Mafiascum.net

In post 1398, Garmr wrote:You always been nice to me through so this my first time seeing meanie T through that's not necessarily a bad thing .

Is T standing for townie?

Why are you calling her a townie if you have doubts on her? Have you just scumslipped?

In post 1399, fferyllt wrote:

In post 1398, Garmr wrote:You always been nice to me through so this my first time seeing meanie T through that's not necessarily a bad thing .

It's player list dependent to a degree. But, I also have very little patience with crappy gambits.

If I were scum and someone got a guilty on me on day 3 with an intact scum team, I'd be strongly inclined to fade out of the thread and try not to leave associative tells to my team.

As if you'd say "If I were scum and someone got a guilty on me, I'd do exactly what I'm doing now".

But you might be right about the gambit part. I found a quote of Wake in another (finished) game where he says he likes gambits. I really want him to clarify this.

It's just. I like his claim. It fits the game. Role-wise. Odd night vig (1-3-5-7-9-...) and a night 2 one shot cop. I could see this happen. And his way of claiming reminds me very much of my first copclaim.

Fferyllt

fferyll-t

Meanie-t

Meanie T

It was a pun on her name

Not seeing the pun. Seeing the scumslip more.

In post 1400, My Milked Eek wrote:

In post 1398, Garmr wrote:You always been nice to me through so this my first time seeing meanie T through that's not necessarily a bad thing .

Is T standing for townie?

Why are you calling her a townie if you have doubts on her? Have you just scumslipped?

Say someone who is trying to twist my words. Seeing eek as scum even more.

says*

In post 1401, My Milked Eek wrote:

In post 1399, fferyllt wrote:

In post 1398, Garmr wrote:You always been nice to me through so this my first time seeing meanie T through that's not necessarily a bad thing .

It's player list dependent to a degree. But, I also have very little patience with crappy gambits.

If I were scum and someone got a guilty on me on day 3 with an intact scum team, I'd be strongly inclined to fade out of the thread and try not to leave associative tells to my team.

As if you'd say "If I were scum and someone got a guilty on me, I'd do exactly what I'm doing now".

I would love to be able to say that I can do as scum exactly what I would do as town and make the action pro-scum. I hope I get to that level of play someday.

Game events like a claim of cop guilty require very different responses from town and scum. Scum want to avoid bringing anyone else on their team down with them if they're going down. They want to survive, but that's not the overriding concern, not in the midgame.

Town want to find scum. Survival at midgame is not the overriding concern for town either. But the behaviors associated with finding scum and the behaviors associated with obscuring scum partners aren't compatible. Win condition drives motivation. And motivation shapes in thread behaviors. It's algorithmic. That's how I play the game. That's how I scumhunt. That's how I townhunt. It's not easy to completely obscure motivations and still meet your win condition.

But you might be right about the gambit part. I found a quote of Wake in another (finished) game where he says he likes gambits. I really want him to clarify this.

Somebody who would fake claim a power role in an open game as town, knowing it could draw out the real PR, has to really like gambits, I guess. It's like vanilla town fake claiming in a newbie game. It goes so against the win condition that you can only stare in horror at the likely trainwreck.

It's just. I like his claim. It fits the game. Role-wise. Odd night vig (1-3-5-7-9-...) and a night 2 one shot cop. I could see this happen. And his way of claiming reminds me very much of my first copclaim.

He claims to have a ton of offsite mafia experience. Years worth iirc.

Whatever he is, he's not a newb.

I noticed that when I skimmed through a few games of his earlier today. I had this completely wrong image of Wake. I thought he was more of a newb given his stubborn behavior D2. I'll wait for him to answer on the gambit question.

In post 1404, Garmr wrote:

In post 1400, My Milked Eek wrote:

In post 1398, Garmr wrote:You always been nice to me through so this my first time seeing meanie T through that's not necessarily a bad thing .

Is T standing for townie?

Why are you calling her a townie if you have doubts on her? Have you just scumslipped?

Say someone who is trying to twist my words.

Ok then. It's a "pun on fferyllt". How? Please explain the joke. I don't get it.

All I'm seeing is you calling fferyllt a meanie T (capitalized) and the only conclusion I can make is that you're calling her a townie, even taking that horrible pun excuse into account.

garm wrote:Seeing eek as scum even more.

Even more? So you found me scummy on D2 as well?

Oh right, until wake clarifies:


Should have never left the garmwagon alone.

In post 1408, My Milked Eek wrote:

In post 1404, Garmr wrote:

In post 1400, My Milked Eek wrote:

In post 1398, Garmr wrote:You always been nice to me through so this my first time seeing meanie T through that's not necessarily a bad thing .

