Mafiascum.net

In post 223, JarJarDrinks wrote:47 just explains why you would be defending Garuga. It doesn't explain why you'd be specifically defending that post.

47 refers directly to the content in 46 ("calling own posts bad is town because it shows lack of concern about appearances") as well as to why 18 is town (the point in 46 as well as the OMGUS point). And I clarified this further in 50. Again, why didn't you unvote after post 50?

In post 223, JarJarDrinks wrote:So 3 people that you weren't scumreading said the post is bad AND the person that made the post said it was bad.


Like the bottom line is that 18 is bad and you defended it.

If 3 people I'm townreading think the a post is scummy, that doesn't mean I agree with those 3 people that the post is scummy.

You never once questioned the reasons I defended the post. If you think my reasons are bad, you should have said so. But you didn't. Never. Not once did you say I defended Garuga for bad reasons. HF did, but not you.

In post 224, JarJarDrinks wrote:

In post 222, Shoshin wrote:And you still haven't explained how 46 implies that 18 is bad.

when I ask why are you defending a bad post and you give a reason and that reason isn't "because it wasn't a bad post" then you're conceding that the post is bad.

You didn't ask why I was defending a bad post. You asked why I was defending a post that Garuga called bad. There's a big difference. Again, you're trying to distort the actual events that happened.

I don't even know who to vote between Invisibility, JJD, and Rampage. They're all scum. I'm happy to lynch any of these guys today.

In post 221, Mumble wrote:No. You said "do stuff" which is a command.

In post 47, Shoshin wrote:Garuga's town because he called his own posts bad, which demonstrates a lack of concern about appearances, and because the OMGUS point shows that he's looking for the underlying meaning to every post, including naked votes during RVS.

meh, I disagree with this post. this implies scum will never call their posts bad which clearly isn't true and if he was really looking at reasons, he would have pressured the omgus thing to try and get something more substantial from it.

In post 55, Shoshin wrote:The problem with Jar is that he's making his case on me before trying to understand my thinking. That's how scum play, not town.

maybe you should be more transparent with your thinking? i find myself agreeing with jar so he clearly is hitting a nerve with you. You not wanting to vote him seems you are afraid of how people perceive you. Like you don't want to vote him for fear of somebody calling it OMGUS, but you clearly are omgusing him.

In post 64, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:UNVOTE:

I don't have a single town read yet...if you're town can you start doing towny things please?

Thanks.

same to you

In post 69, bacy wrote:i feel like this kinda stuff are very hard to fake as scum

stupidity isn't hard to fake as scum.

In post 75, Shoshin wrote:

In post 74, havingfitz wrote:I don't see anything try hard in Rampage's first post. Did you find his explanation suspect?

His explanation confirms the amount of thought he put into the post.

I still don't understand what is suspicious about it? trying hard isn't alignment indicative.

In post 90, Jodaxq wrote:

In post 20, Gustavo wrote:

In post 19, Invisibility wrote:18 is bad

I agree.

VOTE: garuga

I don't like this vote. I disagree that 18 was bad and it seems strange to jump on it like this with what seems like a serious vote.

you don't see anything wrong with finding something suspicious and ignoring it?

for early on, pressuring that is a good vote. if you disagree and are town, do better please. if scum, carry on.

In post 92, Jodaxq wrote:I think people took 18 a bit too seriously

have to start somewhere. that was a great place to start and look at all the discussion it generated.

In post 93, Jodaxq wrote:

In post 34, Gustavo wrote:Cause you don’t rvs vote over something suspicious

I'm confused at where you're coming from. He didn't RVS vote for something suspicious. I thought that was the whole point?

he ignored something he found suspicious and voted for something stupid. That was my issue.

In post 195, Shoshin wrote:

In post 187, Garuga wrote:I got the impression TheRampage is a VI from his obnoxious and grammarific typing style.

Why VI rather than scum?

His early posts were not very good but I don't gutread any malicious intent from him. It feels like he's trying to do stuff but he's just not good at playing mafia.

I bet we'll still be talking about 18 in LyLo. Suspecting Gustavo for trying to paint me in a bad light and ignoring 22

I hope by "do stuff" you don't mean saying the same thing over and over again about 18. Because we should have exhausted that topic 9 pages ago.

In post 239, texcat wrote:I hope by "do stuff" you don't mean saying the same thing over and over again about 18. Because we should have exhausted that topic 9 pages ago.

Perhaps if more people were "doing stuff", I'd have other topics to talk about.

Shoshin is completely missing the point of my post about SvS. I didn't have any other reason to believe that JJD was town at the time other than that interaction. Shoshin is thinking that im thinking that it's not SvS because I think that JJD is town and Shoshin is scum.

JJD is currently a townlean

In post 73, Shoshin wrote: Scum "could" do anything... and especially in hindsight... this isn't a helpful way to sort alignments.

This is the best way to sort aligments - you weigh up the motivation/intent behind a post and decide whether it's more likely to come from town or scum. You just said yourself that scum could easily backtrack on a bad post, especially with hindsight, so I'm asking you why you're so sure it has come from town.

In post 73, Shoshin wrote:Two things. (1) Different audience: 54 addresses Jar, whereas 55 analyzes him. If I thought Jar had "misrepresented" me, I'd still give him the benefit of the doubt when addressing him directly.

(2) Scum "misread" all the time. The difference is this: When town misread, it's due to confirmation bias (and you can trace the trajectory of that bias based on how they developed the read throughout the game). But when scum misread, the bias comes from a malicious intent to paint a player in the worst light (unlike with confirmation bias, there's no trajectory or grounding for the misread).

Jar interpreted my meaning in the worst light without any grounding for doing so. Or as I put it in 55, he made no attempt to understand my thinking before deciding I was scum, which resulted in biased analysis (i.e. misreading/misunderstanding).

