Mafiascum.net

In post 22, Iconeum wrote:

In post 20, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:So far iconeum and Doobie have been the only two to not throw out a rvs vote on their first post.

and what do you conclude from this?

Nothing. Yet.

In post 19, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:

In post 18, Lotus Aura wrote:A bit more seriously is that Doobie straight up admitted this was her first game ever, and that's pretty cool. Dunno 'bout the rest of ya, but I'm not gonna vote for her during D1 unless she does something super scummy at any point. Just so she can actually play the game a bit, y'know?

Given this statement, what's your opinion of azn?

Gonna keep it in mind for later, as with most things, but it's a null tell as her first post during jokephase/RVS.

In post 27, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:

In post 22, Iconeum wrote:

In post 20, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:So far iconeum and Doobie have been the only two to not throw out a rvs vote on their first post.

and what do you conclude from this?

Nothing. Yet.

you found the need to call it out but don't conclude anything from it? that's called shading

VOTE: atarashi

In post 29, Iconeum wrote:

In post 27, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:

In post 22, Iconeum wrote:

In post 20, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:So far iconeum and Doobie have been the only two to not throw out a rvs vote on their first post.

and what do you conclude from this?

Nothing. Yet.

you found the need to call it out but don't conclude anything from it? that's called shading

VOTE: atarashi

Given this statement, what do you think of post 28?

Moreover, I said I didn't conclude anything of it *yet*. It might be useful in the future, but perhaps not immediately. Would you rather me not say anything unless it's of immediate value?

Also on a slightly related note, what does shading even mean?

Y;'know, throwing shade. Calling a thing out without making a judgment call on it, so as to imply it's bad. A good scum tactic to helpful and friendly, but without actually being so.

In post 32, Lotus Aura wrote:Calling a thing out without making a judgment call on it, so as to imply it's bad.

But it's not bad? At least not necessarily. I mean, maybe for doobie it could be considered scum-indicative since someone extremely new might shy away from throwing around a vote for shits and giggles, but for the se slot that's not super likely.

In post 30, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:

In post 29, Iconeum wrote:

In post 27, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:

In post 22, Iconeum wrote:

In post 20, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:So far iconeum and Doobie have been the only two to not throw out a rvs vote on their first post.

and what do you conclude from this?

Nothing. Yet.

you found the need to call it out but don't conclude anything from it? that's called shading

VOTE: atarashi

Given this statement, what do you think of post 28?

Moreover, I said I didn't conclude anything of it *yet*. It might be useful in the future, but perhaps not immediately. Would you rather me not say anything unless it's of immediate value?

Post 28 felt ok to me. It's not like what you said. It takes a stance. It was an opinion.

What you did was point something out without taking *any* kind of stance on your own opinion. That leaves the door open for someone else to push it, and then you can hop on without taking responsability. It felt like that anyway.

In post 33, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:

In post 32, Lotus Aura wrote:Calling a thing out without making a judgment call on it, so as to imply it's bad.

But it's not bad? At least not necessarily. I mean, maybe for doobie it could be considered scum-indicative since someone extremely new might shy away from throwing around a vote for shits and giggles, but for the se slot that's not super likely.

I mean, you can call us out for not voting. That's perfectly ok. But you didn't say anything about it. You stayed completely in the middle. You suggest it's bad for us to not vote without actually pushing it.

You could have asked us why we didn't vote. You could push and thus sort us. You could town/scum read it.
But neither happened. You just threw it out there like a bone to dogs hoping they'd fight over it.

In post 35, Iconeum wrote:

In post 33, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:

In post 32, Lotus Aura wrote:Calling a thing out without making a judgment call on it, so as to imply it's bad.

But it's not bad? At least not necessarily.

I mean, maybe for doobie it could be considered scum-indicative since someone extremely new might shy away from throwing around a vote for shits and giggles, but for the se slot that's not super likely.

I mean, you can call us out for not voting. That's perfectly ok. But you didn't say anything about it. You stayed completely in the middle.

You suggest it's bad for us to not vote without actually pushing it.

No I don't? I'm pretty sure you even quoted a post where I said the opposite (underlined).

You could have asked us why we didn't vote. You could push and thus sort us. You could town/scum read it.
But neither happened. You just threw it out there like a bone to dogs hoping they'd fight over it.

I'm not going to pressure someone on something I don't think is worth pressuring. If someone were to pressure you based solely off my post I'd scumread them off of it because it by itself isn't worth pressuring.

That doesn't mean it's not worth noting for the future, hence why I made the post in the first place.

In post 36, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:No I don't? I'm pretty sure you even quoted a post where I said the opposite (underlined).

Problem there is that explanation comes after the original post, which in its entirety is and was:

In post 20, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:So far iconeum and Doobie have been the only two to not throw out a rvs vote on their first post.