Is T standing for townie?

Why are you calling her a townie if you have doubts on her? Have you just scumslipped?

Say someone who is trying to twist my words.

Ok then. It's a "pun on fferyllt". How? Please explain the joke. I don't get it.

All I'm seeing is you calling fferyllt a meanie T (capitalized) and the only conclusion I can make is that you're calling her a townie, even taking that horrible pun excuse into account.

garm wrote:Seeing eek as scum even more.

Even more? So you found me scummy on D2 as well?

Start of day three I looked back when fferylt asked me what did i think of the wagon. It's most likely two scum on one scum off then the scummiest on that wagon is you and tvk. With the one scum off the wagon being either Fferylt or Regfan.

Since Ice and SG are my only two strong town reads at the moment. If one of them is scum well gg

Eek that case you made is pretty weak and a awful big stretch aka the fake scum slip and I'm going to tell you in advance if your wagon goes anywhere near l-1 today i'm going to hammer it in heart beat if i'm not already on it.

There was no fucking way I'd be on the Kid A wagon unless it was that or nolynch. And I would have been bitching about it to the end.

Go take a look at my move to the ABR wagon on day two of On a Boat. I was pissed at GrimGroove and wanted a Plum lynch that day if we weren't lynching CDB.

I absolutely hate lynching townreads. It's bad enough watching it happen without participating in it.

@FFerylt
This anger my god I love it. So what do you think of eek's recent posts with that pathetic misrep and that eagerness to vote me even with out my responce to his question.

In post 1413, Garmr wrote:@FFerylt
This anger my god I love it. So what do you think of eek's recent posts with that pathetic misrep and that eagerness to vote me even with out my responce to his question.

I didn't need your response to vote you. There are enough other reasons to vote you without that answer.

In post 1413, Garmr wrote:@FFerylt
This anger my god I love it. So what do you think of eek's recent posts with that pathetic misrep and that eagerness to vote me even with out my responce to his question.

Your post confused me when I first read it. And the pun explanation seemed odd and doesn't really fit. A pun usually sounds like the word or phrase it's replacing. In another player I'd be squinting. But, you have a lot of unusual textual artifacts in your writing, like you're using the grammar of a different dialect from standard American or British English.

All my town reads need review. Yours has been in the null-town range since partway through day 2.

While I was indeed pushing hard for Kid A's lynch yesterday, I wasn't expecting the day to end so fast. I realize I partially share blame for Reg not being able to put down his last post, but that hammer was pretty sketchy.

I wasn't particularly expecting penguin to die last night. I guess scum caught some mason tell, I was guessing either ffery or Reg would have died should fitz have lived.

Now this brings me to an interesting point: why did scum shoot the probably mason instead of the claimed vig who will shoot tomorrow?
Here is what we do know:
-Fitz almost certainly made the shot on Herself night 1. Regardless if it was mafia shooting or vig shooting, we can be almost certain fitz was the one who shot.
-If fitz is a town vig, we very likely have one of [doctor, roleblocker, jailkeeper] within town's remaining ranks. Being that last night's kill for scum was certainly successful and night 1's scum kill looks dubious (depends on fitz's alignment) I'm guessing that town doesn't have a role blocker. We're probably looking at a doctor.
-Fitz gave his reads in this post. Scum could have used those reads to decide if they wanted to keep him around another day. If a vig is town or even null reading all the scum, it is actually in their best interest to keep him alive for one more bullet. 2 townies dying tonight would be disastrous, even if we lynch scum today.
-Fitz's role SHOULD be confirmable tonight but he is, at the moment, unconfirmed.

What I gather from this information is that fitz is slightly more likely to be scum having lived the night than he was day 1 FMPoV, however if he is indeed town then his scum reads are probably also town. If fitz dies tonight and flips town (he virtually has to die tonight if he is a vig, as his kill tonight will clear him beyond doubt in everyone's mind) then I'll more or less clear TvK and Wake based on that alone. There's no way in hell scum would have let fitz lived if they felt like he would probably shoot one of them tonight.

We can't lynch fitz today, though, as if he is town he's going to pull the bullet away from more useful players (or leave confirmed town alive, I'm cool with either honestly), and if he's scum we'll know more or less certainly by tomorrow and can happily speedlynch him.

