Mafiascum.net

actually I don't really give a shit about the mass part

I want you and possibly kdub to claim (and lol at phone trying to autocorrect kdub to Odin)

In post 1871, zMuffinMan wrote:I'm not going to be home for a few hours but I really think mass claim is a good idea here because there are three fucking soft claims on top of already flipped and claimed power and they are quite obviously not all town.

(It's fairly obvious which one i think is most likely scum but still would like mass claim out of the way)

I'm already claimed so it doesn't affect me but I'm not down for a day 3 mass claim.

Look

We have a claimed self watcher, flipped double voter, flipped 1shot cop, claimed miller non consecutive doc and 3 more soft claims (aj, kdub and anti)

If you think all of these are town then wow

I do not want to give the scum here extra time to think about whether they want to use a bork claim or come up with their own

I see no reason to keep the fucking info hidden given we have a claimed doc and far more important targets for NK (like the fucking cop inno who is the only one i don't give a shit about claiming)

Hey I just give my opinion. It's not like anyone listens to me

down for the massclaim too (if for no one else, then kdub at least)

I will read the last few pages properly in a few hours, but just a few quick thoughts:

Mac's claim makes flavor sense, and I can buy his reasoning for protecting BRO, but I'm more curious why he wouldn't protect anyone on N1.

Might as well just get this out of the way since some people (e.g. Anti) already got the wrong idea about my "softclaim". I'm Alex, VT. I stalled on my claim D1 because 1) claiming wouldn't have saved me, 2) HS had claimed VT, so the consequence of me being wrong would just be that another VT gets lynched (if HS claimed a PR, I probably would have just claimed truthfully), and 3) I thought scum might take it as a vengeful softclaim and try to buddy me. I kinda got this feeling from sangres based on his end of D1/start of D2 posts, which I hinted at here:

In post 1184, Kdub wrote:I thought sangres's reason for moving off of me and onto HS yesterday was interesting. I might have some things to say about it later on if the issue arises, but for now, I'll give them a tentative town read based them coming right out and clearing BRO today.

but obviously they were town for other reasons, so nothing came of that.

oh for fucks sake

Does non-consecutive mean not the same person twice or not two nights in a row?

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... tive_Night

2 nights in a row

What I don't get is why was mac calling bro possible GF yet he protected him as being possibly the biggest threat to scum

Non-consecutive doctors aren't always 2 nights in a row, so i want mac to clarify and talk about why he didn't protect N1 if it is 2 nights in a row

In post 1875, zMuffinMan wrote:actually I don't really give a shit about the mass part

I want you and possibly kdub to claim (and lol at phone trying to autocorrect kdub to Odin)

I'm a neighbor - that has been established. Also, it wasn't a softclaim attempt except *within* the neighborhood, so I don't really think you're justified getting ants in the pants about it.

@Jake - maybe I'm just sensitive, but there has been a lot of rage all over this thread and it's ruining my mellow. Apologies.

I'm with zMuffin, we should mass claim at this point.

C'mon a v/la now?

I'm gonna spend all weekend either drunk or with my bf so... (Haven't seen him in 2 months)

you have a life?

what is this bullshit?

inorite?

In post 1891, Antihero wrote:you have a life?

what is this bullshit?

Lol

In post 1798, Aegor wrote:1) Naked votes are not bad. Having nothing but naked votes is bad.
2) The point of policy lynches is that they are pro-town regardless of the target's alignment. There is a fallacious assumption in your argument that the only pro-town lynches are on scum.

1) Does nothing to counter my point. Naked votes are not objectively bad, but they're pretty much always worse than justified votes. Again, this feels like a self-meta defense.
2) Why is lynching Jake pro-town? Just because he annoys you doesn't make him a liability.

In post 1800, Hello Kitty Creampuff wrote:Mac's probly town, this is a terrible lynch

In post 1802, Hello Kitty Creampuff wrote:Intent.

wat

In post 1806, Mac wrote:Cherry picking suggests I'm running through your ISO and only picking quotes which suit me. I'm picking up on your reaction to me outing the neighbourhood, which was weak as hell. Tell me, do you think your questions were worthwhile?

I read your post wrong and thought you were neighbors with Muffin at first, then I realized my mistake and corrected myself. And then I wanted to know what information either of you may have had on the other from the neighborhood. The first is arguably useless since it was a mistake, but it's weird that you attacked me for something so trivial. The second was worthwhile because if you two had claimed, there would have been follow-up questions about whether you believed each other and why.

In post 1806, Mac wrote:God, you really are scum. Why would the flips of each be "useful", assuming at least 2 of those 4 are town?

Uh, the same reason that the flip of any suspected player is useful?

In post 1847, Squirrel Girl wrote:@Anti - serious question. Why would Mac fakeclaim a Miller in his roleclaim?

It could be in his safeclaim. Phacia as a miller makes flavor sense, and I wouldn't be surprised if bork gave scum a miller safeclaim. With that said, I don't think town claim miller on D1, although that tends to be the typical meta nowadays. The miller aspect doesn't move me one way or the other too much. I'm more curious about why Mac didn't protect on N1. You are likely to get off an extra action by using a non-consecutive role as often as possible, so why not do that?

I am fine with massclaim. I am not fine with Mac not getting lynched today.

In post 1807, Mac wrote:I have never understood this. If you are policy lynching town, that's one whole fucking mislynch gone all because you don't like said player, or there playing style. I find it rather shitty, to be honest. And certainly not pro-town.

Policy lynches can theoretically hit scum, too. And they reduce the chance of later problems by eliminating them now.

In post 1894, Kdub wrote:1) Does nothing to counter my point. Naked votes are not always objectively bad, but they're pretty much always worse than justified votes. Again, this feels like a self-meta defense.

Interpret however you want. I have explained my actual suspicions; my naked votes are exploratory 90% of the time.

2) Why is lynching Jake pro-town? Just because he annoys you doesn't make him a liability.

Because he will screw up the game.

In post 1895, Aegor wrote:I am not fine with Mac not getting lynched today.

I think you need to expand on this if you want any chance of seeing it through. When you do that could you also let me know your take on HKC please and thank you?

I would be willing to lynch HKC if no other option is available.

I see no reason whatsoever to let Mac live. I do not believe his claim, and he has stated explicitly that he will not confirm it either. Anyone stating that this would entail an auto-lynch tomorrow is just delusional. Please explain to me how letting him live is a good idea.

Mac claimed non-consecutive who protected on N2, so he couldn't confirm tonight even if he wanted to.

/sigh

there's so many weird layers of his claim that i can't figure out if he's telling the truth or he just fucked up his fakeclaim and made it unnecessarily complex

non-consecutive doctor miller neighbor

... what the hell could have happened in the game design QT that resulted in ^that monstrosity?