Mafiascum.net

In post 204, Leaven wrote:- He's dumping this game again as VT for an even future scum game (worse than last time because of how last time went)
- This is that future game where he's scum (cashing in on the last game to take this town down)

Frankly, I agree in princible that claiming VT as early as this is an objectivley poor play as town; James obviously disagrees, but that's where I am at.

I don't see why claiming VT is good for scum though - In other words, I'm not sure; whether it's this game or a future one, how claiming VT helps a scum!James take down town. Nobody else is following his example, and a scum!James know he aint a town PR by definition.

Would you explain why you think an early VT claim as scum helps scum (I know why an early VT claim helps scum), if you think I've missed something?

Outside of this, I don't have much to go on. So while this is my current best idea, it is the first day and take that with a grain of salt. Given you agree this was "objectively poor for town", then unless you can point to activity that is more objectively bad for town, my vote lands here.

Let's assume james is vt (entirely possible), then by claiming vt, he saying him as vt surviving another day is more valuable to town than a town PR lasting another day? If he is truly vt and sacrificing town win equity for self preservation, which seems to be his stated reason, that would (1) be against site rules and (2) be a behavior all town have a duty to self regulate against. Otherwsie, are we telling scum they can freeing engage in town-harming behavior without consequence?

I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise, but given that "in principal that claiming vt as early as this is objectively poor play as town", the burden, to me, seems to rest on justifying a vote elsewhere.

leaven's post reminded me

In post 217, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 211, Salsabil Faria wrote:

In post 174, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 172, Leaven wrote:UNVOTE: Ythan Not comfortable with this at 3. Will be back this evening.

Not at E-1 but at E-2 feels a bit weird to unvote at.

Nope? We have 2 scums remember?

First of all the person putting it onto 4 would have to justify it. Then you hammer the hammerer D2 as a matter or policy.

what if they said their town-destructive action was to stir discussion?
i wonder if a genuine and stubborn belief in one's actions being an overall positive is NAI or town-leaning
I have my own thoughts on everything, but i find it annoying that we continue to bring up something that we can't fully talk about yet. I probably drop the topic here and actually find mafia

if you guys care about setup talk, claiming VT early as scum is poor play in a double goon setup without elaborate planning for the other person to be the PR claimer. early claiming locks the scumteam from one of the major advantages of being in that world (being able to claim a PR uncontested)
i wouldn't base a read around this of course, but its worth keeping in mind

In post 253, Leaven wrote:Given you agree this was "objectively poor for town", then unless you can point to activity that is more objectively bad for town, my vote lands here.

That's fine. My point was that, although it's objectively anti-town, it looks to me to be just as anti-scum, too. My question to you was 'what advantage does scum gain by an scum making an early VT claim', and since your answer has been focus on about how we should be discouraging anti-town behavior and you don't want to move your vote until you see something else anti-town, I'll take it that you can't see the advantage for scum either.

CLSR has it right - I think it's anti-scum, in that it both attracts attention to the slot; and it basically locks at least one scum out of fake claiming a PR; and I would argue that is true whether it's double goon or not.

Yes, it's anti-town. Yes, that behavior should be discouraged, and has been. I think it's just as anti-scum though, and therefore I think we should be viewing anyone using this as the main or only justifaction for a wagon on James with a little bit of suspicion.

In post 208, Salsabil Faria wrote:Val is salty for the newbie insult

I want to take a moment in case this is a more widely-held belief.

I would have come to the same conclusion if the interaction in posts 134 through 141 had been friendly. Perhaps it might have gone something like this:



Other people can make the determination if they think approaching the interaction in the mocking way they did is AI. I don't. I take issue with the content, not the tone. Dodging a perfectly reasonable question, that it has become clear other slots can't think of an obvious answer to, on your justification for having switched your vote seems scummy to me, regardless of if you are an arsehole about doing it or not.

Except I did answer clearly and immediately and you're just whining still to fill time.

