Mafiascum.net

In post 1425, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 1424, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 1344, maxwell wrote:I think Green Crayons came off worse in his arguments with Duchess and RTP, want to dig into the weeds thereto be sure but felt the way he was arguing was underhanded at times.

This is interesting.

As in, I want to hear your thoughts on specifics of this and what pinged you when you have time.

First thing that struck me was very early on, where 133 appeared to take the least charitable interpretation of duchess's post by accusing them of fence-sitting for a rhetorical device "not sure I like your line of questioning" that isn't fence-sitty. Then in the argument with RTP, he does a similar thing where he pulls arguments out of context - 1076 is responding to RTP asking why they are below elements in GC's reads, and GC turns it into a "well, ACTUALLY you are suspecting me because I suspect you" argument, which is both avoiding the point RTP was trying to make (of why they should be low on GC's reads) and is pulling those quotes without context, where the reason RTP was "starting to understand the foses on [Green Crayons]" was because they disagreed with GC's accusation that they were not "pushing the game forawrd"

It feels dishonest in both cases, and if there are multiple people who are saying that the person they are arguing with is twisting their words, it feels like there is more likely to be truth to that accusation.

I like neither the duchess vote or the elements vote. With Duchess, there seems to be a big victim complex to their aggression, they accuse the people they're arguing with of conspiring against them, of being unfair, I think there's a townie entitlement to that For Elements, I just find the talking about how they're elim-bait day 1 all the time as town, followed by the frustration selfvote at RTP repeatedly accusing them of being scum, when there wasn't even a threat of a wagon, to be much more of a suicidal townie attitude, don't see scum getting flustered that easily

VOTE: Green Crayons

Can understand Datisi's points agauinst Italiano decently well although I've some reservations based on a few posts I thought were townish, if it came down to it I don't think I'd oppose a compromise vote there.

In post 1475, maxwell wrote:First thing that struck me was very early on, where 133 appeared to take the least charitable interpretation of duchess's post by accusing them of fence-sitting for a rhetorical device "not sure I like your line of questioning" that isn't really fence-sitty.

couching an attack as "don't understand" + "not sure I like" = fence sitting. it isn't a full commitment to the attack.

this is a weird thing to bring up. did Duchess and I even argue over it? I don't recall doing so.

In post 1475, maxwell wrote:1076 is responding to RTP asking why they are below elements in GC's reads, and GC turns it into a "well, ACTUALLY you are suspecting me because I suspect you" argument,

uh my Elements and RTP reads aren't gradations of the same alignment. i'm reading Elements as on the town side of the alignment line, RTP on the scum side. so RTP asking why he is "below" elements = RTP asking why he's being scumread.

And i (1) answered that by linking to Post 462, which started my prior explanation for why i was reading RTP as scum--so, yes, I didn't repeat my reasons but I linked to them, and (2) simultaneously noted RTP's inaccurate projection of his own suspicious play onto my play (the notion that I was scumreading him only bc he FOS'd me)

In post 1475, maxwell wrote:"well, ACTUALLY you are suspecting me because I suspect you" argument

In post 1475, maxwell wrote:where the reason RTP was "starting to understand the foses on [Green Crayons]" was because they disagreed with GC's accusation that they were not "pushing the game forawrd"

these are the same thing

GC, are you still scum reading RTP? Gonna be real, I don't see their play and emotion coming from a scum place.

honestly the ATE spew in the past couple of pages has made me questioned

but it seems to originate from BM treating RTP sort of shitty

Like I think RTP is in the right in terms of BM playing a bit disrespectful here, so I think the ATE stemming from that point feels right bc it is right

toying around what that means for RTP's play more generally

In post 1480, VP Baltar wrote:I don't see their play

speaking of their play, RTP's comment yesterday about how my read of Lotus's tunneling activity = townish means that I should also read RTP as town has also got me thinking.

i think they have reevaluated their reads something like three or four times just in D1? want to iso but this is basically the exact opposite of a tunnel. it does suggest flexibility and freedom, but i believe there was some self-meta discussion about how RTP is purposefully acting this way to avoid his past meta or something like that? like i said i need to iso and review

to avoid their past meta*

apologies

In post 1482, Green Crayons wrote:i think they have reevaluated their reads something like three or four times just in D1? want to iso but this is basically the exact opposite of a tunnel. it does suggest flexibility and freedom, but i believe there was some self-meta discussion about how RTP is purposefully acting this way to avoid his past meta or something like that? like i said i need to iso and review

They have definitely shifted reads a lot. It's a question of whether you think that is natural.

My argument would be that you could certainly shift wildly as a scum tactic, but it really feels uncomfortable because you know you're making it up and there is inherent risk someone calls you on it. Town players don't feel that risk.

I think RTP's recent play is certainly drawing more attention to themselves than is necessary as scum faking reads. Just my 2c

In post 1473, VP Baltar wrote:I hate that I started this day super confident in my reads, and now everything is mush.

this is a mood. s'there any you think discuss w me would help?

not overly swayed by maxwell's case, in any direction. max, you read the full game yet?

green, i don't think you answered my q in 1127?

