Mafiascum.net

In post 98, Phi Kappa Phi wrote:VOTE: clidd

I made a comparison with three other games, which he was town. I noticed that his pattern consists of a game start characterized by an expressive claim or announcement, marked by the use of wifom as a tool of persuasion to, at the same time that he is attracting attention, repelling suspicions due to the strong image of exalted self-confidence. Posts 18, 31, 46 show concern to help inexperienced players, being in coherence with the SE position established in post 8. Assimilation to past experiences in posts 45, 55, 56 and 85 demonstrate transparency in relation to the opinions formed, indicating progressive reasoning in order to develop the game forward, strengthened by the suggestion in post 97. In general, there is no bias in his lines, and his actions are motivated to progress in the team-game proactively. This is enough to consider him as lock-town, under the condition of BoP depending on how the first day and second day occur. If he is not killed within two days, however, I will regard his presence in the game as suspicious, unless there is a PR that has rescue (Doctor) helping him.

In post 172, Maduisha wrote:

In post 170, clidd wrote:

In post 169, Maduisha wrote:As I said before, I believe lurkers aren't inherently scummy during the first day. And in your case, I thought it was a matter of real life constraints, since the game master was speaking about grabbing a substitute for you. Hence wanting to wait to see if you appeared, instead of trying to lynch someone that hadn't posted yet, for no other reasons. Inactivity is a good indicator of how scummy someone is, if you're trying not to get noticed by others, but in this case nobody thought of that because of it being the first day and what I already said. If later on, someone were to try to post small messages with no real substance and try to disappear for as long as they could, I'd agree with wanting to pressure them or vote them, but I was talking about the game state as of right now.

Ok, you believe it would be more "fair", in theory, to wait for me to return before voting. I understand that. Now, what do you think of the scenario I come back to and see that several people are voting on me? wouldn't it be interesting, if i were scum, to see how i would react to the pressure ?

What pressure would you feel, independent of alignment, if you already know people were voting you out of getting afk warnings instead of people thinking you're scum? I'm sorry, I can't follow. Do you think a mafia member would post differently instead of shrugging it, or...?

I think I'm either misunderstanding something, or you are.

In post 171, clidd wrote:

In post 159, Maduisha wrote:Didn't you just say that pushing lurkers to contribute is scummy? Because bringing up that idea so early in the game sounds to me like an attempt to... push lurkers to contribute. Ah, well. I have nothing against lynching lurkers when the game moves a bit and there's more incentive to contribute (so, when there's actual information to work with, but people still choose not to post). Right now, I don't feel like lurkers are inherently scummy, because day 1 has been pretty clueless as to which direction to take, aside from gut feelings, and now I'm going to get to mine:

If I were forced to vote, I'd vote OS or PKP, because the clidd vote bandwagon was so weird, and because I think OS has only posted meme-y stuff, which is okay because it's the first day, but all of his posts are still of that nature and I'd like to see him talk a bit more. Although, a part of me thinks scum would rather get talkative townies lynched rather than lurkers, because that would increase their chances of winning, so I'm not exactly sure if my read of people is rather shitty. For now, I'll still abstain from voting, because I'd like to see more interaction.

Do you really think that if both were scum, they would vote together at the same time? wouldn't that be suspicious? if you abstain from voting and expect more interaction, why only others who have to interact and you don't have to ?

They can play with your line of thought too and just have multiple mafia members vote the same person so that you won't suspect they're both red, just saying. I'm not calling them both scum, by the way, I'm just saying those are the only two ticking me off as suspicious. And by interaction I meant more people speaking their mind and talking to others, not just voting. I thought I was interacting with you, at least.

In post 178, GeneralWu wrote:

I made a comparison with three other games, which he was town. I noticed that his pattern consists of a game start characterized by an expressive claim or announcement, marked by the use of wifom as a tool of persuasion to, at the same time that he is attracting attention, repelling suspicions due to the strong image of exalted self-confidence. Posts 18, 31, 46 show concern to help inexperienced players, being in coherence with the SE position established in post 8. Assimilation to past experiences in posts 45, 55, 56 and 85 demonstrate transparency in relation to the opinions formed, indicating progressive reasoning in order to develop the game forward, strengthened by the suggestion in post 97. In general, there is no bias in his lines, and his actions are motivated to progress in the team-game proactively. This is enough to consider him as lock-town, under the condition of BoP depending on how the first day and second day occur. If he is not killed within two days, however, I will regard his presence in the game as suspicious, unless there is a PR that has rescue (Doctor) helping him.

what's BoP

I agree that OS is pretty transparent and willing to help and move the game forward. But why would you say he is suspicious if he is not killed within two days?
I can see where you're heading, since towny players tend to be killed by mafia so that the mafia can conceal themselves better. So, if there's a towny player who somehow survives for a long time, he could be regarded as suspicious.
But, supposing that the mafia are townread by everyone in the game, they could also choose to kill scummy people, so that they don't get suspected for being "overly towny" or "so towny they're scummy" or something like that. I remember that happened in a game I played a long time ago on a different website.

