Mafiascum.net

Clidd, can you summarize what you see from OS and 72 that you don't think they'd be doing as scum? I read the post but I'm still confused why you townread them exactly

I'll get to that wall later, jesus

In post 126, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 121, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 120, Maduisha wrote:

In post 119, JacksonVirgo wrote:I have scum-reads on GeneralWu and Kappa

I understand suspecting PKP because of the random clidd vote and saying it's weird not to vote, but why GW?

Overly serious, pings me as someone who wants to act like they're trying to solve the game when they're not.

Eh not as strong a read as Kappa but it's what I see aorn

so how am i "acting like i'm trying to solve the game when i'm not"?
Also how is being serious a bad thing?

This is why sometimes in the right context being serious is scummy, Straight from the wiki:

It's the so-called LAMIST - (Look At ME Im So Town!) tell and it's still relevant enough to have its own acronym! Newbscum usually are very concerned with 'looking good' to avoid falling under suspicion, but don't know how to fake-scumhunt. Instead, they will do things like pushing the lurkers to contribute, trying to "resuscitate" them by voting them, asking for reads on themselves, talking a lot about the game itself (this is called IIoA), claiming they are doing anything in their power to get information.

Your post fits the LAMIST tell in my eyes, therefore i think you are scummy

In post 142, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 112, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 110, Phi Kappa Phi wrote:Not sure if it's shyness or something, but it weirds me out that a lot of people haven't even voted yet

This pings me weird, people don't need to vote this early and this is useless shade.
Die scum
VOTE: /vote Phi Kappa Phi

You provided one sentence of reasoning for voting phi.

In post 119, JacksonVirgo wrote:I have scum-reads on GeneralWu and Kappa

You make this post, which seems out of the blue. You've stated your tiny bit of reasoning for scumreading phi in an earlier post, and now you repeat the fact that you scumread him, without adding anything to it. You also say that you scumread me, yet you only provide reasoning for your statement afterwards:

In post 121, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 120, Maduisha wrote:

In post 119, JacksonVirgo wrote:I have scum-reads on GeneralWu and Kappa

I understand suspecting PKP because of the random clidd vote and saying it's weird not to vote, but why GW?

Overly serious, pings me as someone who wants to act like they're trying to solve the game when they're not.

Eh not as strong a read as Kappa but it's what I see aorn

It's still early days. Hard to get a tome-full of scummy evidence when some players have a total of 2 posts.

At the start of the day you make reads based on what little posts there are and gut feel.
Scum reads based off little later on in the day or in later days, sure, is scummy.
But like I said, this game is super slow, with noone posting, which means scum will probs win, ~65% chance of scum winning at this stage I reckon

Given the lack of posting, what are people's stance on the policy Lynch All Lurkers?

Lurkers are generally town tbf, scum would try to post to look Townie and town don't care as much if that makes sense. I think after D1 it'll be more active

Didn't you just say that pushing lurkers to contribute is scummy? Because bringing up that idea so early in the game sounds to me like an attempt to... push lurkers to contribute. Ah, well. I have nothing against lynching lurkers when the game moves a bit and there's more incentive to contribute (so, when there's actual information to work with, but people still choose not to post). Right now, I don't feel like lurkers are inherently scummy, because day 1 has been pretty clueless as to which direction to take, aside from gut feelings, and now I'm going to get to mine:

If I were forced to vote, I'd vote OS or PKP, because the clidd vote bandwagon was so weird, and because I think OS has only posted meme-y stuff, which is okay because it's the first day, but all of his posts are still of that nature and I'd like to see him talk a bit more. Although, a part of me thinks scum would rather get talkative townies lynched rather than lurkers, because that would increase their chances of winning, so I'm not exactly sure if my read of people is rather shitty. For now, I'll still abstain from voting, because I'd like to see more interaction.

As for clidd finding me scummy because "my concern wasn't genuine"... I feel like people post more when I'm asleep. Because timezones are a thing, finding yourself reading opinions that match yours and have already been posted is not that weird...

Im back.

In post 150, Phi Kappa Phi wrote:Clidd, can you summarize what you see from OS and 72 that you don't think they'd be doing as scum? I read the post but I'm still confused why you townread them exactly

The right question would be: Apparently, is following his pattern and seems to be engaged with the game. The vote he suggested on me had a pressure purpose, which makes sense considering that I've been idle most of the day. follows a similar line, although I can't sketch what would do differently in this scenario. In any case, I'm considering them more likely to be based on the meta, something that is not applicable to other players due to the lack of material (past games).

In post 98, Phi Kappa Phi wrote:VOTE: clidd

Can you explain that ? if you are agreeing with the vote here, why wouldn’t you have a on him ? you would agree even if he was ?

In post 160, Maduisha wrote:As for clidd finding me scummy because "my concern wasn't genuine"... I feel like people post more when I'm asleep. Because timezones are a thing, finding yourself reading opinions that match yours and have already been posted is not that weird...

Explain why you ''match'' with these opinions.

In post 158, JacksonVirgo wrote:Lurkers are generally town tbf, scum would try to post to look Townie and town don't care as much if that makes sense. I think after D1 it'll be more active

This concept is wrong. Depending on the player and the current game state, lurkers can be interpreted as indicative . Particularly, I had an experience with this type of player in the game ().

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=81962

In post 165, clidd wrote:

In post 160, Maduisha wrote:As for clidd finding me scummy because "my concern wasn't genuine"... I feel like people post more when I'm asleep. Because timezones are a thing, finding yourself reading opinions that match yours and have already been posted is not that weird...

Explain why you ''match'' with these opinions.

The opinion that I don't like the idea of voting for people that haven't had the chance to post...? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory...

