Mafiascum.net

In post 221, Garry~ wrote:I’m having issues processing this game because of the familiar profile pictures and my inability to distinguish men.

Oh good, I'm not the only person having this issue.

By the way, @Clark, can you include some reasons why you read people the way you do as you catch up? It's going to make it easier to follow.

In post 218, Clark~ wrote:End of page 1 I'm liking Windows and Mac

In post 8, Windows~ wrote:If we do everyThing well and lim someThing correctly every day then noThing can stop us. We have to be ready for anyThing but someone seems to be suspiciously ready...

VOTE: MacReady

In post 18, MacReady~ wrote:

In post 9, Lars~ wrote:I haven't seen it either. I heard it's based on the hit game Among Us.

VOTE: Windows

I've not either.
I actually kinda liked Windows' opening post

Window's opening post made me happy and Mac also liked it.

In post 35, Garry~ wrote:1) MacReady is the platonic ideal of a husband.

2) I dislike 28 because I don’t think it says much of anything for calling tbh “interesting”. I don’t get the sense Clark cared much for the question he asked.

VOTE: Clark

In post 219, Clark~ wrote:page 2 Garry seems towny

I thought 2) is more likely to come from town

In post 224, Garry~ wrote:Finish reading first, and then circle back to trying to explain your townreads?

I find just reading through quite dry is all. Hence asking for questions. If you want to wait til I've read that's fine

Getting nothing from page 3

Page 4 I want to town Child but I'm not there yet. Frank is still town. 96/99 could have been bennings looking for an excuse to vote, has me scum swayed on the slot.

Page 5 don't like Nauls' intro post. Finishing the Frank/Bennings interaction about their miscommunication I rescind the scum sway on Bennings. I agreee with 122 but couldn't tell you why. I'm liking Blair, I think posts like 115 are more likely to come from town.

Nauls can have a town bump for 149

In post 152, Blair~ wrote:

In post 138, Windows~ wrote:I'm also not convinced a town Blair posts his code so confidently especially with giving the answer to the first code. That to me feels more likely scum trying to appear to be town.

what does this even mean

what does this even mean

Hey Clark, thanks for joining.
What do you think about the prior focus on your slot?

Responses to a couple of things, plus follow up to my earlier post:

Palmer:

In post 159, Palmer~ wrote:

In post 138, Windows~ wrote:In and of itself that can also come from town who are assuming their target is scum rather than trying to convince others of it. But in Palmer's case this also rang suspicious to me: post 111 (not just that Palmer is okay with a wagon on a townread (123 I think explained that part okay) but the way he dismisses all his reads " I don't think any of my ideas are going to be >rand right now" which is like, yeah no shit, we're barely out of RVS. I don't think town feel the need to undermine their own posts in that way.

The reason why I undermined my own reads was because I felt that, if I

don't

specifically spell that part out, someone is going to be a smartass and say "You claim you don't have a better target than Clark and are fine with his wagon, but you are voting Copper? Contradiction much?" and that would've been annoying.

Why would that be annoying? Because it draws attention to you?

In post 209, Palmer~ wrote:How are Garry's and Norris' tones different than Windows'?

I legit found this post hilarious.


Blair:

In post 152, Blair~ wrote:

In post 138, Windows~ wrote:I'm also not convinced a town Blair posts his code so confidently especially with giving the answer to the first code. That to me feels more likely scum trying to appear to be town.

what does this even mean

I was of the impression you were posting your code plan as a serious suggestion and the way you went about it plus the fact you did at all both didn't feel to me like something a townie was likely to do.

In a later post you said I missed the point, can you clarify what you meant by that? Was your code suggestion not a serious one?

VOTE: unvote

---
The minor other points I mentioned earlier were some mild concerns over Garry-McReady intereactions on page 3 or so.
Because Garry's 54 felt a bit like shifting the goalposts and 55 is fencesitting a bit. And I wondered about the timing of McReady voicing his townread of Garry in 57. However, I haven't felt pinged by either's posts since so I'm willing to write this one off as paranoia.

Now on to more interesting stuff:

In post 234, MacReady~ wrote:Hey Clark, thanks for joining.
What do you think about the prior focus on your slot?

I think the whole "TBH" debacle is entirely irrelevant and I can see why people wouldn't like 53, 58

What do you think about the wagon that formed on the slot?

Not much, I almost always get early wagoned day 1 so it's surprisingly business as usual for replacing into a slot

I've finished reading but mostly just skim read the last few pages coz I got bored
VOTE: Copper

In post 235, Windows~ wrote:Why would that be annoying? Because it draws attention to you?

Because it would be a silly misunderstanding that I would then have to spend my limited brain power on. Kind of like I'm doing now.

I know my other post might seem funny, but there is reason why I asked it.

I'm tentatively willing to admit I was wrong about Blair, but still keen for Blair to clarify their intent with that code post.

I don't scumread anyone outside of Childs, Copper, Palmer and Nauls.

A few thoughts:

On Norris:

Norris has a playstyle which irks me and which seems likely to stir up more heat than light but which I've also found more likely to come from town, at least in the games I've played in. The copycat exchanges recently also give me that vibe. I want to find him scummy but I don't.

On Copper:

This seems a straight up contradiction?

In post 205, Copper~ wrote:

In post 190, Bennings~ wrote:Elaborate.

