Mafiascum.net

In post 159, alstroemerial wrote: For now I'll shift to VOTE: Pavowski because of his relatively low content (except for Umlaut who is V/LA and Not_Mafia, of whom I have low expectations...)

In post 191, marcistar wrote:

Pavowski

- null. i'm not quite sure about anything from them, from what they've posted nothing really seems scummy.. but the playstyle here just like is kinda offputting (he isnt the most active, and isnt contributing as much as i would like)

I just think it's interesting I'm getting pinged for low content by these two. I don't post as much as some, but the shoe is surely on the other foot (or feet) here.

Alstro dropped their vote and dipped for almost 24 hours now. I'm curious if there's anything at all behind it or if they were just hoping to get me to post more (in which case, I think I have). I think they're asking broad questions to give an appearance of scumhunting but I have no idea where they actually stand on anybody.

(Yeah, I know, given my recent posts this is a bit of pot and kettle, but it is what it is, and Marci asked.)

VOTE: Zyla

This or Portia look like good wagons to me rn. Neither have given me any reason to think they're town over the course of 8 pages.

(Also, just totally off-topic, I feel certain I've made at least one mistake regarding people's pronouns somewhere in my posts and if I have, it's not intentional. I am trying!)

I think Pavowski is probably town, it's not a conclusive read but their tone seems at least transparent about what they are doing and why, and honestly if they were scum I would expect them to have made up some strong reads by now instead of continuing to insist they don't have any.

In post 195, Lukewarm wrote:I am not sure why you think that that form of a question is meaningless tho

I'm sorry, I've lost the thread of what question we were originally talking about. I'm not sure it matters anymore at this point. To me, you were making a distinction without a difference when you pointed out in one post I called something "scummy" and in a subsequent post that "it was too early" to decide something.

In post 198, Portia wrote:

In post 112, Portia wrote:

In post 88, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 83, marcistar wrote:so far i've kinda thought luke seemed a bit off (mostly cuz i dont like his points on val98 very much)

You said similar things several times throughout our last game together, and we were both town

Im lazy - will you actually quote them saying the similar thing? Without hard proof, this would be quite effective manipilation.

Luke you mind hitting this up

I already addressed it in 129 -- that was more for Marci

WB Umlaut,

In post 199, Umlaut wrote:Okay, I'm skimming through the topic now. Quick remarks (writing as I go, so earlier comments may not reflect later read updates)


[*]192 -- "tunneling is scummy" is an odd take, do you think tunneling is actually >rand probable to come from scum?[/list]

I'm looking back over those posts you've referenced but since you asked, I have to agree with Portia's recent post:

Portia wrote: As for the earlier question about how I could not like the 1v1 and still find it alignment/tone indicative, it has to do with duration.

It's not that the tunneling is scummy. It's that it went on too long, for my tastes, to be an information-gathering exercise and moved into "this feels motivated" territory, to the point where one of two things seems to have happened:
1) town!Luke has decided he's cornered scum here and doesn't want to let the chance to eliminate scum on d1 slip away, or
2) scum!Luke wants to get Val miselim'd for reasons

Neither would surprise me but given the tenor and the duration of the interaction I lean slightly toward #2 at the moment

In post 204, Pavowski wrote:

In post 195, Lukewarm wrote:I am not sure why you think that that form of a question is meaningless tho

I'm sorry, I've lost the thread of what question we were originally talking about. I'm not sure it matters anymore at this point. To me, you were making a distinction without a difference when you pointed out in one post I called something "scummy" and in a subsequent post that "it was too early" to decide something.

I feel like we are losing the thread here lol

Spoilering because none of it is new, just trying to reiterate earlier things.

In post 206, Pavowski wrote: It's not that the tunneling is scummy. It's that it went on too long, for my tastes, to be an information-gathering exercise and moved into "this feels motivated" territory, to the point where one of two things seems to have happened:
1) town!Luke has decided he's cornered scum here and doesn't want to let the chance to eliminate scum on d1 slip away, or
2) scum!Luke wants to get Val miselim'd for reasons

Neither would surprise me but given the tenor and the duration of the interaction I lean slightly toward #2 at the moment

It is very much #1.

