Mafiascum.net

In post 140, karnos wrote:If players know the questionnaire will be used to call them scum

, is this what you believe the purpose of the RQS was?


, after rereading the thread, there are more questions I have about your vote. Your vote wasn't naked, but the reasoning you gave it contradicted my own. Karnos answer the RQS, I wouldn't be voting him if he didn't. But I voted him because one of his answers made me feel like I should try poking at him to get a better read on him. Like you said, it's incredibly tryhard, but like I said before it's better than voting for someone I'm gut-townreading.

To get to the point, why was the reasoning for your vote, "Intentionally not answering the RQS," and not "I agree with her, that joke seemed forced," or something to that effect? By giving a different reason to vote, it seems as though you have something else to bring to the Karnos wagon that pertains to his RQS answers.


For everyone, this is more of a theory question about semi-nightless in general: Since there are more mislynches available to us than normal (we get 4 before LYLO rather than 3), does this give townies more, less, or the same amount of an incentive to be defensive in your opinion?

Tbh i think you guys are underestimating scum mindsets and overestimating town mindsets, and that is fine, i see that all the time. But when someone does something stupid, it's most likely town ^^

In post 151, Luna Fox wrote:Tbh i think you guys are underestimating scum mindsets and overestimating town mindsets, and that is fine, i see that all the time. But when someone does something stupid, it's most likely town ^^

How's your PoE going?

In post 152, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:

In post 151, Luna Fox wrote:Tbh i think you guys are underestimating scum mindsets and overestimating town mindsets, and that is fine, i see that all the time. But when someone does something stupid, it's most likely town ^^

How's your PoE going?

3 townreads and 1 strong townread.

Still a long ways to go.

If you want specifics, townreads are Transcend, Karnos, Io.
Strong townread is you (Gigabyte),

In post 130, Thor665 wrote:Karnos does look a little flaily to me, but he does appear to have a valid point that you're stretching in your value calls on his stated beliefs.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
Mostly because I don't know what a value call is or can really find it on google.

But I don't really see how his point is valid as he just said I was lying which I don't even see what I was lying about since he didn't really point it out clearly. The closest thing I can see where he gets the "I'm a liar" part from is where I was saying what I thought his intentions with his posts were which wouldn't even be a lie as it's just interpretation as I don't see him having very high town motivations with them. Even if I was stretching that a little bit his reaction to the accusation by voting me is plenty enough to make a full case on its own because really just accusing your accuser for stretching an interpretation a little isn't even a defense it's just dodging the accusation entirely to get me to stop attacking him. A defense from him wouldn't have even been that hard to make as all he would have needed to do was to explain how I was interrupting his intentions wrong.

He very well could have just been bad and messed up, and I was aware of that when accusing him. But frankly it doesn't matter because I don't think he was just being bad now. He really is just trying hard to take attention off of him instead of responding to my accusations properly.

gigabyteTroubadour wrote: For everyone, this is more of a theory question about semi-nightless in general: Since there are more mislynches available to us than normal (we get 4 before LYLO rather than 3), does this give townies more, less, or the same amount of an incentive to be defensive in your opinion?

I don't think people should be defensive in general because being defensive just makes you an easier attack target for scum. This is mainly because if you are playing defensive you tend to contribute less to discussion and play more towards working up a defense and that is a pretty big threat to the town as it's a lot easier for a scum to accuse someone not contributing a whole lot than it is to accuse someone who is vocal or aggressive with their opinions.
Basically defensive behavior is just something that I think should be avoided. Then again I like to play more aggressive, so that opinion is a bit biased.

In post 150, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:To get to the point, why was the reasoning for your vote, "Intentionally not answering the RQS," and not "I agree with her, that joke seemed forced," or something to that effect? By giving a different reason to vote, it seems as though you have something else to bring to the Karnos wagon that pertains to his RQS answers.

I did not do what you think I did - my "intentionally not answering RQS" comment was self-referential.
I was saying that I wasn't answering the RQS - I said this so that you would know I wasn't doing so on purpose, so you wouldn't need to waste time asking me if I missed the questions or something.

In post 150, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:For everyone, this is more of a theory question about semi-nightless in general: Since there are more mislynches available to us than normal (we get 4 before LYLO rather than 3), does this give townies more, less, or the same amount of an incentive to be defensive in your opinion?

The same.
Town shouldn't try to get lynched, and town shouldn't go softly into that good night unless town is playing badly.

