Mafiascum.net

I’m not like necessarily opposed to Tanner‘a suggestion but am I right that it’s based off of solely 201? I can’t really tell whether Tanner actually thinks this is a good idea that we should do or if it’s just a passing thought he had or somewhere in between.

If it is based on 201 then wouldn’t someone as scum be more likely to mix up two townies than their two scum buddies?

In post 225, implosion wrote:I’m not like necessarily opposed to Tanner‘a suggestion but am I right that it’s based off of solely 201? I can’t really tell whether Tanner actually thinks this is a good idea that we should do or if it’s just a passing thought he had or somewhere in between.

you are right. my thoughts are, if we don't have any better ideas for how to assign ourselves, we might as well test out a tinfoil theory i had. granted, that would leave me, number, darby, and toog unassigned, and i don't have a positive individual read on none of those people. so that's potentially a fucky minigame. but then again, everyone has to be assigned somewhere in the end... i dunno.

pedit: i don't actually know the different likelihoods. but imaginality's baltar read already struck me as a potential s/s, so this is just an extension of that.

In post 224, Tanner wrote:it took me a moment to connect "scum lose if all three are in the same place" and "i have three people that i think are scum" into "we can force them into the same location". what's your point?

My point is that this sounds like a reach to explain a questionable comment.

I also do not believe your solve, further making your realization sound forced.

If you told me "I think there is scum in this group of three", sure I could believe that. Maybe I'm even your top suspect. But to say that legit seems like a solve? Seems like a major stretch to me.

what "questionable" comment, the one where i apparently shaded people for doing the exact same thing i am doing?

why does it seem like you think i am so insanely confident in that solve? like. it was one (1) post that made me think that the three of you might be buddies. none of you have any preference between minigames, and nobody has any ideas on how to assign the rest of us. we can test my theory - if i'm right, town wins. if i'm wrong, nothing is lost. i don't have to be insanely confident in that being the correct solve to realize there is no harm in test it?

In post 229, Tanner wrote:we can test my theory - if i'm right, town wins. if i'm wrong, nothing is lost. i don't have to be insanely confident in that being the correct solve to realize there is no harm in test it?

Well, technically there is harm in that (1) we get to test exactly 3 teams like this, so each incorrect team is a slot that could have been taken up by a different team and, more poignantly (2) you could be scum who knows that this group is 2 town/1 scum and is trying to push it.

I do agree that VP pushing this as your "solve" is odd when your most recent post characterized it as a "tinfoil theory".

In post 229, Tanner wrote:what "questionable" comment, the one where i apparently shaded people for doing the exact same thing i am doing?

Yes.

why does it seem like you think i am so insanely confident in that solve? like. it was one (1) post that made me think that the three of you might be buddies. none of you have any preference between minigames, and nobody has any ideas on how to assign the rest of us. we can test my theory - if i'm right, town wins. if i'm wrong, nothing is lost. i don't have to be insanely confident in that being the correct solve to realize there is no harm in test it?

It's not about the confidence level. It just seems like a terrible solve. I know I'm town, so I know you're wrong there. Implosion looks fairly town in approach based upon the scum PT in the other game. So that's at least 2/3 that look like bad solves to me. What can I say, I have higher expectations from you.

(1) we always get to test only 3 teams like that. if someone has other team reads, they are free to talk about them and we can discuss which ones we want to test. i have no intentions of being a dictator here. (2) i guess i could be? if that were the case though, i think it's more likely i'd tell my buddies to make up some bullshit on why they want to go to location x or y.

pedit: lol @ that yes. and like, /shrug. i already said myself that i think implo is individually towny, and that a lot of the rest of the game isn't towny. but i am also aware that individual reads are bad, especially this early in the game. so i'm fine trying to go for a yolo-shot based on tinfoil associate reads rather than going for "3 people who are lowest individually" solve.

In post 231, VP Baltar wrote:It's not about the confidence level. It just seems like a terrible solve. I know I'm town, so I know you're wrong there. Implosion looks fairly town in approach based upon the scum PT in the other game. So that's at least 2/3 that look like bad solves to me. What can I say, I have higher expectations from you.

the "higher expectations" part stings, but other than that - do you think my "solve" means i find the three of you the scummiest individually? because it doesn't. the moment the game doesn't end after the three of you are assigned to the same location is the moment this theory goes directly into the trash.

Hello, I have not read up yet, but I was thinking about the best way to set up the groups, and I remembered in the last game we tried to put all three of our strongest town reads in the same zone. The idea being that we would get the most information out of the switch, because if that zone has no switches then we learn right away that one of the three top town reads must be scum.

In that game, it did not quite work out in our favor because 1)Scum!Ydra was the top town read in the game and then 2)the scum team managed to get 1:1:1 split and so the swaps did not give us the info that we expected. But if either one of those two are not true in this game, then that could be a thing?

I don't know, just spit balling.

ATM, the people that I have gotten the strongest town pings off of are Ari, Implo, and Toog. Of course, with Ari already in with me, we can't make that group exactly. But, depending on how people end up reading me by end of day we could do me+Ari+1 or we could do Implo+Toog+other people's town read. Since Ari suspects me, I feel like she would be against the Me+ari+1, so maybe the Implo+Toog+1 option?

In post 185, implosion wrote:

In post 180, VP Baltar wrote:Implosion, you think there is an optimal order to the games?

I don't think there is. I'm theoretically open to arguments about it. There's an argument for doing gate early because the IC doesn't get locked out of discussion, but also an argument for doing it later because it reveals the fewest people's alignments.

In practice the optimal order I think is to pick whichever location would give the most surprising information if scum were to win it (or optimize for something like that) and resolve it first.

