Mafiascum.net

Would you be so kind as to rephrase, or highlight, or by any means you want to the case on said "two scum".

People always like to vote on "assummed" scummy behavior, or picky backing on others ideas...often i find i have to pull peoples teeth to get a few simple bullets, highlights, or rewording (maybe i want it in different words) and stupid ass people can be so obstinate...i have to ask my self why? And 2 options come to mine, stubborn scum, or dumbasses...you pick which you want to be in your next post.

And is this "oh 3 now" suppose to scare me...like asking you to rephrase scummy positions could possibly be interpreted as scummy, give me a fucking break, play better.

I'm an obstructionists?? Do tell....how is asking someone to highlight, or restate a case at all bad?

First quote. Hard to read this as anything but challenging the scumstate of those two players. Second quote, you add to this by saying only scum or dumbasses could think this...which especially feels like your lawyering for others. Third quote, i didnt call you an obstructionist, i said it was an obstructionist attitude.

It looks like your calling people out to layout their entire reasoning so you can proceed to discredit it instead of directly defending those players as not scummy, when they clearly are scummy.

Finally your vote on drip is less than worthless.

@xvart
Yes. You misrepped me. I said that it was stupid to raise onesself and then say others are scummy. I didn't say that making others look scummy was the reason they were doing it. That is the second part of my case. Mainly my vote was a protest, and there's a lot more information to go on now, so
@all
vezopiraka does actually play like this. I'm not giving him town points for what he's done, but his bungling playstyle doesn't yet merit votes.
I think RichardGHP is probably the best scum candidate now.
Also, I kind of like the idea of just raising someone who knows what they are doing, so (Not that I think Lynch doesn't know what he's doing, but Axelrod, I think, is a little bit better)

vezopiraka, believe me. There is no chance whatsoever that you'll be voted Hand of the King today.

This is ridiculous. It's as though Richard and vezopiraka are jumping up and down on the table and screaming, "Lynch me! Please, please lynch me!" They are like caricatures of VIs.

vezopiraka wrote:I think Cmar is scum. Will post a case sometime soon

CryMeARiver wrote:I play like this.
I do scumhunting when I get a good read on someone. Right now richard seems the scummiest but I don't have a case on him yet

These posts are an hour and a half apart. What changed since then? AND YOUR VOTE IS STILL ON CMAR! Do you just suspect the players with the largest wagons on them? *headdesk*

------------------------
1) CCARaven04, do you suspect SSBF more than vezopiraka? Also, why the hell are you still raising Richard considering you say you find him scummy?

2)

MacavityLock wrote:

RichardGHP wrote:@Drip: It's hard to analyse stuff when there have only been RVS posts that will most likely not affect the game in any way.

Haha, wrong. There's all sorts of tasty stuff to analyze so far.

RichardGHP wrote:@CMAR: I find it pretty hilarious that you have a "genuine scum read" on me when we're only on Page 3 and nothing has even happened yet. If you have actual reasons, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, stop trolling.

Stuff has happened, and you playing this off like it's trolling is scum-mojo.[/quote]I agree that Richard's refusal to acknowledge the serious phase is scummy (as is pretty much everything else he's done all game)...but in that post (your third of the game) you don't really comment on any of that tasty stuff (other than halfheartedly supporting Drippereth's Deer case). What tasty stuff in particular were you referring to that Richard should have commented on? Something about these points rubbed my gut the wrong way.

3) Just realized that the post I FOSed for last night (the site was loading too slowly for me to scroll back) was LynchMePlz's, not vezopiraka's (although vez's point about electing the lynchee was horrible, too):

I'm still trying to figure out the impact of the raising a hand mechanic on the game. If we always vote for who we think is most town, we make NKs much easier for the scum. On the other hand, we certainly don't want scum double voters. I'm wondering if we wouldn't be better off casting our raise votes with a random number generator or abstaining from raising a hand at all. I really like the idea from a fluff perspective. Those who are raised to Hand probably won't last very long, which is very fitting.

4) I agree with this:

Drippereth wrote:

Benmage wrote:And is this "oh 3 now" suppose to scare me...like asking you to rephrase scummy positions could possibly be interpreted as scummy, give me a fucking break, play better.