In post 155, Io wrote:

In post 130, Thor665 wrote:Karnos does look a little flaily to me, but he does appear to have a valid point that you're stretching in your value calls on his stated beliefs.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
Mostly because I don't know what a value call is or can really find it on google.

Value call is offering your thoughts on the worth of a given item/thought/occurrence.
Replace it with 'opinion' and the meaning remains the same.

In post 155, Io wrote:But I don't really see how his point is valid

Allow me to sum it up in your words;

In post 155, Io wrote:which wouldn't even be a lie as it's just interpretation

So, basically, he *didn't* say something.
You then said he *did* say something.
He calls it a lie.
You call it an "interpretation".

Okay, so if he didn't say it - it's valid of him to take a stance against you - because you're apparently making up stuff about his beliefs.
Why is this confusing or surprising to you?

In post 155, Io wrote:A defense from him wouldn't have even been that hard to make as all he would have needed to do was to explain how I was interrupting his intentions wrong.

Didn't he do that by saying that he *never said at all* what you were "interpreting" him as saying - which means you know he didn't say it, but kind of think he...implied it or something?

In post 156, Thor665 wrote:I did not do what you think I did - my "intentionally not answering RQS" comment was self-referential.
I was saying that I wasn't answering the RQS - I said this so that you would know I wasn't doing so on purpose, so you wouldn't need to waste time asking me if I missed the questions or something.

Well, that clears a lot up. Sorry about that!

Thor, how are you reading Io at the moment?

I'm currently in the middle of an assessment - hit me up for thoughts after I'm done.

I really would like for others to post more often.
Been trying to asses Thor's posts, but i have a hard time leaning either way, like all his posts make sense, but it's not like scum couldn't make them mostly coz they also make sense.
Dunno if that makes any sense, my gut's screaming town tho.

The wording was just confusing, but I got a little bit of what you were saying.

But I'm still not making stuff up about him.
Sure, of course he didn't say that, but the wording he used made it clear that he was trying to attack you without saying your name. The only person in which his post 70 could have possibly applied to was you, from which he claims was not meant to target you. There is simply no way that could have been meant to not be attacking you since the only person who fell under the umbrella of that question was you.
His vote on me saying I "lied" about his intention with that post is absurd because I can't see that possibly be interrupted a different way. If he meant something else from that he could have explained it, but he chose not to and just deny it being an attack on you.

oh my god so many long posts that are literally ALL FILLER.

why can't any of you be concise?

In post 161, Killthestory wrote:oh my god so many long posts that are literally ALL FILLER.

why can't any of you be concise?

Because conciseness is for loosers.
Or just people who like to find things easier I guess.

tbh it's easier being long-winded

being concise is a skill

This will be a good game

Luna is better in my books.

I can get all my points across being relatively concise. Please try bout to wall of text so much.

Yeah still okay with roping Thor atm lol.

In post 160, Io wrote:But I'm still not making stuff up about him.
Sure, of course he didn't say that,

Well, that's a bad lead in if you're not making up stuff.

In post 160, Io wrote: but the wording he used made it clear that he was trying to attack you

I agree with this.
The problem is you said this;

In post 89, Io wrote:But that's not what I was saying. I was saying you were claiming to want him lynched and claiming to have never pushed for his lynched at the same time.

Okay, actually in arguing this, I'm back on your side now.
You are being flighty, but you're also being correct.

@Karnos - allow me to provide the evidence Io hasn't;
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p8120442
This is where you were distancing from the position of attacking me.
I no longer see a lie - unless it's from you.
Want to clarify?

@Giga - lean town on Io.

In post 161, Killthestory wrote:oh my god so many long posts that are literally ALL FILLER.

why can't any of you be concise?

He says in a filler post

In post 166, Transcend wrote:Yeah still okay with roping Thor atm lol.

You didn't answer my question - is this an intentional dodge? If I don't have to keep asking it over and over it would be good to know.
Here it is again, in case you just missed it;
"What is it about Post 64 that reads as scummy to you?"
Question asked here;
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p8123030
Post 64 here, in case you need to research it;
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p8120352

I SAID NO MORE WALLS

VOTE: Thor

In post 168, Killthestory wrote:I SAID NO MORE WALLS

Yeah, sorry, I forgot I only do those as scum, mah bad

You just confirmed yourself as scum.

Yeah, guess I did, ya got me.

Stop posting, scum. You're shitting up this thread.

Are you being serious right now, or are we still joking?

Because if you're being serious, you're rude and bad at applying pressure.