I started out with a weak point (but good enough for page 2), looking for his response and reaction -- and every reaction he had screamed scum to me. So, my read ramped up considerably

Also, I am pretty sure Pav is town at this point

Lukewarm doesn't look like he's faking a read to me, he looks like the spitting image of deeply tunneled town. Which is not to say that Val is town, I haven't made up my mind on that yet, only that Luke is reading he does as further proof of guilt which can only be confirmation bias. Even actual scum don't scumtell in 100% of their posts.

In post 201, Umlaut wrote:This or Portia look like good wagons to me rn. Neither have given me any reason to think they're town over the course of 8 pages.

I find the offering up of Portia as the second "good wagon" as little strange. Umlaut commented on a huge chunk of the thread in 199, but the only thing I see in reference to Portia are two comments; first that he "like

I mostly just liked 113 questioning your actual position on NM, I guess, though looking at it more carefully 111 was a good read on Luke as well. Yes I did mean it seemed town, but having a town-looking intro is not that much evidence in itself.

166 struck a nerve with me, I don't think it much matters if he apologized for it or not (though I will honestly say I hadn't considered 196 at all since it was posted while I was writing my catch-up and I sort of missed it altogether until now). The apology is for the rude tone, and that's nice and all, but if it were a more toned down but still clearly miffed response it would still be scummy because there's no reason for town!Portia to be miffed there about some really mundane questions.

168 doesn't seem worthy of any kind of townread at all, it just looks like "whoops, I'm being questioned, better throw out some reads" post and Luke rightly points out that it's not even self-consistent.

Frankly the tone was unreasonable and I am glad we got an apology, but I disgree there is no reason for town!Portia to be miffed - he gave a read in 120, perhaps not a great one, but a read none-the-less, then Luke comes and comes and say's he's reading his ISO and can't find anywhere he has taken any sort of stance. At that point Portias ISO is 7 posts, and the last one is the read, so it's not buried.

The tone of the reaction WAS over-the-top, but I suggest there was good reason for a town player to be annoyed at another player for suggesting they have given no reads when they clearly have. This seems supported by the fact the item Lukewarm was told to insert was the very read he missed.

From the rest of your post, I take it your stance is less "Neither have given me any reason to think they're town over the course of 8 pages." and more 'I thought Portia's introduction seemed town but I decided that didn't mean much and think he is now worth wagoning after seeing his 166?'.

I know I said that I was going to avoid my val read for a bit, but fuck it. Here is a long post, that I hope can help people understand what I saw

Stage One

I dropped what was essentially a RVS vote on Val with post 31

• There really was not much at this point, but I did spot a difference between the two -- I mainly just wanted to get Val talking

In response to that, Val accused me of being scum in post 33 -- which, is suspicious lol.

• I also find it doubtful that anyone would actually feel the need to defend a scum partner here -- So I doubted that he would genuinely think that

In that same post, he also tried defend his nonsense case, which struck me as odd. Why defend it?

At this point, I thought it was odd, but was ready to move on to trying to sorting alstro (see post 40) -- but post 41 from Val pulled me back to him

Stage Two

This is when I actually started to lean scum

Post 41 is odd - There is a level of exasperation that seems to come through, when he realized how weak my case up to that point was. Why?

In post 41, Val89 wrote:What sort of mafia player tries to make push a meta read on someone without having first actually read the ISO.

Val really thought I was coming after him with a solid meta case, and was surprised to see that that was not the case.

• My theory is that he is jumpy, and when I appeared to be coming at him with a Meta case on page 2, he was not expecting it. (This being why he responded with the OMGUS and the need to defend his nonsense case) So to learn that I did not actually have anything on him, left him surprised, exasperated even, that I came after him to begin with

I would like to point out that in this same post, Val further goes to call me scummy for pointing a finger at him

I also found this line odd:

In post 44, Val89 wrote:I still think since Not_Mafia is at E-2, we should just go ahead and make him the lim for the day rather than piviot to Lukewarm, though. We can deal with him tomorrow.

And find it hard to swallow his later walk back, when he defended it in post 56

At this point, I had a scum lean on him

I thought this would be the end of the back and forth. I had achieved a scum lean, time to look at other people -- and moved back to sorting alstro (58) who I also had a suspicion on. That was resolved because I found post 73 townie. Once that concern went away, I parked my vote back on my only scum lean (Val / Post 75) until I found a new place to look.