¯\(°_o)/¯

By "oh 3 now" I didn't mean

you

... Why did you assume I meant YOU? I was referring to vez.

But your feeling targeted is a slight scumtell.

Benmage has been rubbing me the wrong way all game. He comes across opportunistic in his CMAR attacks (if you reread him in ISO, he makes fun of CMAR for his "contract" and attacks it as a bad idea, but doesn't seem to really believe that CMAR is scum) and overdefensive to the slightest bit of criticism.

5)

Percy wrote:Still, I'm not too hot for CMAR's

townleading

and overall petulance.

(emphasis mine)
I expect that kind of comment from Richard, but not from you, Percy. Do you think "townleading" is a scumtell? I've always treated it as a towntell.

6) Hey, Deer! So now that Drippereth has let the wagon on you go, any thoughts? You were plenty talkative before in your defense. Since the wagon has derailed, you haven't had much to say.
----------
Right now I have ideas on whom to raise, but I'm going to wait a bit. Unlike casual voting (which puts pressure on people), raising just kisses up to them and makes them feel safe.

Have to go now.

danakillsu wrote:Also, I kind of like the idea of just raising someone who knows what they are doing, so

unraise raise: Axelrod

(Not that I think Lynch doesn't know what he's doing, but Axelrod, I think, is a little bit better)

I agree with this sentiment. I haven't settled on who I think is best though.

EBWOP: #2 was addressed to MacavityLock.

, for sheeping the crowd both with his vote and with his raise.

For the record, if people raise Axelrod, can it be for his actual cases and suspicions, and not because you agreed with one point he made about raising? I have no problems with Axelrod so far (although there are players I trust more). But that post alone is a very shallow reason to trust someone. Scum are just as capable as innocents of writing a reasonable post that essentially says, "I don't think we should worry too much about raising."

I disagree with danakillsu and Rivka on raising. I'd rather give a double-vote to a mediocre townie than smart scum. Smart scum is the kind most likely to stay alive to LYLO/MYLO and lose the town a lynch. IMO, we should raise players who are most likely to be town, not players who sound reasonable.

EBWOP: to clarify, being reasonable is obviously an asset in a Hand. Not saying we should Raise total idiots. I just think we should err on the side of the player who's more townish rather than more intelligent.

Mina wrote: 1) CCARaven04, do you suspect SSBF more than vezopiraka? Also, why the hell are you still raising Richard considering you say you find him scummy?

point taken.

Not gonna raise anyone yet, I don't really know how we're going to be able to raise someone without fully knowing they're town.

@Deer, Axelrod, DrModem, Kleedrac, Migwelloni, and Mikujin: What are your suspects? Name at least one and explain why you find the person suspicious.

@mina So you want us to raise someone who is not mediocre. But not too smart, cause you don't want smart scum with double vote. That seems like a pretty tough needle to thread on D1.

@Raven I don't get your point about raising. We have no way of knowing someone is town short of a claim (and even that doesn't guarantee they are town). We'll have to raise someone even if we don't know they are town.

LynchMePls wrote:@mina So you want us to raise someone who is not mediocre. But not too smart, cause you don't want smart scum with double vote. That seems like a pretty tough needle to thread on D1.

Mina wrote:EBWOP: to clarify, being reasonable is obviously an asset in a Hand. Not saying we should Raise total idiots

Obviously, there's no intelligence limit to being Hand. If you have two obvtown players, then raise the one who you trust to use the double-vote wisely. I'm just saying we shouldn't be going, "This guy made a reasonable post about theory on page 2! Raise him!"

(Whoops, that was you and not Rivka who agreed with dana. Your avatars are too similar.)

Raven, you never answered my other question:

Mina wrote: 1) CCARaven04, do you suspect SSBF more than vezopiraka?

Now I have to go.

Rifka Viveka wrote:

Would you be so kind as to rephrase, or highlight, or by any means you want to the case on said "two scum".

People always like to vote on "assummed" scummy behavior, or picky backing on others ideas...often i find i have to pull peoples teeth to get a few simple bullets, highlights, or rewording (maybe i want it in different words) and stupid ass people can be so obstinate...i have to ask my self why? And 2 options come to mine, stubborn scum, or dumbasses...you pick which you want to be in your next post.

