Mafiascum.net

In post 224, JacksonVirgo wrote:It could be them pocketing me but at the moment I have no reason to believe so.

You have no reason to believe that nav could be scum?

In post 124, JacksonVirgo wrote:Responses in red

In post 108, navigatorv wrote:

In post 101, JacksonVirgo wrote: Hey fam, check my signature.
Also I am not going to *not* defend someone that I think is wrongfully pushed just because they're a wagon, that's insane. Please do quote where you think I am trying to make you turn on each other, I literally am saying that Orc/Micc is TvT, trying to *stop* that conflict because I feel they're both Town.

The lurking isn't what gets me, it's that you went from lurking to dominating the conversation. Just seems a bit odd.
As for quotes, aside from the more active hostility that started right around the time you started posting, there's the vehement refusal to even consider a no-elimination over just voting someone that seems sus with no real evidence.

If that's your issue, why did you say that lurking was the issue. I hardly ever post much in early-game unless someone twists my soul (mainly in a bad way), just the way I play. Also as Micc has said, no-eliminating forces the Town to rely on PRs more than what is needed, and that throws the odds into the Mafia's hands which I do not want. I am assuming that you come from role-madness like games (such as Town of Salem) where there is a lot of PR roles and it's focused on night-play.

In post 18, JacksonVirgo wrote:We are not no-eliminating, that is counter-intuitive to our goals.

Then the defense of Micc in and of itself isn't an issue, but the fact that you seem to view aggressive and borderline antagonistic behavior as not something to worry about

Aggressive or antagonistic does not equal scummy, that could very well just be their playstyle similar to how someone like DkKoba plays

In post 96, JacksonVirgo wrote: It's in what I said. They seemed to be pushing what I read as NAI

Yet seem to find Dum apologizing suspicious enough to warrant a potential wagon

Firstly I already said it was mainly gut so I won't be pushing them, so you're misrepresenting my case here. There's also a large difference between why I think that read was NAI and why I think Dum's actions were scummy, which you seemed to ignore.

In post 81, JacksonVirgo wrote: I am voting Salsa since the read on Dum isn't super strong but they've been overly apologetic which I am thinking may be them doing so to "protect" themselves from any slips they make, which I also think is a subconscious act since they're new to the site.

Combine that with the fact that claiming both orctin and Micc are TvT is actually a very good way to protect a potential scum (or at least disruptive player), without attracting suspicion, it has me wary. Not enough to warrant a vote, but enough to keep an eye out.

If you read them as SvT go for it, I don't and I am not going to push what I don't believe just because I may be read as partners.

In post 102, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 100, navigatorv wrote:If I had to pick, I'd say my top 3 suspects are, from most to least suspicious, Salsabil, Jackson, and Micc. However, there's still enough doubt that I can't pick a specific person to point the finger at rn. That said

It's early on day 1, it does not matter where your vote is as long as you're voting someone you think is scummy. I have no idea why you seem to think it holds a lot of weight in who you specifically vote.

As for this, I'll let you answer your own question.

In post 68, JacksonVirgo wrote: Ignoring or

half-assing

day-play will make us lose, it's as simple as that.

Again you're misrepresenting. You clearly have scum-reads that are ranked in order, yet choose to not vote at all. Is that because you may be scared of the backlash possibly

Jackson, how has your read on nav developed?

In post 225, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 224, JacksonVirgo wrote:It could be them pocketing me but at the moment I have no reason to believe so.

You have no reason to believe that nav could be scum?

They can be, I just don't think they are, at least for right now. That could be bias towards my scum-reads since one is really in the heat at the moment. My confidence in this read has dwindled since the revelation shot into my head but it's still up there.

In post 226, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 124, JacksonVirgo wrote:Responses in red

In post 108, navigatorv wrote:

In post 101, JacksonVirgo wrote: Hey fam, check my signature.
Also I am not going to *not* defend someone that I think is wrongfully pushed just because they're a wagon, that's insane. Please do quote where you think I am trying to make you turn on each other, I literally am saying that Orc/Micc is TvT, trying to *stop* that conflict because I feel they're both Town.

The lurking isn't what gets me, it's that you went from lurking to dominating the conversation. Just seems a bit odd.
As for quotes, aside from the more active hostility that started right around the time you started posting, there's the vehement refusal to even consider a no-elimination over just voting someone that seems sus with no real evidence.

If that's your issue, why did you say that lurking was the issue. I hardly ever post much in early-game unless someone twists my soul (mainly in a bad way), just the way I play. Also as Micc has said, no-eliminating forces the Town to rely on PRs more than what is needed, and that throws the odds into the Mafia's hands which I do not want. I am assuming that you come from role-madness like games (such as Town of Salem) where there is a lot of PR roles and it's focused on night-play.

