Mafiascum.net

With regards to GM, the wiki article on 'being a good IC' seems to agree with my view:

Don't lurk:
Lurking kills newbie games. There are only 7-9 players in the game as is, so there are a decreased number of people posting in the game to begin with. Do not subtract from that number. Make an effort to post in the game, and post regularly. As an IC you are at least partially responsible for the flow of the game, because very often the other players in the game will not understand why more discussion is a good thing. You want to lead by example. Secondly, you want to give the newbies a good first experience. GAMES WHERE NO ONE IS POSTING ARE NOT FUN. Give them a fun game. Give yourself a fun game. Don't lurk.
Newbies get paralyzed all the time, trying to sort out what happens next. When ICs lurk, it provides an example that this is 'how it's done' on this site, which hurts every game they will be in in the future until/unless they learn otherwise. - Mr. Flay

Well then that's a moderation issue. Not really appropriate for open discussion in the thread. If anything it makes it more believable he is busy irl.

She* I keep doing that

In post 187, Not_Mafia wrote:

Zivel wrote:This quote just makes me feel that he is not scum, I dont care if he goes, but I feel that he really just wants to play this game, and hates being knocked out early. Looking through his previous games it appears that he gets replaced more often than gets knocked out but I still would be annoyed if I was in his place.

This is called an appeal to emotion

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

meh

Barely

You want to see REAL AtE let me know

@Zivel that'll come later today

@Luca, GM's activity is low yes, but she's actually r ight. You can't trust the IC to always be town and to lead us into an optimal-town situation. While yes, GM isn't doing it here, it prevents sheeping her (which there's always undertones of it and it gets messy trying to figure out if it's town or scum). By holding back her thoughts she's making people decide on reads for themselves. Yes, she isn't trying to lead town, but it also comes down to playerstyle/gameflow if the IC leads the town or someone else does.

While I kinda see what you're getting at, her lurking might be scum-indicative I don't r eally think it's true.

Here's a question- would scum-GM NOT try to lead the town and steer mislynches?

The first game I played the most experienced player was scum and had village wrapped round his little finger so it can be very effective. However theevel of experience and skill in this game is higher and being a IC and doing so could be treading a fine line. If gm had planned to lead village but didn't cos of v/la and how the game ended up progressing then I think she would still be more active than she currently is

In post 92, Luca Blight wrote:As for Burn, his defence of himself is weak to say the least, and his voting of Not_Mafia as GM pointed out was also a bit suspect.

See this post right here is what I was referring to. This is where your vote turned from a bullshit just for fun RVS vote to a an actual ok Im going to keep voting this person as scum. You used THAT reasoning as a reason to keep your vote on me and your reasoning was bullshit. Or at least that is how I interpreted it when I read it so that is what I was referring to. I did not lie, the fact you are trying to stretch what I said into being a lie is ridiculous.

Then you withdraw your vote in 102 right after I challenged you in post right before it. Which either means you were absolutely not confident in your vote or you knew your reasoning for voting me was complete crap and figured to unvote just to appease me and then come back to voting me when you found something better to come after me with.

Then I say you were one of my top scum reads then all hell breaks loose and you go on a rampage about how i lied and a gang of other shit.

Now in all honesty as I write this out and actually take the time to think about it I think I was wrong about you being scum. The more likely scenario in my head is probably that I misinterpreted your first post that I quoted, I did question you about taking your vote off of me and that is still a valid question in mafia so deal with it essentially, then you felt "betrayed" in a way because you took your vote off me to give me a chance and then i responded by attacking you again which led to the tirade. That is the scenario I think mostly happened. But to say I blatantly lied and made a post out of fiction is pretty far stretched.



@Not Mafia -- You can call my vote on you an OMGUS thing if you want but that wouldnt be true. It was in the beginning of the game and my goal with that post was to dig and pry and get some discussion other than "here lets bandwagon this guy just because." You have to start this game somewhere. OMGUS posts are a lot more aggressive and dramatic than what I posted. Your policy lynch call is both scummy and illogical by the way. Scum are always big proponents of policy lynches.

@Mutt -- you are super town....keep up the good work!

