Mafiascum.net

In post 1574, Servant Caster wrote:

In post 1543, Servant Shielder wrote:

In post 1539, Servant Foreigner wrote:Adding multiple levels of self awareness doesn't magically make it townie. Scum bait out experience levels all the time on anon accounts, and I feel the only argument in his favor is his scummy actions are a result of a lack of experience.

If it was a stupid thought process that bad players actually think, sure why not. But no one goes "haha time to not vote my scum read because it won't breed good information".

well you'd be right if the archer elim wasnt inevitable. if we were in the scumhunting phase then my vote should be on scummy people. but archer was getting elimed there 100%. so it doesnt really matter whether i vote there or not.

But you just fucking said the composition was important
I can't deal with this person they're like a caricature of a scum aligned player

*Hands caster a chill pill*

In post 1567, Servant Avenger wrote:@Saber, the latter.

Right now, I just see too much follow the leader. It's fine if it keeps netting scum, but I thrive on conflict. It's much harder to read a game if everyone's apathetic. If the scumteam has no plan, then it's harder to scumhunt.

Right now, I can get a solid independent TR on Berserker even though I disagree with his Caster stance. Townhunting may just be the name of the game.

You're not reading the room if you think town is apathetic.

In post 1574, Servant Caster wrote:

In post 1543, Servant Shielder wrote:

In post 1539, Servant Foreigner wrote:Adding multiple levels of self awareness doesn't magically make it townie. Scum bait out experience levels all the time on anon accounts, and I feel the only argument in his favor is his scummy actions are a result of a lack of experience.

If it was a stupid thought process that bad players actually think, sure why not. But no one goes "haha time to not vote my scum read because it won't breed good information".

well you'd be right if the archer elim wasnt inevitable. if we were in the scumhunting phase then my vote should be on scummy people. but archer was getting elimed there 100%. so it doesnt really matter whether i vote there or not.

But you just fucking said the composition was important
I can't deal with this person they're like a caricature of a scum aligned player

Man, doesn't the tone of this post read like someone who is mad that Shielder was not killed for looking so bad?

Mad they're losing to someone who is playing like Shielder?

lol

In post 1556, Servant Berserker wrote:

In post 1552, Servant Saber wrote:

In post 1548, Servant Berserker wrote:

In post 1547, Servant Avenger wrote:

In post 1536, Servant Berserker wrote:Shielder was setup as a defacto vote for Day 1 through the entire master voting phase. That setup was done by scum. Archer participated in it.

WE ARE NEVER DOING SHIELDER TODAY NO MATTER HOW BAD THEY LOOK.

Shielder is not a vote we even begin to CONSIDER until after Day 2. After Day 3, even, depending on how many scum we murder.

Sure, there are other scum to find.
I don't think the scum team are team players tbh. Archer was pretty much left to rot.

I think Caster-Archer interactions are exactly what I expect from this scum team. I've been thinking it since yesterday and I really think there's some distancing going on and I just

I wanna see Caster die, tbh

Can you elaborate on this?

Sure. I feel like Archer has known they were going to die since around the late time of the Master Selection phase. And especially during GTH.

I don't think it's coincidence Caster is the only one who thought they were town while Archer had Caster as scum. I think that is an EXTREMELY WEIRD place for those 2 to end up on each other with how the game had gone up to that point.

Please stop marrying me to my gun to head reads I've repeatedly stated I was not town reading them.

In post 1570, Servant Avenger wrote:It's pretty obvious Cabd didn't leave them with fake role claims.
Archer's was lazily modified.

I could not disagree more. He is not stupid.

In post 1572, Servant Avenger wrote:Probably because she's winning.
While you sound demotivated caster.

I do????????

Caster, calmly. Calmly and rationally. If it's bothering you that bad, go take a walk and forget they're in the game.

In post 1572, Servant Avenger wrote:Probably because she's winning.
While you sound demotivated caster.

Oh I see. No, I'm saying beast seemed awfully invested in eliminating me all of a sudden, not beast seemed awfully invested in the game all of a sudden.

In post 1569, Servant Rider wrote:Besides, Ruler came in far too late to give them any town credit for claiming it was in their role PM.

I'm not giving Ruler credit for claiming it.

It's more his thought process with regards to thinking about it pre-game.

To be more specific, I believe the following line:

In post 292, Servant Ruler wrote:I didn't assume I was the most powerful role in the game, but I absolutely did not expect it to be shared.

Though I am (very slowly) mulling over the angle that he wrote this as scum and trying to figure out how likely I think that is.

(Busy atm so probably not going to think too in-depth about it until later.)

(And don't tell me that "scum could have written that" - I am fully aware that virtually anything in a mafia game could be written by scum or town, thanks.)

In post 1574, Servant Caster wrote:

In post 1543, Servant Shielder wrote:

In post 1539, Servant Foreigner wrote:Adding multiple levels of self awareness doesn't magically make it townie. Scum bait out experience levels all the time on anon accounts, and I feel the only argument in his favor is his scummy actions are a result of a lack of experience.