I Then got the feeling that people thought that the core of my scum lean was still the reasoning for the initial vote. Which was very much not the case. So I made post 86 -- I wanted people to know that my actual scum lean on Val was because if his responses to that initial vote: the omgus reaction to my vote, the claim that we should just focus on Not_Mafia for the time being, and his thoughts about meta diving on Page 2.

My game plan at that time, was to keep looking at other people, but Val started addressing me directly, which pulled me back into the conversation. Post 89, 92, 95, and 96 were all responses to direct questions Val asked me

Val also began claiming that most of the posts that I found scummy were actually non-serious joke posts // which I still find to be a hard pill to swallow. I mean, just look back at post 41 -- Does that read like a post of someone who is joking, or someone who is taking the discussion seriously

Stage Three

This is where I moved from a scum lean to a scum read on Val

Val made post 99. In this post:

• Val makes it clear that he does not currently think that Not_Mafia is scum, which is important, because it means that his theory about me no longer involves Not_Mafia being my partner.
  
  He also says that his "initial thoughts" on my earlier 1v1 with him were "that it leans scummy" -- He then tries to present the narrative that I, as a member of the scum team, was "over-the-top sensitive to any suggestion early game that I might be scum" -- and that I felt the need to start discrediting him
  
  I think it is important to note, what suggestion he thought made me jumpy: It was the suggestion that the scum team was Not_Mafia + Luke -- and again, he was suggesting we should kill Not Mafia first

This is clearly nonsesical. If I am scum, and Not_Mafia is not my partner (which is the stance that Val appeared to be taking) then there is 0 scum motivation for me to react the way that I did

Spoiler:

to be clear, I am not saying that the reaction was inherently townie. I am saying that is is a nonsensical basis for a scum lean

I decided to point that out see post 102

Stage Four

I moved from a scum read, to scumlocking Val in this stage

Since I made 102, where I outlined why Val's logic in 99 makes no sense, he has not once, actually engaged with that argument. He has not come back, and tried to explain a scum motivation that would make sense, and he has also not come back to adjust his read. This tells me that he is not genuinely trying to sort me - he is instead, trying to discredit me.

103: accuses me on being inconsistent (even though the posts quoted are consisten)
106:Ignores everything about the scum motivation, instead trying to discredit it whole sale "Whatever argument then follows from an obviously false premise is worthless, no?"

I even go back, and reword it to remove the thing that apparently was off putting to him 107, and he still never talked about it, and continues to focus on discrediting me

115: Tries to painy my entire case as OMGUS " it may indicate a hypersensitivity to the slightest shade, even if that shade wasn't serious"
And various other discredits:
"I've seen some issues with his response like I've already identified - the selective quoting, attempting to portray me as susing him because he is voting me etc, but I am actively trying hard to read everything this game through the lens of "is there an alternative explanation for this, could this slot, while doing some things you think are scummy not actually be scummy."

That one is particulalry interesting to me, because while he claims to be thinking "is there an alternative explanation" he is also still avoiding my points about post 99

VOTE: Val

Follow me or not, but I am more convinced of this read then I probably have been for any Day 1 read I have had in any game (except maybe that T3 game with Zyla lol)

I also think that it does not help his case, that he has repeatedly said that he is not sure that I am scum. If he was sure that I was scum, it would make a bit more sense that he is completely ignoring my points / discreditting me.

But no, he claims to be unsure, and that it was a weak lean, and that he is "looking to see if there is an alternative" ----- which does not makes sense along side the way he has interacted with my points

No offense, but I know your case is bullshit, and I think it's fairly obviously bullshit and will be seen as such by the other players; but to spend the time dismantling it now will rob me of the opportunity to use your case on me to sort other slots.

I'm waiting to see who else picks up on the stuff I plainly see and comments on it - T3 has explained they have this way of 'town telling' people by seeing who else picks up on things they have. I don't know how accurate that is, but it's worth looking at. If I go ahead and spend the time dismantling your case now, I rob town of the opportunity to learn what they can from others reactions to it.

If it's clear that I am wrong about it being obvious crap (I've been wrong about stuff like this before) and a substantial number of other players seem like they might be confused by it, then I might have something more to say; but I know you've precisely zero chance of riding me to a mislim today and I'm not all that interested in defending myself at this point.

