Mafiascum.net

In post 198, Hoctac wrote:Datisi, is there a reason you unvote before placing your vote on ceejay? If the reason is to show us you were voting for someone prior, I do not understand the logic as you did not include the person's name with the unvote. Strange.

my previous post was talking about RVS votes, in which i said my vote was one of them, and it got clidd to respond to me with a Sherlock gif? s'there a point to this?

-D

ok firstly will the ego players in the room please stand up so I can get a good idea where to start my solve without attracting a vig shot cause it would suck to get shot ;(

In post 200, Night 3 Roses wrote:

In post 198, Hoctac wrote:Datisi, is there a reason you unvote before placing your vote on ceejay? If the reason is to show us you were voting for someone prior, I do not understand the logic as you did not include the person's name with the unvote. Strange.

my previous post was talking about RVS votes, in which i said my vote was one of them, and it got clidd to respond to me with a Sherlock gif? s'there a point to this?

-D

Ah, I did not realise clidd had responded with a Sherlock gif. Is there a reason you unvote before voting in the same post?

Man, my mind short-circuited for a moment there because I completely forgot that Holmes and Moriarty are actual characters that have appeared in many different mediums and not just a hot dude and a foxy grandpa from everyone's favorite cell phone game.

@Night 3 Roses: I think the post volume difference does matter in that a higher post volume comes across as an active attempt to look good whereas the lower post volume does not. To be sure, not contributing is generally a scummy thing, but I am more wary of someone that's actively trying to look good without actually contributing than someone's that not trying to look good while also not actually contributing.

I will admit I assumed you (or your slot, or whatever term is appropriate) didn't like ceejay or myself not because of any scumhunting justification, but simply because we're voting for you. Aside from Hoctac being unhappy with ceejay for not being original, no one else has seemed to have a problem with the nature of the pressure being applied to you, so I figured it was a safe assumption. I've seen so many players over the years do it, so.

@Hoctac: Is there a reason you ask questions about matters that aren't alignment-indicative in ways that seem to imply you think they are? I am thinking of 74, 119, and the recent 198 in particular. You have an awful lot of fluff as well. I genuinely can't tell if your play/post style is some sort of social experiment (particularly since my question about your potential alt-account-ness wasn't addressed) or if this is actually how you play, and it's throwing my ability to read your slot.

Hey I am here. Will post catch up sometime tonight.

In post 202, Hoctac wrote:

In post 200, Night 3 Roses wrote:

In post 198, Hoctac wrote:Datisi, is there a reason you unvote before placing your vote on ceejay? If the reason is to show us you were voting for someone prior, I do not understand the logic as you did not include the person's name with the unvote. Strange.

my previous post was talking about RVS votes, in which i said my vote was one of them, and it got clidd to respond to me with a Sherlock gif? s'there a point to this?

-D

Ah, I did not realise clidd had responded with a Sherlock gif. Is there a reason you unvote before voting in the same post?

because i said " has served its purpose now" referring to my current vote? if you're expecting a profound thought behind it, i'm gonna have to disappoint you.

~

In post 203, Kilgamayan wrote:Man, my mind short-circuited for a moment there because I completely forgot that Holmes and Moriarty are actual characters that have appeared in many different mediums and not just a hot dude and a foxy grandpa from everyone's favorite cell phone game.

from the what

In post 203, Kilgamayan wrote:@Night 3 Roses: I think the post volume difference does matter in that a higher post volume comes across as an active attempt to look good whereas the lower post volume does not. To be sure, not contributing is generally a scummy thing, but I am more wary of someone that's actively trying to look good without actually contributing than someone's that not trying to look good while also not actually contributing.