It wasn't. Why do you think we shouldn't vote people who didn't post ? How do you think we should proceed if a player returns, posts 2 lines and '' disappears '' again? would it be justifiable to vote on him to force his return or be lynched ?

VOTE: Maduisha

As I said before, I believe lurkers aren't inherently scummy during the first day. And in your case, I thought it was a matter of real life constraints, since the game master was speaking about grabbing a substitute for you. Hence wanting to wait to see if you appeared, instead of trying to lynch someone that hadn't posted yet, for no other reasons. Inactivity is a good indicator of how scummy someone is, if you're trying not to get noticed by others, but in this case nobody thought of that because of it being the first day and what I already said. If later on, someone were to try to post small messages with no real substance and try to disappear for as long as they could, I'd agree with wanting to pressure them or vote them, but I was talking about the game state as of right now.

In post 169, Maduisha wrote:As I said before, I believe lurkers aren't inherently scummy during the first day. And in your case, I thought it was a matter of real life constraints, since the game master was speaking about grabbing a substitute for you. Hence wanting to wait to see if you appeared, instead of trying to lynch someone that hadn't posted yet, for no other reasons. Inactivity is a good indicator of how scummy someone is, if you're trying not to get noticed by others, but in this case nobody thought of that because of it being the first day and what I already said. If later on, someone were to try to post small messages with no real substance and try to disappear for as long as they could, I'd agree with wanting to pressure them or vote them, but I was talking about the game state as of right now.

Ok, you believe it would be more "fair", in theory, to wait for me to return before voting. I understand that. Now, what do you think of the scenario I come back to and see that several people are voting on me? wouldn't it be interesting, if i were scum, to see how i would react to the pressure ?

In post 159, Maduisha wrote:Didn't you just say that pushing lurkers to contribute is scummy? Because bringing up that idea so early in the game sounds to me like an attempt to... push lurkers to contribute. Ah, well. I have nothing against lynching lurkers when the game moves a bit and there's more incentive to contribute (so, when there's actual information to work with, but people still choose not to post). Right now, I don't feel like lurkers are inherently scummy, because day 1 has been pretty clueless as to which direction to take, aside from gut feelings, and now I'm going to get to mine:

If I were forced to vote, I'd vote OS or PKP, because the clidd vote bandwagon was so weird, and because I think OS has only posted meme-y stuff, which is okay because it's the first day, but all of his posts are still of that nature and I'd like to see him talk a bit more. Although, a part of me thinks scum would rather get talkative townies lynched rather than lurkers, because that would increase their chances of winning, so I'm not exactly sure if my read of people is rather shitty. For now, I'll still abstain from voting, because I'd like to see more interaction.

Do you really think that if both were scum, they would vote together at the same time? wouldn't that be suspicious? if you abstain from voting and expect more interaction, why only others who have to interact and you don't have to ?

In post 170, clidd wrote:

In post 169, Maduisha wrote:As I said before, I believe lurkers aren't inherently scummy during the first day. And in your case, I thought it was a matter of real life constraints, since the game master was speaking about grabbing a substitute for you. Hence wanting to wait to see if you appeared, instead of trying to lynch someone that hadn't posted yet, for no other reasons. Inactivity is a good indicator of how scummy someone is, if you're trying not to get noticed by others, but in this case nobody thought of that because of it being the first day and what I already said. If later on, someone were to try to post small messages with no real substance and try to disappear for as long as they could, I'd agree with wanting to pressure them or vote them, but I was talking about the game state as of right now.

Ok, you believe it would be more "fair", in theory, to wait for me to return before voting. I understand that. Now, what do you think of the scenario I come back to and see that several people are voting on me? wouldn't it be interesting, if i were scum, to see how i would react to the pressure ?

What pressure would you feel, independent of alignment, if you already know people were voting you out of getting afk warnings instead of people thinking you're scum? I'm sorry, I can't follow. Do you think a mafia member would post differently instead of shrugging it, or...?

I think I'm either misunderstanding something, or you are.

In post 171, clidd wrote:

In post 159, Maduisha wrote:Didn't you just say that pushing lurkers to contribute is scummy? Because bringing up that idea so early in the game sounds to me like an attempt to... push lurkers to contribute. Ah, well. I have nothing against lynching lurkers when the game moves a bit and there's more incentive to contribute (so, when there's actual information to work with, but people still choose not to post). Right now, I don't feel like lurkers are inherently scummy, because day 1 has been pretty clueless as to which direction to take, aside from gut feelings, and now I'm going to get to mine:

If I were forced to vote, I'd vote OS or PKP, because the clidd vote bandwagon was so weird, and because I think OS has only posted meme-y stuff, which is okay because it's the first day, but all of his posts are still of that nature and I'd like to see him talk a bit more. Although, a part of me thinks scum would rather get talkative townies lynched rather than lurkers, because that would increase their chances of winning, so I'm not exactly sure if my read of people is rather shitty. For now, I'll still abstain from voting, because I'd like to see more interaction.

Do you really think that if both were scum, they would vote together at the same time? wouldn't that be suspicious? if you abstain from voting and expect more interaction, why only others who have to interact and you don't have to ?

They can play with your line of thought too and just have multiple mafia members vote the same person so that you won't suspect they're both red, just saying. I'm not calling them both scum, by the way, I'm just saying those are the only two ticking me off as suspicious. And by interaction I meant more people speaking their mind and talking to others, not just voting. I thought I was interacting with you, at least.

In post 150, Phi Kappa Phi wrote:Clidd, can you summarize what you see from OS and 72 that you don't think they'd be doing as scum? I read the post but I'm still confused why you townread them exactly

Scummy
VOTE: phi