If it was a stupid thought process that bad players actually think, sure why not. But no one goes "haha time to not vote my scum read because it won't breed good information".

well you'd be right if the archer elim wasnt inevitable. if we were in the scumhunting phase then my vote should be on scummy people. but archer was getting elimed there 100%. so it doesnt really matter whether i vote there or not.

But you just fucking said the composition was important
I can't deal with this person they're like a caricature of a scum aligned player

^^^

I don't think the thought process is real. Not that the thought process is scummy.
I think it's a statement that doesn't actually make sense and even if it did it would still be scummy in a vacuum from a completely random player.

In post 1582, Servant Rider wrote:Caster, calmly. Calmly and rationally. If it's bothering you that bad, go take a walk and forget they're in the game.

Oh, do my posts seem like I'm not fine? Sorry. I'm totally fine, if a little irritated by berserker.

In post 1577, Servant Avenger wrote:You're not reading the room if you think town is apathetic.

We're reading the room differently. Towns have conflict or they breed apathy. Good towns resolve that conflict efficiently. Since I got here, I see a follow the leader. I am concerned about it, so I'll say so.

I could happily vote either ruler or shielder right now.

In post 1580, Servant Caster wrote:

In post 1570, Servant Avenger wrote:It's pretty obvious Cabd didn't leave them with fake role claims.
Archer's was lazily modified.

I could not disagree more. He is not stupid.

I didn't say that, I said I don't think he gave them fake claims. Perhaps he believes that the responsibility should be on the mafia to make good fake claims. That's another part of deception after all.

In post 1586, Servant Caster wrote:

In post 1582, Servant Rider wrote:Caster, calmly. Calmly and rationally. If it's bothering you that bad, go take a walk and forget they're in the game.

Oh, do my posts seem like I'm not fine? Sorry. I'm totally fine, if a little irritated by berserker.

Good, was a little concerned about you for a minute there.

I mean you can't not give wcum fake claims if the town PM has an element in it that confirms them town. No reviewer would allow that, for starters.

How do you explain Archer's claim then? Do you think Cabd gave him that.

It's possible. It's also possible he ignored mod provided fake claims and invented his own. I know I have been severely alarmed in the past as a mod when scum players ignored my great fakeclaims and inexplicably made up their own bad ones.

(Ultimately, Ruler's first post is one among many. It's not the be-all-end-all reason I think he's town by any means, I just think Archer's flip strengthened my thoughts on Ruler's first post slightly.)

(I do think the fact that Archer did not have the upgrade that the majority of people - - have claimed means I should really think about whether scum came into this game clueless as to its existence and I do want to go back over how the game started out as a result, though really I already thought the people claiming it on the first page were likely town so it doesn't change much about how I think about that. I'd be more looking at who didn't seem aware of it to begin with. Lancer *may* stick out in that regard.)

(Also, for what it's worth, I think at least one scum may have had the upgrade as a red herring, but this doesn't matter much atm since I don't think anyone who initially claimed it was scum and anyone who claimed it after it became common knowledge could have just been like Archer.)

My thoughts are disjointed atm due to limited time, just throwing a couple things out here for people to think about while I'm not around. Back to work.

In post 1570, Servant Avenger wrote:It's pretty obvious Cabd didn't leave them with fake role claims.
Archer's was lazily modified.

This take really, Really REALLY runs counter to everything I know/have observed about Cabd game designs and in fact I think the Tales of Vesperia game I read during the previous phase directly contradicts this idea. When I'm not half-asleep I'll go look for the example I'm pretty sure I remember from that game and link it here.

------------------------

I think it's time to reveal this.

During this day phase I have been neighborized. By a player I think is town.

That is all.

For now.

I am elated but not surprised. I urge everyone to take the time and go back and analyze. I suspect Archer knew his number was up fairly early on, which is why he clammed up fairly quickly, but it should still be worthwhile going back and looking at how others interacted with them. I have thoughts but it will take some time for me to arrange them into a readable format and I want to see what others have to say as well. I'm wary of my own status potentially driving thread opinion and putting a damper on independent thought.

(Also I'm a coward and didn't check in after the thread lock to see the selfhammer, was too nervous to refresh the page waiting).

Can someone please confirm the following.
They are a town player without the ability to make someone else a master?

Because I don't think anyone has done that, and that's still a scum slip on top of the 101 scummy things they have done.
I am trying to drop it because everyone is saying I am role fishing but like I hard scum read the slot for play and I really just want to make this easy on myself.

There's an underlying tangibility to some player's roles that pretty much everyone that's town has hinted at to one extent or another while Archer was pretty much a black hole of role information. He either hadn't decided what he wanted to be when he grew up (not uncommon day 1) or didn't have something to fall back on early.

Who else hasn't given out information/fake information on their role?

In post 1583, Servant Caster wrote:

In post 1572, Servant Avenger wrote:Probably because she's winning.
While you sound demotivated caster.

Oh I see. No, I'm saying beast seemed awfully invested in eliminating me all of a sudden, not beast seemed awfully invested in the game all of a sudden.

Invested? Not really. Just riding that post scum elim high, so I'm willing to sell my vote to beserker especially since the alt wagon is shielder and I don't feel comfortable eliminating them today.