I will admit I assumed you (or your slot, or whatever term is appropriate) didn't like ceejay or myself not because of any scumhunting justification, but simply because we're voting for you. Aside from Hoctac being unhappy with ceejay for not being original, no one else has seemed to have a problem with the nature of the pressure being applied to you, so I figured it was a safe assumption. I've seen so many players over the years do it, so.

you're assuming i'm trying to look good. i'm well aware of what "active lurking" is. i was posting because i felt like posting, and at the time what i felt like "actually contributing" either a thing that could've been ai was already dismissed as non-ai, or my question got ignored.

i can tell (or at least i like to believe i can...) the difference between good votes and bad votes on my slot, simply disliking/scumreading someone because they dare vote against me would be silly. i think your arguments are bad but they seem to be genuine. (un)fortunately ico is currently having some sorta holiday so i can't exactly bug him right now to ask what he thinks.

In post 203, Kilgamayan wrote:(particularly since my question about your potential alt-account-ness wasn't addressed)

are you saying it wasn't addressed by hoctac or did you miss the second part of 165?

-D

VOTE: hoctac
I just noticed the gimmick account. I will hardtunnel people with dumb gimmicks 9/10 because its not a valid way of covering up town vs scum play

VOTE: DKkoba

For a pillow push and changing their warrant once questioned.

In post 203, Kilgamayan wrote:@Hoctac: Is there a reason you ask questions about matters that aren't alignment-indicative in ways that seem to imply you think they are? I am thinking of 74, 119, and the recent 198 in particular. You have an awful lot of fluff as well. I genuinely can't tell if your play/post style is some sort of social experiment (particularly since my question about your potential alt-account-ness wasn't addressed) or if this is actually how you play, and it's throwing my ability to read your slot.

I'm trying my best! I have a read on DkKoba now.

In post 190, clidd wrote: I am fatigued recently by the number of games I am currently playing, so I’ll probably be more passive here. No essay this time.

I think clidd is town. Have a feeling clidd won't be passive if this is a scum game. Just a feeling~

In post 208, Hoctac wrote:VOTE: DKkoba

For a pillow push and changing their warrant once questioned.

Why? I am assuming this is serious.

Votecount 1.5

Night 3 Roses(2)

~ Kilgamayan(15), ceejayvinoya(10)

ceejayvinoya(2)

~ Tuxedo Mask(19), Night 3 Roses(34)

Tuxedo Mask(1)

~ HoldenGolden(35)

Kilgamayan(1)

~ enomis(6)

Hoctac(1)

~ DkKoba(41)

DkKoba(1)

~ Hoctac(29)


Not Voting (1): clidd(9)

With 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch.

Day 1 deadline is in (expired on 2020-05-29 05:21:12)

MOD REMINDERS

HoldenGolden V/LA in effect

In post 210, enomis wrote:

In post 190, clidd wrote: I am fatigued recently by the number of games I am currently playing, so I’ll probably be more passive here. No essay this time.

I think clidd is town. Have a feeling clidd won't be passive if this is a scum game. Just a feeling~

This seems a little confident a conclusion to draw from that alone! Are you basing this on the meta of 1 game, and have you considered the fact clidd is simply feeling fatigued, and thus wants to put in less effort regardless of alignment?

In post 211, enomis wrote:

In post 208, Hoctac wrote:VOTE: DKkoba

For a pillow push and changing their warrant once questioned.

Why? I am assuming this is serious.

Happy to explain! They pushed Holden for "too much WIFOM". Once their reasoning was questioned, they altered their original grounds to be that "they were reaction testing". Flailing is not good.

Additionally, they implied they disliked Holden's defensiveness, yet switched their vote to me too quickly, indicating they were unhappy with pursuing that push since it was drawing questions into their alignment and motives.

@Night 3 Roses - These blokes:

https://fategrandorder.fandom.com/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes

https://fategrandorder.fandom.com/wiki/James_Moriarty

There's an event currently going on in the game in the North America servers that heavily involves both of them, so I was already in a mindset of thinking about them.

Anyway, I'm still not entirely satisfied by our exchange, but I will admit I'm not feeling quite as good as I was originally, even given how little one can really feel "good" about ED1 cases. Like, I still think your earlier performance is a mildly scummy approach - "you're assuming i'm trying to look good" and "i was posting because i felt like posting" are things one could just as easily say falsely as scum as truthfully as town, and while yes, town and scum can behave in similar manners and do similar things, there are some town behaviors and actions that are easier to do as scum than other town behaviors and actions, and I think your earlier play falls in the first category there - but your responses have felt more like "slightly offended townie" than "defensive scum", so I'm willing to shelve it for the time being. Particularly given recent happenings. (Also I somehow completely missed the bottom of your 165. Terribly sorry for that.)

