Mafiascum.net

In post 197, clidd wrote:

In post 192, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 178, GeneralWu wrote:

I made a comparison with three other games, which he was town. I noticed that his pattern consists of a game start characterized by an expressive claim or announcement, marked by the use of wifom as a tool of persuasion to, at the same time that he is attracting attention, repelling suspicions due to the strong image of exalted self-confidence. Posts 18, 31, 46 show concern to help inexperienced players, being in coherence with the SE position established in post 8. Assimilation to past experiences in posts 45, 55, 56 and 85 demonstrate transparency in relation to the opinions formed, indicating progressive reasoning in order to develop the game forward, strengthened by the suggestion in post 97. In general, there is no bias in his lines, and his actions are motivated to progress in the team-game proactively. This is enough to consider him as lock-town, under the condition of BoP depending on how the first day and second day occur. If he is not killed within two days, however, I will regard his presence in the game as suspicious, unless there is a PR that has rescue (Doctor) helping him.

what's BoP

I agree that OS is pretty transparent and willing to help and move the game forward. But why would you say he is suspicious if he is not killed within two days?
I can see where you're heading, since towny players tend to be killed by mafia so that the mafia can conceal themselves better. So, if there's a towny player who somehow survives for a long time, he could be regarded as suspicious.
But, supposing that the mafia are townread by everyone in the game, they could also choose to kill scummy people, so that they don't get suspected for being "overly towny" or "so towny they're scummy" or something like that. I remember that happened in a game I played a long time ago on a different website.

This post pings me in a bad way.Very WIFOMY, doesnt further analyse a particular player, very general, general mafia theory, barely ties back to this game.

Someone jump on the GW wagon. Get on it!

Post*, this one.

In post 183, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 153, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 126, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 121, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 120, Maduisha wrote:

In post 119, JacksonVirgo wrote:I have scum-reads on GeneralWu and Kappa

I understand suspecting PKP because of the random clidd vote and saying it's weird not to vote, but why GW?

Overly serious, pings me as someone who wants to act like they're trying to solve the game when they're not.

Eh not as strong a read as Kappa but it's what I see aorn

so how am i "acting like i'm trying to solve the game when i'm not"?
Also how is being serious a bad thing?

This is why sometimes in the right context being serious is scummy, Straight from the wiki:

It's the so-called LAMIST - (Look At ME Im So Town!) tell and it's still relevant enough to have its own acronym! Newbscum usually are very concerned with 'looking good' to avoid falling under suspicion, but don't know how to fake-scumhunt. Instead, they will do things like pushing the lurkers to contribute, trying to "resuscitate" them by voting them, asking for reads on themselves, talking a lot about the game itself (this is called IIoA), claiming they are doing anything in their power to get information.

In post 154, 72offsuit wrote:Your post fits the LAMIST tell in my eyes, therefore i think you are scummy

uhh if I remember correctly jackson was the one who thought I was being overly serious
Also how am I "pushing the lurkers to contribute"? Did I even say anything that was to push a lurker to say something?
In addition, I how have I "tried to 'resuscitate'" any lurkers by voting them? I never voted a lurker this whole game.
I may have asked for

reasons

for reads on myself, since no one can say "I think so and so is towny" or "I think so and so is scummy" and expect us to agree with him if he doesn't provide some good reasons.
I also didn't ask for the reads themselves.
And where am I "talking a lot about the game itself"?

seriously wtmoo where did this random accusation come from?
I'll have to take a closer look at 72offsuit's posts since they're striking me as weird.

I'm not saying tthat you have DONE EVERY SINGLE ITEM in that DEFINITION of LAMIST.
I was answering your question as to why being serious is scummy.

This post of GW's gives me bad vibes.
I think it is scummy.
He goes at length talking about night kill speculation, yet doesn't come to any conclusion really whatsoever, in what way that speculation relates to any particular players alignment.
Thus the lack of analysis.
Thus the post is IIoA - Information instead of Analysis
Thus it is scummy.
Posting for the sake of posting.
It is posting without adding any real content to catch scum.

In post 200, clidd wrote:If I'm absolutely sure, I don't hesitate to hammer a lurker. I've done this a lot in the past.

In post 207, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 200, clidd wrote:If I'm absolutely sure, I don't hesitate to hammer a lurker. I've done this a lot in the past.

Why would you hammer a lurker this quick?
There's more than half the day left, why would you be so eager to hammer a player?
This sounds like an excuse to quickly lynch someone and end the day as soon as possible tbh.

In post 208, GeneralWu wrote:72offsuit and clidd are both looking pretty scummy right now.