And is this "oh 3 now" suppose to scare me...like asking you to rephrase scummy positions could possibly be interpreted as scummy, give me a fucking break, play better.

I'm an obstructionists?? Do tell....how is asking someone to highlight, or restate a case at all bad?

First quote. 1)Hard to read this as anything but challenging the scumstate of those two players. 2)Second quote, you add to this by saying only scum or dumbasses could think this...which especially feels like your lawyering for others. 3)Third quote, i didnt call you an obstructionist, i said it was an obstructionist attitude.

4)It looks like your calling people out to layout their entire reasoning so you can proceed to discredit it instead of directly defending those players as not scummy, when they clearly are scummy.

5)Finally your vote on drip is less than worthless.

1. And your point? I wanted concrete evidence from Drip, and received nothing but stubbornness.
2. Lawyering for others? Not exactly sure what you mean there unless your suggesting I'm defending others?? Can you explain what you meant here.
3) ? You're not retarded...you just sound retarded...?? <<< something like that.
4) Fuck ya i want people to be able to explain why they think xxx is scummy...shittttt. All i'm doing is asking a case to be clearer so I, and everyone else can see if it holds worth, or has any value.

Surely if someone truly believes another to be scummy they can off the top of their head probably name a few things, or at very least know their own wording better to be able to highlight some of their own quotes in their own iso much more easily. They should be overjoyed and eager to help someone inquiring unto said scummy player for the person, if true in their beliefs is going to want to convince that person and others of why player xxx is scummy...as it takes more than 1 to lynch.

5) Do explain.

Mina wrote: 4) I agree with this:

Drippereth wrote:

Benmage wrote:And is this "oh 3 now" suppose to scare me...like asking you to rephrase scummy positions could possibly be interpreted as scummy, give me a fucking break, play better.

¯\(°_o)/¯

By "oh 3 now" I didn't mean

you

... Why did you assume I meant YOU? I was referring to vez.

But your feeling targeted is a slight scumtell.

Benmage has been rubbing me the wrong way all game. He comes across opportunistic in his CMAR attacks (if you reread him in ISO, he makes fun of CMAR for his "contract" and attacks it as a bad idea, but doesn't seem to really believe that CMAR is scum) and overdefensive to the slightest bit of criticism.

Explain this "opportunistic" attack you speak...please quote my words that you feel were opportunistic.

Mina wrote:I disagree with danakillsu and Rivka on raising. I'd rather give a double-vote to a mediocre townie than smart scum. Smart scum is the kind most likely to stay alive to LYLO/MYLO and lose the town a lynch. IMO, we should raise players who are most likely to be town, not players who sound reasonable.

I disagree, raising the best town person is going to that much more detrimental to the scum.

Mina wrote:I'm just saying we shouldn't be going, "This guy made a reasonable post about theory on page 2! Raise him!"

Fair enough...I didn't really see the reasoning behind the axel support.

would we have D2 to try and get a Hand raised (in the event of a tie) or would we succumb to no hand?

Mina wrote:I agree that Richard's refusal to acknowledge the serious phase is scummy (as is pretty much everything else he's done all game)...but in that post (your third of the game) you don't really comment on any of that tasty stuff (other than halfheartedly supporting Drippereth's Deer case). What tasty stuff in particular were you referring to that Richard should have commented on? Something about these points rubbed my gut the wrong way.

Well, by that point in the game, there was your fakeclaims discussion, there's my FoSes, CMAR's "RVS over" stuff, xvart's having missed my FoSes, Modem's Jester talk, the Deer/DethHydra back and forth, probably a few other things I missed. To ignore all that and say that everything going on is still random, and that it's trolling to say that it isn't, is awful. I'm not saying that Richard had to discuss all of those points, or even any of those in particular. But there was stuff going on.

By the way, now is as good a time as any to be out with it. My FoSes were made as a way to generate discussion and get reactions. Of course not everybody is going to Raise themself; it would make everything pointless. So, I wanted to see if I could find any reasonable or unreasonable responses. And I think I have.


