Mafiascum.net

In post 168, StrangerCoug wrote:No, she did not. She said she was ONE OF the most experienced. She did not claim to be the #1 most experienced, which your dropping "one of" implies. I shouldn't even be arguing semantics with you.

Does it matter if she said the most or one of the most? That's besides the point I was making.

In post 168, StrangerCoug wrote:And you cannot be certain of Amrun's unless she's scum with you, which is absurd since I don't think scum would want to stage a heated argument with one of their buddies off the bat.

That's true; do you see me stating that I disagree with people because of Amrun's reactions? Please don't do that.

In post 168, StrangerCoug wrote:And that's supposed to tell me what?

I don't know, what was the point of the question?
Amrun tried to say that she towntells me because I wouldn't argue with her as scum.
I told her that this is a bad reason to towntell me because I would do that as scum too.
And you're asking "why did you say that/what makes you town" or something, so I don't know what answer you really expect.

In post 172, Elyse wrote:So how am I supposed to get a townread? Basically you are saying that scum tries to look town so anything townie can be scummy.

You can get townreads off things that have town motivation in them. Someone stating exactly what you have in your mind is not necessarily town motivated, even if you are town, because that someone might be scum trying to act like town.
Bottom line I'm just saying don't townread people just because they say something you agree with, because it's a common mistake.

In post 173, Amrun wrote:If you don't even read, though, then why you expect to be treated seriously is beyond me.

Okay I read it, and I'll admit it looks better the way you put it now.
I guess there aren't many alternatives anyway, and I guess you have a point that if scum are capable enough to exploit the plan, they are capable enough to win without the plan too.

In post 169, Wisdom wrote:

I know she's not town for that, but she's also not scum for it, which is what you were pushing for her suggestions at the beginning.

She is scum for her suggestions, because scum seek to make these suggestions. It's not about a "this is townie, she did it, she wants to do something townie, she's scum". It's about doing something that scum would do. There's a difference, find it.

Elaborate on this. This is vague.

In post 174, Wisdom wrote:

In post 168, StrangerCoug wrote:Then whose question/request were you answering? Nobody else said anything where this response would make sense to them.

Venmar. I even used the exact words he used. It was the post above mollie's.

My bad, then.

In post 175, Wisdom wrote:

In post 168, StrangerCoug wrote:No, she did not. She said she was ONE OF the most experienced. She did not claim to be the #1 most experienced, which your dropping "one of" implies. I shouldn't even be arguing semantics with you.

Does it matter if she said the most or one of the most? That's besides the point I was making.

It matters to the extent that you should be correctly representing what people are saying, but beyond that, no. Neither version of her statement is in and of itself grounds for considering her scummy.

In post 176, Wisdom wrote:

In post 168, StrangerCoug wrote:And you cannot be certain of Amrun's unless she's scum with you, which is absurd since I don't think scum would want to stage a heated argument with one of their buddies off the bat.

That's true; do you see me stating that I disagree with people because of Amrun's reactions? Please don't do that.

Amrun is not the person whose reactions I have been talking about.

In post 177, Wisdom wrote:

In post 168, StrangerCoug wrote:And that's supposed to tell me what?

I don't know, what was the point of the question?
Amrun tried to say that she towntells me because I wouldn't argue with her as scum.
I told her that this is a bad reason to towntell me because I would do that as scum too.

It makes no sense to me to argue against a towntell because you do it as scum specifically. I admit this may be your wording (saying you'd do something "as any/either alignment" would not have sent me in a tailspin), but I'm trying to get into the mentality you were in when you made that post. This is not to say that all stated townread reasons are valid, though—buddying is a valid scumtell, though not what I'm seeing going on.

In post 177, Wisdom wrote:And you're asking "why did you say that/what makes you town" or something, so I don't know what answer you really expect.

part was rhetorical.

wis why are you breaking up all of strange's posts and not just putting them in 1? see this is why I want to talk to majiffy cos to me it looks like scum burying posts. he will know what I am talking about

In post 180, StrangerCoug wrote:Amrun is not the person whose reactions I have been talking about.

You were talking about my reactions; I used it as a parallel to tell you that despite finding Amrun scum at the time, I don't let it influence my read on others.

Townread on mollie. I don't really see 181 coming from scum.

In post 181, pirate mollie wrote:wis why are you breaking up all of strange's posts and not just putting them in 1? see this is why I want to talk to majiffy cos to me it looks like scum burying posts. he will know what I am talking about

Because quote wars are ugly

In post 182, Wisdom wrote:

In post 180, StrangerCoug wrote:Amrun is not the person whose reactions I have been talking about.

