Mafiascum.net

In post 249, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Chemist, i still don't understand your confusing ranting. Can you elaborate why me saying "K, lol." is sufficient enough to warrant a vote? Or are you voting me because i'm voting you?

Part of it’s OMGUS
Part of it’s the poor reaction to pressure
Part of it is that you’re saying you don’t see anywhere to move your vote to from me but you really aren’t looking and are instead spending your time pushing me

In post 250, Chemist1422 wrote:

In post 249, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Chemist, i still don't understand your confusing ranting. Can you elaborate why me saying "K, lol." is sufficient enough to warrant a vote? Or are you voting me because i'm voting you?

Part of it’s OMGUS
Part of it’s the poor reaction to pressure
Part of it is that you’re saying you don’t see anywhere to move your vote to from me but you really aren’t looking and are instead spending your time pushing me

What pressure? I've responded seriously to every argument thrown at me. What Skitter30 said wasn't a argument, it was just an emotional plea. Which can be safely ignored. Why should i give up my vote so easily?
I am also indeed looking for other suspicious activity, i'm sorry you can't see that. I did just post a reads list which (if you bothered to look at it) also lists another suspect.

Farren, I'm getting the feeling I might have misread you.

UNVOTE: Farren
VOTE: NorwegianboyEE

Explain your votes people. Or they are as meaningless as the RVS votes. Which i have a strong disdain for.

Given recent discussion, I figured my change in vote was self-explanatory.

Basically, I had a light scumlean on you already, did a re-read, coupled with your reactionary posts without doing much to push other potential leads beyond your initial vote on Chemist. Given Farren's recent posts, he's contributing more to town than you are, so I decided to change my vote.

@Dyrenz If you believe i’m mafia, who do you think my partner would be?

In post 255, NorwegianboyEE wrote:@Dyrenz If you believe i’m mafia, who do you think my partner would be?

Honestly I have no clue but if I had to warrant a guess I would say Jamelia.

Re-reading everything now. I'll do a full analysis in a second.

I still think 's initial post was harmless. (This is going back to page 1). I find it more suspect that originally voted for right after Micc did it. If you were going to do a random vote, I would assume it would be for a different person, especially since no one else had posted besides Chemist at that point. (Reading to page 5, post 124 - Micc also says this).

I think that original take (Post #66) on the first two votes being RVS while Chemist's wasn't RVS is scummy. I don't see any clear indicator between the first 3 votes on Page 1. However, Chemist's responses to him being asked about these votes (Post #78, 80) I am speculating as scummy. He isn't really answering the question. He is saying the takes are "not true" but not elaborating on why, but turns it around and makes accusations towards Norwegian.

I understand Farren's thoughts about my "This is Fun! LOL" post (94), specifically for him on post 149. I will do a better job of trying to "defend" people but rather be more analytical on what their intentions were.

Also, how can Chemist forget my name? There's literally only 9 of us. Weird LOL.
---

Questions:
Dyrenz: You've changed your "scumleads" quite a bit. Going from me, wanting to vote for Chemist but "didn't want to jump on the scum train" (Post #92), then having Leuco as Scummy (Post #171) then having him in town (#221), voting for Farren and then changing your vote to Norwegian. I understand a fluid flow of external communication, but I am curious about your process of constantly changing your mind and votes especially on Day 1.

Chemist: To me, your posts seem pretty agitated and frustrated. Are you upset from people voting from you at the beginning, or that some people (including myself, Micc and Norwegian) believe that your reasoning for a simple RVS vote wasn't communicated properly?

Oobsy: You have mentioned a few times that you would be fine with a No Lynch, but that inherently helps the mafia IF we don't hit properly. With this information and the disagreement with the other people in this game, would you still want to No Lynch? If not, who are you leaning towards and why?

Farren: On post 139, you had me down as a "slight scumlean". I'd like for you to explain then why you are more heavy on Dyrenz being voted out first over me.
--

I don't really have questions for the other players at the moment.

In post 229, Micc wrote:Oobsy, how come you never addressed the part of my post where I talk about the game going from 3 to 2 mislynches regardless of a day 1 lynch happening or not?

