Mafiascum.net

In post 189, Kappy wrote:

@Mod: Votecount Please?

innocentvillager wrote:@Ranger why aren't you doing more to get me lynched?

Well bluntly.
You I don't need to put much effort into lynching. There's backing from others, who agree. The proof? Nobody's asked me to make a case on you. Had they, I would have followed through.

Music and Mail, who consists of a player who , on the other hand...

Oh, forgot to do this earlier.
{Alexcellent, Alpaca, shotty}
{BTD6, KickAssAndGiggle}
{Kappy}
{Music and Mail}
{innocentvillager}

Ranger wrote:Oh, forgot to do this earlier.
{Alexcellent, Alpaca, shotty}
{BTD6, KickAssAndGiggle}
{Kappy}
{Music and Mail}
{innocentvillager}

This is literally my readlist, in the exact opposite order (would switch M&M with Kappy and would put you before Kappy).

BTD6_maker wrote: He started off distancing Ranger whilst backing out of the wagon when it looked dangerous. Now he is defending Ranger and criticising the wagon that he was on himself. IV and Ranger seem a likely scumteam.

Protip: You will be wrong 95% of the time when you think you have the scumteam down, I promise it's never worth it to vote based on a scumteam hypothetical unless it's super obvious

This is rather unfortunate that I am probably going to get lynched today, but I guess it's necessary since there is no way I will be able to convince everyone I am town, and I will be a prime lynch target in later days if not lynched today. My claim was stated in my very 2nd post (it's a bit hidden, you might have to play with the words a bit).

I don't like how quickly the wagon formed on me either, but I guess people are starting to compromise towards me. It seems like I have maybe one or two scumtells about myself that people just latched onto and decided "meh this is good enough for d1" and/or sheeped Ranger, who for some reason thinks I'm conf scum.

@Ranger Prepare for me to flip town. I might have bought into your appeal to authority read style if it weren't for your "100% scum on a confirmed town".

In post 182, BTD6_maker wrote:Are you trying to suggest that you actively want Ranger to vote you?

She already was. Like I said, a lot of the things Ranger is doing are pretty antitown. But the one thing I can't shake my mind off is the fact that she is willing to 100% scumread me. If she knew I would just flip town, I can't imagine her doing that and agreeing to get lynched. She would have to bank on the fact that I would realize this and back off on her, which is an unnecessary gambit for scum.

So, she's pretty antitown but does one very towny thing. I'm obviously still not certain about her as town, since it could always be some weird switch and bait gambit, so I was just putting pressure on her for doing another thing that's not towny: not pushing a case on your top scumread. I wish shotty would've done that too, instead of just shitting on the sides doing nothing and being unfoundedly accusatory (before his car accident thing, aka before I had any sympathy for him).

@Alex I'm still waiting for a response with regards to your scumread on me when you have time, look through my recent posts.

I am extremely puzzled on how ANYONE can have even a remote townread on Alpaca. This dude has done nothing this entire game, and his posts read activelurking/null at best. Can someone please explain why this guy is getting a free pass?

Shotty can you please post something substantive when you get back because I actually want to hear your thoughts on this game.

@Alpaca and KAAG That goes for you two as well.

So what do you claim?

Can anyone else figure it out?

BTD6 wrote:So what do you claim?

innocentvillager's 2nd post wrote:I am going to go ahead and claim ha u scumfuck rolefisher, cause obviously playing as claimed is easier for town to win. With that I am going to start this game and: VOTE: innocentvillager
He just rubs me the wrong way.

^So basically, he claimed scum.

Ranger wrote:

BTD6 wrote:So what do you claim?

innocentvillager's 2nd post wrote:I am going to go ahead and claim

ha u scumfuck rolefisher

,

c

ause

o

bviously

p

laying

a

s

c

laimed is easier for town to win. With that I am going to start this game and: VOTE: innocentvillager
He just rubs me the wrong way.

^So basically, he claimed scum.

copac is tree in Romanian

You have to admit, that was a fairly good crumb--would any of you have guessed that?

Now that the cat's out I can express my mild indifference towards me getting lynched. It'll be interesting being the only clear tomorrow.

Of course, optimally town chooses another target, but I won't be terribly disappointed if I get stumped.

Technically you could make pretty much anything into any claim you wanted.

VOTE: IV

If you are scum (and scum would obviously claim Tree and/or breadcrumb Tree) then good. If you are really a Tree, Town hasn't lost much. You can still be an active scumhunter after death.

Damn, I thought my scumshitting would've worked. How'd you know Ranger

Oh well, this was a good game, was unfortunate I got discovered so early. I thought posting a lot of BS would've been enough to keep you guys away from my lynch. I recommend priming the person we talked about in post 3 of QT.