I made a comparison with 5 past games, 3 as town and 2 as scum. Chronologically, I can see that from the 1968 game, the expression '' howdy '' was created, which was repeated in the 1982 game, in an attempt to establish a meta favorable to their read as town. However, later, it was also applied in bad faith in both 1974 and 1976 games (scums), mischaracterizing the expression's link with their alignment, and making it a null standard. While reading both scum games, especially 1974 (which has more content), I noticed that their behavior is much more centered and neutral, with semi-premeditated lines and placements, as they maintain their posture and education. Something that is opposite to the extroverted and more incisive stance seen in the three games as town, where the "fear" is much less, with bolder premises and sporadically genuine acts. In this game, precisely in the posts post 68 and 79, I notice, respectively, a very premature consideration, without the development of a justification (guts), and a spontaneously early reaction, with no previous communication channel. Both examples seem to agree with their town pattern, as well as the suggestively emotional error (rush / lack of attention) in the transition between posts 112 and 113, and in the SR statement in post 119, which was done without structuring of a table of previous reads (something I noted in their scum pattern).

In post 153, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 126, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 121, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 120, Maduisha wrote:

In post 119, JacksonVirgo wrote:I have scum-reads on GeneralWu and Kappa

I understand suspecting PKP because of the random clidd vote and saying it's weird not to vote, but why GW?

Overly serious, pings me as someone who wants to act like they're trying to solve the game when they're not.

Eh not as strong a read as Kappa but it's what I see aorn

so how am i "acting like i'm trying to solve the game when i'm not"?
Also how is being serious a bad thing?

This is why sometimes in the right context being serious is scummy, Straight from the wiki:

It's the so-called LAMIST - (Look At ME Im So Town!) tell and it's still relevant enough to have its own acronym! Newbscum usually are very concerned with 'looking good' to avoid falling under suspicion, but don't know how to fake-scumhunt. Instead, they will do things like pushing the lurkers to contribute, trying to "resuscitate" them by voting them, asking for reads on themselves, talking a lot about the game itself (this is called IIoA), claiming they are doing anything in their power to get information.

In post 154, 72offsuit wrote:Your post fits the LAMIST tell in my eyes, therefore i think you are scummy

In post 182, GeneralWu wrote:

I made a comparison with 5 past games, 3 as town and 2 as scum. Chronologically, I can see that from the 1968 game, the expression '' howdy '' was created, which was repeated in the 1982 game, in an attempt to establish a meta favorable to their read as town. However, later, it was also applied in bad faith in both 1974 and 1976 games (scums), mischaracterizing the expression's link with their alignment, and making it a null standard. While reading both scum games, especially 1974 (which has more content), I noticed that their behavior is much more centered and neutral, with semi-premeditated lines and placements, as they maintain their posture and education. Something that is opposite to the extroverted and more incisive stance seen in the three games as town, where the "fear" is much less, with bolder premises and sporadically genuine acts. In this game, precisely in the posts post 68 and 79, I notice, respectively, a very premature consideration, without the development of a justification (guts), and a spontaneously early reaction, with no previous communication channel. Both examples seem to agree with their town pattern, as well as the suggestively emotional error (rush / lack of attention) in the transition between posts 112 and 113, and in the SR statement in post 119, which was done without structuring of a table of previous reads (something I noted in their scum pattern).

Well, wouldn't "premature considerations without the development of a justification" be considered a scummy act? It's something I've seen either bad town or mafia do.
Pulling arguments out of nowhere and not providing explanations for them isn't good for town.
In addition, I don't quite get your argument about JV not making a table of reads. Why does not making one make Jackson look towny?
Like, even though it may fit their scum pattern, doesn't gameplay depend more on situation than trying to match meta?
Like, I'm just very used to seeing a table of reads as NAI since people just do it when they have time.

In post 157, 72offsuit wrote:Given the lack of posting, what are people's stance on the policy Lynch All Lurkers?