Because I gave up trying to understand. It's as if you're implying you could mathematically prove loses nothing by lynching one of their own today.

In post 230, Micc wrote:The community you learned the game from balances games a lot differently than this site. You’re advocating for a game with heavy emphasis on nighttime play while this site places a heavy emphasis on daytime play. In general, our games don’t have as many PR’s as I’m assuming your used to. There will not be enough information from PR’s to solve the game entirely on night actions.

I don't expect to solve the game with nothing by clues shared by power roles. But I don't expect to gain an advantage over with a random Day 1 lynch either.

In post 258, Jamelia wrote:Dyrenz: You've changed your "scumleads" quite a bit. Going from me, wanting to vote for Chemist but "didn't want to jump on the scum train" (Post #92), then having Leuco as Scummy (Post #171) then having him in town (#221), voting for Farren and then changing your vote to Norwegian. I understand a fluid flow of external communication, but I am curious about your process of constantly changing your mind and votes especially on Day 1.

As players post, they develop a profile for themselves. Early reads can change given new evidence. I find it more suspect frankly when someone makes up their mind early and refuses to change at all. Simply put, I'm a 'read as I go' player with a constantly changing opinion on the gamestate.

baby silverback gorilla

Lynching

With 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to lynch.

Dyrenz

(2): Micc, Farren

NorwegianboyEE

(2): Chemist1422, Dyrenz

Farren

(2): skitter30, Mr Oobsy

Mr Oobsy

(1): Leucosticte

Chemist1422

(1): NorwegianboyEE

Not Voting

(1): Jamelia

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-09-04 23:00:00).

[/area]

Micc is right Mr Oobsy. Look, i don’t think you’re mafia for this reason alone. A lot of noobs at mafia seem to think it’s a good idea to not lynch for day 1. But allow me to put it plain and simple for you: NO! You’re wrong. There is nothing to be gained from refraining a D1 lynch other than one guaranteed dead townie. With a lynch, you get a chance. A chance to kill one mafia. No lynch gives a fat load of nothing but empty talks. Even if it’s a mislynch it gives INFORMATION! Who pushed the lynch? Who refrained? Who did nothing? Etc etc.

In post 260, Dyrenz wrote:

In post 258, Jamelia wrote:Dyrenz: You've changed your "scumleads" quite a bit. Going from me, wanting to vote for Chemist but "didn't want to jump on the scum train" (Post #92), then having Leuco as Scummy (Post #171) then having him in town (#221), voting for Farren and then changing your vote to Norwegian. I understand a fluid flow of external communication, but I am curious about your process of constantly changing your mind and votes especially on Day 1.

As players post, they develop a profile for themselves. Early reads can change given new evidence. I find it more suspect frankly when someone makes up their mind early and refuses to change at all. Simply put, I'm a 'read as I go' player with a constantly changing opinion on the gamestate.

Definitely understandable. But, I feel like from perception purposes, changing your vote constantly looks more harsh than questioning and potentially changing your mind on scuminess. I was told earlier (I forgot where) that me defending Chemist early on made me scummy since it "created more options", but can't the same be said for you if you're trying to create scuminess surrounding multiple people too?

Also, I am the last one to vote. If I vote, will this day end in a NL? Or does it only end when there's a majority 5?

In post 258, Jamelia wrote:Farren: On post 139, you had me down as a "slight scumlean". I'd like for you to explain then why you are more heavy on Dyrenz being voted out first over me.

Dyrenz's post 179 strengthened my scum read on Dyrenz. I didn't explicitly state that in 181, but I did link the post when I voted to imply it.

The day ends when the votes reaches 5 for one individual or the deadline has passed.

In post 264, Jamelia wrote:Also, I am the last one to vote. If I vote, will this day end in a NL? Or does it only end when there's a majority 5?

The day ends in No Lynch if deadline passes with no majority lynch.

You voting now will not end the day.

Also Mr Oobsy, if you think the power roles will make a difference, just forget about it. Pretend like they aren’t there, they really don’t matter. Most of the newbie game setups don’t even have investigative roles, so stalling wouldn’t make a difference.

