Mafiascum.net

In post 1267, Akarin wrote:I

hate

being treated like I couldn't have possibly had any valid reason for scumreading you just because I hadn't been able to put it into compelling words yet.

In post 1277, Akarin wrote:So if the logic was perfect, that means that logically Dunn and I were obvscum here and you were town.

In post 1278, mastina wrote:

In post 1277, Akarin wrote:So if the logic was perfect, that means that logically Dunn and I were obvscum here and you were town.

Well before schadd_ confirmed Dunnstral's claim as town...kinda sorta, yes.

After schadd_ confirmed Dunnstral's claim tho, admittedly yes, the logic was proven flawed.

In post 1284, mastina wrote:

In post 1278, mastina wrote:

In post 1277, Akarin wrote:So if the logic was perfect, that means that logically Dunn and I were obvscum here and you were town.

Well before schadd_ confirmed Dunnstral's claim as town...kinda sorta, yes.

After schadd_ confirmed Dunnstral's claim tho, admittedly yes, the logic was proven flawed.

(Basically. A lot of my arguments were based on something schadd_ later, very publicly, confirmed to not be the case. Attacking the logic I presented as being from scum wouldn't have worked because as town I would've made those same arguments with no way of knowing they were wrong until the mod announced it, so if that were your angle of attack, it wouldn't have worked. Pointing out that, given Dunn's roleclaim was now modconfirmed, that my arguments were no longer valid after the fact even if they were valid at the time, and that with them no longer valid that there was less reason for Dunnstral to be scum, very well could have worked. Saying my arguments were made in bad faith wouldn't work, saying my arguments were clearly wrong from the getgo wouldn't work, saying that my arguments were now invalidated by the mod might have. The logic I used was reasonable and accurate to the facts of the game at the given time, but shown incorrect by schadd_'s announcement. Attacking me for having made stances that were at the time reasonable wouldn't have done good, but pointing out the stances were now proven wrong could have. So schadd_ confirming Dunnstral's claim gave you a very good angle you'd otherwise not have.)

In post 1285, Gypyx wrote:Also, what was the canadian townie?

In post 1281, MathBlade wrote:Well played but imho you have a tell.

In post 580, mastina wrote:

In post 419, NicCage wrote:We know from the setup that daytalk is enabled everywhere, and scum always share a PT anyway. So why can't Dunn and I just be lying about the neighborhood, and actually just be buddies?

Dude you literally paraphrased your PT--are you telling me you think that paraphrase is in any way even remotely realistically fakeable?

I don't mean, "yes, in theory, it is theoretically possible to fake a neighborhood pt conversation like this".

I mean in practice, do you think YOU, with your overall knowledge about you and Dunnstral, without an actual neighborhood PT, are capable of having faked this, thought it was a good idea, and gone through with it? To have pulled an elaborate ruse?

Because if a player said "Dunnstral and NicCage are clearly faking a PT conversation and are actually scumbuddies".

I'd be tempted to lynch that player on the spot for pushing an obvious paranoia theory that blatantly violates occam's razor. Because the simplest, and most likely, explanation, is that the neighborhood is real. schadd_ likes to have neighborhoods in his games, and he would never make a scum-scum neighborhood, therefore the claim of one is very very very likely to be true, especially with the play to back it up.

I originally thought that the Nic-Dunnstral interactions reeked of scum-scum since your inthread treatment of each other reeked of being forced and faked--but you being in a neighborhood with Dunnstral provides the perfect explanation for that and turns it into a situation that makes total sense as being from town/"town" (if you're 3p).

Ergo.

You're not scum.

You're either town, or a 3p, but if you're a 3p you're effectively town anyway and thus, still town, and thus, still not scum, and thus, not a good elimination today or ever.

In post 419, NicCage wrote:And of course, the stated motive for the partial read change is based on a revelation of the new setup, not on reads.

Well obviously?
When I have made reads based off of no/wrong information, then when I get information that gives new context to the situation, including your neighborhood claim and the possibility of a 4-5 game, then that means the reads need to be updated to account for the new information.

And by the new information, Dunnstral remains scum but you become, instead of a scumbuddy with forced interactions with him, town (I feel like I should just say 'town' even though it'd be more accurate to say "town or benevolent 3p which is basically town") whose interactions with him were due to you having a neighborhood with him.

Like.
I was fucking right.
I said I thought your interactions with Dunnstral were faked and reeked of scum-scum.
They were, kinda sorta, 'faked'--not really, but they were due to you actually having a PT with Dunnstral.
But I had no way of knowing that your topic with Dunnstral wasn't a scum topic until you claimed it, did I?

Was it Mathblade himself who testified in MBOS 10 that masons look like scum? Someone did that game, at least, and a similar principle applies here for a neighborhood. Neighborhoods that're unclaimed can look like scumbuddies, until the neighborhood is revealed and that information puts to light that they are in fact, not scumbuddies, but neighbors who did have info about one another.

In post 581, MathBlade wrote:

In post 578, Akarin wrote:@Math

I'm not disagreeing about what you're saying about town confirming Dunn, I'm just arguing that I don't see not seeing that as evidence of Nic being scum.

I am torn about it on Nic being scum.

However, what I am not torn about it, is that if he is town, he has admitted a mistake and reset.

If he resets and still gets Dunn scum then he’ll have a better case and rebuild his credibility.

Right now, based on what is in thread his theories either are not logically sound and/or I break them by existing.

Therefore I am asking him to reset and come back and my vote is on him until he does or if it needs to be back on Mastina or G for an elimination.

In post 1291, MathBlade wrote:You’re more positive as Town. You build people up. As scum there’s a hint of any idea destroy it but you didn’t force your own or try to rebuild flow once it was dead. You sorta went with it.

In post 1292, MathBlade wrote:The last paragraph is sell hard like you know I am town.

In post 1293, MathBlade wrote:Fuck me I had another good town game. I might be better at this. Setup spec was bad though.

In post 1295, mastina wrote:

In post 1292, MathBlade wrote:The last paragraph is sell hard like you know I am town.

Uh.
MathBlade.

I made that post before I knew you were in the game.

That post was made in response to a time before you had replaced into the game.
There was zero selling of you being town there because as far as that post was concerned...you weren't in the game yet.

In post 1297, mastina wrote:

In post 1295, mastina wrote:

In post 1292, MathBlade wrote:The last paragraph is sell hard like you know I am town.

Uh.
MathBlade.

I made that post before I knew you were in the game.

That post was made in response to a time before you had replaced into the game.
There was zero selling of you being town there because as far as that post was concerned...you weren't in the game yet.

(I should note tho that I was selling someone as being town there--it was actually made towards

TheGoldenParadox

, who was also in MBOS10 and thus was who I was actually appealing to there.)

In post 1298, MathBlade wrote:Oh I thought you knew I was in the game XD.