Mafiascum.net

I'm a confused

In post 1350, Carcalilly wrote:I'm a confused

same tbqh

In post 1347, Performer wrote:-looking back, honestly was glad nsg was killed because she didn't give me straight answer on why she had me as tr. maybe that was way of reaction testing me for a town tell though

i think perhaps you should reconsider what you think of as scumtells. interested to hear why you were scumreading rc or why you think me doing that makes me likely to be scum.

In post 1347, Performer wrote:-when eragon stated dunn/sky/schad were scum multiple times - were there any strong pushes on eragon ??

hmm

In post 1352, northsidegal wrote:

In post 1347, Performer wrote:-looking back, honestly was glad nsg was killed because she didn't give me straight answer on why she had me as tr. maybe that was way of reaction testing me for a town tell though

i think perhaps you should reconsider what you think of as scumtells. interested to hear why you were scumreading rc or why you think me doing that makes me likely to be scum.

nsg I am very flattered you read me well in here, which is ... rare for people who I don't play with very much or people I don't play with at all.
You scumreading rc , I didn't think that made you scummy...it was when you tr me with no explanation. And then I asked and I think I asked at least once more...I've had and seen games where scum ignore town questions and the questions are slid under the rug and not followed up on.

people who townread me and later change the read on me, and seeing people who scumread or townread others with no expansion on their thought process...many many times, that resulted in something bad for the town. without the transparency, it would be easy for scum to coast - aka what eragon did by calling dunn & sky scum on d2 iirc....unfortunately we had sudden self vote and a following vote that quickly ended the day.

you can't complain about a self vote on a person that you were voting.

In post 1354, Performer wrote:You scumreading rc , I didn't think that made you scummy...

i don't recall scumreading RC.

people who townread me and later change the read on me, and seeing people who scumread or townread others with no expansion on their thought process...many many times, that resulted in something bad for the town. without the transparency, it would be easy for scum to coast

i don't disagree with you in principle, but i think you overstate that tell's importance. if someone never explains any of their reads that might be cause for concern - me not responding on my single read on you shouldn't really put me as your top scum suspect or even a scum suspect at all, in my opinion. i think part of the issue might be focusing too much on events as they relate specifically to you (i.e. overthinking the importance of someone not giving a reason for their read on you specifically despite them having given reasons for their reads on other people), but i could be wrong on that.

In post 1356, northsidegal wrote:

In post 1354, Performer wrote:You scumreading rc , I didn't think that made you scummy...

i don't recall scumreading RC.

people who townread me and later change the read on me, and seeing people who scumread or townread others with no expansion on their thought process...many many times, that resulted in something bad for the town. without the transparency, it would be easy for scum to coast

i don't disagree with you in principle, but i think you overstate that tell's importance. if someone never explains any of their reads that might be cause for concern - me not responding on my single read on you shouldn't really put me as your top scum suspect or even a scum suspect at all, in my opinion. i think part of the issue might be focusing too much on events as they relate specifically to you (i.e. overthinking the importance of someone not giving a reason for their read on you specifically despite them having given reasons for their reads on other people), but i could be wrong on that.

were you townreading me?

i thought i said as much, although this and the result of the past few games are making me wonder if i need to just start screaming more and deathtunnelling my reads to actually accomplish anything

I'm sorry, I definitely didn't help you win this game.

I did, like, not mislynch anyone who wasn't scumreading me for really stupid reasons though. And I tried to lynch Era before endgame.

i think you played pretty well this game. i wouldn't say that i played any significant amount better, at least.

i would say that you did play significantly better than me with the also significant caveat that I think if carca and sky hadn't gone off at me I'd have solved the game very fast

In post 1356, northsidegal wrote:

In post 1354, Performer wrote:You scumreading rc , I didn't think that made you scummy...

i don't recall scumreading RC.

people who townread me and later change the read on me, and seeing people who scumread or townread others with no expansion on their thought process...many many times, that resulted in something bad for the town. without the transparency, it would be easy for scum to coast

i don't disagree with you in principle, but i think you overstate that tell's importance. if someone never explains any of their reads that might be cause for concern - me not responding on my single read on you shouldn't really put me as your top scum suspect or even a scum suspect at all, in my opinion. i think part of the issue might be focusing too much on events as they relate specifically to you (i.e. overthinking the importance of someone not giving a reason for their read on you specifically despite them having given reasons for their reads on other people), but i could be wrong on that.

the problem is I feel like if person B doesn't focus at least a little on why person A kept townreading them
they could let person A slide into d2 and later days, without bothering why

unless you're saying each day causes reevaluation, so person B reevaluates and maybe person A starts going into why they tr person B?
....then that's ... a different story.

In post 1355, RadiantCowbells wrote:you can't complain about a self vote on a person that you were voting.

your read should never be based entirely off of someone responding to one question or not

it's really just not that important

In post 1363, Performer wrote:

In post 1355, RadiantCowbells wrote:you can't complain about a self vote on a person that you were voting.

he's right. well, it depends on your philosophy when it comes to voting people.

generally you vote people when you want them to die, so you should have no qualms about someone who you were voting's death being sped up.

Interesting. I guess my thinking has always been "the rest of the player list should be disciplined enough not to speed end this day based on who we have."
But this is a very interesting lesson that I can take going forward, about the "generally you vote people when you want them to die, so you should have no qualms about someone who you were voting's death being sped up."

I don't think I ever considered it that way, I just didn't think there would be that kind of risk to consider all the time.

also micro queue games without prs is something that has not been sitting well with me....
I think I will stick with pr games from now on...

there's no risk???

like you're voting someone -> you think they're scum -> they should die

thinking of it in various situations like on d3 or in d1 in a large for instance:
if I vote someone first, I'm not always thinking " oh no there's a risk of them getting speed voting into a death within 12 hours," is what I'm saying. Sometimes I've got in the back of my mind, a door open for people listening to others and maybe even reevaluate that slot and unvote them later.