Mafiascum.net

In post 174, SirCakez wrote:

In post 171, Albert B. Rampage wrote:shoot sircakez imo

Glad we can resume our normal hostilities so quickly.

I love you but I suspect you a LOT

In post 172, RLotus wrote: I'm mainly referring to their first post about how everyone should vote. It looks meant to appear as if they are invested in the game without actually committing to any reads. In hindsight it looks even worse given that he supposedly reads norfolk scummy yet didn't bother giving a read on him even though every post that norfolk made between the start of the game and when Duchess called him scummy were posted before Duchess' "fluffy" post.

I think it's odd that anyone expects anyone to have meaningful reads this early on, myself. I'm capable of it, but I play a weird game and I'm near guaranteed to discard most of my reads at some point or another so I see no harm in having garbage early game reads for me.

Why would someone's very first post in the thread, arriving in the first, what was it, 3 pages of the thread? Why would that contain actual reads? That sounds like a reach, given that even I didn't have any reads until page 6.

In post 172, RLotus wrote:Also, it's not even ten pages and 48 hours in and you're making associative reads? PUBLIC associative reads, no less? I'm also gonna need you to explain /that/ for me.

Well, it mainly comes from a general vibe I'm getting about the gamestate. It seems to me that several people are pushing onto Norfolk and naturally scum are trying to push into a different direction. Duchess' seemingly disingenuous push onto Wheme fits the bill. Again, I can very well be wrong, it's a preliminary read. But, there does seem to be something strange going on in that area.[/quote]

I have thoughts about this half too, but I'm going to save the nitty-gritty details while I watch how others react. I'll summarize vaguely like so: I believe someone could believe this, and I believe you think you believe it, but I don't believe you /actually/ believe it. I smell doubt.

I'm requesting that you reread and give me your thoughts again after that -- it's still early, so I think a reread isn't too much of an ask right now.

Oh for god's sake quote horror. Give me a moment to try and fix that mess for readability.

In post 172, RLotus wrote: I'm mainly referring to their first post about how everyone should vote. It looks meant to appear as if they are invested in the game without actually committing to any reads. In hindsight it looks even worse given that he supposedly reads norfolk scummy yet didn't bother giving a read on him even though every post that norfolk made between the start of the game and when Duchess called him scummy were posted before Duchess' "fluffy" post.

I think it's odd that anyone expects anyone to have meaningful reads this early on, myself. I'm capable of it, but I play a weird game and I'm near guaranteed to discard most of my reads at some point or another so I see no harm in having garbage early game reads for me.

Why would someone's very first post in the thread, arriving in the first, what was it, 3 pages of the thread? Why would that contain actual reads? That sounds like a reach, given that even I didn't have any reads until page 6.

In post 172, RLotus wrote: Well, it mainly comes from a general vibe I'm getting about the gamestate. It seems to me that several people are pushing onto Norfolk and naturally scum are trying to push into a different direction. Duchess' seemingly disingenuous push onto Wheme fits the bill. Again, I can very well be wrong, it's a preliminary read. But, there does seem to be something strange going on in that area.

I have thoughts about this half too, but I'm going to save the nitty-gritty details while I watch how others react. I'll summarize vaguely like so: I believe someone could believe this, and I believe you think you believe it, but I don't believe you /actually/ believe it. I smell doubt.

I'm requesting that you reread and give me your thoughts again after that -- it's still early, so I think a reread isn't too much of an ask right now.[/quote]

....I'm not fixing that. It's good enough, sue me.

In post 169, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:For Imperium:
Not familiar with it.

That said, the voice you should be reading my posts in is the stereotypical cyberpunk decker voice. You know the type. Cool hacker dude lit only by the light of his computer screen which is projecting the image in exactly the way computer screens do not do, grumbling with a voice that has met a million packs of cigarettes: "I'm in."

Except not a dude. Definitely still gruff from smoking four people's worth of cigarettes, though.
.

Lol I like this, but I think why I like it besides just making me chuckle a bit is this post feels like a super natural tone.

Whereas the other posts on this page felt a bit formal and not entirely natural such that I was trying to figure out if that was just your writing style or if you’re a mustache twirler wringing your hands going yes yes minions fall into my trap of psychological trickery which led me to the Princess Bride which you should totally watch if you’ve never seen it, but it is where the concept of wifom comes from

Oh well that’s a bummer

In post 173, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Imperium too.