If you thought someone was misrepping you, why would you give them the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't make sense.

Your point relating to confirmation bias and a 'trajectory' is absolute nonsense. More often than not, it is scum who have a perfect 'trajectory' on a read because they are more aware that their read HAS to look good and believable to the rest of the town. Conversely, town are much more likely to be whimsical with their reads because they know they're town and don't have any other agenda other than to find scum.

In post 84, JarJarDrinks wrote: who's the town read?

And what's the vote on me for?

Nosey neighbour.

Because I didn't like your push on Shoshin. Felt misreppy.

In post 101, Jodaxq wrote: What happened in between these two votes to make you vote Jar?

I decided where I wanted to put my vote.

In post 102, Jodaxq wrote: I also don't understand why this is question you're pressing. This kind of seems like fishing for a relevant question to ask now that you're coming in to make a vote

Given that the question has absolutely nothing to do with the person I am voting I fail to see the point you are trying to make with this post. I ask questions to get what I want.

In post 110, JarJarDrinks wrote:good posts from Jodaxq. I townread her.

Which posts did you like?

Rampage seems VI btw

In post 143, Invisibility wrote: JJD vs Shoshin is not SvS

VOTE: Shoshin

That's an interesting phrase to use - not SvS. How did you rule out TvT?

In post 141, JarJarDrinks wrote:And he STILL hasn't said anything of significance about why rampage is his top scumread.

I would actually like to see a response to this from Shoshin.

In post 243, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:This is the best way to sort aligments - you weigh up the motivation/intent behind a post and decide whether it's more likely to come from town or scum. You just said yourself that scum could easily backtrack on a bad post, especially with hindsight, so I'm asking you why you're so sure it has come from town.

Yes, evaluating the motivation/intent behind a post is valuable way to sort alignments, as is evaluating the probability that said motivation/intent comes from town or scum. But that's not what you asked - you asked "why couldn't scum do this," which is a pointless question because scum "could" do anything... The focus needs to be on what town or scum "probably" do, not what they "could" do, and I think it's unlikely that an inexperienced scum would admit their own post was bad because inexperienced scum tend to get defensive when attacked ("no, it's not bad, this is what I meant") or they lash out with OMGUS ("no, you're scum for attacking me"). Garuga responded the way an inexperienced townie is likely to react - trying to figure out why someone thinks his post was bad, recognizing that he did something wrong, and admitting the error. You're right that scum "could" fake that, but I don't think it's likely given the player in question, the point in the game (RVS), and the follow-up explanation.

In post 243, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:If you thought someone was misrepping you, why would you give them the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't make sense.

There's two ways to approach your scumreads. One, you don't address them directly at all because they're scum and there's no point in talking with scum. Two, you recognize the possibility that you're wrong about their alignment, so you continue to address their concerns while constantly reevaluating alignments. I adopt the latter approach because the former promotes confirmation bias and often leads to missed opportunities to refine reads, whereas the latter often allows you to reach a better understanding about who the scum are. So even though I might read someone as scum, I continue to speak to them, to ask them questions, and to address their concerns. And if you're going to address someone directly, it's much more effective to speak to them as if they're town because doing so ensures they understand what you're saying without going on the defensive. In JJD's case, for example, if JJD is town, then saying he's "misrepping" me when I speak directly to him doesn't help because it immediately makes him suspect what I'm saying - he's going to think I'm the one "misrepping" him because in a townie's mind I'm the one who is wrongly calling his intent malicious - when my intent was simply to let him know that he misunderstood my intent. I don't think there's any point addressing a scumread directly if you're going to speak to them as if they're scum, because it usually leads to people talking past each other, instead of allowing folks to reach an understanding that might actually lead to a change in opinion. You're welcome to disagree with my approach, but in my experience it's much more effective to play this way and I suggest you try it out.

In post 243, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Your point relating to confirmation bias and a 'trajectory' is absolute nonsense. More often than not, it is scum who have a perfect 'trajectory' on a read because they are more aware that their read HAS to look good and believable to the rest of the town. Conversely, town are much more likely to be whimsical with their reads because they know they're town and don't have any other agenda other than to find scum.

I disagree, and you're misunderstanding my point. First off, when I say that there's a "trajectory" to a townie's bias, whereas there's no such thing for scum, what I mean is that scum are biased by nature - they operate from an informed perspective, with a predetermined objective to lynch people they already know are town - whereas townies develop a "bias" based on things that happen in the game itself. Yes, town tend to be whimsical, but that doesn't mean there isn't a "trajectory" to the reads - town change their reads naturally and fluidly because they're actually reevaluating reads in light of new information, to figure the game out. Scum struggle to react naturally to new information because they already know all the alignments, so while they might have a "trajectory," it tends to be less fluid and more mechanical. So, yeah, focusing on the way people change their reads is an excellent way to scumhunt.

Second, my point is that town always have a "trajectory" of some sort when there's bias to their read, because townies show bias only as a result of something that happened in the game, not because of their underlying nature. Scum, on the other hand, sometimes show bias without any "trajectory" because scum are in fact biased by nature. I'm not saying scum always show their bias (it's often a matter of competence, as well as their chosen strategy). The scum bias comes out mostly when scum try to distort certain pieces of information, to ignore certain things while emphasizing others, or assuming thing without basis (these unfounded assumptions are what townies often look for as evidence of an informed perspective). In this case, JJD made an assumption without any basis, he emphasized a single post (46) while completely ignoring clarification in the next post (47) and a subsequent post (50), and he's continued to argue that his assumption was "justified" despite all the actual evidence suggesting otherwise. That's what I mean by a scum bias with no basis in the game (i.e. no trajectory).

Ugh. I’ve been prodded. Sorry.

Will get caught up in a few.

-

-