Mafiascum.net

:deep breath: here we go.

In post 1835, ThAdmiral wrote: Now it's possible that I've misinterpreted your reason for voting me, but I don't think I misinterpreted snork's. He himself expressed suspicion due to me trying to form a counterwagon, and also responded to gant's argument that my attempted counterwagon made me look scummy. The timing of your vote lead me to believe that you were also jumping on for similar reasons. You say you weren't. Ok. But looking at the history and timing of everything can you still say that it is

illogical

for me to think what I did?

It's not as illogical as it is naive, which is what I called it first. I don't believe you or anyone else could genuinely think we'd vote you solely because of your CW attempt. By doing so you're ignoring all that's been said and done before that and a lot had been said and done up to that that point and by ignoring all that you reduced our votes to a simple and weak reason that also looked hypocrite because of the way you worded your reaction.

In post 1835, ThAdmiral wrote: I don't understand what you mean by me "waiting for people to do something "scummy" that I can throw against them". Can you point out where I've done this? The point is sort of baffling to me.

I mean, you only go after scummy players - players whose play does not fit the common ideals of good town play - like bjc, Aptil (pre-claim) and Rach. They all looked/look scummy, but as far as good reasons that point towards them actually being scum, they're close to none. You seem to be more worried into pursuing the scummy stuff because it's scummy than into understanding whether or not scummy means scum.

In post 1835, ThAdmiral wrote: Ok, can you explain why my suspicion of aptil is bs? I don't think you've mentioned this before but I'd love you to explain your stance now.
And just to be clear you are saying that my attempt to start a counterwagon

did indeed

influence your decision to vote me? (although wasn't the sole/main reason you voted me?)

Following the thought process from the previous answer. Aptil looked scummy, but looks aside, I didn't think there was anything in his posts that pointed towards him being scum. He was an easy target and I didn't like your suspicion or vote on him.
Lets see, my thoughts are in.

In post 1437, ThAdmiral wrote:

OK, STOP THE PRESSES. I'VE FOUND SCUM!

Basically I don't like either leading wagons tbh. So I decided to look back through the thread to try to rally support for an independent third party.

Obviously I knew I was happy to lynch

Anxiety

for coasting and having wishy-washy reads.

But I also found

Rach marie

- for coasting, voting nero because apparently he is more active when he's town (a poor reason to vote, also on a person who wasn't around to defend themselves at the time - smacks of a vote park), and trying to sneak on to the luca wagon uncontroversially with a hypocritical reason (going after low-hanging fruit).

But then I looked at

Aptil

.

If you haven't done it yet ISO him. He only has around 30 posts so it won't take long.

- he is also scummy for coasting -

BS. Scum don't coast for no apparent reason and doing so on day 1 brings them no benefits. It is also a subjective opinion that is hard to back up but easy to toss around, since you can basically accuse any low poster of coasting.

- he is scummy for post 1216 in which he hedges his bets on bjc/snork (he says snork is town-posting, but bjc replaced out scummily) -

This was very weak. Yes it is scummy. Is it it much more likely to come from scum than from town? No. Had there been any scum motivation behind it you'd expect him to develop it, but he didn't, so it was just a thought.

- he is scummy for accusing dg of being a "dodgy character" for not joining the talah wagon in 1236 even though

he himself had not joined the talah wagon at this point

-

I don't find this condemning. I don't necessarily think this is would be more likely to come from scum than town.

- he is scummy for eventually voting talah but

never really providing a reason as to why he thinks he is scummy

other than claiming that he is "bad all over" in his

first post

- NOTE: This is even while in 595 he reads luca as scum, he suggest that luca and talah are scum together in 1214 and 1224, but then in 1279 states: "VOTE: Talah- This is much better than lynching Luca". Um, Why?

- In the post you linked in the previous point he does make it clear that he agrees with the case on talah, it was part of why he suspected Damon.

Fact: he lacks internal consistency. Verdict: he is scum and must hang. -

Fact: Lacking internal consistency does not equal scum. In fact, I think scum are more aware of inconsistencies and try harder to stay consistent.

THERE IS STILL TIME.

TALAH IS STUBBORN BUT PROBABLY TOWN, LUCA IS TROLLING BUT IS JUST AS LIKELY TOWN AS SCUM

JOIN ME AND I WILL LEAD YOU TO VICTORY

VOTE: APTIL

So overall, you had a whole lot of nothing on him, which makes your vote and push on him even worse. All that conviction just reads as a big facade for a hollow case. So yeah, I did not have a problem with your attempt at creating an alternative wagon but I didn't like that you chose to do with on Aptil, with those reasons ad with that overly convinced tone.