In post 265, Farren wrote:

In post 258, Jamelia wrote:Farren: On post 139, you had me down as a "slight scumlean". I'd like for you to explain then why you are more heavy on Dyrenz being voted out first over me.

Dyrenz's post 179 strengthened my scum read on Dyrenz. I didn't explicitly state that in 181, but I did link the post when I voted to imply it.

Is this vote based on your latest gut reaction? Or is this an overall view from everything so far?

Right now my vote is for:

VOTE: Chemist

Based off of everything I do think that voting for Chemist will reveal more than just them being mafia/town. I think their posts don't necessarily hold as much merit as other people, especially when (in my opinion) he is acting more defensive than trying to be proactive on who is scum/town-sided.

In post 269, Jamelia wrote:Is this vote based on your latest gut reaction? Or is this an overall view from everything so far?

I don't know that "gut reaction" is accurate. I think of gut reaction as being more like "I think X is scum, but I can't explain why, even to myself." In this case, it's "I don't believe Dyrenz was telling the truth, and town|Dyrenz would have no reason to lie."

Overall view implies a broader argument, I'd say. I think of that more in terms of: "X is scum. Here is X's plan in all its glory. Motives, means, attempts. Details, etc., etc." Definitely does not fall into that category.

Correcting a confusing typo in my previous post:

In post 259, Mr Oobsy wrote:I don't expect to solve the game with nothing

by

but

clues shared by power roles.

In post 258, Jamelia wrote:I still think

Chemist

's initial post was harmless. (This is going back to page 1). I find it more suspect that

skitter

originally voted for

Leucosticte

right after Micc did it. If you were going to do a random vote, I would assume it would be for a different person, especially since no one else had posted besides Chemist at that point. (Reading to page 5, post 124 - Micc also says this).

I think that

Norwegian's

original take (Post #66) on the first two votes being RVS while Chemist's wasn't RVS is scummy. I don't see any clear indicator between the first 3 votes on Page 1. However, Chemist's responses to him being asked about these votes (Post #78, 80) I am speculating as scummy. He isn't really answering the question. He is saying the takes are "not true" but not elaborating on why, but turns it around and makes accusations towards Norwegian.

I understand Farren's thoughts about my "This is Fun! LOL" post (94), specifically for him on post 149. I will do a better job of trying to "defend" people but rather be more analytical on what their intentions were.

Also, how can Chemist forget my name? There's literally only 9 of us. Weird LOL.
---

Questions:
Dyrenz: You've changed your "scumleads" quite a bit. Going from me, wanting to vote for Chemist but "didn't want to jump on the scum train" (Post #92), then having Leuco as Scummy (Post #171) then having him in town (#221), voting for Farren and then changing your vote to Norwegian. I understand a fluid flow of external communication, but I am curious about your process of constantly changing your mind and votes especially on Day 1.

Chemist: To me, your posts seem pretty agitated and frustrated. Are you upset from people voting from you at the beginning, or that some people (including myself, Micc and Norwegian) believe that your reasoning for a simple RVS vote wasn't communicated properly?

Oobsy: You have mentioned a few times that you would be fine with a No Lynch, but that inherently helps the mafia IF we don't hit properly. With this information and the disagreement with the other people in this game, would you still want to No Lynch? If not, who are you leaning towards and why?

Farren: On post 139, you had me down as a "slight scumlean". I'd like for you to explain then why you are more heavy on Dyrenz being voted out first over me.
--

I don't really have questions for the other players at the moment.

please do not judge my intelligence on how I talk when I'm tired

also with regards to agitation, I tend to get annoyed when I feel the reason(s) I'm getting pushed for aren't valid and given that I'm being tunneled off of the timing of an RVS vote I think it's at least a little justified

In post 270, Jamelia wrote:Right now my vote is for:

VOTE: Chemist

Based off of everything I do think that voting for Chemist will reveal more than just them being mafia/town. I think their posts don't necessarily hold as much merit as other people, especially when (in my opinion) he is acting more defensive than trying to be proactive on who is scum/town-sided.

?

I don't really see what you're trying to get at here