Mafiascum.net

UNVOTE: Riddle

VOTE: Corpses

1. What Kaboose said regarding setup spec.
2. Rereading his ISO, I still don't like how he interacted with swag.
3. I know at least 1/2 of his hyrda is around, but he's gone quiet.

VOTE: Corpses

↑ Whatisswag wrote:Actually I have a scum read. Not saying it at the moment.

This is bleeding town. This would be absurd for newbie scum to post.

↑ Riddleton wrote:

VOTE: Corpses

That video should earn you a policy lynch. I didn't want to sleep the rest of this year anyways. God damn.

I didn't realise you were a septuple voter, Kaboose!

Lol, you should check out the rest of cyriak's videos. They're ...weird

@Riddleton:

↑ davesaz wrote:

↑ Riddleton wrote:

↑ elleheathen wrote:VOTE: unvote

Wasn't fond of the 'Here, let me link other people's theories on something that's being asked of

me

...'
But liked that you could follow it up with knowing the first-to-confirms given one of those linked explanations on why you'd think that. Was looking at the same pregame.

Unvotes just after RVS are scummy. It's an unnecessary defensive move that looks like "Hey, I'm doing something" when there's no need to.

VOTE: elle

You've been busted, my friend. Life is tough sometimes. I imagine your parents must be very dissapointed in you. Who are your partners?

Did you get what you wanted from this vote?

You voted for elle. Did this post and vote have a purpose, and if there was one did you get anything from it?

Kaboose or Green Crayons: how is it scummy to tell the Masons to act like VTs (unless I'm interpreting Corpses incorrectly)? That's what they be doing.

Riddleton, why are you hopping on Corpses?

Yes, the vote had a purpose. As I said in the post you quoted, "Unvotes just after RVS are scummy. It's an unnecessary defensive move that looks like "Hey, I'm doing something" when there's no need to.". It's a serious vote.

I'm sheeping the wagon because I agree with Kaboose and GC's reasoning.

↑ awesomeusername wrote:
@davesaz: I see a lot of questions from you but you're not really supplying any opinions yourself. What do you think of Grib, riddle, and swag?

I hadn't had enough minutes at the same time to really do anything, at the time I posted those questions, so I didn't have an opinion on anyone.

The way Grib responded to my questions seemed like scum opportunism, since there is nothing alignment indicative in starting with simple questions. But it's only a null-scum at most, town could do that to see if the target feels pressured by the vote. Riddle either missed my question or decided not to answer. (Pedit: Ok, there's an answer now but I haven't had a chance to see how that answer meshes with his later activity)

Still haven't had enough time to really read anyone, other than scan for my name and see if my questions got replies. I did catch two themes that I can respond to in a general way.

Don't remember whose topic the "people who haven't confirmed are making scum plans" thing was. It's a decent conversation starter but should not be used as any kind of real logic, especially at holiday time. There's a pretty good chance that the late confirmers were just traveling or otherwise prevented from being on internet at all. You can't read anything directly into the timing, and even reaction testing off it is chancy given the likelihood that people may be annoyed you're not making allowances for the season.

The setup speculation happens all the time, especially when players haven't experienced this particular setup but also as a form of role fishing in hopes that newbs might not know they can reveal their role inadvertently. It isn't strongly indicative of alignment, but the people who focus on it the most get put in my "watch closely" pile, as do the ones who are present but don't comment on it at all.

Analysis to follow, as I get more time to actually do the research and not just skim.

Apologies for the absence. Will be reading and posting tonight...

↑ Grib wrote:Kaboose or Green Crayons: how is it scummy to tell the Masons to act like VTs (unless I'm interpreting Corpses incorrectly)? That's what they

should

be doing.

Telling masons to be "dropping tells that they're not masons (not enough to be scummy ofc)" has no actual value because that is the obvious, logical play of being a mason. However, it's an action that looks like it has value because Corpses is supporting a play that benefits masons staying alive. So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.

The fact that Kaboose called that a "role trap" leads me to believe we think Corpses' particular action is suspicious for different reasons, though I can kind of see what Kaboose is saying.

I think Corpses weird "have masons potential lie about not being masons" (paraphrasing Post 51) when is supposed to claim mason in a hypoclaim scenario is more of a blatant "role trap" kind of situation.

Sup. I am here to dramatically flop around as a replacement.

Whatisswag wrote:Taking middle ground gives null.

Whatisswag wrote:The way I scum hunt is relating the person I see to myself (another way of saying: I dont scum hunt by logic, I scum hunt by gut).