In post 1485, Datisi wrote:this is a mood. s'there any you think discuss w me would help?

I don't think so. I really don't feel super confident in the elements wagon, and I wish I shared your assuredness on Italiano.

I was hoping we'd continue our streak of brilliant last minute scum decimation, but I just don't have strong vibes on anyone. I have more town reads than anything, which is great, but doesn't necessarily help with nailing a scum today.


If you couldn't get italiano today, who would be your last minute speed yeet ftw candidate?

In post 1422, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Sorry for the mean stuff - I'm frustrated and it was out of line.

Apology accepted - let's move on!

In post 1481, Green Crayons wrote:honestly the ATE spew in the past couple of pages has made me questioned

but it seems to originate from BM treating RTP sort of shitty

Like I think RTP is in the right in terms of BM playing a bit disrespectful here, so I think the ATE stemming from that point feels right bc it is right

toying around what that means for RTP's play more generally

lol dude what are you talking about? RTP literally just acknowledged he had been mean to me, and apologised, and you're here trying to fan the embers?

Show me where I've treated anyone "shitty" or been "disrespectful" - otherwise, face your demise for flagrant scummy opportunism!

VOTE: Green Crayons

PS: If you're town, let's chat post-game about why berating people and incessantly digging at people's ability at mafia is lame and disrespectful, and not retaliating in kind is absolutely the right thing to do. I'm an authority on the subject.

lol i just realised Green Crayons was actually voting for RTP - i guess that was their way of justifying climbing off the wagon. nah, not gonna fly!

i'm referring to your misuse of pronouns, which happened a couple of times even after they asked

In post 1484, VP Baltar wrote:My argument would be that you could certainly shift wildly as a scum tactic, but it really feels uncomfortable because you know you're making it up and there is inherent risk someone calls you on it. Town players don't feel that risk.

rtp strikes me as having the personality as feeling like they could pull it off

In post 1486, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 1485, Datisi wrote:this is a mood. s'there any you think discuss w me would help?

I don't think so. I really don't feel super confident in the elements wagon, and I wish I shared your assuredness on Italiano.

I was hoping we'd continue our streak of brilliant last minute scum decimation, but I just don't have strong vibes on anyone. I have more town reads than anything, which is great, but doesn't necessarily help with nailing a scum today.


If you couldn't get italiano today, who would be your last minute speed yeet ftw candidate?

i was thinking whether to write "discussion" or "discussing" so i wrote "discuss", beautiful

yeah, i dunno.

people i'm ~town on to some extent - green, rtp, bm, baltar, dats, duchess, lotus
remains - maxwell, midway, andres, elements, italiano, dunn

removing italiano

andres i'm frankly ??? on. earlier today, i had his iso open for what was probably half an hour, and i had another tab open where i was writing a post on him, and holy hell nothing was coming to me. i think there is a chance he's scum here, but frankly i have a feeling solving him would be much easier with some flips, as opposed to trying to figure him out d1.

i guess max is currently it for me? i was not impressed by him so far, the takes in his earlier post seemed decently safe, and the post on green is ehh.

elements i'm i guess sorting as "town???" in my mind but frankly i don't think i can give you a single reason as to why anymore. midway has kinda... disappeared after the initial burst of decent activity, which imo is Not Good, and it would maybe(?) make sense as scum? and dunn is being lol dunn

In post 1488, Battle Mage wrote:Show me where I've treated anyone "shitty" or been "disrespectful" - otherwise, face your demise for flagrant scummy opportunism!

how is he being opportunistic?

In post 1490, Green Crayons wrote:i'm referring to your misuse of pronouns, which happened a couple of times even after they asked

...not intentional dude.

In post 1493, Datisi wrote:

In post 1488, Battle Mage wrote:Show me where I've treated anyone "shitty" or been "disrespectful" - otherwise, face your demise for flagrant scummy opportunism!

how is he being opportunistic?

trying to get me and rtp to clash again because potentially we are both town and it means a scum elim is less likely. slimy tactics, but GC plays to win no matter what.

gimme a snap BM-read btw?

In post 1494, Battle Mage wrote:

In post 1490, Green Crayons wrote:i'm referring to your misuse of pronouns, which happened a couple of times even after they asked

...not intentional dude.

you did it in open 799 too its just clear you dont care to be careful. its the one thing i dont tolerate from people when its a continued thing. its making me uncomfortable posting in this game seeing it.

In post 1491, Green Crayons wrote::

lmao maybe i could but thatd be like a play for a game i really really wanted to win as scum not just like a one off normal for me where i'd go with my more comfortable plays that have worked for me.

i'm not somebody who spends a lot of time thinking about pronouns tbh - gender isn't something i really think about, you're all just names on a screen to me.

i don't deliberate intend to misuse people's pronouns as I understand they are something some people care a lot about - if I do, it's just a genuine mistake.

I'm not gonna spend any further time or energy talking about pronouns.

In post 1495, Battle Mage wrote:trying to get me and rtp to clash again because potentially we are both town and it means a scum elim is less likely.

In post 1495, Battle Mage wrote:slimy tactics, but GC plays to win no matter what.