Mafiascum.net

hm. i took 34 to mean that only a few of alch's posts prior to seanzie declaring the vote serious were "making friends"-y, but i see now what you mean.

In post 110, Aristeia wrote:

In post 105, Gamma Emerald wrote:Um, pretty serious?
I don’t get the point of the question

"welp"

and

"my vote is serious now"

feel like dissonance to me.

so I'm asking for a clarification on how serious you feel about this.

well, it wasn't an RVS vote anymore, but like, I'd consider myself a silly person
that good?

In post 115, T3 wrote:

In post 114, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:

In post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.

More votes on Flub plz

so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrong

What do you think of my idea that Seanzie may have been testing to see who would try defending/pocketing me?

That's a 400iq strat that people don't do.

I'd do it.

In post 117, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 1, tris wrote:IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTE;
There are exactly three players in this game that have access to private topics.

This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.

I had the sense to check on it, it's only valid for the start of the game

In post 117, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 1, tris wrote:IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTE;
There are exactly three players in this game that have access to private topics.

This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.

That would leave 2 scum for the entire game if one town was in a neighborhood at the start of the game.

In post 128, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 117, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 1, tris wrote:IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTE;
There are exactly three players in this game that have access to private topics.

This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.

I had the sense to check on it, it's only valid for the start of the game

Has to be. Otherwise the mod is confirming certain roles don't exist and that's just not cool in a normal game.

In post 128, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 117, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 1, tris wrote:IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTE;
There are exactly three players in this game that have access to private topics.

This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.

I had the sense to check on it, it's only valid for the start of the game

So there could still be neigjborizers or something?

In post 129, Titus wrote:

In post 117, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 1, tris wrote:IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTE;
There are exactly three players in this game that have access to private topics.

This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.

That would leave 2 scum for the entire game if one town was in a neighborhood at the start of the game.

Yeah it seemed like it would be weird to have the game start with a guaranteed 1v1, but even then the alternative is confirming there isn’t a hood or masonry which also seems odd to inform us about. I’m not sure why we were given this extra info unless someone decided Town just needs that much of a buff.

But Titus since you’re here got any reads to share?

In post 129, Titus wrote:

In post 117, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 1, tris wrote:IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTE;
There are exactly three players in this game that have access to private topics.

This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.

That would leave 2 scum for the entire game if one town was in a neighborhood at the start of the game.

2 scum + a traitor?

In post 116, Flubbernugget wrote:

Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:

In post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.

More votes on Flub plz

so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrong

What do you think of my idea that Seanzie may have been testing to see who would try defending/pocketing me?

I'm not seeing it and you're probably overthinking things. dude got pressured on why he voted for you then straight up lied

Eh, I didn't lie so much as just have a brainflub. Tbh I may have had a few drinks last night...

I usually try to get the game going early by overstating a weak scumread on someone to see how people react. I didn't like how buddy-buddy Alchemist was being, and so I wanted to push him on that. Idk why I didn't remember the lukewarm joke.

In post 129, Titus wrote:

In post 117, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 1, tris wrote:IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTE;
There are exactly three players in this game that have access to private topics.

This has been on my mind a bit, but have mods recently started putting info like this in their rulesets? This was an oddly specific detail to include and if there’s a neighborhood it means there’s a guaranteed scum in there.

That would leave 2 scum for the entire game if one town was in a neighborhood at the start of the game.

I don't think it'd make much sense for a town to be in a neighborhood if only 3 people have BTSC. Unless there is no mafia BTSC (which seems extremely unlikely), the townperson could immediately conclude that their neighbor was mafia, which seems broken.

I'm guessing BTSC means behind-the-scenes chat?

In post 134, Seanzie wrote:didn't like how buddy-buddy Alchemist was being, a

For context on that, it’s been at least 9 months since I’ve been in a game and the people I was asking how they’ve been are people I played a lot with in the past.

In post 115, T3 wrote:

In post 114, Alchemist21 wrote:

In post 112, Flubbernugget wrote:

In post 36, Umlaut wrote:A non-ridiculous reading is "there is something in Alchemist's posts that Seanzie didn't like and he's being coy about what exactly" and not "posting = bad," and I have a hard time believing the latter is really what you thought he meant even for a second.

More votes on Flub plz

so I don't think seanzie is literally scumreading someone for posting more. I think they're trying to manufacture a push and doing it poorly. so the only thing they could shade alchemist for was "posting". seems like I'm right too, because in elaborating, they're now saying things that are just...wrong

What do you think of my idea that Seanzie may have been testing to see who would try defending/pocketing me?

That's a 400iq strat that people don't do.

I think you just got disproven

In post 136, Gamma Emerald wrote:I'm guessing BTSC means behind-the-scenes chat?

Yes, exactly.

What about a neighborizer and a traitor?

In post 132, Alchemist21 wrote:But Titus since you’re here got any reads to share?

I'm leaning Umlaut scum but I don't have any strong reads yet.

Never fear, the cavalry has arrived to save the day, by hanging all the mafia!
Sorry for taking a while to post but as you can see by my snazzy banner, I am on V/LA until sunday.

No strong reads yet, although I feel the drama with flubber is being taken pretty harshly to what resulted from mostly RVS discussion.

VOTE: Titus

,

,

VC 1.03

Flubbernugget (5):

Umlaut 29, Lukewarm 50, ChaosOmega 71, Aristeia 97, T3 113

Seanzie (2):

Gamma Emerald 13, Flubbernugget 26

T3 (2):

Datisi 76, Alchemist21 81

Umlaut (1):

Titus 74

Alchemist21 (1):

Seanzie 12

Titus (1):

MegAzumarill 142

not voting:

Vulture

with 13 alive it takes 7 to destroy.

deadline:

(expired on 2021-08-08 18:55:00)

nope

lmao I thought that was pagetop.

Page