Mafiascum.net

*MacReady being town

In post 121, Lars~ wrote:I like 105 from Nauls because it calls out something that I saw as well, and the explanation is close to my own thought process that I didn't go into detail on.

Oh, I hadn't even noticed you commented on that post nice!



This is all a townie being town, natural thoughts processes.

In post 49, MacReady~ wrote:Man this anon thing is great

MacReady with another post that looks good.

In post 57, MacReady~ wrote:Eh not sure I love Childs' vote either, but like the serious wagon

I do think Gary is somewhat townie

aaaand MacReady had the same thought, okay MacReady and Garry are town, nice!

I'm still conflicted on Clark, there are definitely odd things with his posting, but I also get the same general vibes I've gotten from awkward townies before. I'll probably need to look deeper into it. Not really leaning strongly any way there atm.

In post 138, Windows~ wrote:I'm also not convinced a town Blair posts his code so confidently especially with giving the answer to the first code. That to me feels more likely scum trying to appear to be town.

what does this even mean

I think he is saying that you would not have given the answer to the first code, because it would help scum figure out your second code -- and that town!you would have thought about that.

But it misses the fact that if you did not do an example, then any made up sentence could be passed off as the answer. But since I have your first code and answer, I could spot check a fake answer. I did not do that for Lars today, because of your response. But doing it now, it actually does not pass the smell test when looked at closely

so he didn't even understand the point

excellent

In post 72, Blair~ wrote:I think Clark & Childs could both be scum and Childs might actually have more scum equity atp - would not be opposed to moving votes there instead.

I like MacReady's 69 think this slot is currently town.

Don't really agree with the Clark/Childs idea but I do think it looks quite organic. I don't think scum put out these sorts of theories, at least not on page 3.

In post 74, Childs~ wrote:

In post 72, Blair~ wrote:I think Clark & Childs could both be scum and Childs might actually have more scum equity atp - would not be opposed to moving votes there instead.

I like MacReady's 69 think this slot is currently town.

Oh ya i would just bus my partner on page 2

Haha 69.

This post kind of sucks, tbh. Very dismissive response to the first sight of anyone finding them suspicious. Could see it from Childs regardless of Clark's alignment, though I seriously doubt Blair/Childs as a team after this interaction.

In post 137, Lars~ wrote:

In post 133, Blair~ wrote:I am suspicious of Bennings

why? I liked their posts so far

I don't think he feels comfortable and he's pretty limited in terms of what he's commenting on. Don't get a lot of intent to push/solve/sort from his slot.

In post 96, Bennings~ wrote:

In post 94, Garry~ wrote:

In post 87, Fuchs~ wrote:I did not like Clark's 53 and 58

More so then anything else that has happened in this game, but not really ready to move any wagon to E-1.

So, he is in my scum pile but not actually going to vote there atm.

... this feels scummy-townish behavior.

Agreed.

VOTE: Fuchs

In post 99, Bennings~ wrote:Oh you meant the opposite?

@Norris

It reads like someone simulating town behavior with the "not really ready to move any wagon to E-1" thing. Commenting for the sake of commenting.

I kind of agree with that idea (Fuchs' post doesn't seem great), but the way it's been voiced through these 2 posts feels... iffy. Doesn't help the initial vote was done to pile onto Garry's idea, which even if it were calling Fuchs scummy, wouldn't be great basis for a push? Like Garry didn't give reasoning, the simple "Agreed." with a vote doesn't feel warranted as a response to it.

In post 140, MacReady~ wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled how you can come to the conclusion that you 'like' clarke when you haven't been reading many of their posts and seem to have skipped a lot of the discussion on them as well

I'm somewhat puzzled by how you could care enough of a silly little read i just let fly into the wind, I'm not even pushing it or even fully sticking to it - I'm just stating my first thoughts when I read a post but apparently its so criminal. If you would prefer it, I can very much bite my tongue and just not share thoughts at all? I would think I'm a pretty good troller.

In post 148, Fuchs~ wrote:Norris, why does you deciding that I am town mean that I get to decide your vote?

And also, why did you then tell me to tell you where to vote, instead of following my vote / reasoning in the very post you quoted?

1) Because I like you 2) Because I want to be constantly told what to do so I can AFK.

In post 138, Windows~ wrote:In and of itself that can also come from town who are assuming their target is scum rather than trying to convince others of it. But in Palmer's case this also rang suspicious to me: post 111 (not just that Palmer is okay with a wagon on a townread (123 I think explained that part okay) but the way he dismisses all his reads " I don't think any of my ideas are going to be >rand right now" which is like, yeah no shit, we're barely out of RVS. I don't think town feel the need to undermine their own posts in that way.

The reason why I undermined my own reads was because I felt that, if I specifically spell that part out, someone is going to be a smartass and say "You claim you don't have a better target than Clark and are fine with his wagon, but you are voting Copper? Contradiction much?" and that would've been annoying.

As for Fuchs' point: I'm not deliberately misunderstanding anything, I just don't understand what is his problem with my reads specifically. They're not fleshed out, yes, but nobody's are at this point, no? So I want him to elaborate on that.