In post 1835, ThAdmiral wrote: Let me break down the bjc situation for you:
1) I voted bjc because I hate stupid scum-claim gambits like that. I did not vote him because I thought he was scum

at that point

. It was more to teach him a lesson etc.
2) People started defending bjc and attacking his attackers, and I found it odd because I didn't see why anyone could think he was town. I felt the scum-claim was a null-tell at best.

1. That is dumb.
2. As you say, it was a null tell. The same way you found it odd that there were people defending bjc from attackers, those defenders found it odd that someone would attack bjc for what they considered to be a null tell. Makes sense no?

In post 1835, ThAdmiral wrote: I most clearly state my position at the time here:

In post 103, ThAdmiral wrote:Do I think bjc was literally claiming scum? No, not really.
Do I hate it when people post shit like "I'm scum" and then act all defensive/surprised when people vote them? Yes.
Do I think he's town for his behaviour? Fuck no. I don't get why anyone would think so, he's null at best.

And also here, where I admit that I'm not necessarily voting bjc because I thought he was scum (to a question

you

asked me):

In post 140, ThAdmiral wrote:

In post 122, SnowStorm wrote:Do you actually suspect bjc? If so, why? The only reason I find for your vote on him is that you don't like that he claimed scum.

Yeah, that's pretty much why I'm voting him.

My stance on bjc changed somewhat when I took in to account his reaction to the people voting him. I explain my stance here:

In post 143, ThAdmiral wrote:bjc - the scum claim itself is null (but annoying). The fact that his scum reads are based solely off people who voted him, and the fact that he has only interacted with people who voted him/questioned him looks bad. leaning-scum.

Does this clear everything up? Given that I already answered a question

asked by you

about my stance on bjc far earlier in the game I hope and trust you will actually remember my response this time.

I remember your answer. I was just not satisfied with it as it wasn't very clear and either way I didn't like it. You were either voting him because you suspected him, which you hadn't given any good indication of; or you were voting him because of the scum claim which you said was a null tell, which would just be dumb.

In post 1972, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 1967, SnowStorm wrote:What's the case on me, AP? Please explain it to me. Don't forget to mention what you find so compelling about it that made you vote me. And spare me the shitty clichés.

That you are concerned with having a case on you that you can refute , irony I know.

Anxiety is calling you scummy for being overly on the fence about him (and while I don't know if I agree with his conclusion about you trying to connect yourself there, I agree that your Anxiety read felt fake).

PA is voting you because of your hopping around from Talah/Luca at the end of the day and your attempt at wagoning Admiral looking like a weak attempt to not be off the ML wagon of the Day.

I didn't have a great reason for suspecting you when I voted, but your response to being wagoned reads desperate and OMGUSy

.

I see you didn't listen when I told you to spare me of shitty clichés. Too bad because it was for your own good. Seriously, every last post of you has included the kind of stuff that I expect from scum and the kind of stuff that they rarely fail to deliver. This "I didn't really suspect you but I do now because of your reaction" is one of them. It's plain textbook scum.

In post 1953, Yates wrote:
Once again I'm not liking either wagon and I feel like scum is sitting back and laughing. TWIE is exactly where I'd expect to find scum on the RM wagon. Now I have to go look closer at 4nx.

Mmmm. Dat confirmation bias.

Although if my being second on a wagon makes 4nx scum for being also second on a wagon. Does that make you scum for being second onto my wagon before AP left? Does this work retro actively?

Are AP and mastin and matt scum for being first on wagons day 1 like PK?

What if I



I think i just found 6 more first on wagon scum.

also



Look at all these non voting scum.

GG town. Yates just broke this game wide open.

....

If you want to make a post that says "TWIE is still scum because i said so, so there." be my guest. Just don't make posts like this where you have some dumb pseudo reasoning behind it.

Rach, whats the over under on you actually answering the question I asked you twice?

Or should I expect this:

In post 1853, RachMarie wrote:His play in that game was similar to the play in this game but I was not able to talk about it.

Of the two wagons I felt Luca was more likely to be scum. I really did not see Talah as scum. And no I am not guilty about my vote. I know that in the process (especially early on), that we will end up mislynching townies whilst trying to find scum. It is part of the game. I have often been mislynched usually on D 1, and yet we went on to win the game.

To be the best I'm gonna get?

In post 1976, SnowStorm wrote:I see you didn't listen when I told you to spare me of shitty clichés. Too bad because it was for your own good. Seriously, every last post of you has included the kind of stuff that I expect from scum and the kind of stuff that they rarely fail to deliver. This "I didn't really suspect you but I do now because of your reaction" is one of them. It's plain textbook scum.