I did not think about the lower number of flips from the Gate. I suggested gate first because of the IC sticking around, and they could focus on each game as it came up

In post 189, Aristeia wrote:btw who are we liking for the 3 scummiest thrown into Gate?

I think rn my too early list is:

1. numberQ
4. imaginality
6. Toogeloo

Do you have reasons for these, outside of post count? I have had no thoughts on either numberQ or imaginality, which is kind of a bad sign, but Toog I like Toog

193 pings me, in a "trying to get toog to view it as Us vs Them" kinda way ?

In post 235, Lukewarm wrote:I did not think about the lower number of flips from the Gate. I suggested gate first because of the IC sticking around, and they could focus on each game as it came up

Wouldn't resolving the game that will give the most associatives after flip be the best to resolve first?

I'm not sure which game that would be, but I would think having the most associatives to use on the subsequent games would be the way to play.

In post 201, Tanner wrote:that post was me questioning implo's read on me. part of me wants to say that means the team is imaginality/implosion/baltar because why else would he mix up you two, but realistically i know it's probably just a mistake.

Probably best you stick with the 'mistake' explanation not only because it's correct but also because what I mixed up was typing you instead of implosion:

In post 160, VP Baltar wrote:.

I will say, I give small +town points to implosion for spouting off his optimal strategy. He talks about it in the scum PT for that old game. Seems like it wouldn't need to be mentioned before I asked for a link if he were scum.

So your tinfoil theory would have me, you and implosion as scum, which I'm guessing you disagree with?

In post 201, Tanner wrote:that post was me questioning implo's read on me. part of me wants to say that means the team is imaginality/implosion/baltar because why else would he mix up you two, but realistically i know it's probably just a mistake.

Maybe I am just lost in the sauce of Implosion's mech talk, but he seems really town to me based on his approach to the game.

Filtering back through to find what made you think this, in 103 Implosion expressed a town read on VP and Tanner. Then imaginality said that it was a VP read on Tanner. So VP was tangentially involved with that discussion?

I don't think I buy into this team solve

In post 227, Tanner wrote:granted, that would leave me, number, darby, and toog unassigned,

If you went to Keep, it would be darby, number and myself.

In post 238, Toogeloo wrote:

In post 235, Lukewarm wrote:I did not think about the lower number of flips from the Gate. I suggested gate first because of the IC sticking around, and they could focus on each game as it came up

Wouldn't resolving the game that will give the most associatives after flip be the best to resolve first?

I'm not sure which game that would be, but I would think having the most associatives to use on the subsequent games would be the way to play.

The point of that post was to say that my original suggestion was wrong. Or at least, made without considering that factor.

In post 197, Tanner wrote:

In post 195, imaginality wrote:- her Tanner buddying could fit as both S/T and S/S

i was going to complain about you calling my 59 superficial, but then i realized just why it might seem like it to someone not familiar with ari, and why i'm maybe being a bit hasty in that read, so, fine. my questions then are (1) why are you townleaning baltar? the points you wrote about him seem overwhelmingly negative, (2) what's the logic behind ari/tanner being s/s?

Your take on those points is flavoured by your scum read, I think. For me they fit a pattern of 'could be scum but could just be early game town' and my gut says the latter.
That gut take is probably also influenced by the fact I already have three other players I find scummy. If everyone else looked town to me I might be more wary.

In post 206, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 204, Tanner wrote:hm. i just realized none of those three are assigned yet. we could shove them into the same location.

Looks like a potential town bloc to me. So sure. Where would you put us?

(Also, only two people are assigned, so making a point like that group is avoiding assignment sounds forced)

Why do you have imaginality as "potential town bloc" worthy right now?

In post 213, Tanner wrote:does anyone else read 204 as me shading those three people for not assigning yet?

I did not think that it was shade

In post 244, Lukewarm wrote:Why do you have imaginality as "potential town bloc" worthy right now?

He's most out there with reads. Those reads are probably overstated even, which seems like a riskier move than scum would need to take at like 10 pages.

I'm not confident fully sorting imaginality yet, but that's why I said potentially.

In post 217, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 19, Aristeia wrote:I think maybe I could go to Keep with you, it would be a fun date <3

In post 20, Aristeia wrote:Where would you like me to go?

In post 21, Tanner wrote:if we're playing seriously - i'd want you to go to gate if you're town. i want you to be town, but it's obviously too early to tell.

In post 22, Aristeia wrote:gosh you can't tell I am town already?

Performative

Ari does in fact do this in other games with Dats/Tanner. She swooned over him all game the last time I played with both lol

In post 217, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 19, Aristeia wrote:I think maybe I could go to Keep with you, it would be a fun date <3

In post 20, Aristeia wrote:Where would you like me to go?

In post 21, Tanner wrote:if we're playing seriously - i'd want you to go to gate if you're town. i want you to be town, but it's obviously too early to tell.

In post 22, Aristeia wrote:gosh you can't tell I am town already?

Performative

Ari does in fact do this in other games with Dats/Tanner. She swooned over him all game the last time I played with both lol

As for why Ari/Tanner potentially being S/S, consider that my own tinfoil theory.

Basically that the whole "we wanna go in the same location" thing could be aimed at making town wary of letting you go in the same location. So you end up in different locations. Or if you do both end up in keep and have to swap one of you, you use it as a point to argue that you/Ari are being swapped so Ari won't vote you.

I don't know how likely it is but I do disagree with people who are saying it's too limiting for S/S to play like that.

That said it could be S/T with her wanting to buddy you. I think in that scenario they'd still nightswap you if you end up in same location so she doesn't have to vote you. But I could see that leading to you and others strengthening your townreads on her. Whereas again I see her play even if you're town as a perfectly viable scum tactic.

Whereas I don't know if Ari as town would be willing to risk the game on voting for you as an unknown alignment.