Mafiascum.net

In post 174, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 172, Leaven wrote:UNVOTE: Ythan Not comfortable with this at 3. Will be back this evening.

Not at E-1 but at E-2 feels a bit weird to unvote at.

shouldnt you be an advocate for minimizing quickhammering given your history with them?

In post 175, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:

In post 174, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 172, Leaven wrote:UNVOTE: Ythan Not comfortable with this at 3. Will be back this evening.

Not at E-1 but at E-2 feels a bit weird to unvote at.

shouldnt you be an advocate for minimizing quickhammering given your history with them?

I've yet to be in a game with an early random hammer.

Though I do advocate early E-1s. Applying some lovely pressure early in a Day phase is much more efficient than in the middle of a Day phase.

@Dannflor can you please explain why you scumread both me and Leaven? I saw your post but you never really said why.

In post 97, Val89 wrote:

In post 95, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:sorry, 3 pages previous post list? i'm not too bright

The list of "previous users post" extends to 3 pages - some 210 threads - not all mafia games, of course, but an indication that someone has played a dent amount. I agree join date alone doesn't mean a lot if someone joined years a go but only has a hand full of games in the period. This isn't the case here, though.

ah, ok, thanks for explaining this one -CLSR

In post 95, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:i honestly dont believe they did any of that. because of this I thought that by doing half the work of the meta skim I can prevent unnecessary conflict that could lead to something a lot worse

Fair enough, we can disagree of that point - but even if he didn't do even the briefest of meta searches, Salsabil Faria indentifies in 81 the other reason why his

stated

reason for voting me is rubbish, and it doesn't require any knoweldge about how I've always opened my games to realise that. In other words,

there just isn't any way the reason he is voting me is actually geunine

, and so the decision you have to make is "is there a town reason for lying about why you are voting for a slot?". In normal circumstances, I would say it indicates something scummy,

but as I said previously, I think in this specific instance there might be a town justifcation, if the legit reason for voting my slot toes a bit close to the line where the rules are concerned.

i thought at that time a misinformed vote could still be genuine, but in hindsight I think I take too many things at face value. I'll change that
are you satisfied with the way dann explained what their vote was supposed to do?

In post 179, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:are you satisfied with the way dann explained what their vote was supposed to do?

I am more satisfied that I would have been if he had continued to insist he had a valid reason to scum read me, but to be honest, I'm not sure I follow his logic as to how I end up being town as a result; so I'm keeping my eyes out. I'm not currently scumreading the Dannflorr right now, if that's what you are asking, still null for me.

My turn to ask you a question, since Leaven didn't see, or chose not to answer - With respect to 134; do YOU think it's stupidly obvious why someone who is wrong rather than trolling wouldn't repeat themselves?

In post 101, Leaven wrote:

In post 85, cowsloveSushirolls wrote: in newbie 2068, they did nearly the same thing as here for their opening posts, and so it read out to me as a deliberate attempt to keep their posting habits uniform, which val admits a part of
are you able to look back to that game and point out differences that imply that val is doing this as scum this time around?

So is the take here that this was done for balancing personal meta? Does having a balanced meta in general benefit a player most when town or when scum long term? Does being balanced in an individual situation help that specific town or scum?

yes. by doing this dann should realise that its just a uniform part of their playstyle, therefore its NAI
but they already knew that!
i guess that sort of thing benefits your scum self in the long term, because it's one less thing that people can use to scumread you with. does that answer your question?

In post 160, StrangeMatter wrote:Also, James is a seems off to me, a self vote and a really random and awful VT claim. That's obviously very scummy, but it feels less like it might just be too scummy and random to be to actually be something scum does.

Normally a self-vote really rubs me the wrong way, but the context of this particular self-vote didn't ping me too much. It was early and flippant. I asked about it and the response was it was meant to get fluff posts out of the way. And in a way that worked.

I feel that the self-vote combined with the vote on Salsa by Dann effectively ended the RVS and got the game "going". Val probably wants credit for that too with his vote on me, and I'll accept that. Point being that there is no more use for gestures that are meant to "get things going." I hate to harp on 96 but it was apropos of nothing and was unnecessary to do. If it apparently failed the way that James describes (in a game that should not have been brought up) then I have to wonder at the motivation. Is there a scum advantage of doing that sort of VT claim? I don't know that I see any.

In post 172, Leaven wrote:Not comfortable with this at 3. Will be back this evening.

@Leaven Is there something specific about Ythan's posting today (or perhaps the posting of others) that made you feel there was a risk of 2 more people hopping on his wagon?

In post 180, Val89 wrote:My turn to ask you a question, since Leaven didn't see, or chose not to answer - With respect to 134; do YOU think it's stupidly obvious why someone who is wrong rather than trolling wouldn't repeat themselves?

i mean i probably would know if the word used wasn't "trolling"
although I haven't thought of it this way trolling is a pretty strong word (lol) and I think the action of repeating themselves falls into both categories: being genuinely wrong and trolling
i'd give a more comprehensive answer but that page just hurts to read

In post 182, ClarkBar wrote:Is there a scum advantage of doing that sort of VT claim?

There's no benefit for either.

In post 185, Salsabil Faria wrote:

Boring!

Come again? What don't you like?

In post 122, Val89 wrote:

In post 112, Dannflor wrote:they also show they went to the lengths to meta check by BS read, which also points towards town

I'm not sure that's true. Post 55 demonstrates they were already aware of me prior to the game, and I've only been in a small handful of games thus far. If there was any one thing you could point to that identifies my playstyle in particular, it would be the introductory semi-serious wall-shitpost, so I imagine they had already read 2068 and my other games where I do it rather than went meta diving to check the read.