There is no judgment call here, at all. It's just sat there, looking all terrible and awkward. That's why you got called out for shading originally: because that's what you did. So, yes, while you did say that it's not bad, that was a post hoc justification when pressed on the subject a couple times. That doesn't change that the original take you posted didn't actually have a conclusion, especially when you admit to it not even having a point.

That combined with

I'm not going to pressure someone on something I don't think is worth pressuring

raises the natural question of why you would post it; it's obviously not a jokepost, so the timing doesn't make sense. Trying to appear helpful and townie while not contributing anything useful is the natural conclusion here.

Unlike Ico, I don't think this is worth a serious vote on its own- especially at the start of D1 - but it is definitely something that I hope doesn't get forgotten as the day progresses.

Also, currently at work, so while I'll definitely be around, I'll likely be just bouncing in and out for the next, I dunno, 6ish hours.

lotus would you mind sharing what kind of mafia playing experience you have?

number of games etc

So now I'm confused.

In post 37, Lotus Aura wrote:

In post 36, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:No I don't? I'm pretty sure you even quoted a post where I said the opposite (underlined).

Problem there is that explanation comes after the original post, which in its entirety is and was:

In post 20, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:So far iconeum and Doobie have been the only two to not throw out a rvs vote on their first post.

There is no judgment call here,

at all. It's just sat there, looking all terrible and awkward. That's why you got called out for shading originally: because that's what you did. So, yes, while you did say that it's not bad, that was a post hoc justification when pressed on the subject a couple times.

That doesn't change that the original take you posted didn't actually have a conclusion,

especially when you admit to it not even having a point.

That combined with

I'm not going to pressure someone on something I don't think is worth pressuring

raises the natural question of why you would post it; it's obviously not a jokepost, so the timing doesn't make sense. Trying to appear helpful and townie while not contributing anything useful is the natural conclusion here.

Unlike Ico, I don't think this is worth a serious vote on its own

- especially at the start of D1 - but it is definitely something that I hope doesn't get forgotten as the day progresses.

Given the underlined parts of your reply, is this post also considered shading? You're pointing out behavior that is occurring/has occurred, but offering no judgment on it and/or are not taking action on it.

Sure. Don't remember exact number of games, since most were quick, micro stuff IRL and the like. Been playing online on other sites on and off for about 4ish years, now, and run a couple of games as well (though not many).

So, definitely new here, but I like to think I can play reasonably well.

Actually UNVOTE:

VOTE: lotus

Er, quote missing, but my previous post was in response to Ico of course.

As for Atarashi's post above, I'm just gonna point out the thing he conspicuously didn't underline that is explicitly a conclusion:

Trying to appear helpful and townie while not contributing anything useful is the natural conclusion here.

Which is a very simple way of saying that it is scummy behaviour. Not voting for it on its own is because it's a good thing to note, but it's not a case all on its own.

preview edit: nice OMGUS vote, though.

See this is what I'm not understanding about this whole "shading" thing. I'm in agreement that trying to appear helpful without actually doing anything is probably scummy behavior, but I'm not sure how a) making a factual observation about something that's occurred meets this definition, and b) if it does, how stuff like below isn't also meeting the definition.

In post 43, Lotus Aura wrote:Not voting for it on its own is because it's a good thing to note, but it's not a case all on its own.

This is literally a re-worded way of saying what I said in 36:

If someone were to pressure you based solely off my post I'd scumread them off of it because it by itself isn't worth pressuring.

That doesn't mean it's not worth noting for the future, hence why I made the post in the first place.

Like, help a newbie out. Am I just not getting something about this concept?

it's not about making a factual statement - nobody is arguing that what you said is factually correct.

What matters is intent. Why did you make that post? Town is looking to sort and determine player allignments, an element critically lacking in that post. So what is the intent?

You posted it, so it must have caught your attention. If it meant something to you, it would have been easy to add something like 'what does everyone think about the fact that these players didn't vote in their opening posts'?
That's game advancing.

You posted it in a way that is throwing shade on slots without committing to anything, while appearing busy but not taking point. And yes I scumread that.

In post 40, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:Given the underlined parts of your reply, is this post also considered shading? You're pointing out behavior that is occurring/has occurred, but offering no judgment on it and/or are not taking action on it.

well ur not entirely wrong here

given the amount of words lotus used to help me push this, to then say 'it's not worth my vote' seems off

In post 42, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:Actually UNVOTE:

VOTE: lotus

what do you think is scummy about lotus exactly?

In post 47, Iconeum wrote:

In post 42, Atarashi Hajimari wrote:Actually UNVOTE:

VOTE: lotus

what do you think is scummy about lotus exactly?

It feels like he's putting in a lot of effort to explain why my post was shading and why it was scummy but isn't actually applying any kind of pressure off of it. If I thought what someone did was scummy, I'd be pressuring them off of it.

It's scummy enough to warrant a pretty extensive discussion, but not scummy enough to vote? That feels like he wants to look like he's scumhunting without actually committing to anything.