I never said I didn't suspect you, I said I didnt have a good REASON for suspecting you. But, wow lol.

Wow AP you're just a gold mine of BS!

In post 1973, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 1920, SnowStorm wrote:Why would I want to tie myself with you? What do you even mean with that? Why would I use "wishy-washy" reads to achieve that? And if you were so certain that I was attempting to tie myself to you, why didn't you wait for me do fulfill that attempt so that you'd have something more than just speculation to vote me for?

This is just a shotgun spray of questions at Anxiety that are all moreorless asking the same thing. And you asking why he didn't wait longer just feels like discrediting since you don't even claim to know WHY hes suspecting you in the first place.

You'd guess that with so many questions that he'd understand my doubts better. I guess I should have asked more questions! He said I was trying to attempt doing X. I don't need to know what X was to ask him "why didn't you wait for me to do X then?".

In post 1973, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 1920, SnowStorm wrote:Like, seriously?

Reads fake.

Your face reads fake.

In post 1973, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 1911, SnowStorm wrote:

In post 1790, Snork wrote:[...] The two that stand out the most are RachMarie and SnowStorm. I was actually pretty surprised with his switch to Luca, tbh. [...]

Why did my switching from Talah to Luca negatively affect your read on me?

People have been talking about mastin's vote-hop being potentially scummy and also Thad and RMs. The defense you made holds equally for Thad who you consider scummy: Thad disliked both wagons, so clearly he is town for voting aptil. What is his scum motivation for voting aptil??

To not be on the town wagons and still look like he's scum hunting. As I pointed out in response to him it was a bad case and it's purely for looks. Now he could achieve a distance from the main wagons that I couldn't because I had already strongly pushed and voted for one of them, so saying I was trying to get some distance from the town wagons by voting ThAd is stupid, because my connection to them was already established and it couldn't be broken.

In post 1973, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 1957, SnowStorm wrote:I seriously have no idea of what you're accusing me of. You're saying now that I was/am preparing false leads in case I flip. Could you explain how I am/was doing that?

Jesus, he already quoted it which is what STARTED this whole debate and Anxiety's point is REALLY not that difficult to understand. This looks like you are feigning ignorance.

It's not difficult for you to understand because you just understand it the way it suits you best. Now I'm actually trying to get a read from it. And accusing me of feigning ignorance is a stupid accusation since it is subjective, unprovable and undefendable.

In post 1973, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 1957, SnowStorm wrote:So what you mean to say is that if I do flip scum that ThAd is likely to be my partner? Which is something you can only analyze if you have on of our flips and that is totally irrelevant right now since you don't even suspect ThAd. And yet you're using as a valid point to call me scum.

So is Anxiety scum or wrong?

Im not seeing a town reaction to Anxiety here, you look like you just want to get the case off you and have no interest in determining Anxiety's alignment.

Well, that's what I'm still trying to figure! Meanwhile, I figured you're more likely to be scum than wrong and also that you suck.

In post 1960, SnowStorm wrote:Oh please... I wanted to know 4nx's answer, not yours, because your answer doesn't help me get a better understanding of where he's coming from and doesn't help me with my read on him! I'm not complaining that you commented on it, but you should have waited for 4nx to react first.

Yet, you still haven't come to any conclusion about Anxiety's push so Im calling BS on this.[/quote]
What part of "I'm still trying to get a read on 4nx" don't you understand? You're accusing me of faking ignorance because I don't fully understand where he's coming from with his accusation. You're accusing me of not trying to get a read on him. And now you're susprised that I don't have a read on him? Well, maybe if you actually bothered to understand what I wrote you'd realize that I haven't reached a conclusion on whether I think 4nx is town or scum because I don't understand his suspicion and I'm still trying to get a clearer explanation from him to help me reach a conclusion. - which is basically what I've been saying.

In post 1979, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 1976, SnowStorm wrote:I see you didn't listen when I told you to spare me of shitty clichés. Too bad because it was for your own good. Seriously, every last post of you has included the kind of stuff that I expect from scum and the kind of stuff that they rarely fail to deliver. This "I didn't really suspect you but I do now because of your reaction" is one of them. It's plain textbook scum.

I never said I didn't suspect you,

I said I didnt have a good REASON for suspecting you

. But, wow lol.

1. That's even worse!
2. You don't have any good reasons now either.
3. If you don't have a good reason to suspect someone then you do not suspect them. You're telling me that you did suspect me but that you didn't have any good reasons to do so, which apparently you seem to think you have now. You're literally telling me that you waited to get reasons to suspect me. What kind of player does that? The answer is: not a town player.