I can confirm this

In post 183, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:i mean i probably would know if the word used wasn't "trolling"
although I haven't thought of it this way trolling is a pretty strong word (lol) and I think the action of repeating themselves falls into both categories: being genuinely wrong and trolling

In other words, no, it isn't blindlingly obvious to the degree you can safely assume anyone confused is either pretending or an absolute idiot?

I'm asking because I am assuming when I asked him to explain why someone repeating themselves means they are wrong rather than trolling his response in dodging the question and insulting me was because he didn;t actually have an answer and made up an explanation on the spot that doesn;t actually hold to the lightest scrutiny. Of course, if it was as obvious as he suggests, then he had every right to call me dense and it's NAI, so I wanted to confirm in case I am being an idiot on the matter.

ythan if you stop being a cow you get one (1) towncred and a 10% chance of being invited to towncore
I could see scum!james disrupting the thread as much as possible with ambiguous, anti-town actions when actual conversation is starting to take place but again, please scumread james for diff reasons
ythan pointing this out and then macking on val for multiple posts also feels like a deliberate disruption

In post 189, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:please scumread james for diff reasons

Is this pocketing?

In post 190, JamesTheNames wrote:Is this pocketing?

YES

In post 134, Ythan wrote:

In post 133, JamesTheNames wrote:@Ythan why did you retract the vote on me by the way? Between your vote and your unvote my only posts was reiterating why I claimed, and me saying how many posts had to do with my claim.

The post in between clarified that you're probably just wrong and not trolling. I wasn't expecting you to repeat what you had said previously.

In post 135, Val89 wrote:Why doesn't a troll simply repeat themselves?

Quoting the posts to try in good faith to understand the question and I'm just not following. Ythan says James is just wrong rather than knowingly trolling and you ask why doesnt James, if trolling, just repeat himself? I'm not sure because I don't get the troll or the logic of the would be troll.

In post 188, Val89 wrote:In other words, no, it isn't blindlingly obvious to the degree you can safely assume anyone confused is either pretending or an absolute idiot?

I guess my prior post is me saying im an idiot.

In post 182, ClarkBar wrote:@Leaven Is there something specific about Ythan's posting today (or perhaps the posting of others) that made you feel there was a risk of 2 more people hopping on his wagon?

Yes, I was surprised to see the vote count at 3 , the posting felt very heated to me, and I was about to be in a stressful situation for a couple of hours, and didn't want to be distracted by wondering if I was risking a quick hammer on day 2.

In post 192, Leaven wrote:I'm not sure because I don't get the troll or the logic of the would be troll

Looks like its 3 for 3 on people who are being intentially dense, then.

StrangeMatter, ClarkBar, what say you?

In post 193, Leaven wrote:

In post 188, Val89 wrote:In other words, no, it isn't blindlingly obvious to the degree you can safely assume anyone confused is either pretending or an absolute idiot?

I guess my prior post is me saying im an idiot.

Oh? maybe this is your point, since it's not obvious what is even be contested that it's not clear cut that confused parties are clearly playing dumb or are dumb. That is, they are legitimately having a tough time following the argument. I've even lost track of the greater context. I think we're talking about the James VT claim. Dann states explains it wasn't pro-town with explanation, and refutes that James explanation of trying to move things forwards isn't more valuable than what was given up for the town by his action. James doing it as a troll never seemed to be a point and Ythan clarified as such and then you are asking why the troll wouldn't repeat themselves. I just get lost here. So if James was trolling (not claimed) and if Ythan called him a troll (didn't happen) and if Ythan had an expectation of the troll repeating himself (which he stated he wouldn't because of the posts clarifying that there was no claim of trolling), why wouldn't a troll in that hypothetical situation take the action of repeating a prior explanation that was deemed not to be a troll?

TBH, none of this seems at all productive and if there is a read to be made, please clarify cause I'm simplifying it all to whether or not James is unintentionally sabotaging town as town because he feels it worth the sacrifice to move things along and/or to experiment in a newbie game, or if it is just scum making poor excuses for said sabotage.

And is scum just sitting back laughing watch us implode?

James asked Ythan a simple question:

In post 133, JamesTheNames wrote:@Ythan why did you retract the vote on me by the way?

Ythan's answer was thus:

In post 134, Ythan wrote:The post in between clarified that you're probably just wrong and not trolling. I wasn't expecting you to repeat what you had said previously.

I didn't understand this answer. The post inbetween was thus:

In post 124, JamesTheNames wrote:To get the game going.

It is not clear to me why James simply repeating what he said means he is simply 'wrong town' rather than trolling. I asked Ythan to clarify with an equally simple question, and his response was essentially to call me a fucking idiot. Now, it's possible I am indeed a fucking idiot, but the response to the people I've asked so far, including yourself Leaven, leads me to beleive its not quite that clear cut and there isn't a simple answer to the question as to how James repeating himself makes him town.

I've suggested that the reason Ythan has given such an unsatifactory (and frankly, inflamatory) answer to a simple question is that he doesn't really have an answer - James repeating himself does not make it any more or less likley he is 'wrong town' over being a troll (and probably scum), and Ythan was just making it up since he doesnt really have a townie reason for retracting his vote. I suggest that inventing nonsensical reasons for changing a vote might - but not definitively be - scummy, and I would like Ythan to actually answer the question. I am hoping that, once its clear than it is more than just me that finds his answer unsatisfactory, we might actually get an answer and that'll help up sort the Ythan slot.

Make sense now?

Not really. I was first to take offense to Ythan's name calling, but I'm also getting the sense you're doing the same with anyone not following your argument here? Is calling people idiots just par for the course here?