying you're voting for a reaction will hold no actual weight since the votee will know it's not valid heat. You say you don't know who to vote, but you obviously do considering you have three tiered scums so not voting is the reverse. Your intent does not hold weight if you do not vote, at least to me. Also you should not worry about voting, as if somebody hammers prior to when is needed, they should be eliminated the day after and/or will give us more leads going into the night.

As for why I haven't voted anyone else despite being able to rank my suspicions, I don't particularly care about backlash. Even if I get eliminated for a view I wouldn't have a problem as long as it helped town win later. The reason I haven't voted for someone new is for the same reason I said in my last post:

In post 121, navigatorv wrote:there's just too many possibilities with little to weigh things in anyone's favor.

While I can rank my suspicions, the difference is only by about 5% maybe 10% between each one max, which isn't significant enough to warrant voting yet.

I have no real comment on this at this time.

On the topic of Dum's recent behavior, I have to agree, something's very off compared to how he was at the start. He's been jumping up my scumlist pretty significantly with each post, but I agree with orctin that until he has time to defend himself, a vote isn't warranted; though once he does so, if it isn't satisfactory and no one's jumped up in suspicion, I'm most likely going to vote for him.

Yeah, the post I quoted before was the first of a string of weird tonal posts and their apologetic/backlash-protective posts make my read on them stronger. Also I disagree with Orc, they will not defend themselves properly and we won't get any pressure reads until they get pushed on. Again not voting but throwing intent is meaningless.

In post 129, navigatorv wrote:What I don't agree on is the idea that that means someone should be exempt from being voted. In my eyes, a townie that mostly causes problems and makes everyone go on wild goose chases isn't a help to the town cause and is unintentionally aiding the scum. As far as I'm concerned, Micc has done little to help in finding the scum and made us waste a good portion of time by making himself suspicious to several people, myself included, so if we can't get a good enough scumread to figure out one of the two mafia members, I don't think eliminating him would hurt us too much.

In post 130, JacksonVirgo wrote:By all means vote them if you think that's scum for them, I respectfully disagree that it's scummy but if you make a case on them that convinces me I will obviously have no qualms about voting there. But as it stands right now, I think both them and Orc are Town and I would rather focus on Dum or Salsa. If you see them as anti-town, that's a fair reason to want to eliminate them but what exactly makes them scum over anti-town. I personally do not read them as being anti-town either but you do so I am asking this not because I agree with you but I want to understand.

In post 130, JacksonVirgo wrote:Yeah, the post I quoted before was the first of a string of weird tonal posts and their apologetic/backlash-protective posts make my read on them stronger. Also I disagree with Orc, they will not defend themselves properly and we won't get any pressure reads until they get pushed on. Again not voting but throwing intent is meaningless.

In post 130, JacksonVirgo wrote:Also you should not worry about voting, as if somebody hammers prior to when is needed, they should be eliminated the day after and/or will give us more leads going into the night.[/b][/color]

In post 137, navigatorv wrote:As for if I'm afraid to be lynched, no, feel free to vote for me if that's what you want.

In post 137, navigatorv wrote:JacksonVirgo:
I suppose I should probably establish my stance on Micc to avoid further confusion. I don't think he's scum, but his playstyle has thus far only hindered our investigations, not helped, which is why I said unintentionally helping the mafia.

Again, I've more found it odd that you seemed to get a bigger scum reading from Dum's initial posts which really didn't have much of substance to read from.

Reflecting on what I said about you seemingly turning us against each other, I think I might've been jumping the gun slightly. I noticed a few odd things and the more hostile environment after you began posting which likely influenced my statement. You can consider it me pulling it out of my ass if you want, I don't because there were reasons that I've already outlined, but it was definitely a bit of a stretch (I'll admit I'm not a very trusting person even irl so there's a good chance that a lot of my speculation might just be me jumping at shadows. I'll try to avoid unintentional accusations in the future as I never expected it to take up so much valuable time for so little payoff).

One thing I disagree with is this:

In post 130, JacksonVirgo wrote:Also you should not worry about voting, as if somebody hammers prior to when is needed, they should be eliminated the day after and/or will give us more leads going into the night.[/b][/color]

I feel that the time lost by an early day end isn't equal to the potential payoff. Since hammering prior to time is a move that I only imagine scum would do if they were desperate, I can't imagine eliminating that person has a high likelihood of helping us. Not to say that it's impossible for it to be beneficial, it just seems unlikely to be so when thinking about it logically.
As for what you said about voting and intentions meaning nothing by themselves, I'll take it into consideration. I still feel like voting without much to go on is a bad idea, but you raise some valid points I hadn't thought of.

Playing this game in a vacuum of thought leads to a lot of recursive thinking, so I appreciate you countering my arguments. Even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, it's definitely helped me consider things from some new angles.
With all that said, I agree that Dum is one of the most suspicious and while I'd like to give him time to defend, I also don't want him to use that time to think up an excuse.
VOTE: Dum

In post 121, navigatorv wrote:I gotta say, that play by Dum was definitely unexpected and the analysis was fairly well done. Unfortunately, I don't think taking the bait means anything; it relies on whoever it is not paying attention to the events of the thread which I don't see most of the active players doing, scum or otherwise. The rules at the beginning also said we have to state our intent to hammer on vote 5, which he didn't do. As far as I can tell, the trap did little to tell us about orctin, but did reveal a trickier side to Dum (though whether that will backfire or not remains to be seen).

In post 143, humaneatingmonkey wrote:my overexplaining joke

In post 138, humaneatingmonkey wrote: I ask because you're playing like you're afraid of being suspicious, but this answer told me otherwise, which makes me think that you're actually avoiding suspicion because you're scum. What do you think about that?

In post 139, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 137, navigatorv wrote:JacksonVirgo:
I suppose I should probably establish my stance on Micc to avoid further confusion. I don't think he's scum, but his playstyle has thus far only hindered our investigations, not helped, which is why I said unintentionally helping the mafia.

Is this saying you're retracting a portion of your older post where you said myself, Micc and Salsa are who you think is suspicious, because here you seem like you assume Micc is Town here when before you thought they were scum.

Yes, the recent posts and having more time to think and analyze has me pretty sure that you and Micc aren't scum, though nothing's changed with Salsa on account of the lack of activity.

May I ask what you're current reads are, no matter how "weak".

Hmm...for town I'm leaning towards you, Micc, HEM, and orctin. You all seem to be legitimately scum hunting and getting a read on others, albeit in vastly different ways. If I had to put a number it'd probably be between 60-75% likely for all of you.
Scum, I'm feeling Dum and Salsa most strongly. A lot of their behavior could be newbie jitters, but there's a(n arguably more likely) chance that they're scum getting desperate now that pressure's moving toward them based on their reactions and tactics. Certainty for Salsa's at about 65% and Dum is 75%
The others I don't have enough info to really decide one way or the other.

In post 140, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 121, navigatorv wrote:I gotta say, that play by Dum was definitely unexpected and the analysis was fairly well done. Unfortunately, I don't think taking the bait means anything; it relies on whoever it is not paying attention to the events of the thread which I don't see most of the active players doing, scum or otherwise. The rules at the beginning also said we have to state our intent to hammer on vote 5, which he didn't do. As far as I can tell, the trap did little to tell us about orctin, but did reveal a trickier side to Dum (though whether that will backfire or not remains to be seen).

navigatorv said this about Dum and then now says he thinks Dum is scummy