In post 209, GeneralWu wrote:i'm pretty out of time right now so i'll post some more stuff tomorrow

In post 204, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 183, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 153, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 126, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 121, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 120, Maduisha wrote:

In post 119, JacksonVirgo wrote:I have scum-reads on GeneralWu and Kappa

I understand suspecting PKP because of the random clidd vote and saying it's weird not to vote, but why GW?

Overly serious, pings me as someone who wants to act like they're trying to solve the game when they're not.

Eh not as strong a read as Kappa but it's what I see aorn

so how am i "acting like i'm trying to solve the game when i'm not"?
Also how is being serious a bad thing?

This is why sometimes in the right context being serious is scummy, Straight from the wiki:

It's the so-called LAMIST - (Look At ME Im So Town!) tell and it's still relevant enough to have its own acronym! Newbscum usually are very concerned with 'looking good' to avoid falling under suspicion, but don't know how to fake-scumhunt. Instead, they will do things like pushing the lurkers to contribute, trying to "resuscitate" them by voting them, asking for reads on themselves, talking a lot about the game itself (this is called IIoA), claiming they are doing anything in their power to get information.

In post 154, 72offsuit wrote:Your post fits the LAMIST tell in my eyes, therefore i think you are scummy

uhh if I remember correctly jackson was the one who thought I was being overly serious
Also how am I "pushing the lurkers to contribute"? Did I even say anything that was to push a lurker to say something?
In addition, I how have I "tried to 'resuscitate'" any lurkers by voting them? I never voted a lurker this whole game.
I may have asked for

reasons

for reads on myself, since no one can say "I think so and so is towny" or "I think so and so is scummy" and expect us to agree with him if he doesn't provide some good reasons.
I also didn't ask for the reads themselves.
And where am I "talking a lot about the game itself"?

seriously wtmoo where did this random accusation come from?
I'll have to take a closer look at 72offsuit's posts since they're striking me as weird.

I'm not saying tthat you have DONE EVERY SINGLE ITEM in that DEFINITION of LAMIST.
I was answering your question as to why being serious is scummy.

In post 211, clidd wrote:

In post 208, GeneralWu wrote:72offsuit and clidd are both looking pretty scummy right now.

It would be interesting for you to develop this. I am not sure if I understood your case about me.

In post 213, clidd wrote:

In post 204, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 183, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 153, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 126, GeneralWu wrote:

In post 121, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 120, Maduisha wrote:

In post 119, JacksonVirgo wrote:I have scum-reads on GeneralWu and Kappa

I understand suspecting PKP because of the random clidd vote and saying it's weird not to vote, but why GW?

Overly serious, pings me as someone who wants to act like they're trying to solve the game when they're not.

Eh not as strong a read as Kappa but it's what I see aorn

so how am i "acting like i'm trying to solve the game when i'm not"?
Also how is being serious a bad thing?

This is why sometimes in the right context being serious is scummy, Straight from the wiki:

It's the so-called LAMIST - (Look At ME Im So Town!) tell and it's still relevant enough to have its own acronym! Newbscum usually are very concerned with 'looking good' to avoid falling under suspicion, but don't know how to fake-scumhunt. Instead, they will do things like pushing the lurkers to contribute, trying to "resuscitate" them by voting them, asking for reads on themselves, talking a lot about the game itself (this is called IIoA), claiming they are doing anything in their power to get information.

In post 154, 72offsuit wrote:Your post fits the LAMIST tell in my eyes, therefore i think you are scummy

uhh if I remember correctly jackson was the one who thought I was being overly serious
Also how am I "pushing the lurkers to contribute"? Did I even say anything that was to push a lurker to say something?
In addition, I how have I "tried to 'resuscitate'" any lurkers by voting them? I never voted a lurker this whole game.
I may have asked for

reasons

for reads on myself, since no one can say "I think so and so is towny" or "I think so and so is scummy" and expect us to agree with him if he doesn't provide some good reasons.
I also didn't ask for the reads themselves.
And where am I "talking a lot about the game itself"?

seriously wtmoo where did this random accusation come from?
I'll have to take a closer look at 72offsuit's posts since they're striking me as weird.

I'm not saying tthat you have DONE EVERY SINGLE ITEM in that DEFINITION of LAMIST.
I was answering your question as to why being serious is scummy.

It would be better if you focused on inactive slots, rather than maintaining this tunnel on GeneralWu. It seems much more likely that newbie

scum

is uninterested in this game. Which, clearly, is not his case.

In post 214, 72offsuit wrote:

In post 211, clidd wrote:

In post 208, GeneralWu wrote:72offsuit and clidd are both looking pretty scummy right now.

It would be interesting for you to develop this. I am not sure if I understood your case about me.

Clidd, did you understand his case against me?

In post 223, Maduisha wrote:JV, didn't you have your vote on PKP already? I'm confused.