As for my self vote post I REFUSE to play another game where I have to scratch and claw to stay alive day phase after day phase on here. It takes the fun out of playing for me. I want to find scum not defend myself with every post just so I can stay alive another day. Then once people peg you as one of the popular scum reads, in my experience, your opinion on things and how you interpret things doesnt mean shit to the other town players. Last game I was mafia so I had to do it to give my teammate a shot, this time I AM TOWN so I dont have to sit here and defend myself every damn post. I can just vote for myself, get hammered, and we lose ONE townie which we probably would have done on day 1 anyway.

In post 206, burn_209 wrote:Scum are always big proponents of policy lynches.

This is wrong actually, scum like to WK policy lynches because it's in their best interests to keep the player alive

In post 206, burn_209 wrote:Then you withdraw your vote in 102 right after I challenged you in post right before it. Which either means you were absolutely not confident in your vote or you knew your reasoning for voting me was complete crap and figured to unvote just to appease me and then come back to voting me when you found something better to come after me with.

Also wrong, there isn't an unvote in 102

In post 206, burn_209 wrote:I can just vote for myself, get hammered, and we lose ONE townie which we probably would have done on day 1 anyway.

Actually you can't, as your vote is already on you. Why is that vote still there by way? You can move it after you do what I ask below.

I'll give you a chance. Give us a theory on a specific scumteam and why you think this. No false statements in your post this time please, check everything because there has been so much nonsense in your posts that if it happens again no one will believe they've all been mistakes.

In post 208, notscience wrote:

In post 206, burn_209 wrote:Then you withdraw your vote in 102 right after I challenged you in post right before it. Which either means you were absolutely not confident in your vote or you knew your reasoning for voting me was complete crap and figured to unvote just to appease me and then come back to voting me when you found something better to come after me with.

Also wrong, there isn't an unvote in 102

Ah you should look more towards the bottom there big haus

With regards to the unvote, burn has now realised something that a few people have misinterpreted. My unvote was not because I was put under pressure, I was under no pressure at all, it was all on burn, and at that point I didn't feel there was enough of a case to keep my RVS vote on a player clearly struggling to deal with the pressure, so even though I had him down as a slight scum lean at the time I wanted to give him a chance, especially as there were players we hadn't (and still haven't) heard much from. Doing this actually had the opposite effect however and caused burn to self-vote and produce what I still consider to be a truly awful post full of bullshit.

As for the lying element, obviously 'lie' is a strong word, and there is a difference between a lie and mistaking the facts, but the fact you got the vital facts so wrong in two consecutive posts in your argument against me affirmed my belief that it was indeed deliberate lies, but obviously only you know for sure.

Regarding my initial reason for keeping my vote on you onwards from the RVS, I stand by my point that your defence was weak. Perhaps 'defence' was the wrong word, maybe simply 'reaction' would have been better, either way it felt like you were just moaning about being voted for (even though that is all part of the early game) without defending yourself or putting forth any reads of your own. As I said before, this still only made you a slight scum lean in my mind which was why I was prepared to give you a chance and take back my vote. My advice to you is to stop taking things so personally and focus your efforts instead on trying to find scum, and as a consequence you will not stand out so much and (potentially) distract us from the real targets if you do happen to be town yourself.

Ah, I'm so used to things having their own line

Btw it is prodding time for Rach @ mod.

She has posted elsewhere on the site recently but not here...

Let's not forget that Burn supported a wagon on Luca that used the very same logic as the logic for starting the wagon on him.

In post 43, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 33, burn_209 wrote:

In post 30, Not_Mafia wrote:Actually, Zivel is the completely new guy, so he may not respond well to pressure even if he is town. I'd rather start a wagon on someone with a little more experience; it would probably be more productive.

@RachMarie, is notty notscience? If so I don't paticularly want to put a third vote on him.

UNVOTE: Zivel
VOTE: Luca Blight

You know you wanna follow

Quality town post right here. I like it and the logic behind it! So ill follow suit

VOTE: Luca

By the same logic you would be an even more suitable vote, so I will VOTE: burn

Let's not forget that Burn supported a wagon on Luca that used the very same logic as the logic for starting the wagon on him.

In post 43, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 33, burn_209 wrote:

In post 30, Not_Mafia wrote:Actually, Zivel is the completely new guy, so he may not respond well to pressure even if he is town. I'd rather start a wagon on someone with a little more experience; it would probably be more productive.

