Mafiascum.net

the word "say" is in between "I'll" and "this".

In post 138, Titus wrote:@Brian/NS I am governed by logic as well. Which means that either I will get over this perceived deception by Brian relatively quickly, or I'll have two mortal enemies this game.

In 123, you're saying "I'm really starting to think M-M did a protown gambit" but that you're still voting him to pressure him and get more content. You also say that your suspicious of his inactivity and motivation. There's a clear logical disconnenct between 123 and 124. That's what bothers me so much. Take a position, work it through. Take the other position work it through. Waffling within that period WILL make me suspicious.

Thinking it's a pro-town gambit doesn't make it one. I chose to keep my vote on him because he hasn't generated the content to make it beneficial to the town. In fact, after the attention has shifted away from him, he has disappeared from the forum (the only exception being him chiming in at post #93). THIS is the inactivity and lack of motivation that makes me suspicious of him.

This is correct. Someone who says intent to hammer, triggers claiming, defenses, etc. Verbs should have every reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

@Brian, so you were still scumreading m-m despite him doing a "pro-town" gambit in the early stages?

What is your read on Verbs?

In post 152, Titus wrote:This is correct. Someone who says intent to hammer, triggers claiming, defenses, etc. Verbs should have every reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

@Brian, so you were still scumreading m-m despite him doing a "pro-town" gambit in the early stages?

What is your read on Verbs?

Verbs wasn't really pushing onto M-M until Nacho's first meaningful post (did show concerns early on, but nothing definitive). Nacho presented a problem regarding M-M's supposed gambit. Verbs and I have been trying to work through it since.

Do I think Verbs is pushing? Possible. Do I think Verbs is just trying to answer Nacho's initial question? More likely.

And yes, I am still scum-reading M-M. His current actions don't support his gambit.

Hammering would be really fun right now, but I want some more out of this day, specifically anything resembling Mail content. Further comments on the game from Nacho and JKM would be appreciated too.

Other thoughts for when I get home tonight, super busy.

@Titus

Although, my new analysis of the gambit gives you a slight town read instead of the initial scum-read I had earlier.

I'm inexperienced, my original reads don't mean jack.

In post 144, JKMatthews wrote:UNVOTE:
VOTE: Verbs

Post 111 (the infamous "3 > 2" post) is posted entirely from the assumption that m-m is town, yet tries to paint m-m as scum for it. Also the post analyses whether or not the gambit is good for town, not whether or not it comes from a scummy mindset.
Verbs is scum, let's lynch.

i don't agree that post111 is assuming that mail is town, i wrote it to list the positives and the negatives that the gambit has on the game. im using positives here to distinguish things that help the town, whereas negatives are things that help the mafia team. why do you think that i am scum? is it because of the first sentence of the above quoted section? because if so i don't understand where you found an assumption within that post that you mention and without that assumption i don't see how you reach the conclusion that i am scum.

In post 131, Titus wrote: Verbs has also shrouded mm's gambit in wifom. That isn't good. Almost anything can be argued as protown or scummy using wifom. I don't like that.

can you pinpoint specific moments where you felt i "shrouded mm's gambit in wifom"? especially moments in which i used wifom to argue for something as being a specific alignment within the game.

Shiidaji - what "further comments" would you like? Just because I haven't made a post that consolidates all my thoughts, I'd be surprised if you couldn't figure out where I stood with most people.

And you should probably clarify if what you said should be interpreted as intent to hammer or not...

P-Edit:

negatives: pressure has been almost entirely on mail, allows scum to avoid pressure by taking a safe/easy opinion on the gambit, if scum avoids the first lynch it makes things easier on them in the later game

This analysis doesn't make sense if you allow for the possibility that mail is scum. So, if you allow these negatives to 'outweigh' the positive, it means a townie has employed a bad strategy, not that mail is scum due to their being more negatives. You voted for mail based on his ability to pull off a gambit, not because you thought it was a scummy thing to do...

[quote="In post 158
P-Edit:

negatives: pressure has been almost entirely on mail, allows scum to avoid pressure by taking a safe/easy opinion on the gambit, if scum avoids the first lynch it makes things easier on them in the later game

This analysis doesn't make sense if you allow for the possibility that mail is scum. So, if you allow these negatives to 'outweigh' the positive, it means a townie has employed a bad strategy, not that mail is scum due to their being more negatives. You voted for mail based on his ability to pull off a gambit, not because you thought it was a scummy thing to do...[/quote]

i actually didn't vote on mail so far, i've just been outlining my suspicions because i've been asked about them. the way that i have thought about it is that, with no other knowledge besides ones strategy/posts, if a strategy/post is more scummy than town i tend to look at the person as being more scummy than town.

also in regards to shii's concerns that i didn't vote for mail, i was waiting for him to answer some of my questions directed at him... of which are still unanswered.

i actually didn't vote on mail so far, i've just been outlining my suspicions because i've been asked about them. the way that i have thought about it is that, with no other knowledge besides ones strategy/posts, if a strategy/post is more scummy than town i tend to look at the person as being more scummy than town.

Sure, but you didn't say the strategy was scummy. You only said "it has these negatives (if he's town), so therefore he's scummy". The bit in brackets is implied by your analysis.

In post 157, Verbs wrote:

In post 131, Titus wrote: Verbs has also shrouded mm's gambit in wifom. That isn't good. Almost anything can be argued as protown or scummy using wifom. I don't like that.

can you pinpoint specific moments where you felt i "shrouded mm's gambit in wifom"? especially moments in which i used wifom to argue for something as being a specific alignment within the game.