Well, at least this was a good lynch.

Town have a very good chance in this game now.

Welp this is going to be tough to win. Ranger's early peg on me as scum was enough to fuck us over fast. How do you do it Ranger? (not spoiling your other reads for you) I don't even see the confscum in my posts at all.

Anyway, good luck partner. I guess this is my last post in my first game back, shame the fun had to end so early. Thanks for a good game guys

innocentvillager wrote:Ranger's early peg on me as scum was enough to fuck us over fast. How do you do it Ranger?

Well I told you.

Early-game content is my specialty.

I'll try and figure out your partner tomorrow, since there's no N1 possibility of death.

But, I have to be completely honest here.

I lied.

I wasn't 100% sure you were scum at all.

I was actually less sure about you than I was on Music and Mail! Especially with your later posting.

I was kinda afraid I'd be getting lynched tomorrow, and then we'd be in D3 with no assured scum leads, my credibility shot, and nothing to go on.

Prodge, will post tomorrow morning hopefully

In post 212, innocentvillager wrote:I recommend priming the person we talked about in post 3 of QT.

Trying to figure out who this is so firefighter knows who to protect. I don't think scum have daytalk, so it's someone they discussed pre game. which means they won't prime based on performance, just on meta and stuff like that. Who's someone IV has a history with?

also iv I think I pegged you.

In post 219, Kappy wrote:

In post 212, innocentvillager wrote:I recommend priming the person we talked about in post 3 of QT.

Trying to figure out who this is so firefighter knows who to protect. I don't think scum have daytalk, so it's someone they discussed pre game. which means they won't prime based on performance, just on meta and stuff like that. Who's someone IV has a history with?

If anyone tells firefighter who to protect, their protection will be worthless as scum will just avoid priming them.

Also, perhaps IV just mentioned a name somewhere in post 3 of scumtalk and later (during the day) realised that they were a threat. As far as I know, primed and killed players can't post in the thread as stumps.

In post 221, BTD6_maker wrote:

In post 219, Kappy wrote:

In post 212, innocentvillager wrote:I recommend priming the person we talked about in post 3 of QT.

Trying to figure out who this is so firefighter knows who to protect. I don't think scum have daytalk, so it's someone they discussed pre game. which means they won't prime based on performance, just on meta and stuff like that. Who's someone IV has a history with?

If anyone tells firefighter who to protect, their protection will be worthless as scum will just avoid priming them.

Also, perhaps IV just mentioned a name somewhere in post 3 of scumtalk and later (during the day) realised that they were a threat. As far as I know, primed and killed players can't post in the thread as stumps.

I'm not telling the firefighter who to protect. I'm giving them a clue so they can decide who to protect on their own.

In post 222, Kappy wrote:

In post 221, BTD6_maker wrote:

In post 219, Kappy wrote:

In post 212, innocentvillager wrote:I recommend priming the person we talked about in post 3 of QT.

Trying to figure out who this is so firefighter knows who to protect. I don't think scum have daytalk, so it's someone they discussed pre game. which means they won't prime based on performance, just on meta and stuff like that. Who's someone IV has a history with?

If anyone tells firefighter who to protect, their protection will be worthless as scum will just avoid priming them.

Also, perhaps IV just mentioned a name somewhere in post 3 of scumtalk and later (during the day) realised that they were a threat. As far as I know, primed and killed players can't post in the thread as stumps.

I'm not telling the firefighter who to protect. I'm giving them a clue so they can decide who to protect on their own.

OK. Now I understand.

I originally thought you were going to actually say who the target was most likely to be.

In post 223, BTD6_maker wrote:

In post 222, Kappy wrote:

In post 221, BTD6_maker wrote:

In post 219, Kappy wrote:

In post 212, innocentvillager wrote:I recommend priming the person we talked about in post 3 of QT.

Trying to figure out who this is so firefighter knows who to protect. I don't think scum have daytalk, so it's someone they discussed pre game. which means they won't prime based on performance, just on meta and stuff like that. Who's someone IV has a history with?

If anyone tells firefighter who to protect, their protection will be worthless as scum will just avoid priming them.

Also, perhaps IV just mentioned a name somewhere in post 3 of scumtalk and later (during the day) realised that they were a threat. As far as I know, primed and killed players can't post in the thread as stumps.

I'm not telling the firefighter who to protect. I'm giving them a clue so they can decide who to protect on their own.

OK. Now I understand.

I originally thought you were going to actually say who the target was most likely to be.

No. The "Who's someone IV has a history with?" was a rhetorical question, meant for the firefighter to answer in his head.