And, in my opinion, outside of a better scum target, anyone who defends objectively anti town behavior done with basically the defense of "I know this is bad for town and last time I did it it was bad for town but i did it anyway because I'm experimenting" or because "as vt I'm more valuable to town on day 3 than a town PR" is at least equally if not more sus. Give me a better target, but without one, I'm going to go hard at antitown behavior and doing it doubly so to make it known that I will go hard against anyone who harms town for either scummy or personal gain over pro-town wincon reasons. We gave james an out by admitting this was objectively antitown and his defense was proff he has already done this before with an anti-town outcome. So he knew full well this strat doesnt help town and he did it anyway. If your conclusion is that anyone policing antitown behavior is now sus, town is already lost. Are we now in bizarro world where taking a hard stance against antitown behavior is now anti-town?

In post 258, Ythan wrote:Except I did answer clearly and immediately and you're just whining still to fill time.

Would you link me to the post where you did so?

If I am being a total idiot here, and I've just missed a post where you answered, I will owe you a full apology.

In post 259, Leaven wrote:I'm going to go hard at antitown behavior and doing it doubly so to make it known that I will go hard against anyone who harms town for either scummy or personal gain over pro-town wincon reasons.

I'll ask again: Could you please explain what that scummy gain is?

It's a serious question, because I can't see it; and if there is some pro-scum advantage gained by it, then I am willing to accept James might have done it previously in order to lay the groundwork to do it with less suspicion when he does roll scum, and I will reconsider joining that wagon. As it stands, I can't see how it's not screwing a scum!James over and much as it does town.

Val, do you accept that james took an objectively anti-town line by claiming vt? If so, then it's that simple anti-town = pro-scum. If not, then that's where we don't see eye to eye.

In post 260, Val89 wrote:

In post 258, Ythan wrote:Except I did answer clearly and immediately and you're just whining still to fill time.

Would you link me to the post where you did so?

If I am being a total idiot here, and I've just missed a post where you answered, I will owe you a full apology.

You've addressed it repeatedly you just continue to go off regardless because well ya know.

townies do outrageously pro-scum things all the time

scum try to look town

I explained immediately the vote switch. Your tunneling over your refusal to accept the explanation is just what's a nice word for it

Disingenuous isn't mean let's go with that.

In post 262, Leaven wrote:Val, do you accept that james took an objectively anti-town line by claiming vt? If so, then it's that simple anti-town = pro-scum. If not, then that's where we don't see eye to eye.

its not pro-scum if theyre actually scum, right? because all they get is the attention and reactions of others. its anti-town because if town is doing it, scum gains something from it (the hardclaim VT from someone they know is town) but I'm assuming that you're voting right now because you think they're mafia, not because of policy
which means it isn't anti-town, only that it looks that way. scum has no extra information than they already had from this move
if it actually is policy, ignore this

In post 265, Ythan wrote:I explained immediately the vote switch. Your tunneling over your refusal to accept the explanation is just what's a nice word for it

could you reexplain your motivation to switch votes. ythan? im confused myself

In post 264, Dannflor wrote:townies do outrageously pro-scum things all the time

scum try to look town

can you tell me more about James's tentatively town status

In post 269, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:

In post 264, Dannflor wrote:townies do outrageously pro-scum things all the time

scum try to look town

can you tell me more about James's tentatively town status

I made a snap vote to him because ridiculous scummy behavior but then switched back when I came to believe he might be genuine albeit foolish.

That was meant to quote the preceding post you get it.

In post 270, Ythan wrote:I made a snap vote to him because ridiculous scummy behavior but then switched back when I came to believe he might be genuine albeit foolish.

this helped, thanks

fingerguns

I don't want scum to be able to claim VT in my games on day 1, and I don't want VT's to sell out PR's to advance their own personal meta. Either James is scum by doing anti-town things, or is putting his future scum or current VT self ahead of any current PR. I will always go hard against this as town. If you accept James can build personal meta by doing anti-town things when he draws VT, then it should be even easier for you to accept that I have no choice but to hard-vote against this indefensible anti-town behavior (absent a better option) to prevent it from happening. Simply put, I don't want to set the precedence that doing anti-town things is okay when I'm town and I'm certainly never going to allow scum to day 1 VT claim their way to a win.