Mafiascum.net

So I just went over nick's ISO from as neutral a perspective as I possibly could.

I don't feel as strongly that he's town, but I still get mild town vibes from a lot of his posts (particularly from the lines of questioning and the progression of his reads). And I don't really see the scum intent in his posts. I can see how his early posts might possibly be perceived as scum-motivated but I didn't feel it at all. I don't think his reads look fake, even if they are "bad". The recent lack of activity is meh.

Tell me why I'm wrong about nick without making large generalisations that equally apply to other people.

I already put up my case against nick in post 1700 and he replied to each point in a later reaction.
I still hold that he's scum.
I just don't feel as sure about it as I do someone like Andrius.
Also, lynching people who are on V/LA is a shitty practice.
Still, I don't want the day to end with a nolynch--and I'm NOT lynching outside of my scum-pool.

I would say you're wrong about nick because of my 1700,
But it's easy to refute that I'm wrong in my 1700 given Nick's refutation of it.
Clashing opinions and all that.

-V

In post 2122, zMuffinMan wrote:

bnb wrote:Someone can reliably do things as town that are generally scummy. Rach is one of these people.

The thing with tells is if they don't apply universally, then they aren't reliable tells, and thus shouldn't be used in a case against someone (except maybe as extra evidence to go along with a real case).

Then there is no such thing as a reliable tell and we aught to just quit playing right now.

In post 2123, zMuffinMan wrote:I imagine if I look through the ISOs of the people who have said nick is either scum or maybescum, the amount of people making a case is basically.... FTL? Off the top of my head, he's the only one who has legitimately analysed nick's posts and said why he think's nick is scum, and that was only relatively recently, when the Andrius/RM wagons were the main ones.

Most of the people listing nick as scum have given reasons/commented on things they dislike, even if a "case" as some comprehensive doesn't exist.

In post 2124, zMuffinMan wrote:- Your case on nick is (was originally) that his reads are bad and he's playing "hyper-aggressive" which apparently makes him scum because he's done this in skype mafia games.

That was Mollie. My reasons are different. So technically 2 separate cases from this slot.

In post 2125, zMuffinMan wrote:Tell me why I'm wrong about nick without making large generalisations that equally apply to other people.

Poor reaction to the NS-confirmation, ignored my direct question towards him, shoddy voting history. Number of other things I've already mentioned.

bnb wrote:Then there is no such thing as a reliable tell and we aught to just quit

using "tells" as reasons

right now.

ftfy. also, qft.

You're a fucking moron.

In post 2130, BeautyAndTheBeast wrote:

You're a fucking moron.

Took you long enough, Jiffy.

*shrug* You think generic tells are useful (except not really, because you only apply them to some players).

Hi Syry/Cabd

MuffinMan ITT:

About to be only 3 days left, right?
Why are we image-dropping again?

Look, dipshit, you cannot use something as a "scum tell" for one person and then suggest it's not a "scum tell" for another, because ~reasons~.

Logic doesn't work like that. If you know someone commits said tell as town, then it's not a fucking scum tell, and you shouldn't be using generic bullshit in your case on someone.

If avoiding your questions is a scum tell, then RM is scum 100 times over. Either that, or your tell doesn't apply.

If shitty votes is a scum tell, then RM is scum 100 times over (not only because her vote on Andy is shitty, but because it's the only vote she's put down all game, AND she's done nothing with it even though she's posted since people started unvoting Andy). Either that, or your tell doesn't apply.

The only legitimate reason you have for thinking nick is scum is "lack of town motivation" in his posts and that's debatable. Since you've done to show what you mean by this, even when I told you outright some things that looked town-motivated in his posts, you can't really use this as a fucking point against him. So your only legitimate reason isn't even legitimate.

In other words, you have no case on nick, and your shitty generic tells shouldn't be used. Ever.

Want more examples of shitty generic tells you've used?

