Mafiascum.net

In post 201, DkKoba wrote: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 213, Hoctac wrote:

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?

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).

In post 140, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 139, DkKoba wrote:ok whatever I was going from experience with people daystarting with scumclaims like that being scum more often than not and my origin site's meta actually having people flip scum more often than not when they do fakeclaim scum daystart.

Ah, if you pointed out it was from a site meta difference I would be more understanding. All you said though was "town never WIFOM" after the first part which wasn't clear that was you citing a site meta difference.

but one thing i hate is when my early pushes get nitpicked because its literally

a low information stage

and im literally just flinging shit and hoping something sticks so discussion can move forward.

I dont have info neither though. I have no issue with reaction tests nor pressuring people (as anyone who knows my meta would call me out hard if I did lol), but it's hard to gauge if a push is coming from scum or town PoV when the person pushing it doesn't answer questions. Especially since my playstyle purposely attracts the RvS switchover to gauge the person who pushes for RVS to end.

Is there any other posts that pings your radar?

In post 229, Kilgamayan wrote:@N3R (can I call you this?): Flat-out lurking is certainly physically easier, but I think it's also much more likely to get noticed and called out, which is why I personally prioritize looking for minimal effort ahead of no effort.

@Holden: I think DkKoba's frustration reads as genuine. I used to be the same way philosophically about ED1 scumclaiming, and I know people that still are, so I can sympathize with the throwing up of the e-hands at the realization that no one else in the game was buying what they were selling when they thought they had something substantial.

In post 230, DkKoba wrote:my logic going into d1 in a daystart setup is "who is going to be the most annoying player to deal with later on if they arent pushed to participate early on" when i determine who i want to push. Maybe my philosophy is different than most but i always want as much constructive discussion as possible. Now right now i am in passive mode but if i get angered i do start going off on people i have tonal issues with, etc. But in a vig setup i have to hold offbc i know that one fool who thinks aggression =scum is going to be a cool and good vig

In post 194, Kilgamayan wrote:Both of my games here were Town games. This one was played to completion; this one was aborted.

Scum games are a little harder to sensibly and relevantly come by. My most recent scum game is here, which is also from 2015, but the mechanics of that game were a bit wacky. If you want something other than that, there were a couple of Anon games whose accounts have since been repurposed several times, and then a game from 2009.

In post 231, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 229, Kilgamayan wrote:@N3R (can I call you this?): Flat-out lurking is certainly physically easier, but I think it's also much more likely to get noticed and called out, which is why I personally prioritize looking for minimal effort ahead of no effort.

@Holden: I think DkKoba's frustration reads as genuine. I used to be the same way philosophically about ED1 scumclaiming, and I know people that still are, so I can sympathize with the throwing up of the e-hands at the realization that no one else in the game was buying what they were selling when they thought they had something substantial.

There is a sense of genuineness coming from him, but that came afterwards where he admitted to doing soft pushes that were worth nothing.

As someone who used to be that way, did you escalate that quickly to assumptions like over defensiveness in who responded to your pushes? That's my main gripe with his posts is I feel the quickness of his escalation of frustration is off along with the AI charged language.

In post 219, Tuxedo Mask wrote:

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?

In post 235, Kilgamayan wrote:

In post 231, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 229, Kilgamayan wrote:@N3R (can I call you this?): Flat-out lurking is certainly physically easier, but I think it's also much more likely to get noticed and called out, which is why I personally prioritize looking for minimal effort ahead of no effort.

@Holden: I think DkKoba's frustration reads as genuine. I used to be the same way philosophically about ED1 scumclaiming, and I know people that still are, so I can sympathize with the throwing up of the e-hands at the realization that no one else in the game was buying what they were selling when they thought they had something substantial.

There is a sense of genuineness coming from him, but that came afterwards where he admitted to doing soft pushes that were worth nothing.

As someone who used to be that way, did you escalate that quickly to assumptions like over defensiveness in who responded to your pushes? That's my main gripe with his posts is I feel the quickness of his escalation of frustration is off along with the AI charged language.

I don't believe I really ever escalated that way, but that may be largely because, whenever I pursued someone for scumclaiming as a "joke", I made no secret about that being the reason I was pursuing them. :V

Maybe it was

{REDACTED} Fake Edit: nvm I realized I don't actually want to publicly mention possible justifications for the escalated aggression. That's DkKoba's explanation to provide and I'd rather not list things and have them later point at one and go "yeah that's the one". I did think of a couple, though (including the possibility of it simply being scum BSing), and going back and rereading the argument I couldn't really make a case to myself as to which was the most likely reason.

@clidd: Sorry for not having anything more immediately helpful/relevant wrt scum games Anonymafia is fun but it's a nightmare rereading it after the fact even if one is involved.

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?

In post 220, HoldenGolden wrote:

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 236, clidd wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 206, Night 3 Roses wrote:

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 "

it

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

I like the

"your reasons for suspecting me look bad, but I think you're town"

mentality. It's the kind of thing that I find myself applying in every game as town.

I feel that a scum mentality is more inclined to apply omgus in this situation on the pretext that the accuser is acting in bad faith

.

In post 236, clidd wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 206, Night 3 Roses wrote:

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 "

it

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

I like the

"your reasons for suspecting me look bad, but I think you're town"

mentality. It's the kind of thing that I find myself applying in every game as town.

I feel that a scum mentality is more inclined to apply omgus in this situation on the pretext that the accuser is acting in bad faith.

In post 241, Hoctac wrote:

In post 220, HoldenGolden wrote:

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.

Look, if you're going to make it this obvious, Holden, I may as well come out and just say it.

Spoiler:

I'm a Wake alt.

In post 217, Night 3 Roses wrote:hoctac, did you get anything from the unvote talk?

In post 244, clidd wrote:Hoctac, is DkKoba's aggressive/provocative playstyle influencing your read about him ? Or should I consider this indifferent to your argument on post 214 ?

In post 242, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 236, clidd wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 206, Night 3 Roses wrote:

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 "

it

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

I like the

"your reasons for suspecting me look bad, but I think you're town"

mentality. It's the kind of thing that I find myself applying in every game as town.

I feel that a scum mentality is more inclined to apply omgus in this situation on the pretext that the accuser is acting in bad faith

.

Where is your town lean on Phoneix Human Rights coming from? Although it requires flipping the roles accuser and defendent, he expressed among his posts I was acting in bad faith to why he asked. Is the logic invaildied when reversed in your PoV?

Was the eariler remark about him toning down his aggression to avoid being NK by scum a reference to a previous game?

In post 243, Hoctac wrote:

In post 236, clidd wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 206, Night 3 Roses wrote:

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 "

it

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

I like the

"your reasons for suspecting me look bad, but I think you're town"

mentality. It's the kind of thing that I find myself applying in every game as town.

I feel that a scum mentality is more inclined to apply omgus in this situation on the pretext that the accuser is acting in bad faith.

I disagree with this, clidd. Anti-OMGUS is actually a slight scumtell, though context is king of course. However, I am pleased to hear that you refrain from exhibiting OMGUS as town.