I do like Fuchs for town, and I also liked his follow up in 146.

VOTE: Bennings

This ISO doesn't impress me, maybe even less than Copper's right now. Yes, I was inspired to take a look after reading 157.

Still expecting Copper to actually have reads when he's next here.

In post 100, Garry~ wrote:I think it is fundamentally scummy to do but I have to question the intents of posting something that... hollow as scum. Unless they were unaware that it would come across as such. It’s one of those too scummy to be scum deals.

Garry keeps being town. Nice!

In post 102, Bennings~ wrote:Too scummy to be scum is a possibility, yeah, but that reads more like virtue signaling to me.

Yeah, I don't like this response much more than Bennings' previous posts.

In post 109, Norris~ wrote:Nauls its a bit of both, I wont deny i just didnt want to wagon it, but thats usual. I don't wagon for no reason.
I know its nai because i use tbh alot too, so i believe its a dumb reason to get voted for.

I like this post at a first glance, but actually nope.
The fact that the response is just "I don't wagon for no reason" and "I also use tbh, so it's dumb" kind of feels shallow? But maybe I'm expecting too much.

Issue is just that the first thought "not wagoning for no reason" is more of a "hey, this is the way I play the game" sort of argument which scum naturally come up with when engaging in behaviours they view as NAI for themselves. It's a justification that feels less grounded in this game and the circumstances of the initial post and more like a self-meta comment.
This also doesn't quite make sense, because to take a stronger stance on Copper's alignment doesn't inherently mean you have to jump on a wagon on them, but that may have been my fault for wording it poorly in my initial post.

and the second thought "I also use tbh, so it's dumb" doesn't look much better. I do think Norris is being genuine here, they probably do think the "tbh" argument was dumb, but this once again feels like a more fundamental take on the game that Norris would have regardless of alignment. So for Norris' 2 justifications for their post being logic that mafia could have just as easily as town... not a big fan. I feel like some sort of townie reasoning would shine through but none is there.

In post 110, Fuchs~ wrote:

In post 104, Garry~ wrote:

In post 87, Fuchs~ wrote:I did not like Clark's 53 and 58

More so then anything else that has happened in this game, but not really ready to move any wagon to E-1.

So, he is in my scum pile but not actually going to vote there atm.

Who else is in your scum pile/what is the anything else that you disliked?

So far I have exactly 2 reads. Blair town and Clark lean scum.

Before I made that post, my vote was parked on my RVS vote because I did not have a serious place to put it. But now I did have a serious place to put it, but I did not want to put it there

Also, wanted to point out that his response to getting votes was worse then anything that anyone had actually voted him for prior to that imo.

Eh... I don't really like this post. Having "only 2 reads" is a very restrictive way to view the game for a townie, who would be organically forming thoughts on the other players. Especially don't like this when both of these reads have been explicitly stated by Fuchs earlier and seem to have not changed whatsoever since.

In post 158, Norris~ wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled by how you could care enough of a silly little read i just let fly into the wind, I'm not even pushing it or even fully sticking to it - I'm just stating my first thoughts when I read a post but apparently its so criminal. If you would prefer it, I can very much bite my tongue and just not share thoughts at all? I would think I'm a pretty good troller.

This is a fairly defensive response in a game that's pretty much entirely about analyzing what other players have posted, especially in an anon format.

In post 116, Fuchs~ wrote:Did not really like this post

In post 111, Palmer~ wrote:I don't currently think Clark is a Thing. I can understand the feeling of annoyance that people took his post the wrong way. Though I don't have anything against a wagon there, as I don't think any of my ideas are going to be >rand right now, and info is info.

Nauls gives me town vibes. Gut tells me that a Thing, if they were planning an entrance to the thread with content, wouldn't have chosen a single post from page 2 to form all their content on.

Garry also feels slightly towny. Explanation purposefully omitted for now.

@Copper, give me your strongest Human and Thing read?

You think clark is town, but you are okay with a wagon there because "info is info" does not feel like a genuine thought.

Saying that someone is town because on page 5, the most interesting thing they saw while reading was on Page 2 also does not feel like a real take either.


So after reading it, I opened your iso. So far you have claimed to have had alignment thoughts on Lars, MacReady, Copper, Windows, Clark, Nauls and Garry. Largely light comments, but all voiced, which made it look more like you are just going through the motions of calling things town or scum, vs have real thoughts on these players.

Disagree.
Lightly commenting on what sticks out without forming many concise reads is actually pretty townie in my opinion? Or at least it's how I play a lot of the time. Early on it's worth it to just comment on various stuff to see the game progress. There's no real need to have clear reads formed until an actual decision on the elimination needs to be made, which we've not gotten anywhere near yet.
"info is info" actually perfectly checks out with what seems to be Palmer's top priority, moving the game forwards. Palmer lead the charge on a push early on which moved things forward, they commented on plenty of things to bring them to light, it's all a very productivity oriented mindset. The lack of care for the direction of the Clark wagon once again makes sense with all of this in consideration. I have to admit I was feeling kind of meh about Palmer's push on the "tbh" thing early on, but everything they seem to do lines up with it.
Maybe you're scum or maybe you just have a different outlook than them on the game, if it's the latter then I urge you to reconsider.
Also doesn't help that you would discredit a townread on me (a townie!!!) in the same post, but it's not my biggest gripe with it.