In post 1637, BeautyAndTheBeast wrote:universal scumtells that andy has dropped:

- thread avoidance
- posturing
- buddying
- over-defensiveness when pushed
- appeal to crowd
- lack of cogent progression of reads
- reads list soup which you guys are and heavy to leap all over rach for but seem to ignore that andy did the same thing. the difference is you have people telling you that rach does this as town but other people are telling you that andy does not <--- tangential to a meta read so you will probably ignore it.

derp

Stop using these fucking "tells" to suggest someone is scum. It's horrible and just discredits any attempt from you at painting someone as scum. These are not fucking scum tells.


tl;dr u moron lol

Zmuffin, can you stop getting angry at a specific player and arguing game-theory and, you know...
play the game at hand?

It's not like I don't know what you're getting at, but it's getting a bit too divisive.

-V

*shrug* He started the ad hom. If he can't deal with it, it's not my fault.

In post 2138, zMuffinMan wrote:*shrug* He started the ad hom. If he can't deal with it, it's not my fault.

It's not a matter of B&B 'dealing with it', but it being a huge distraction that doesn't get us anywhere.
It's noise.

We need to agree on a wagon soon.
You've voiced that you don't support the Nick wagon and think that it's not a good wagon in terms of info gained and motivation to lynch.
Cool.
Now, why don't you work towards a different wagon that we can all agree on?


-V

I can't argue the cases on my suspicions any more than I already have without being more repetitive than I'm already being, and nobody wants to give any refutations of them, despite multiple requests to do so (1466 is STILL outstanding, no one has addressed this yet).

I cannot agree with the cases made by other people on someone I think is town if they are completely unwilling to address where I've gone wrong in my read, even though I've been pretty open about how I arrived at each of my reads.

So asking to work towards a different wagon that can be agreed upon seems nonsensical. How about convince me to move my vote, or tell me why you don't agree with my suspicions. Because I've already told you my thoughts on yours.

Ara ara, we must agree to disagree, then.
The reality is that there's likely scum between nick, Rach, and Andrius. Your vote counts. Not having a vote on any of those wagons is tantamount to voting no lynch at this point in the day.
I see that you have a vote on Rach, which is good in regards to that last point.
However, I don't personally believe that Rach's flip will give town much info, regardless of her alignment. There simply isn't enough interaction there, and I feel that the criticisms you've levied against the Nick wagon are equally applicable to the Rach wagon.

@FTL,

My criticisms of the nick wagon are to do with BnB's reasons for thinking nick is scum. They do not reflect my own reasons for thinking RM is scum. They have nothing to do with my reasons for thinking RM is scum. If those were my reasons for thinking RM is scum, I'd be ashamed of myself.

To reiterate the reasons I think RM is scum, it's because she spent a majority of the early game doing virtually no scum hunting, asking useless questions to appear like she was involved in the game (useless questions that she ought to have known the answer to without asking), didn't take any stances on anything up until her reads post, and then there's her reads post itself where I've been repeatedly asking her to explain them in a bit more depth (or at the very least, explain her scum reads) and instead of doing this she's spent the last few days active lurking. These are my reasons for thinking RM is scum in a very condensed version, and I've gone over the reasons in much more detail in previous posts. I also agree with nacho's points on RM in 1971 and think you should read that if you haven't already.

I'm also you're underrating how much information there is to be gained from RM's flip, given how much different people have said about her.

It doesn't feel like many people have said much of anything, other than she's Rach Marie and that her play isn't amazing.

-V

. . . sure . . .

Okay guys, next post say if you would join a rach wagon or not

And Muffin, little secret for you

You yell at US for not convincing you on Nick

When you haven't convinced us on Rach

Not.

In post 2146, notscience wrote:Okay guys, next post say if you would join a rach wagon or not

Only if I get the hammer.

In post 2146, notscience wrote:Okay guys, next post say if you would join a rach wagon or not

Only for deadline.


...I still don't get why drunken ATE is a ticket to day two, btw. If ffery and co would like to explain that, that would be greaaaaaat.