Tsk tsk abr You won’t be breaking any records with that read!

In post 178, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:I have thoughts about this half too, but I'm going to save the nitty-gritty details while I watch how others react. I'll summarize vaguely like so: I believe someone could believe this, and I believe you think you believe it, but I don't believe you /actually/ believe it. I smell doubt.

Yes I convey doubt when I give that read because there is no solid information at this point and it is very hard to be confident in a read this early, but it is the best lead I've got at this point.

I see what you mean about not having substance in their very first post, but it is indeed fluff. Read it how you will.

Mush vote Norfolk with us

Mush - when I said this page in my post, I meant last page. Didn’t realize we moved to a new one.

For Imperium:

You're not wrong about it being formal and unnatural. That stuff about everything I post having multiple intentions and being very carefully edited and etc? Yeah, that wasn't making stuff up. It gets formal and stilted because I end up clipping giant chunks of text out, rewriting things, substituting words and phrasings to craft the correct end result, so forth... It's very similar to technical writing, where the exact phrasing is vital to getting your intended meaning across.

As such, I naturally fall into something between formal speech writing and technical writing when making Mafia posts that are loaded with a dozen little tricks and secret meanings. On one hand, I'm trying to get and hold attention, so formal speech writing gives me a structure to work with. On the other hand, I'm trying to get across exactly and precisely what I intend to have other people interpret from my posting and not a single other thing -- so technical writing helps.



For RLotus:

It's substantially less fluffy than anyone else's first post. Particularly because it asked a question, which opens a dialog, which means people should start to contribute content, which means you can start to make informed reads instead of making shots in the dark. That's what I saw there. So no, fluff doesn't cover it.

I still do recommend you reread.



For Cakez:

Why would I do something that means nothing?

Mush obvtown

I always am, apparently.

In post 187, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Mush obvtown

Why

Liking MUSH, RLotus and Dunnstral so far.

VOTE: ScrewTheTells
VOTE: Norfolk boy
VOTE: Not_Mafia
VOTE: SirCakez

Probably two scum in there

I think Norfolk is town

In post 192, Not_Mafia wrote:I think Norfolk is town

Care to elaborate?

In post 193, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:

In post 192, Not_Mafia wrote:I think Norfolk is town

Care to elaborate?

No

In post 186, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:For Cakez:

Why would I do something that means nothing?

It indicates who you want elimmed
Even if you don't actually have control over it it only helps town later to see who was voting who

In post 191, Rockhopper wrote:VOTE: ScrewTheTells
VOTE: Norfolk boy
VOTE: Not_Mafia
VOTE: SirCakez

Probably two scum in there

Why am I in this pool of scumlords?

I'm not a scumlord sircakez?

In post 195, SirCakez wrote:

In post 186, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:For Cakez:

Why would I do something that means nothing?

It indicates who you want elimmed
Even if you don't actually have control over it

it only helps town later to see who was voting who

False. /Especially/ with the way I play Mafia, and /definitely/ in this setup.

My voting history is manipulative as hell in an ordinary Mafia game and attempting to get anything out of it is pointless. I'll often go without voting for most of a dayphase while I press multiple slots aggressively, or rapidly shift my vote around for only about 48 hours and then let it sit on someone I don't even scumread for awhile. So already, even if this were an ordinary game, me specifically having my vote down isn't helpful to town unless its time to wagon for an elimination, and then it's only helpful as weight on the wagon.

In this setup, it provides information to scum on who they can manipulate and in what way. Worse yet, unless the gunbearer /wants/ people to vote, it doesn't even help the town in the process. I even went over this in detail in one of my /very first posts in this thread/. Did you read my ISO before you decided to ask me to do something I went to great lengths to call out as having /basically negative utility/? No? Well, I would suggest you go and /do that/ then.

Ahem. I got so caught up in /that/ that I forgot to respond to this.

In post 194, Not_Mafia wrote:

In post 193, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:

In post 192, Not_Mafia wrote:I think Norfolk is town

Care to elaborate?

No

That's fair.

What if I said I scumread you for townreading Norfolk? Hypothetically.