In post 18, JacksonVirgo wrote:We are not no-eliminating, that is counter-intuitive to our goals.

Then the defense of Micc in and of itself isn't an issue, but the fact that you seem to view aggressive and borderline antagonistic behavior as not something to worry about

Aggressive or antagonistic does not equal scummy, that could very well just be their playstyle similar to how someone like DkKoba plays

In post 96, JacksonVirgo wrote: It's in what I said. They seemed to be pushing what I read as NAI

Yet seem to find Dum apologizing suspicious enough to warrant a potential wagon

Firstly I already said it was mainly gut so I won't be pushing them, so you're misrepresenting my case here. There's also a large difference between why I think that read was NAI and why I think Dum's actions were scummy, which you seemed to ignore.

In post 81, JacksonVirgo wrote: I am voting Salsa since the read on Dum isn't super strong but they've been overly apologetic which I am thinking may be them doing so to "protect" themselves from any slips they make, which I also think is a subconscious act since they're new to the site.

Combine that with the fact that claiming both orctin and Micc are TvT is actually a very good way to protect a potential scum (or at least disruptive player), without attracting suspicion, it has me wary. Not enough to warrant a vote, but enough to keep an eye out.

If you read them as SvT go for it, I don't and I am not going to push what I don't believe just because I may be read as partners.

In post 102, JacksonVirgo wrote:

In post 100, navigatorv wrote:If I had to pick, I'd say my top 3 suspects are, from most to least suspicious, Salsabil, Jackson, and Micc. However, there's still enough doubt that I can't pick a specific person to point the finger at rn. That said

It's early on day 1, it does not matter where your vote is as long as you're voting someone you think is scummy. I have no idea why you seem to think it holds a lot of weight in who you specifically vote.

As for this, I'll let you answer your own question.

In post 68, JacksonVirgo wrote: Ignoring or

half-assing

day-play will make us lose, it's as simple as that.

Again you're misrepresenting. You clearly have scum-reads that are ranked in order, yet choose to not vote at all. Is that because you may be scared of the backlash possibly

Jackson, how has your read on nav developed?

They were a scum-lean of mine right before I had that revelation, not as strong as my top two but I was leaning towards replacing Dum with them if they didn't turn around, which they started to which pushed to a null and then they drop that line which makes me town-read/lean them, I am not entirely sure if it's a confident read just yet.

bruh i feel like i need to read this thread with fresh eyes

good night guys

one last thing JV, your sig says you're a tactical lurker. what does it mean?

In post 231, humaneatingmonkey wrote:one last thing JV, your sig says you're a tactical lurker. what does it mean?

Sometimes I don't post and just read the thread for a small while in a tactical way. For example, if I feel like I am tunneling someone too hard I step back and just watch for a while to see what happens without my intervention etc. More reasons too but that's the way I feel is the best explanation. I also do it as scum so it's not anything to read me on

so now that you're active, what could it mean for you?

In post 233, humaneatingmonkey wrote:so now that you're active, what could it mean for you?

What do you mean? If you're saying I'm contradicting it, I'm really not. I don't do it as my sole playstyle, I do so when I feel is needed.

why are you so on edge lol
i'm asking because you're the most active poster here (besides me, but I spam one-liners), yet you carry "tactical lurker" in your sig. It's just curious, and I do wonder if you would say it's AI.

James, do you understand that penguin_alien and Cabd is not a player?

In post 235, humaneatingmonkey wrote:why are you so on edge lol
i'm asking because you're the most active poster here (besides me, but I spam one-liners), yet you carry "tactical lurker" in your sig. It's just curious, and I do wonder if you would say it's AI.

I'm not? It may seem like I am because some shit happened irl didn't mean to take it out here. And as I've said, it's not AI as far as I am aware but an external pov may think otherwise. Dunno

In post 165, NinjaStore wrote:Micc, why did you only bring up the vote count at #112 and not sooner?

Waiting for an answer on this. In the meantime,

VOTE: Micc

In post 100, navigatorv wrote:Wow, thing's have gotten a bit more hostile since I was last here.
What I've gathered from everyone's posts is that humaneatingmonkey seems to have a tendency to post things that will get people to react. This likely means he's town since the only reason you'd need to do that is to get a better read on people, but it is possible he's scum doing it for any number of reasons.
Jackson on the other hand has me feeling wary. They spent most of the first two days lurking and then suddenly began posting a ton. This in and of itself isn't necessarily a scum move, they could simply be focusing on getting a read on people, however if you combine that with the fact that they're very quick to defend Micc who's been the primary suspect thus far and them seemingly trying to make us turn on each other, it does read as somewhat concerning. Not outright scummy in my eyes, bit definitely someone to keep an eye on.
On the topic of Micc, their arguments this far have been pretty weak, mostly consisting of "that's a rookie mistake, you'll figure it out with experience" whuch seems to be a good to deflect an argument from a new player without having to actually provide a decent reasoning.