UNVOTE: Night 3 Roses
VOTE: Hoctac

I was willing to give the playstyle a pass for the time being under the possibility that the player was someone new that is still feeling out how to play the game and what's important and what's not - we were all clueless newbies at some point - but knowing this approach to the game is coming from someone that should know better sours me on it. Moreover, I really really dislike the vote for DkKoba and explanation thereof, particularly since it came immediately after DkKoba voted for them. I'm not going to defend DkKoba at length, that's for them to do, but I will say that I thought it was obvious why they dropped their spat with Holden, and Holden didn't seem to hold(en) it against them (see 140). The timing of and explanation for Hoctac's vote are incongruous, too - if you take issue with DkKoba "changing their warrant when questioned", why not vote for them after they first unvoted in 186? Hoctac has definitely paying attention to unvotes because they questioned half of Night 3 Roses (Night 1.5 Roses?) about their unvote in 198. And yet there's nothing to say about DkKoba pulling back from the argument with and vote for Holden at the time, but all of a sudden in 208 it's a votable offense? I'm not buying it.

In post 208, Hoctac wrote:VOTE: DKkoba

For a pillow push and changing their warrant once questioned.

nice omgus buddy. mad i called your gimmick out?

kliga, i'd argue flat-out lurking is easier for scum to do, but okay.

~

In post 216, DkKoba wrote:

In post 208, Hoctac wrote:VOTE: DKkoba

For a pillow push and changing their warrant once questioned.

nice omgus buddy. mad i called your gimmick out?

are you actually scumreading hoctac or...?

~

hoctac, did you get anything from the unvote talk?

I dont scumread anyone at this stage of the game. To do so requires a blatent scumslip.

In post 218, DkKoba wrote:I dont scumread anyone at this stage of the game. To do so requires a blatent scumslip.

I think I understand and I think I agree. But could you elaborate on this?

To be clear, is Hoctac actually an alt of a regular player?

He is not an outed alt. His posting style and MBTI type (this isnt a joke; the person I think he is slipped his MBTI type) matches another player to the wire. Basically I'm 99% sure he is an alt of that person.

He isnt playing that much different from his regular playstyle so I dont get much purpose of the alt if he is who I think he is.

In post 185, clidd wrote:

In post 36, HoldenGolden wrote:Hardclaiming insane novice macho cop/doc watcher btw

I remember you making some jokes in the initial stage of our past game, but nothing related to claims.

It's not every game that you can make such claims unfortunately. The Joy's of a semi-open set up

In post 186, DkKoba wrote:UNVOTE:

Did you miss the question I posed at the end of 140 or did you choose not to respond to it on purpose?

In post 192, clidd wrote:

In post 187, DkKoba wrote:hi clidd im going to hardtunnel you again as you flip PR again

You should try to be less aggressive in this game to avoid eating the NK

. If I were scum, you would already be sentenced to death because of the last few pages.

Is this a reference to a previous game?

In post 143, ceejayvinoya wrote:

In post 90, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 69, ceejayvinoya wrote:My vote on Holden stays. Most awkward guy so far.

Also awkward in what way?

Dont be shy. I'm apperently the socially awkward one.

This one.

In post 39, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 37, Tuxedo Mask wrote:

In post 35, Hoctac wrote:How do I look?? Be honest.

Beautiful.

In post 36, HoldenGolden wrote:Hardclaiming insane novice macho cop/doc watcher btw

I CC, let's lynch this scum.

Haha that was a gambit son. You just got gambitted. That role doesnt even exist in this set up! Only a moron would claim it!

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Tuxedo Mask

I asked awkward in what way, not where was I awkward. Can you explain what pinged you about that post then?

Do you agree with Phoenix Human Right's comment about me "WIFOM'd too much".