In post 75, Verbs wrote:

In post 70, SXTLHGaiden wrote:"too town to be town" is never an argument.

it depends on what you mean by "too town", if you mean ones actions are unceasingly trying to further the towns agenda than this is good for the town no matter the side the player is on. if you mean that a player is trying too hard to

appear

they are doing the former, than trying too hard to be town is for sure scummy.

i'm keeping my vote on titus for now, he seems a bit defensive in his exchanges with notscience and he was justifying mail's self vote in post31 which i didn't like.

This post is the best example. Basically, the implication is that m-m is just trying to look town.

@Verbs
I agree with JK in post #158. I have already expressed the same concerns earlier in post #112. How are you weighing each advantage and disadvantage? They shouldn't all be equal.

You need to be more clear in your analysis.

In post 155, Brian Skies wrote:@Titus

Although, my new analysis of the gambit gives you a slight town read instead of the initial scum-read I had earlier.

I'm inexperienced, my original reads don't mean jack.

Do not qualify something by lack of experience. Seasoned players will do that anyway and you've given players a reason to ignore you. Sometimes new players get it right, sometimes new players get it wrong.

***do that = discount reads (if they discount for being new)

In post 163, Titus wrote:

In post 155, Brian Skies wrote:@Titus

Although, my new analysis of the gambit gives you a slight town read instead of the initial scum-read I had earlier.

I'm inexperienced, my original reads don't mean jack.

SE voice:

Do not qualify something by lack of experience. Seasoned players will do that anyway and you've given players a reason to ignore you. Sometimes new players get it right, sometimes new players get it wrong.

I apologize. I didn't mean for you guys to ignore my initial reads. I just wanted for you to realize that my current reads may have changed considerably since then.

In post 160, JKMatthews wrote:

i actually didn't vote on mail so far, i've just been outlining my suspicions because i've been asked about them. the way that i have thought about it is that, with no other knowledge besides ones strategy/posts, if a strategy/post is more scummy than town i tend to look at the person as being more scummy than town.

Sure, but you didn't say the strategy was scummy. You only said "it has these negatives (if he's town), so therefore he's scummy". The bit in brackets is implied by your analysis.

isn't it implied that i thought the strategy was scummy if i have been making a case against him utilizing the strategy as the backbone of my argument?

also i dont understand what difference it makes if hes town or if hes scum? if he does something it has an affect on the game regardless of alignment or original intent.

In post 161, Titus wrote:
This post is the best example. Basically, the implication is that m-m is just trying to look town.

actually you are wrong here, i was just chiming in when people were talking about peoples actions being "too town" or "too scummy". i was not trying to imply anything in this post other what i am stating within the post: pro-town actions are pro-town regardless of the authors original intention, however i was outlining a distinction between actions being genuine or not and this has to do with a level of effort that the author of a post puts in.

In post 166, Verbs wrote:

In post 160, JKMatthews wrote:

i actually didn't vote on mail so far, i've just been outlining my suspicions because i've been asked about them. the way that i have thought about it is that, with no other knowledge besides ones strategy/posts, if a strategy/post is more scummy than town i tend to look at the person as being more scummy than town.

Sure, but you didn't say the strategy was scummy. You only said "it has these negatives (if he's town), so therefore he's scummy". The bit in brackets is implied by your analysis.

isn't it implied that i thought the strategy was scummy if i have been making a case against him utilizing the strategy as the backbone of my argument?

also i dont understand what difference it makes if hes town or if hes scum? if he does something it has an affect on the game regardless of alignment or original intent.

The goal is to eliminate all mafia. If M-M is town, than it doesn't benefit the town to lynch him at all.

A mislynch is never good imo because it allows the mafia a free pass at attempting a night kill. The only exception is if it directly leads to finding scum (for example, process of elimination proves that one of two suspicious people are mafia). I do not believe any such situation exists right now.

In post 165, Brian Skies wrote:

In post 163, Titus wrote:

In post 155, Brian Skies wrote:@Titus

Although, my new analysis of the gambit gives you a slight town read instead of the initial scum-read I had earlier.

I'm inexperienced, my original reads don't mean jack.

SE voice:

Do not qualify something by lack of experience. Seasoned players will do that anyway and you've given players a reason to ignore you. Sometimes new players get it right, sometimes new players get it wrong.

I apologize. I didn't mean for you guys to ignore my initial reads. I just wanted for you to realize that my current reads may have changed considerably since then.

Nature of the game. Now you know.

Verbs, do you have a claim for us? Or do you believe it is too early for you to claim? You are at L-1 after all.

i understand what you are saying brian, however i was just curious about the emphasis that jkm placed on my post (that i am implying something about mail's alignment). i am definitely not trying to say "lets lynch town". what i am saying is that lets lynch everyone that is acting most scum.

In post 166, Verbs wrote:isn't it implied that i thought the strategy was scummy if i have been making a case against him utilizing the strategy as the backbone of my argument?

also i dont understand what difference it makes if hes town or if hes scum? if he does something it has an affect on the game regardless of alignment or original intent.

I'm not sure how to communicate this to you other than how I already have. The premise of your "negatives" argument ("pressure has been almost entirely on mail, allows scum to avoid pressure by taking a safe/easy opinion on the gambit, if scum avoids the first lynch it makes things easier on them in the later game") all implies that mail is town. If he's not town, then him having all the pressure means scum aren't hiding, and that scum aren't avoiding the first lynch (if it leads to lynch).
So, for any of these negatives to , m-m would need to be town. But you're calling him scum for it.
I'm at a loss how to explain it in any other way.

Titus, nobody has claimed intent to hammer. Why so keen for a claim?

If this train is bad, I want to turn it around ASAP. If not, then I don't want Verbs to have time to think about his claim.

That implies that you might want people to start claiming at L-2 or earlier. If nobody's stated intent to hammer, we're at no risk of a hammer. Why turn it around ASAP? People have to take stances, which means we get more info.