Snow's frustration and freakout is pretty fucking townie

What were these points on MR that you liked?

In post 1952, penguin_alien wrote:

Spoiler: End of Day One

In post 1269, SnowStorm wrote:

VOTE: talah.

I don't care for the meta. I don't think it's a very accurate point when it doesn't add to why he'd play like he has in this game.

Any evidence that talah is scum is present in this game. I think all that's wrong about his play has been pointed out by MR

and lost in between pointless discussion.

Anyone who has doubts should just ISO him. It worked for me.

Here you're free of talah doubts.

In post 1277, SnowStorm wrote:

In post 1270, Mister Rogers wrote: Someone else pointed out that all the effort that Talah made in that bru-ha-ha produced no townie contributions from Talah but yet the effort was there. Its just not right.

Exactly, we don't even need to go into particular arguments, talah has the second highest post count and all his effort has been put in overreacting to people and generating mostly pointless arguments. That's not how you play as town.

The more I think about talah the better I feel about lynching him.

Feeling good about the lynch.

In post 1483, SnowStorm wrote:

In post 1479, Snork wrote:ThAd lynch would be good too, imo.

Let's do it.

Vote: ThAdmiral.

And yet.

In post 1612, SnowStorm wrote:

VOTE: talah.

In post 1676, SnowStorm wrote:

VOTE: Luca.

IDEK

In post 1722, SnowStorm wrote:

In post 1719, Luca Blight wrote:And you can't slate me for lurking when you're arguably the biggest lurker in this game.

Am I? Wow, that sucks. At least I bothered enough to play the game instead of just walking the plank towards a day 1 lynch and suddenly realizing it was a bad idea.

And here you blame Luca for his lynch while saying now that you weren't happy about it.

This is good stuff.

In post 1964, aptil wrote:

In post 1836, ThAdmiral wrote:

In post 1784, aptil wrote:I used my 1-shot vig abilities to kill Talah . That is why i did not care about who it was at the end of the day because we were very close to the deadline and i had made up my mind to shoot the survivor if the person lynced out was town .

unvote

No reason not to believe him at this point.
If there are further multikills he's probably an sk and we'll deal with him if and when.

vote: rachmarie

if you do not believe me then you should not unvote me .
VOTE: The Admiral

Oh, silly aptil.

In post 1970, Nero Cain wrote:I have a tendency to think really bad pushes usually make a player town.

Ok, I don't necessarily agree but I see where you are coming from at least.

In post 1970, Nero Cain wrote:I'm kinda worried about you and thinkin' maybe I was wrong. I don't really didn't like your 1924 'cause instead of just asking why I had a town read on Rach you attempted to make me look scummy an undermine my derail of the Rach lynch and that doesn't look real townie too me. I also feel like it was super obvious that that I was town reading her today and I can't understand why you'd think my comments YESTERDAY had anything to do with TODAY. This seems deceitful. Like any scumtell, its not 100% but you shadowing Snork on his reasoning for a Rach lynch is iffy.

I don't really care if you don't like my 1924. I was pointing out what looked like a glaring change of heart with little to no explanation. Hell yes I'm trying to undermine your derail of the rach lynch because I think she is scum and I want her lynched.

I completely disagree that it was super obvious that you were reading rach town today. You mentioned her here:

In post 1876, Nero Cain wrote:Yea, Rach is clean 'cause AP is

scum

dirty. Snork's reasoning for voting Rach seems legit and AP fighting that is p derpy. Might switch my vote to AP. An AP-PA scum team makes sense too!!!

and here:

In post 1881, Nero Cain wrote:I DO have a town read on Rach regardless of how terrible she is.

I don't remember you referring to her other than that today, although if you did please point it out to me. Why would I assume your stance has changed from one day to the next when you didn't say anything about your stance changing??

I'll respond to snowstorm in a sec, I have another question for nero:

If I'm interpreting correctly if snork and I hadn't attacked rach you would still be reading her as scum?

In post 1975, SnowStorm wrote:It's not as illogical as it is naive, which is what I called it first. I don't believe you or anyone else could genuinely think we'd vote you solely because of your CW attempt. By doing so you're ignoring all that's been said and done before that and a lot had been said and done up to that that point and by ignoring all that you reduced our votes to a simple and weak reason that also looked hypocrite because of the way you worded your reaction.

Ok I admit I didn't think that was the reason you were voting me. I definitely thought it was a large part of why you were voting me, though, and more importantly why you were voting me at that time.