In post 159, Maduisha wrote:Didn't you just say that pushing lurkers to contribute is scummy? Because bringing up that idea so early in the game sounds to me like an attempt to... push lurkers to contribute. Ah, well. I have nothing against lynching lurkers when the game moves a bit and there's more incentive to contribute (so, when there's actual information to work with, but people still choose not to post). Right now, I don't feel like lurkers are inherently scummy, because day 1 has been pretty clueless as to which direction to take, aside from gut feelings, and now I'm going to get to mine:

If I were forced to vote, I'd vote OS or PKP, because the clidd vote bandwagon was so weird, and because I think OS has only posted meme-y stuff, which is okay because it's the first day, but all of his posts are still of that nature and I'd like to see him talk a bit more. Although, a part of me thinks scum would rather get talkative townies lynched rather than lurkers, because that would increase their chances of winning, so I'm not exactly sure if my read of people is rather shitty. For now, I'll still abstain from voting, because I'd like to see more interaction.

In post 189, clidd wrote:This is L-1.

In post 178, GeneralWu wrote:

I made a comparison with three other games, which he was town. I noticed that his pattern consists of a game start characterized by an expressive claim or announcement, marked by the use of wifom as a tool of persuasion to, at the same time that he is attracting attention, repelling suspicions due to the strong image of exalted self-confidence. Posts 18, 31, 46 show concern to help inexperienced players, being in coherence with the SE position established in post 8. Assimilation to past experiences in posts 45, 55, 56 and 85 demonstrate transparency in relation to the opinions formed, indicating progressive reasoning in order to develop the game forward, strengthened by the suggestion in post 97. In general, there is no bias in his lines, and his actions are motivated to progress in the team-game proactively. This is enough to consider him as lock-town, under the condition of BoP depending on how the first day and second day occur. If he is not killed within two days, however, I will regard his presence in the game as suspicious, unless there is a PR that has rescue (Doctor) helping him.

what's BoP

I agree that OS is pretty transparent and willing to help and move the game forward. But why would you say he is suspicious if he is not killed within two days?
I can see where you're heading, since towny players tend to be killed by mafia so that the mafia can conceal themselves better. So, if there's a towny player who somehow survives for a long time, he could be regarded as suspicious.
But, supposing that the mafia are townread by everyone in the game, they could also choose to kill scummy people, so that they don't get suspected for being "overly towny" or "so towny they're scummy" or something like that. I remember that happened in a game I played a long time ago on a different website.

In post 150, Phi Kappa Phi wrote:Clidd, can you summarize what you see from OS and 72 that you don't think they'd be doing as scum? I read the post but I'm still confused why you townread them exactly

In post 173, ObviousScum wrote:

In post 150, Phi Kappa Phi wrote:Clidd, can you summarize what you see from OS and 72 that you don't think they'd be doing as scum? I read the post but I'm still confused why you townread them exactly

Scummy
VOTE: phi

In post 193, clidd wrote:To pass the message:

'' you must come back and communicate with us, otherwise you will be lynched ''

In post 194, clidd wrote:I don't understand your posts, 72offsuit. Could you be clearer ?

In post 192, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 178, GeneralWu wrote:

I made a comparison with three other games, which he was town. I noticed that his pattern consists of a game start characterized by an expressive claim or announcement, marked by the use of wifom as a tool of persuasion to, at the same time that he is attracting attention, repelling suspicions due to the strong image of exalted self-confidence. Posts 18, 31, 46 show concern to help inexperienced players, being in coherence with the SE position established in post 8. Assimilation to past experiences in posts 45, 55, 56 and 85 demonstrate transparency in relation to the opinions formed, indicating progressive reasoning in order to develop the game forward, strengthened by the suggestion in post 97. In general, there is no bias in his lines, and his actions are motivated to progress in the team-game proactively. This is enough to consider him as lock-town, under the condition of BoP depending on how the first day and second day occur. If he is not killed within two days, however, I will regard his presence in the game as suspicious, unless there is a PR that has rescue (Doctor) helping him.

what's BoP

I agree that OS is pretty transparent and willing to help and move the game forward. But why would you say he is suspicious if he is not killed within two days?
I can see where you're heading, since towny players tend to be killed by mafia so that the mafia can conceal themselves better. So, if there's a towny player who somehow survives for a long time, he could be regarded as suspicious.
But, supposing that the mafia are townread by everyone in the game, they could also choose to kill scummy people, so that they don't get suspected for being "overly towny" or "so towny they're scummy" or something like that. I remember that happened in a game I played a long time ago on a different website.

This post pings me in a bad way.Very WIFOMY, doesnt further analyse a particular player, very general, general mafia theory, barely ties back to this game.

Someone jump on the GW wagon. Get on it!

In post 198, 72offsuit wrote:AS for my lynch all lurkers policy, I'm not prepared to hammer any lurkers just yet, but I'm more than happy to pressure, FoS and Vote for Lurkers. Lurking only helps scum.
So if you are town, don't lurk. If you are scum, lurk to your hearts content.