@RachMarie, is notty notscience? If so I don't paticularly want to put a third vote on him.

UNVOTE: Zivel
VOTE: Luca Blight

You know you wanna follow

Quality town post right here. I like it and the logic behind it! So ill follow suit

VOTE: Luca

By the same logic you would be an even more suitable vote, so I will VOTE: burn

Btw, Rach feels like town-Rach so I probably won't be voting her any time soon

I'm also liking Burn as of recent it kinda feels like townflail but I need to check with GM

VOTE: Zivel

ALL ABOARD

As for why it was a TvT Mutt feels town and Luca was trying to convince him he was wrong and it sounded very much like two townies trying to get their bearings

Whats a policy Lynch?

Essentially "I think this person is town but they're a threat to town in lylo" (like if they quickhammer anything that gets to L-1 or are just being overly antitown)

They're the people scum ABSOLUTELY want in lylo.

Here's some useful links Zivel

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Glossary

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

Don't be afraid to ask us questions still.

I have one of my own actually

In post 207, notscience wrote:

In post 206, burn_209 wrote:Scum are always big proponents of policy lynches.

This is wrong actually, scum like to WK policy lynches because it's in their best interests to keep the player alive

What is WK?

The joys of abbreviations...their purpose is to save time, but you end up spending double the time explaining what they mean!

Whiteknighting, it's basically hard defending someone they know to be town

In post 192, Luca Blight wrote:I never suggested we should all blindly follow you, but

as the IC the onus should be on you to make sure the game is developing in a way which is good for Town

, and the fact you haven't really done anything but make a few fleeting comments without any detail or explanation to your reads, it confuses the issue a bit. I have other players down as scum ahead of you at the moment, but as

the most experienced player here

you should be the town's biggest asset which hasn't been the case, and we have to question why that is.

Underline: Why? As Town, it should be all the townies' responsibilities. One person cannot and should not carry the game. That just fosters bad habits.
Also, stop assuming that I don't have reasons behind my behaviour. Maybe you should check up on my recent IC D1 meta.
Bold: You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Maybe you are just too busy to play properly, I don't know.

You should stop this, as it generally pisses me off and doesn't make me any likelier to pay heed to any arguments you may make in future.

In post 195, Luca Blight wrote:Rach is becoming a joke now, she is almost too under the radar to be mafia, as surely scum wouldn't be that obvious about it. If she isn't going to play then hopefully she will be replaced soon.

Twin Flames hydra, Lord of the Rings Mafia. No more words necessary.

In post 204, notscience wrote:@Luca, GM's activity is low yes, but she's actually r ight. You can't trust the IC to always be town and to lead us into an optimal-town situation. While yes, GM isn't doing it here, it prevents sheeping her (which there's always undertones of it and it gets messy trying to figure out if it's town or scum). By holding back her thoughts she's making people decide on reads for themselves. Yes, she isn't trying to lead town, but

it also comes down to playerstyle/gameflow

if the IC leads the town or someone else does.

THANK YOU FOR TRUTHING NOTSCI
ESPECIALLY BOLD

In post 205, Not_Mafia wrote:The first game I played the most experienced player was scum and had village wrapped round his little finger so it can be very effective. However theevel of experience and skill in this game is higher and being a IC and doing so could be treading a fine line. If gm had planned to lead village but didn't cos of v/la and how the game ended up progressing then I think she would still be more active than she currently is

If I was Scum and decided to pull the leader strategy, I would have made time for it. Sleep is optional.

Not that self-meta means anything, but still.

In post 216, notscience wrote:Btw, Rach feels like town-Rach so I probably won't be voting her any time soon

You think? Last couple times I saw her be active but not in a game's thread she turned out Scum.

In post 217, notscience wrote:I'm also liking Burn as of recent it kinda feels like townflail but I need to check with GM

ehhhhhh seems kinda forced to me.

It's not Zivel either, but it might be Joker.

In post 222, Luca Blight wrote:The joys of abbreviations...their purpose is to save time, but you end up spending double the time explaining what they mean!

Only in Newbies though, generally.

I'll do some talking about my reads in a sec.