Gut and sheeping Lars.

In post 208, Copper~ wrote:Also this kind of trolling is really scummy imo.

Is it just gut and sheeping? or is Norris being really scummy?

On Clark vs Childs:

post 52 came across as a genuine explanation. 58 rang true too. And the new Clark is making a decent first impression.

Meanwhile I didn't like this post from Childs as this felt a bit like plagiarism of other people's criticisms of Clark. It's not bad to agree with others but it is a bit suspicious to pass it off as your own idea in lieu of actual scum hunting:

In post 70, Childs~ wrote: I was thinking about going for a Cooper vote but decided to pressure Clark, so far it doesn't seem like

he is willing to put something on the table

Could also be light distancing from Copper? "I was going to vote Copper but instead I'm voting someone else."

In addition, 50 and 74 from Childs are an interesting pairing for me - in 50 he calls Copper out as defensive but in 74 he's defensive himself. In fact I feel like that is a scumtell (projection, or something of that sort). I don't buy Childs' claim in 80 that 74 was a joke.

On Nauls:

In 155 Nauls calls out 74 as defensive, but from earlier discussion I would assume Nauls has noted that a charge of defensiveness in isolation isn't seen as a strong point. So at a stretch I think this could be a spot of distancing from Nauls if Childs is scum.

This post from Nauls feels possibly deliberately fencesitting on Clark.

In post 151, Nauls~ wrote: I'm still conflicted on Clark, there are definitely odd things with his posting, but I also get the same general vibes I've gotten from awkward townies before. I'll probably need to look deeper into it. Not really leaning strongly any way there atm.

165 and 166 from Nauls also seem like projection - he calls 116
a possible chainsaw defence but isn't that what 165 could be - a defence of Palmer by attacking the person criticising Palmer?

The projection suspicions are arguably more tentatives so my reads at the moment go:

Other people
Blair
Nauls, Childs
Copper, Palmer

Pedit: ehh... maybe Palmer is a townie I'm just not on the same wavelength as.

VOTE: Copper

In post 239, Clark~ wrote:Not much, I almost always get early wagoned day 1 so it's surprisingly business as usual for replacing into a slot

Well more - do you have any reads on anyone who joined the wagon?

In post 243, MacReady~ wrote:

In post 239, Clark~ wrote:Not much, I almost always get early wagoned day 1 so it's surprisingly business as usual for replacing into a slot

Well more - do you have any reads on anyone who joined the wagon?

You, Blair, Garry are town in my mind, Child is probs town too. Not got a read on Lars yet.

I don’t like Windows’ posts since their intro, but I’m not really sure if it’s because I think they’re wrong on everything or if they’re actually scummy.

In post 242, Windows~ wrote:165 and 166 from Nauls also seem like projection - he calls 116
a possible chainsaw defence but isn't that what 165 could be - a defence of Palmer by attacking the person criticising Palmer?

This is nonsensical to me. I disagreed with an argument someone made calling someone else scum, therefore it’s odd for me to theorize on a potential chainsaw defense??
and this is all implying that I’m scrutinizing my own posts for possible negative interpretations of them, which I happen not to be doing because yknow, I’m a townie.
I’m seriously confused as to how this is an actual point being made.

In post 242, Windows~ wrote:In 155 Nauls calls out 74 as defensive, but from earlier discussion I would assume Nauls has noted that a charge of defensiveness in isolation isn't seen as a strong point. So at a stretch I think this could be a spot of distancing from Nauls if Childs is scum.

This post from Nauls feels possibly deliberately fencesitting on Clark.

The word I used is dismissive, not defensive. I also don’t really get this argument in general? Could you explain why you don’t like me calling out Childs there?

Pre-replacement Clark I haven’t been that compelled by. I think the original argument against them is fine and does raise suspicions, but their general tone has read more like awkward townie than like scum. I’m fencesitting because I want something more compelling from Clark, at the moment I don’t feel too strongly. I pretty notably haven’t really said anything about Copper either for the record, who hasn’t pinged me one way or the other

In post 199, Lars~ wrote:I do agree with that. I think if Norris is town then that vote looks pretty bad. I'm giving it a pass for now because I don't think Norris is town.

This post… yikes. To me it just looks like scum going “yes, you’re so right townie! Here’s why I’m not actually interested in engaging with your idea, though”. It reads weirdly defensive despite Lars not actually having anything to be defensive of.

Honestly I’m not the biggest fan of the votes that have piled onto Norris, but Norris also hasn’t given me any reason to feel any better about them than before.
I don’t think trying to tonally read someone who’s “trolling” is very productive or reliable, so the fact that this is what’s being clung onto is pretty meh. There’s better things to look at (109, hell even 30) are much better to look at than Norris going “heehee I’m trolling”, especially since that sort of behaviour tends to be more player dependant than actually AI.

Well, I think Windows just shot down to somewhere on the bottom of my reads. One thing is the point that 246 explains pretty well. And the fact that Windows started with something somewhat reasonable ("You are defensive and are accusing someone else of being defensive, projection!") and ended up on makes me think he's scum who tried to apply the same "projection" logic on multiple reads, but forgot to examine whether such logic actually makes sense.

Also, the "this is a contradiction from Copper!" is a horrible point in 242. It feels like desperately trying to fish out a gotcha.