Then, whoa. Wake's claim. 2 masons, an odd night vig, and one shot cop feels like a reasonable town strength, maybe a tad on the strong side (but could easily be balanced by day talk) so that seems to check. The wording, though, claiming "scope" is weird to me. I've never heard a cop called a scope here before, only cop and investigator. This leads me to believe that he doesn't actually have a role PM that says scope. Also, I've been pretty hardcore townreading Ffery and would find it hard to believe she's scum at this point. I've been wrong before, but even so. It is indeed very concerning, because Ffery scum implies that my reads all game have been wrong. I'll need to think more about this.

Wake if you are fake claiming, retract your claim or I will go through lengths to ensure I never play with you again. I've never even once seen a VT claiming power role help town at all, and I've seen it cause unnecessary mislynches on no fewer than 2 (and probably more than that) occasions.

I probably fucked this post up, I'm tired as hell and didn't want to wait until the morning to catch up. As a result I don't have the energy to go through and review it for errors and idiocy like I normally do. I apologize if it isn't up to my usual standards of posting.

@eek
You mean like that whole bs case day 1 I debunked with the snap of my fingers oh oh and the way you tried to manipulate my words in post 1400. I mean if you asked me a question you either vote me in the same or actually wait for me to respond that's the logical way to do it.

@Fferylt It doesn't matter that you didn't get the pun. But did you draw the same conclusion as eek did.

In post 1417, Garmr wrote:@eek
You mean like that whole bs case day 1 I debunked with the snap of my fingers oh oh and the way you tried to manipulate my words in post 1400. I mean if you asked me a question you either vote me in the same or actually wait for me to respond that's the logical way to do it.

@Fferylt It doesn't matter that you didn't get the pun. But did you draw the same conclusion as eek did.

I don't think it's a scumslip.

Do you think it's possible that eek was trying to stretch it to begin a wagon on me because he is scum.

In post 1417, Garmr wrote:@eek
You mean like that whole bs case day 1 I debunked with the snap of my fingers oh oh and the way you tried to manipulate my words in post 1400. I mean if you asked me a question you either vote me in the same or actually wait for me to respond that's the logical way to do it.

Do you really believe you debunked that case? All I remember is someone not replying to the essence of that case, putting his fingers in his ears and going "can't hear you, case debunked, oh snap".

, I didn't need that answer to vote you. There are reasons enough to vote you.

In post 1417, Garmr wrote:@Fferylt It doesn't matter that you didn't get the pun. But did you draw the same conclusion as eek did.

No, it does matter. Not getting the pun is crucial in this context. What other conclusion can you make from that T?

In post 1419, Garmr wrote:Do you think it's possible that eek was trying to stretch it to begin a wagon on me because he is scum.

Dude, I have a whole case on you. I don't need that scumslip to make my case.

I debunked that whole case with a flick of my hand make a new one and i'll debunk that to you know why because i'm town.

In post 1411, Garmr wrote:Eek that case you made is pretty weak and a awful big stretch aka the fake scum slip and I'm going to tell you in advance if your wagon goes anywhere near l-1 today i'm going to hammer it in heart beat if i'm not already on it.

It is not weak. And your little rebuttals you made Day 1 are worthless. Even though you think they're the pinnacle of any debate. You refuted nothing.

The scum slip, well honestly, it really feels like one, sue me. Of course, I could be wrong depending on what Wake has to say about his gambit preference (Wake?).


Here's what's bugging me about you garm:

You're ready to hammer me. You're calling me scum. You're making threats about my hypothetical L-1 wagon. But, here's the thing. D2, you've been following me around like a puppy. I can link to posts and elaborate if you want me to but the gist of what happened between you and me is:

- I get on the Kid wagon
- You get on the kid wagon
- I get off the Kid wagon and onto the Wake wagon
- You get off the Kid wagon and onto the Wake wagon
- I get off the Wake wagon and onto the Kid wagon
- You get off the Wake wagon and onto the Kid wagon


This night 2 nightkill is very interesting. Not in the "who did they kill" way, but in the "what" way.

My suspicion of you was put on a low fire, as we say in Dutch, during Day 2 and suddenly we became best friends: you agreed with the things I said, voted along with me and even joked around. I didn't get where that was coming from. I was even more confused by your mason posts (interesting things happened tonight with alien dying in that regard) so I didn't really know where to place you. But, as soon as I put you back under heat, you're back to suspecting me, trying to lynch me, nearly yelling (on my very own birthday )

Why are you so reactive in your scumreads? I vaguely remember the same situation happening before. I'd like to say this happened with TvK, where he suspected you, followed by you suspecting him, but I'm not sure. I should reread some parts.

In post 1422, Garmr wrote:I debunked that whole case with a flick of my hand make a new one and i'll debunk that to you know why because i'm town.

Oh my god, are you that delusional?