In post 199, Umlaut wrote:34 and particularly the quick townread on alstro is a good look for Marci and I want to call her town, even though I don't actually see what's so townie about 23.

from what i've gathered, i dont think alstro has played with not_mafia before, so 23 just seems like they want to prevent not_mafia from possibly messing up town. i think scum could've just ignored it.

In post 199, Umlaut wrote:Val's 58 is lol, largely fluff and more aimed at self-justification than at actually convincing anyone to follow his vote, scummy post. Though the followup in 60 makes me wonder if he's just shitposting.

im not sure if 58 is the right post, its linking to a luke post instead of a val post. which post did u mean?

In post 199, Umlaut wrote:166 is way over-the-top reaction from Portia and I don't like it

it seems alot of people think like that about 166, im not quite sure what i think about it tbh.. when i thought of it originally, it sort of fits the vibes of how portias posting has been yesterday.

In post 200, Pavowski wrote:I just think it's interesting I'm getting pinged for low content by these two. I don't post as much as some, but the shoe is surely on the other foot (or feet) here.

i suppose that is true.

In post 200, Pavowski wrote:(Yeah, I know, given my recent posts this is a bit of pot and kettle, but it is what it is, and Marci asked.)

whats pot and kettle mean in these terms o-o i dont think ive seen anyone use it.

like 211

In post 102, Lukewarm wrote:Also, how can he genuinely be accusing

me

of scum reading

him

because

he

started scum reading

me

?

When the reality of the situation is that

I voted him

in post

31

and then

he started calling me scum

in

33

I would like to Uno Reverse Card him here, and say that from my PoV, his entire scum case on me appears to have started immediately after I voted him in post 31

val have u ever responded to this? i kinda think luke might want you to..

216 i originally didnt notice him ignoring your posts, but now that you mentioned it, and that hes responded with 217 hes starting to feel a bit weird.

do you have reads on people who arent luke? lol

In post 218, marcistar wrote:im not sure if 58 is the right post, its linking to a luke post instead of a val post.

That wasn't the only case Umluat did that - He also says 115 "by luke" is "actually kinda town", but it's one of my posts.

In post 218, marcistar wrote:val have u ever responded to this? i kinda think luke might want you to..

He might well do, but I've explained in 217 why I am not. If nobody else picks up on the reason why it's a non-argument by the time it becomes pertinent, I'll explain, but not now.

In post 218, marcistar wrote:val do you have reads on people who arent luke? lol

I've said already Portia has started pinging me as town; I'll say Pav has done so likewise. I'm waiting for Umlauts' response to my 213 before I decide if anything we've seen from him is alignment indicative.

I'm not seeing what others are seeing regarding Zyla, and they are still null for me currently, as are you, Marci. People say you are pinging town, but maybe it's something you have to played with you previously to pick up on. Not_mafia also remains null for obvious reasons.

Alstro I'm not sure about. I've not picked up anything scummy from them, but in my previous game I was able to get a townvibe from them very easily from the get-go, and I haven't this time. Maybe it's because they entered the thread a bit later during last time I played with them because of a listing error, and I just don't know how to parse their early RVS-style play, so lets call them null for now, too.

In post 218, marcistar wrote:

In post 199, Umlaut wrote:Val's 58 is lol, largely fluff and more aimed at self-justification than at actually convincing anyone to follow his vote, scummy post. Though the followup in 60 makes me wonder if he's just shitposting.

im not sure if 58 is the right post, its linking to a luke post instead of a val post. which post did u mean?

Bonus townpoints for having actually read my catchup wall and followed the links! 56 was what I meant.

In post 217, Val89 wrote:No offense, but I know your case is bullshit, and I think it's fairly obviously bullshit and will be seen as such by the other players; but to spend the time dismantling it now will rob me of the opportunity to use your case on me to sort other slots.

I'm waiting to see who else picks up on the stuff I plainly see and comments on it - T3 has explained they have this way of 'town telling' people by seeing who else picks up on things they have. I don't know how accurate that is, but it's worth looking at. If I go ahead and spend the time dismantling your case now, I rob town of the opportunity to learn what they can from others reactions to it.

