Mafiascum.net

In post 1596, Dunnstral wrote:I hope you're referencing podo right now and not me...

Oh I am referencing everyone.

In post 1598, Almost50 wrote:

In post 1483, Dunnstral wrote:Like I'm dead tonight anyway

Jah! Please don't pull a Ranger on us now. Just use your magic to get more votes on PV already.

...?

This is why we don't claim Masons unprovoked Day 1.

Would one of the four claimed masons like to explain to me the problem with wagoning one of the four claimed masons? It seems like a win-win situation for town.

Wasn't me.

Wake, you agree that Zach and Varsoon are fake claiming masons, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're mafia, right?

In post 1603, podoboq wrote:Would one of the four claimed masons like to explain to me the problem with wagoning one of the four claimed masons? It seems like a win-win situation for town.

Or, you let scum deal with the problem and all is revealed...ike every other time masons are claimed.

In post 1605, Dunnstral wrote:Wake, you agree that Zach and Varsoon are fake claiming masons, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're mafia, right?

I'm going to start keeping a counter here, because I feel like this isn't the last time.

If Zach and Varsoon admit that they are fake claiming, we can lynch somebody else instead, and if they are fake claiming, they will do that before a lynch.

Number of times I've had to explain this to Dunnstral: 2

In post 1602, Wake1 wrote:This is why we don't claim Masons unprovoked Day 1.

I wouldn't have had to if town had actual intelligence this game.

In post 1605, Dunnstral wrote:Wake, you agree that Zach and Varsoon are fake claiming masons, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're mafia, right?

I don't believe any of them, but theirs less so.

Of course it doesn't mean they're Mafia. Same as I've said to you two.

In post 1606, Titus wrote:

In post 1603, podoboq wrote:Would one of the four claimed masons like to explain to me the problem with wagoning one of the four claimed masons? It seems like a win-win situation for town.

Or, you let scum deal with the problem and all is revealed...ike every other time masons are claimed.

How so? Seems to me like scum would just ignore the mason claims and let town lynch one of them as the tension rises, and it becomes more and more obvious that one of them is definitely lying.

You don't let scum deal with town problems. It always benefits scum.

In post 1608, Titus wrote:

In post 1602, Wake1 wrote:This is why we don't claim Masons unprovoked Day 1.

I wouldn't have had to if town had actual intelligence this game.

Your moment of foolishness doesn't excuse your moment of ego.

Ok.

Wake, where are you at right now? Specifically what is your lynch pool for today?

I'm genuinely having trouble figuring out who to lynch this game but probably just a lurker is where I'm at right now

In post 1405, Boem_u_dusi wrote:I think I won't be playing closed setups until I get more experience, this is ridiculous

Is this craziness typical of this sort of game?

So, two groups of claimed masons. If both groups are town and picking partners at random, that's really shitty town play. If they hold other PRs and communicate with each other there's no reason to gambit as masons, there hasn't been a serious wagon on anyone yet. We need to lynch within this group and sort the town from the scum. Now that there's a CC I'm no longer following Titus.

VOTE: Dunnstral

WHY WOULD WE LYNCH A LURKER WHEN WE CAN LYNCH A PLAYER WHOSE FLIP ACTUALLY HELPS US SORT THE REMAINING PLAYERS

In post 1610, podoboq wrote:

In post 1606, Titus wrote:

In post 1603, podoboq wrote:Would one of the four claimed masons like to explain to me the problem with wagoning one of the four claimed masons? It seems like a win-win situation for town.

Or, you let scum deal with the problem and all is revealed...ike every other time masons are claimed.

How so? Seems to me like scum would just ignore the mason claims and let town lynch one of them as the tension rises, and it becomes more and more obvious that one of them is definitely lying.

You don't let scum deal with town problems. It always benefits scum.

I made these arguments you are making in a prior game. The mason pairs lived longer. Let's suppose one is scum for a moment, not a chance they live to lylo without being cleared. They'd be lynched before tat and twice as many links.

In post 1613, shannon wrote:Is this craziness typical of this sort of game?

The Large Theme I just got out of, Musical Mafia, was nowhere near this level of crazy. I think it's the players involved, not the setup, that has made this day one so stupid.

In post 1615, Titus wrote:

In post 1610, podoboq wrote:

In post 1606, Titus wrote:

In post 1603, podoboq wrote:Would one of the four claimed masons like to explain to me the problem with wagoning one of the four claimed masons? It seems like a win-win situation for town.

Or, you let scum deal with the problem and all is revealed...ike every other time masons are claimed.

How so? Seems to me like scum would just ignore the mason claims and let town lynch one of them as the tension rises, and it becomes more and more obvious that one of them is definitely lying.

You don't let scum deal with town problems. It always benefits scum.

I made these arguments you are making in a prior game. The mason pairs lived longer. Let's suppose one is scum for a moment, not a chance they live to lylo without being cleared. They'd be lynched before tat and twice as many links.

Or we could save the cop the check, and let him check somewhere else, because (assuming Varsoon and Zach don't come back in and admit that it's a fake claim) we know that either you and Dunn are both scum, or Varsoon and Zach are both scum. I'd rather let our PRs use their night more valuably, since we can sort the four of you by lynching any one of you. Plus, lynching scum earlier removes their night actions, which could totally be relevant.

Like, it's this simple. The chances of lynching scum day one are pretty low, all things considered. Just lynching a lurker provides us very little information off of their flip, and could feasibly hurt town a lot by removing a town PR. However, lynching among you four gives us two confirmed scum. That seems like a fantastic use of our lynch to me.

In post 1617, podoboq wrote:However, lynching among you four gives us two confirmed scum.

No it doesn't, any way you slice it

Dunnstral wrote:

In post 1593, podoboq wrote:Zach has enough experience to know this. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Zach has never played in a game with a mason in it.

This does not factor into.. anything unfortunately

Yes it does.

In post 1593, podoboq wrote:

In post 1590, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 843, Zachstralkita wrote:By the way, do mason partners die if the other is killed, or is that just lovers?

This legit looks like playing dumb. Zach has enough experience to know this. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.


If they are fake claiming as town, one or both will not allow you to get lynched and will admit that it's a fake claim. If they are fake claiming as scum, accept the two-for-one.

You mean this lurker who has people rushing to defend him? Who can actually claim if they are a PR and instead you'd risk lynching conftown scum must shoot anyway?

Like really?

shannon is mafia I think after all

In post 1570, Titus wrote:This has got to be the stupidest game of mafia ever.

Scum please dayvig me and save me from this. This game is a chore given scum and dumb town spam.

Getting anyone to work together in this is impossible.

This is rich lol. When you lynch someone Titus doesn't want you to or oppose her points you're either dumb town or scum then she accuses us of " not working together "



When you give Dunnstral BOTD who does he vote? Fucking Sickofit.

Command to Varsoon, requesting backup we are in a hot zone over