Something about the way that you're adding together what you see as scumtells and towntells to get nullreads while also saying that you scumhunt using gut feels off. I think it's that using generic towntells/scumtells and adding them together feels anything but gutbased. I might be getting caught up in semantics, so please try to elaborate on this so I can avoid being an idiot and getting caught up in a dumb argument about nothing here.

, I did a lazy metadive on Swag. In his last scumgame he used a lot of setup speculation/theorycrafting early on and in his last towngame he didn't. Does that influence how strongly you're townreading his early posts this game considering how much of it is theorycrafting-ish?

Grib wrote:I don't want to vote for any of them. The points raised against elle and Kaboose are meh.

What do you think of the points on whatisswag? I feel like you've danced around talking about him assuming I didn't just miss something in my readback.

, earlier on why were you voting Riddle over Grib, Corpses or elle? What were you hoping to get out of that single line of questioning that made him worth voting for? Also, what do you make of awesome's simultaneous townread/inability to read you and the players that are ramping up pressure on him for it?

Green Crayons wrote:So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.

Not really seeing why this is clearly scum-motivated and not just a bad play on Corpse's part.

Green Crayons wrote:I guess more importantly, why did Hannibal not get a criticism in any of your posts?

I like this line of questioning more than the role-trap angle people are pushing on Corpses. Why isn't this a part of your reasoning in your vote for Corpse, Crayon?

The Riddle-vote was being maintained out of inertia, as I wasn't sure who I wanted to vote for next. Then I decided.

I was also waiting to see Riddle's response to Fairies's position on him. That never came before my switch, but I guess it was something that helped keep my vote there (even though I don't really agree with Fairies' basis for her Riddle-vote).

My single question to him wasn't sustaining anything, as it was a bad question and I wasn't expecting anything from it.

-----

I don't know how I feel about awesome.

Listing someone as one read and then as another read within the same post when it's a big post doesn't strike me as terribly probative of scum alignment, because town compiling thoughts in that manner can lead to conflicting opinions about a player. But a more suspicious mind can certainly and fairly attribute it to scum mixing up their positions on a player. I don't really have an opinion one way or another about it because neither strikes me as a more likely scenario.

I am waiting for more input from him before deciding how I feel about his alignment.

-----

I don't know if Corpses's mason talk is "clearly" scum motivated, but I think it's more likely to come from scum trying to get townie points when discussing game setup. If a player takes a scummy action, my default reaction is that it is a scummy action, not that it is simply bad play. I see no reason why this particular action would be any different.

-----

Because I forgot I caught Corpse's failure to address Hannibal when I made my vote post.

↑ Riddleton wrote:I didn't realise you were a septuple voter, Kaboose!

Me either as I have no idea what that means or is.
---

↑ Grib wrote:Kaboose or Green Crayons: how is it scummy to tell the Masons to act like VTs (unless I'm interpreting Corpses incorrectly)? That's what they

should

be doing.

Riddleton, why are you hopping on Corpses?

I don't think he exactly said "Hey masons! Look like a couple of VTs yeah?!" I mean he said more along the lines of "Hey act scummy so we don't know you're masons, but not obvscum obviously." Like I see this as a great scum play. Tell the masons to act a certain way so you might be able to spot them, or so they act scummy and get lynched. That's what I see him attempting.
---

↑ Green Crayons wrote:The fact that Kaboose called that a "role trap" leads me to believe we think Corpses' particular action is suspicious for different reasons, though I can kind of see what Kaboose is saying.

I just sort of came up with role trap I don't know if it's an actual term or not. I called it a trap because he wasn't directly fishing like "Hey here's a clever way to make everyone role claim!" and more a "Here what you should do so we don't know but really end up knowing" Like he was trying to fool the masons is how it looked. So he was setting a trap in my opinion, making a post that looks helpful because he wants people to think he's trying to help, but in reality it's just trying to narrow down who the masons are.

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:Sup. I am here to dramatically flop around as a replacement.

Whatisswag wrote:Taking middle ground gives null.

Whatisswag wrote:The way I scum hunt is relating the person I see to myself (another way of saying: I dont scum hunt by logic, I scum hunt by gut).

Something about the way that you're adding together what you see as scumtells and towntells to get nullreads while also saying that you scumhunt using gut feels off. I think it's that using generic towntells/scumtells and adding them together feels anything but gutbased. I might be getting caught up in semantics, so please try to elaborate on this so I can avoid being an idiot and getting caught up in a dumb argument about nothing here.

@Riddleton

, I did a lazy metadive on Swag. In his last scumgame he used a lot of setup speculation/theorycrafting early on and in his last towngame he didn't. Does that influence how strongly you're townreading his early posts this game considering how much of it is theorycrafting-ish?

