Mafiascum.net

The optimal scum move in a situation like this would be to hard buss or hard chainsaw for me. Take a strong stance and say it was what they felt was right.

Sitting back is letting town coordinate. The time to strike would have been beforehand.

Maybe!

maybe

I actually agree with Pisskop.

Join me Pisskop? It's better than you fypov.

Titus there’s a guilty on your highest scum priority pick and you don’t want to vote it?

In post 1354, gobbledygook wrote:Titus there’s a guilty on your highest scum priority pick and you don’t want to vote it?

Because no one claimed it

Given no one claimed the guilty, it screams Pisskop is being framed.

In post 1356, Titus wrote:Given no one claimed the guilty, it screams Pisskop is being framed.

Alternatively:

In post 1343, Eve wrote:i think people not coming forward with more information is probably indicative that this lynch is fine and nothing more needs to be said

TiTuS iS rOlEfiShInG fOr ThE jOaT

I feel like yelling wont help you all pull out your heads . . .

EP, There's a difference between "Someone has a guilty" and let's out all the conftown. Without an owner, there is no guilty. If there's no guilty, then Pisskop is framed.

I don't like it either as it means my early scumread was wrong but facts are facts.

In post 1359, pisskop wrote:VOTE: vote: esspressopatronum

Just to be clear:

(A) Assuming you're town, fypv, you the contents of eyestott's letter are fake.
(B) Given (A), either: (b1) eyestott is lying OR (b2) someone's role allowed them to frame you.
(C) That means, fypv, you have confirmed scum in eyestott OR someone who is not mason/splitter/flavour revealer/role flavourer

Given the above, why are you voting me when you should be pushing eyestott or any of the people who's roles are not mentioned in (C)?

As a side note, and again assuming you are town fypv, you know Titus is prone to tunneling this game (which she's been doing to me and you all game), so why go with her vote here?

In post 1361, Titus wrote:EP, There's a difference between "Someone has a guilty" and let's out all the conftown. Without an owner, there is no guilty. If there's no guilty, then Pisskop is framed.

I don't like it either as it means my early scumread was wrong but facts are facts.

You said it here already, so I'll change the wording a bit so it applies to your own post.

In post 1104, Titus wrote:

In post 1101, EspressoPatronum wrote:

In post 1079, Titus wrote:

In post 1078, gobbledygook wrote:Yeah I would lynch pisskop probably without a massclaim, but I think massclaim is necessary

I would rather keep the other mason hidden. We need the joat to claim. Then tmo we can talk about mass claim. If the other mason dies, I'll be on board with massclaim.

Outing the other mason might buy the JOAT more time alive. It'd force scum to pick between them.

Revealing the [JOAT] gives scum a roadmap to kill. A hidden [JOAT] in lylo or stopping their own mislynch is more valuable [especially since the JOAT still has actions remaining].

Hiding [the JOAT was something davesaz did to great success in Gay Mafia in TM 20]. Scum just were literally out of mislynches because [he tracked the last scum].

Because I tried to get people onto eyestott. And I cant help us win if Im dead.

Do you think eye is scum? I think its unlikely.

In post 1364, pisskop wrote:Because I tried to get people onto eyestott. And I cant help us win if Im dead.

Do you think eye is scum? I think its unlikely.

If you're town, I think eyestott is scum.

Even if you're scum, I still think eyestott is sus because he hasn't given us the complete information pertaining to his role. He said he'll fullclaim tomorrow, so I'll reevaluate my read on him based on: (1) your flip, and (2) the information he reveals.

okay, i want him to fullclaim no matter what else happens, so if you can get a wagon on him consider me on.

Rule 1 of being town: you dont make claims that people wont follow you blindly on. And then not elaborate. Its absolutely begging to make a tunnel/feud.

In post 1364, pisskop wrote:Because I tried to get people onto eyestott. And I cant help us win if Im dead.

Do you think eye is scum? I think its unlikely

.

In post 1366, pisskop wrote:okay, i want him to fullclaim no matter what else happens, so if you can get a wagon on him consider me on.

If you think eyestott being scum is unlikely, that means town!you thinks someone else framed you. Wouldn't you therefore want to wagon the person most likely to have framed you? (See option B2 in 1362).

That should mean town!you wants a wagon on one of alim, Eve, Titus, or Egix,* minus whichever one is the mason. (See option C in 1362)

*Egix is an option for who framed you but not a viable wagon today.

I understand your willingness to vote me out of survivalism, but town!you should see that voting me delays the issues presented by the mail/letter claim. It's better for town to deal with it now (ie. vote you/eyestott/one of the other options) while there's likely still room for error.

In post 1367, pisskop wrote:Rule 1 of being town: you dont make claims that people wont follow you blindly on. And then not elaborate. Its absolutely begging to make a tunnel/feud.

Perhaps the JOAT thought we would follow the claim blindly.

I have no idea whether the joat has actions remaining. That requires the mystical, nonexistent joat to claim.

Pisskop claimed X shot tracker too.

The joat is only conftown if it claims. The mason is conftown regardless.

In post 1369, Titus wrote:I have no idea whether the joat has actions remaining. That requires the mystical, nonexistent joat to claim.

The same person who claimed the guilty also told us the JOAT has remaining actions.

In post 1135, eyestott wrote:

In post 1068, EspressoPatronum wrote:I support a full claim today.

If we're actually in mylo, I'd prefer if the JOAT confirmed eyestott's story.

The JOAT informed me that they will not be claiming today.

They aren't done with their abilities

.
[...]

_________________

Pisskop claimed X shot tracker too.

Why is this relevant?

if he wants to claim a guilty, then he needs to step foreward and square up.

In post 1370, Titus wrote:The joat is only conftown if it claims. The mason is conftown regardless.

The JOAT dies if they claim. So does the mason.

If they both claim at the same time, we gain either:
1) an extra day of an outed mason (ie. a confirmed town to lead the town), or
2) an extra ability use by the JOAT

This is why I wanted them both to reveal. Since that isn't going to happen, I don't think either should reveal.

Considering the mason options are down to 2 people, I'm not sure how useful them holding out is going to be. Their call though.

EP, that assumes the mailman is actually a joat. We have no proof of such. The absence of proof means either a) eyestott is lying, b) the sender is scum or c) the joat is an idiot because people should think a or b.

Pisskop might have useful actions as much as this "joat".