If it's clear that I am wrong about it being obvious crap (I've been wrong about stuff like this before) and a substantial number of other players seem like they might be confused by it, then I might have something more to say; but I know you've precisely zero chance of riding me to a mislim today and I'm not all that interested in defending myself at this point.

I point was not that you ignored my scum read on you -- my point is that you ignored all of my attempts to engage with YOUR READ on me.

The logic behind your read on me did not make sense -- and that is inherently scummy, townies can come up with reads that don't make sense -- So, I pointed out why it did not makes sense -- Post 107 (102 originally)

In that situation, I am pretty sure that a townie would stop and think about their read, in light of the inconsistency and either:
1) If they still thought it made sense despite the inconsistencies, they would address it, and explain how it still made since, or
2) If they realized that the read did not make sense, acknowledge it, and adjust their read accordingly

But you did neither of those things. Instead, you ignored the inconsistencies pointed out, and just made a bunch of posts to discredit. So that leaves me to believe that you are not actually trying to sort me.

-------------------

I think I have made my case pretty clear at this point.

If the rest of the town wants to town case Val, go for it.

If the rest of the town finds something they find scummier, then you are welcome to scum case someone else -- I will consider other wagons if someone sees something scummier then this.

But from my PoV, I have found scum, and will plant my vote here unless my vote is needed to ensure any other wagon passes, because a No Elim is always bad

In post 218, marcistar wrote:

In post 200, Pavowski wrote:
(Yeah, I know, given my recent posts this is a bit of pot and kettle, but it is what it is, and Marci asked.)

whats pot and kettle mean in these terms o-o i dont think ive seen anyone use it.

Bastardization of "the pot calling the kettle black", or in other words, I'm pointing out flaws in other players that could also be pointed out in me.

In post 220, Umlaut wrote:56 was what I meant.

thanks

In post 219, Val89 wrote:That wasn't the only case Umluat did that - He also says 115 "by luke" is "actually kinda town", but it's one of my posts.

can u respond to this as well umlaut?

In post 219, Val89 wrote:I'm not seeing what others are seeing regarding Zyla, and they are still null for me currently, as are you, Marci. People say you are pinging town, but maybe it's something you have to played with you previously to pick up on. Not_mafia also remains null for obvious reasons..

can u take a break from ur luke fight then and try to further ur reads in one of these nulls o-o if u have any questions about my posts ill respond whenever i see them (:

also val ill be honest, 217 makes u seem a bit scummy imo, it just looks like excuses so that you don't have to respond to luke. if you really dont want to tho, ill drop it.

In post 164, Pavowski wrote:I've been trying to evaluate things as I see them. What would you like to see out of me?

At the time of voting, your ISO excluding RVS-y stuff had mostly question to other people (68, 70, 84, 119*), jokes (90), and then a post about the Not_Mafia cross vote, which is fair but in my opinion not the most productive area of focus.
*119 also included a justification for removing the vote on Val, this is an exception to the above.
I was looking for something along the lines of any leans, more detailed takes on the Val v Luke thing, something along those lines. I see you've since then given some more justification for a lack of confidence in your reads, which is fair at this point in the game. Still, even if they are really really rough reads, having something for us to look at helps town out, I think. In other words, more like the ones between 185 and 200. I just skimmed over and will engage with more detail when I get to that part of the read-through (especially post 200, because, you know), but the theme seemed like what I was hoping for.

In post 168, Portia wrote:I’m most interested in sorting the Lebowski person.

Who?

In post 194, Not_Mafia wrote:Umlaut has yet to contribute

Have you?

In post 199, Umlaut wrote:Zyla's 121 and 126 do nothing for me

Do you mean this in an "I don't get any read from this" way or a "this doesn't have sufficient content and thus is suspicious" way? I actually liked those two posts personally so I'd be curious to hear disagreement if you do. Based on your comment on 140, it seems like a scum lean, which makes me think you disagree about 121 and 126.

I like Umlaut's 199 as a way to catch up after VLA and give a lot of takes. 201 also basically answers my above question but I'd like some more clarification on why 121 and 126 are scummy. As you saw in my earlier posts I've been considering Zyla for a bit, but those posts actually made me start to change my mind.

I'm going to cut the post here so that I can respond to 200 fresh.