Grib wrote:I don't want to vote for any of them. The points raised against elle and Kaboose are meh.

What do you think of the points on whatisswag? I feel like you've danced around talking about him assuming I didn't just miss something in my readback.

@Green

, earlier on why were you voting Riddle over Grib, Corpses or elle? What were you hoping to get out of that single line of questioning that made him worth voting for? Also, what do you make of awesome's simultaneous townread/inability to read you and the players that are ramping up pressure on him for it?

Green Crayons wrote:So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.

Not really seeing why this is clearly scum-motivated and not just a bad play on Corpse's part.

Do you not think people should come under pressure for bad play? How do you expect the game to ever advance? Even if it is just bad play, it was a play that could hurt our most powerful win condition.

↑ Whatisswag wrote:Actually I have a scum read. Not saying it at the moment.

↑ Whatisswag wrote:UNVOTE:

Okay I looked in to this, and it's nothing that raises alarms, you were just unvoting a very early vote.

↑ Green Crayons wrote:Telling masons to be "dropping tells that they're not masons (not enough to be scummy ofc)" has no actual value because that is the obvious, logical play of being a mason. However, it's an action that looks like it has value because Corpses is supporting a play that benefits masons staying alive. So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.

Okay, so you think it doesn't have any value. That's fair. But if you actually go back and look at the interaction as it occurred, Corpses' post was in response to what he perceived as Masonfishing on Whatisswag's part. It wasn't an unprompted "hey guys Masons should totally act like Masons duh" post.

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:What do you think of the points on whatisswag? I feel like you've danced around talking about him assuming I didn't just miss something in my readback.

Remind me what those points are?

↑ Kaboose wrote:I don't think he exactly said "Hey masons! Look like a couple of VTs yeah?!" I mean he said more along the lines of "Hey act scummy so we don't know you're masons, but not obvscum obviously." Like I see this as a great scum play. Tell the masons to act a certain way so you might be able to spot them, or so they act scummy and get lynched. That's what I see him attempting.

He said to drop tells that they aren't Masons, but yes, he also did mention that they shouldn't act too scummy.

I see it as null, along with directing PRs. Especially in this specific case, where he was telling the Masons to act in a way they should be acting. The reasoning here is bogus IMO, but what I actually dislike about the most this is Riddleton jumping on the wagon of someone he was townreading out of nowhere per your reasoning.

Riddleton: why? You said you liked Kaboose's reasoning, but it seems misguided at best. There wasn't anything to suggest you were even mildly suspicious of Corpses.

↑ Grib wrote:

↑ Green Crayons wrote:Telling masons to be "dropping tells that they're not masons (not enough to be scummy ofc)" has no actual value because that is the obvious, logical play of being a mason. However, it's an action that looks like it has value because Corpses is supporting a play that benefits masons staying alive. So it looks like Corpses is taking action to look like he's advocating for a protown strategy, when really he's just advocating for basic game play.

Okay, so you think it doesn't have any value. That's fair. But if you actually go back and look at the interaction as it occurred, Corpses' post was in response to what he perceived as Masonfishing on Whatisswag's part. It wasn't an unprompted "hey guys Masons should totally

not

act like Masons duh" post.

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:What do you think of the points on whatisswag? I feel like you've danced around talking about him assuming I didn't just miss something in my readback.

Remind me what those points are?

↑ Kaboose wrote:I don't think he exactly said "Hey masons! Look like a couple of VTs yeah?!" I mean he said more along the lines of "Hey act scummy so we don't know you're masons, but not obvscum obviously." Like I see this as a great scum play. Tell the masons to act a certain way so you might be able to spot them, or so they act scummy and get lynched. That's what I see him attempting.

He said to drop tells that they aren't Masons, but yes, he also did mention that they shouldn't act too scummy.

I see it as null, along with directing PRs. Especially in this specific case, where he was telling the Masons to act in a way they should be acting. The reasoning here is bogus IMO, but what I actually dislike about the most this is Riddleton jumping on the wagon of someone he was townreading out of nowhere per your reasoning.

Riddleton: why? You said you liked Kaboose's reasoning, but it seems misguided at best. There wasn't anything to suggest you were even mildly suspicious of Corpses.

So you don't think people should agree with a good point? Because that's what that is.

Do me a favor and respond to the relevant part of the quote, and not the whole thing. Use bolding if you don't want to trim the quote.

I think scum are just as capable of making a good point as anyone else. If someone has a townread and suddenly jumps on their wagon without any prior suspicions, I'm going to question it.