In post 1975, SnowStorm wrote:I mean, you only go after scummy players - players whose play does not fit the common ideals of good town play - like bjc, Aptil (pre-claim) and Rach. They all looked/look scummy, but as far as good reasons that point towards them actually being scum, they're close to none. You seem to be more worried into pursuing the scummy stuff because it's scummy than into understanding whether or not scummy means scum.

Call me old fashioned but I tend to think that if someone is acting scummily they are probably scum.

I generally find scum in two ways: early I try to look for people acting scummily, late I tend to use poe based on my town reads because I am generally more confident in my ability to find town (with good reason - I'm 3-0 so far in this game). I think what you are trying to say is that I don't take motivation in to consideration but this is completely untrue. I always consider motivation. For example I strongly believe that it benefits scum to fly under the radar (aka coast etc.), so I often attribute this behavior to people I think are scum.

In post 1975, SnowStorm wrote:So overall, you had a whole lot of nothing on him, which makes your vote and push on him even worse. All that conviction just reads as a big facade for a hollow case. So yeah, I did not have a problem with your attempt at creating an alternative wagon but I didn't like that you chose to do with on Aptil, with those reasons ad with that overly convinced tone.

I think its a bit much to say I had nothing on him. I'll admit I was probably wrong about aptil (there's like a 1% chance he's scum and gambitting but I don't really think so) but I think even he would admit he was flying under the radar a bit due to the fact he had a pr. Anyway the alternatives to my case were Luca (who was town) and Talah (who was town), so my case couldn't have been much worse than the cases on either of them.

As far as my tone of conviction, well I've found you are far more likely to get people to follow a case if you put a confident front on it rather than saying something like "here's my case, I'm not 100% on it, but there you go". It's similar to albert b rampage's theory of trying to lynch scum (link). I don't agree with everything he says in that, but I have to admit I've picked up a few things from it.

Question though: if you thought it was bs at the time, why didn't you call me out about it at the time?

In post 1975, SnowStorm wrote:1. That is dumb.
2. As you say, it was a null tell. The same way you found it odd that there were people defending bjc from attackers, those defenders found it odd that someone would attack bjc for what they considered to be a null tell. Makes sense no?

1. Well I guess I was being dumb then.
2. Perhaps I should have been harder on the people attacking bjc for claiming scum, but then again I sort of felt he deserved the negative attention. In any case it seems like we agree he shouldn't have been viewed as town for claiming scum?

In post 1975, SnowStorm wrote:I remember your answer. I was just not satisfied with it as it wasn't very clear and either way I didn't like it. You were either voting him because you suspected him, which you hadn't given any good indication of; or you were voting him because of the scum claim which you said was a null tell, which would just be dumb.

Like I said I guess I was being dumb then, in your opinion.

Once again why not mention this at the time if you were not satisfied with my answer back then?

ThAd, what's your read on me?

Snow, what's up with the way you talk to PA and your attacks on AP, I thought you had those slots as town yesterday?
And what happened to your Damonread?

Anyone wanna fill me in?

Someone tell me if Penguin, Deas, and 4n make sense as scum. Those names were NOT

In post 1990, 4nxi3ty wrote:Snow, what's up with the way you talk to PA and your attacks on AP, I thought you had those slots as town yesterday?
And what happened to your Damonread?

I did have those slots as town, MR/AP especially were one of my strongest town reads on day 1. It was kind of upsetting when AP got in between our interaction because I was trying to read you, whom I've had trouble getting a solid read on since the beginning of the game. I also didn't like the way she did it and the points she raised, which doesn't help me in maintaining that town read. As for PA, his attack on me was really bad and unexpected, I mean, it's not something I would expect from a player like PA as town.

Call it OMGUS, call it whatever you like, but the truth is it is much easier to tell when people are making up bullshit on me than when they do it on others.

As for my Damon scum read, it's not as strong as it was so I'd rather focus my time on other players, like the ones I've been interacting with.

Someone tell me if Penguin, Deas, and 4n make sense as scum. Those names were NOT chosen randomly

No. DV is town. The other two is possible.

*note: was extremely busy yesterday. Will have my shit together tonight/tomorrow.

In post 1993, SnowStorm wrote:As for my Damon scum read, it's not as strong as it was

why not?

In post 1996, 4nxi3ty wrote:

In post 1993, SnowStorm wrote:As for my Damon scum read, it's not as strong as it was

why not?

It just isn't. I don't remember any specific posts that made me feel better about him, but I do think it's possible that my issue with him is more a question of his tone and playstyle. I've also developped stronger scum reads on other players, which I think are more worth pursuing than the one I have on Damon.

In post 1995, Snork wrote:No. DV is town. The other two is possible.

Why?

4n, reads on penguin and Deas

Back later, so no need to poke me.