Odds of Fuchs/Norris scum and that one part of 116 made about my intro was some sort of chainsaw defense? Or maybe the "where to vote thing" is too genuine to come from that team. Both of them looks iffy to me regardless.

Hmm. 142 and 146 look better, but don't really do much to get rid of those bad feelings from earlier posts.

123, 159, 160, 161
Palmer's town! Veeeeeeery genuine and natural

In post 131, Blair~ wrote:

In post 120, Lars~ wrote:

In post 39, Blair~ wrote:hsialsrbbeftcaglutrcbostfotsatdadayasacsfttgrtrtmfttsptbiwtlaitwdalutfctootfhtwb

Head spinning incessantly, Angel looked stoic, resolute, betrayed by each falling tear. Crying again, gaze laboriously unwavering, thoughts repressed. Crying because of suffering twice forgotten over time, suffering always that dies and decays and yet always still above consciousness, suffering from the time given reluctantly to rich terrible men from the towers, suffering pretending to be immortal wisdom. The last Angel in the world, dying alone, looked up, took flight, careening towards oblivion, only to find himself tainted with blood.

If Lars is a Thing we've already lost

Good vibes here also.

Properly caught up now! Sorry if I flooded the game a bit, I like getting all my thoughts out.

In post 92, Norris~ wrote:

In post 35, Garry~ wrote:2) I dislike 28 because I don’t think it says much of anything for calling tbh “interesting”. I don’t get the sense Clark cared much for the question he asked.

disagree, i very much like Clark as of right now. The questions theyre asking seem very newbish by nature, more like they care about seeing thought processes more than anything.
I don't expect them to really go anywhere with it, if they do ill be surprised.
Maybe im just a softie but i tr the newbie playstyle.

May I interest you in a windows vote instead?

In post 158, Norris~ wrote: I'm somewhat puzzled by how you could care enough of a silly little read i just let fly into the wind, I'm not even pushing it or even fully sticking to it - I'm just stating my first thoughts when I read a post but apparently its so criminal. If you would prefer it, I can very much bite my tongue and just not share thoughts at all? I would think I'm a pretty good troller.

Your second post here really downplays the significance of your read. The language you used originally, even encouraging people to vote elsewhere, sounds a lot more confident than "a silly little read". This is a weird response to someone questioning why you would have that confidence while also saying you didn't read most of his posts. In fact, I think this whole read is just made up.

In post 139, Norris~ wrote:

In post 134, MacReady~ wrote:This is a very interesting take, and I'm pretty sure 28 belies that they are not new

I also strongly dislike their response to the wagon on them

I skipped over a bunch of posts and the one post i did see reminded me of a newb style.

Which one post did you see? It couldn't have been 28 since you're dismissing this criticism by implying you skipped that one. Although you were originally replying to a specific point about 28 and saying you disagree with it, so. kinda strange

The only other ones with questions are 53 and 58 (rhetorical). What about these posts did you think were "very newbish by nature, more like they care about seeing thought processes more than anything"? And why was that enough to "very much like Clark"?

I think the only one that fits the description of "more like they care about seeing thought processes" is 28, but that one doesn't seem newbish at all, and implies that they have some experience.

Yes, that's exactly my point

In post 164, MacReady~ wrote:

In post 158, Norris~ wrote:I'm somewhat puzzled by how you could care enough of a silly little read i just let fly into the wind, I'm not even pushing it or even fully sticking to it - I'm just stating my first thoughts when I read a post but apparently its so criminal. If you would prefer it, I can very much bite my tongue and just not share thoughts at all? I would think I'm a pretty good troller.

This is a fairly defensive response in a game that's pretty much entirely about analyzing what other players have posted, especially in an anon format.

This is a fairly defensive response in a game that's pretty much entirely about analyzing what other players have posted, especially in an anon format.

In post 169, Lars~ wrote:Your second post here really downplays the significance of your read. The language you used originally, even encouraging people to vote elsewhere, sounds a lot more confident than "a silly little read". This is a weird response to someone questioning why you would have that confidence while also saying you didn't read most of his posts. In fact, I think this whole read is just made up.

I often get comments about how confident my pushes may appear, so I'm not surprised at all it came off that way, I don't care if you believe this or not, but I really wasn't all too confident I just felt like doing it more than doing anything else.
Maybe the reads made up, all my reads are made up actually.
Do something about it.

In post 169, Lars~ wrote:Which one post did you see? It couldn't have been 28 since you're dismissing this criticism by implying you skipped that one. Although you were originally replying to a specific point about 28 and saying you disagree with it, so. kinda strange

Does it matter? All my reads are made up afterall : P

In post 170, MacReady~ wrote:Yes, that's exactly my point

Yes, that's exactly my point

For what it's worth, I'm not actually convinced that all of this makes Norris scum

-