That said, I'm getting the feeling that Micc either isn't scum or, if he is, he's not the one to be most concerned about.

Salsabil got awfully defensive when Jackson called her out, moreso than I think was warranted. She's also kept her posts incredibly brief and without much substance. These things could be either poorly disguised scum behavior or simple newbie jitters and I'm not 100% sure which rn.
Orctin has been mostly helpful and he seems to be able to keep a cool head under pressure (a useful but potentially dangerous trait). He seems very similar to me in that we're both focused more on getting a read and breaking down arguments logically than simply voting. My gut tells me he's town, but I can't deny the possibility that he's simply very good at playing the long game for a mafia win.
As for everyone else I don't have a good enough read to say anything about them at this point.

If I had to pick, I'd say my top 3 suspects are, from most to least suspicious, Salsabil, Jackson, and Micc. However, there's still enough doubt that I can't pick a specific person to point the finger at rn. That said
UNVOTE: Micc

Why should we not be concerned about Micc if he's scum? We don't need to look for the "more dangerous" scum. Getting a kill on either scum on day 1 would put us in a great position.

In post 221, humaneatingmonkey wrote:nav, how did your read on Jackson progress over the game?

Well, initially it's like how my reads said, I was wary of them since a lot of their posts came off as odd to me. After we had our little back and forth, I started analyzing what I knew of their playstyle and came to the conclusion that they aren't scum which has stuck for the most part. There are still some things I question on occasion, but nothing's been big enough to change the read.

In post 239, NinjaStore wrote:Why should we not be concerned about Micc if he's scum? We don't need to look for the "more dangerous" scum. Getting a kill on either scum on day 1 would put us in a great position.

When I thought Micc was scum, I had the opinion that he wasn't very good at hiding it so he could be eliminated quickly, whereas whoever the second one was was much trickier and who we should be focusing our efforts on finding. Having had time to think and analyze I came to the conclusion that he's not, though I still think that his playstyle is detrimental to town for whatever that's worth.

Now, on the topic of James, I'm having a hard time making his logic make sense. He's been focusing on Jackson finding Dum somewhat suspicious to be equal to them thinking that Salsa was scum. I get that the Dum wagon was slowly growing stronger over time, but if Jackson still didn't view any of that as scumplay, there'd be no reason to change their vote. Salsa meanwhile had done a number of things that Jackson said they thought was scummy and went dark once pressure started getting pushed on them which I wouldn't be surprised if they took that as further evidence. I won't deny that there were definitely others Jackson could've voted for in the meantime, but as someone who's only voted twice (and unvoted once), I can understand needing something major to change your mind.
I'm getting the feeling that Salsa had a scum slot. I found her suspicious while she was active