Kleedrac - Already Raising himself, asked mod to confirm it was an option.
Magna - Tested me with his Raise as per 173. Great play.
Lynch, Mina, Axelrod - Discussing what the right way to go about Raising is. This is what should be going on.


dana - Thinks I'm stupid for the FoSes, but doesn't mention me by name, FoS, or vote me.
xvart - I'm not really sure what the semantic problem here is.
Most everybody ignoring me - Probably okay, but tough to tell.


Richard - Direct follow. He wants my FoS off him, so he does exactly what I say.
SSBF, I doubt it - Lack of taking responsibility for the self-Raise
Paranoia - His intro and only post talks only about Raising and reactions to it. He just FoSes me and Magna, doesn't vote. If you think my post was bad, why wasn't it worthy of a vote?
vezo - All over the place in terms of Raising: Raises self, then suggests we Raise the lynchee, then soft claims, requests the Raise, and doesn't even change his Raise to himself in doing so.

MacavityLock wrote:Unsight, why is SSBF worse than Richard here?

Mentioning the words "policy lynch" isn't scummy, taboo, or even FoS-worthy on its own. Richard's change of stance on them can be explained by him being scum but time is a factor. If he had made that post yesterday, then it would be a very drastic shift in perception. The fact that it's 3 months old now means he should explain it, but it's not necessarily reliable as a scum tell and certainly not on its own.

SSBF's extreme reaction to Eliball's post is another matter. Showing that someone is playing differently than their norm can be very relevant and calling that post irrelevant before Richard even answers to it can have many meanings... many scummy ones. Also, if you look at SSBF's ISO, you'll see that post is one of the most aggressive posts in there. That link really rubbed him the wrong way. He was either distancing Eliball or protecting Richard.

Mod:

I need to be replaced, I'm too busy to play.

1.And your point? I wanted concrete evidence from Drip, and received nothing but stubbornness.
2. Lawyering for others? Not exactly sure what you mean there unless your suggesting I'm defending others?? Can you explain what you meant here.

I refer to the process of raising the expectation of evidence to an unreasonable level early in the game. Its the extended version of a player getting caught in the RVS and defending himself using the argument ''you cant catch scum in the RVS''. Why would you even use the word ''concrete'' in that context?

Im sure you have played mafia offsite. Perhaps you have played in a game heavy with roles, where the players spend more time explaining why the scum cant be caught and this that and the next thing are null cause they do it to. Then they no lynch and wait for cops and vigs to bail them out. This attitude pisses me off. We can find scum, we probably already have and several people need to be gunned down

Then ill reverse the question;how does your vote on drip find lynch scum? You think drip should be lynched?

Unsight wrote:He was either distancing Eliball or protecting Richard.

On distancing: I really don't see where I distanced Drippereth. I found DrippingGoofball's play style originally annoying, but once I found out it was a hydra of Eil and DrippingGoofball, I realize I might as well deal with the play style. As for the reaction, I couldn't see why it was necessary to bring up Richard's hatered of policy lynches when it was like three months ago, you said it yourself it wouldn't really be called a scum tell.

On protecting Richard: I honestly can't see where I protected RichardGHP. So far, I do not have a read on him, but that's because I have other suspects to go after (CryMeARiver and Vezopiraka are examples).

Super Smash Bros. Fan wrote:...RichardGHP. So far, I do not have a read on him

To not have a read on Richard in this game violates several laws of physics, I am sure.

Drip, we get the point, my play is horrible and scum-like. Now can you please do some actual scumhunting?

RichardGHP wrote:Drip, we get the point, my play is horrible and scum-like. Now can you please do some actual scumhunting?

Hey my scum hunting hit cruising speed in my first post, I'm scum hunting hard and fast with both my heads.

I'd like this from YOU:

(1) make a list of lurkers.
(2) give us your read of the non-lurkers.

Thanks ahead.

Your last post is ultra scummy.

@mina
Admittedly, my raise and vote recently were with the crowd, but that's not my pattern.
Also, obviously we want to give the vote to a mediocre townie rather than a smart person we're not sure about. I just don't know that we have a for-sure townie option.
@MacavityLock
Yeah, I haven't mentioned you by name, because I prefer to let others figure out who I'm talking to rather than going back a page and finding out who said what, which is very annoying in the middle of writing a post. And I haven't fos'd you or voted you because "stupid"=/=scummy.