You were talking about my reactions; I used it as a parallel to tell you that despite finding Amrun scum at the time, I don't let it influence my read on others.

This makes better sense.

In post 180, StrangerCoug wrote:It makes no sense to me to argue against a towntell because you do it as scum specifically. I admit this may be your wording (saying you'd do something "as any/either alignment" would not have sent me in a tailspin), but I'm trying to get into the mentality you were in when you made that post. This is not to say that all stated townread reasons are valid, though—buddying is a valid scumtell, though not what I'm seeing going on.

But that what I said; that I would do it as scum .
She finds me town for doing that, when I would not only do it as town, but also as scum; therefore it's something null.
Get it?

In post 180, StrangerCoug wrote:Elaborate on this. This is vague.

I have done that already when she first suggested it; I expect such plans to come from scum, because it is a good way to gain early towncred.
For example, in Polygamist mafia, my last scum game, I planned on opposing a pair massclaim because that would appear town-sided and I specifically told my scumbuddies that we should do that because it would earn us towncred.
Maybe I am just judging by what I would do as scum, but at the time I could really see her being scum doing that.
Now I don't so much, because the detailed version of her plan looks much better, and she probably towntelled with the 3scum thing.

In post 179, Wisdom wrote:

In post 173, Amrun wrote:If you don't even read, though, then why you expect to be treated seriously is beyond me.

Okay I read it, and I'll admit it looks better the way you put it now.
I guess there aren't many alternatives anyway, and I guess you have a point that if scum are capable enough to exploit the plan, they are capable enough to win without the plan too.

Do you see any holes in the plan?

No, other than the fact our votes won't be counted; will we do it ourselves?

In post 188, Wisdom wrote:

In post 180, StrangerCoug wrote:Elaborate on this. This is vague.

I have done that already when she first suggested it; I expect such plans to come from scum, because it is a good way to gain early towncred.
For example, in Polygamist mafia, my last scum game, I planned on opposing a pair massclaim because that would appear town-sided and I specifically told my scumbuddies that we should do that because it would earn us towncred.
Maybe I am just judging by what I would do as scum, but at the time I could really see her being scum doing that.
Now I don't so much, because the detailed version of her plan looks much better, and she probably towntelled with the 3scum thing.

I acknowledge that scum want to get towncred early, but that's still an awfully circumstantial reason to be attacking Amrun. If the plan, when executed, sets town on the wrong foot, then it can be understood as scummy.

And if we're going to use what we've done as scum before to argue against stuff being towntells, I've planted fake townslips before. This post comes to mind—from the town's perspective, qwintz's cop result was ambiguously worded as to the target, but as scum, I already knew the answer to my question.

Do you think the "towntell" was fake then?

No.

In post 191, Wisdom wrote:No, other than the fact our votes won't be counted; will we do it ourselves?

Yes, which is why I said we should all do it in a particular way that's easy to keep track of. It doesn't have to be the way I suggested. Perhaps someone else has a better/easier idea.

IMO, it should, ideally, distinguish between real votes that do count and fake votes that do not count. That way there's no confusion and when we look at people in ISO we don't have to wonder.

StrangerCoug wrote:No.

Then what was the point of bringing up past fake towntells?

In post 195, Amrun wrote:

In post 191, Wisdom wrote:No, other than the fact our votes won't be counted; will we do it ourselves?

Yes, which is why I said we should all do it in a particular way that's easy to keep track of. It doesn't have to be the way I suggested. Perhaps someone else has a better/easier idea.

IMO, it should, ideally, distinguish between real votes that do count and fake votes that do not count. That way there's no confusion and when we look at people in ISO we don't have to wonder.

I was planning (at least for myself) to make this clear by using for votes that are not supposed to count and VOTE: (insert player here) for votes that do.

In post 196, Wisdom wrote:

StrangerCoug wrote:No.

Then what was the point of bringing up past fake towntells?

Mainly as a warning. I have to be aware of the very possibility I hinted at, too.

In post 195, Amrun wrote:

In post 191, Wisdom wrote:No, other than the fact our votes won't be counted; will we do it ourselves?

Yes, which is why I said we should all do it in a particular way that's easy to keep track of. It doesn't have to be the way I suggested. Perhaps someone else has a better/easier idea.

IMO, it should, ideally, distinguish between real votes that do count and fake votes that do not count. That way there's no confusion and when we look at people in ISO we don't have to wonder.

We could call it something other than "Vote", like

I like the "nominate" idea. More elegant than my method.