In post 100, navigatorv wrote:Salsabil got awfully defensive when Jackson called her out, moreso than I think was warranted. She's also kept her posts incredibly brief and without much substance. These things could be either poorly disguised scum behavior or simple newbie jitters and I'm not 100% sure which rn.
~~~~~~~
If I had to pick, I'd say my top 3 suspects are, from most to least suspicious, Salsabil, Jackson, and Micc. However, there's still enough doubt that I can't pick a specific person to point the finger at rn.

and now James has been acting very sketchy, focusing on one theory that completely falls apart if either of the two involved are town and completely ignoring the two he claims are the sketchiest individually (not to mention his analysis of them were very short compared to Dum, Jackson, and Micc, despite them supposedly being so high up on their scumreads). He's also been acting super jumpy when pressure's been applied, just like Salsa did, which seems indicative of someone new who's not used to playing mafia.
VOTE: JamesTheNames

After going back through the thread, I think the scum is likely some combination of micc, dum, and navigatorv. Most likely dum and navigatorv.

100

In post 100, navigatorv wrote:If I had to pick, I'd say my top 3 suspects are, from most to least suspicious, Salsabil, Jackson, and Micc. However, there's still enough doubt that I can't pick a specific person to point the finger at rn. That said
UNVOTE: Micc

Nav says Micc is scummy but only 3rd most scummy. Could be an attempt to distance themselves from Micc while still discouraging a wagon on him.

114

In post 114, Dum wrote:(or maybe im just a big sheep, but lets not talk about that)

I already talked earlier about how Dum and Micc look like they could have both been collaborating in Dum's trap. This quote could be used as an easy excuse for why they are behaving that way.

121
Nav defends Dum's trap, then says

In post 121, navigatorv wrote:There's the possibility that Micc and Dum are scum trying to protect each other, but it's just as likely that they could be town, so frustratingly enough this did little to change my mind about the current circumstances; there's just too many possibilities with little to weigh things in anyone's favor.

122

In post 122, Dum wrote:I wont deny the possibility of Micc having me sheeped, but for now, even IF orctin KNEW they werent hammering, i still find it sus they hopped back into the wagon right after i voted. My point remains for now

Dum uses the sheep excuse again.

129
Nav writes a long, overly defensive post, then tacks on at the end that they don't mind if they're lynched. If they don't mind, why be so defensive?

In post 129, navigatorv wrote:As for why I haven't voted anyone else despite being able to rank my suspicions, I don't particularly care about backlash. Even if I get eliminated for a view I wouldn't have a problem as long as it helped town win later.

137
Nav votes Dum, then says

In post 137, navigatorv wrote:As for if I'm afraid to be lynched, no, feel free to vote for me if that's what you want. I'm still going to work on reading people regardless and if I get eliminated I get eliminated. Obviously I'd prefer that not to be the case, hence me trying to be more cautious especially early on, but I have no qualms if it does happen.

Again Nav says they don't mind being lynched.

146

In post 146, navigatorv wrote:Not much of anything. I'm cautious by nature (thanks anxiety), but my goal is victory. Even if I'm eliminated, town could still win, so even if I can't contribute, I can still hold out hope that that's the case. Again, I'd definitely prefer to stay in so I can help with that, but I'm not concerned if I don't.

Again with the "I don't mind if I'm lynched." This is a way to make yourself look like you want the town to win without actually doing anything to help find scum.

155

In post 155, Dum wrote:Greetings. I re-read the posts, including your chat with jack, and yes, i missed that. Sorry if i came off as very agressive. And its not that you are the "only person i think is town" you are the only perosn i would bet on being town. I still have others on the "not quite town reads" zone where im not really confortable betting on it yet.

Dum has been reading navigatorv as town despite everything above.

157

In post 157, navigatorv wrote:Admittedly, my wording on that could've been better. If you don't mind me asking (assuming this doesn't get drowned out by too many posts by the time you can answer) what specifically have you noticed about my playstyle that makes you willing to bet on me being town?

This could be a setup for Dum to say something to make Nav look good, if they are scumbuddies.

Given all this, I'm changing my vote to navigatorv.

VOTE: navigatorv

I don't really get where you got the idea that me and Dum are fellow scum when I've pretty consistently been saying Dum was my top suspect until just recently, which I don't see the benefit of this early in the game. As mafia wouldn't my goal be to keep both of us alive for the time being since if my partner is eliminated I have to avoid all suspicion with no one to back me up? I could understand if we'd been a few days in, but we're still only on day one so throwing a partner under the bus isn't exactly a smart move.
As for the times I mentioned not minding if I'm lynched, they weren't just out of the blue, they were in direct response to someone asking if I was or at least implying that I wasn't. What am I supposed to say if not that?
You've kinda got me into a spot where I look suspicious no matter what I do. I ignore it and you'll ask why I don't address it as you did to Micc here:

In post 238, NinjaStore wrote:

In post 165, NinjaStore wrote:Micc, why did you only bring up the vote count at #112 and not sooner?

Waiting for an answer on this. In the meantime,

VOTE: Micc

Meanwhile if I do I'm being "overly defensive" as you accused me of in my response to Jackson.
I just don't understand what you expect me to do here?

In post 242, navigatorv wrote:a partner under the bus isn't exactly a smart move.

I've won multiple scum games bussing my partner

On the first day?

Yep. Check my wiki

Huh. Fair enough. Doesn't seem like a smart move to me, but fine, I'll withdraw that objection.

I'll be re-reading the thread today

I want to know why I'm being scum when the humaneatingmonkey is playing really scummy. Half of the time, humaneatingmonkey hasn't really put in much contribution other than saying like this and that post with no logical points made. How is that not being scum and my long posts are? Please people, make some sense here. So yes you are being scum with your unhelpful advice.

In post 235, humaneatingmonkey wrote:why are you so on edge lol
i'm asking because you're the most active poster here (besides me, but I spam one-liners), yet you carry "tactical lurker" in your sig. It's just curious, and I do wonder if you would say it's AI.

This is the reason why I'm reading you as scum right now, more than who I voted at this point because of your one-line spam posts and I have no idea why you're being cleared as town from a few people, despite the activity. It's easy to be active when you only do one-line posts that you haven't helped anybody with your posts at all. Just asking questions when really I want to know why you aren't putting more effort into posting more than just one-liners. Because in the last game I played, I did catch a scum player by their one-line posts and were labelled with that. Why would I think differently with you?

UNVOTE: Micc

VOTE: humaneatingmonkey