Mafiascum.net

In post 247, Val89 wrote:

In post 244, Greeting wrote:Sure, self-hammer play is controversial, but it doesn't make sense for me to do that while being scum.

It certainly makes sense for you to

threaten

to do so as scum at this point, early, when there isn't much of a wagon building on you.

It makes sense because you can then go ahead and make this exact post - but the logic present only comes in to play if you ACTUALLY get put to the test. I would perhaps buy it if you were at E-2, or something, but you aren't, and I think you are trying to bank on the fact that it might buy you just enough unjustified towncred to avoid getting there.

You acknoledge that the play is anti-town, because you say it's worth it this time - I can only assume because you are just so

sure

that I am scum, and a scum worth taking out on D2, even at the expense of your own life - and yet, when questioned, your reasons for such amount to what? You "really didn't like my enterance".

I just don't see how that's a reasonable conclusion, and thus I think this isn't about me at all; it's about you, and trying to buy some towncred as soon as you come under pressure. If you aren't scum, then you running around acting like some sort of loose cannon and compounding the mistakes already made this game to reduce the chances of a town victory; this self-hammer malarky, the early VT claim, the wild and totally off-base reads, etc and frankly we can do without you anyhow.

I'm willing to put this to the test; which is why my vote remains where it is. Anyone care to join me?

In post 246, frogsfrogs wrote:

In post 235, Greeting wrote:I know this is activity-based meta, but I see frogsfrogs online most of the time I'm around and they have almost three times less posts than I do. They aren't posting in any other games. What's up with that? In 221, Val89 strongly townread frogs, without really saying why.

Maybe I'm being paranoid about this, but I think it should be pointed out.

Is this a normal line of questioning in long-form mafia? I don't know if it is but I don't really like this post. Does not seem substantial and I'd say this if it weren't about myself either.
I'm 1. not sure how having my game tab open all the time interacts with online status, but 2. self admittedly a complete newbie. TT_TT I don't think I check in as often as you're saying but at times I

do

catch up on reading and have no idea what to say and share. That's true!

I can admit to doing a bit of actual lurking today, if that's what you're accusing, though, with seemingly no one around and my current suspicion fully away from the game. Again, didn't want to retred the previous discussion either.

Greeting wrote:As much as I'd like to see Val89 voted out, I don't think we have a majority for that now. What's the case on Thyhinth? I see them as mostly towny.

His most decisive attempt to scumhunt was with the MafMen wagon, taking up most of his posts, but other than that he's been extremely general when he's given reads. 104 and 83 and 216 are examples. Why does he only say "something" about the argument between you and Val89 "irks him"?? I don't think his town advice posts have been necessarily alignment indicative either, and he and Val have each been referencing a past game for some meta behavior arguments.

In post 226, igorsprite wrote:do you guys have any idea of what i should do? '^'

In post 236, Val89 wrote:Well, if we are going to open that door; I've noticed that both you and MafMen are routinely hiding your online status.

Given that it appears activity-based meta is something you think worth pointing out, are you hoping to hide something that way?

In post 255, frogsfrogs wrote:what do you define "setup speculation" as then, yourself, Mafmen

In post 244, Greeting wrote:

In post 240, igorsprite wrote:

In post 230, implosion wrote:

In post 226, igorsprite wrote:do you guys have any idea of what i should do? '^'

It'd potentially help if you were more open with your thought process; this isn't *as* important in this game as it would be in an average game since your claim makes you very likely town, but it could help if you gave more examples of things you agreed/disagreed with, found indicative of people being townish/scummy, etc.

Right now I'm generally happy with the game state; I have no particular impetus to do much until Thynhith is able to post more and respond to the pressure on him.

hmm... i think that greeting is sus because he is talking too much and that self hammer thing was weird, and i sus frogsfrogs too for sitting on the fence. for the others i don't have any specific thoughts

But you don't think Val89 or MafMen are sus for doing the exact same thing?

Sure, self-hammer play is controversial, but it doesn't make sense for me to do that while being scum.

If I'm scum, get put at E-1 and do as I said I would, then I will flip scum and no one will listen to what I had to say. Or they will be trying to find out whom I was protecting or deflecting attention from. Also, my team will now consist of just one player.

If I'm put at E-1 and don't do as I said I would, that will be suspicious in its own right and most likely someone else will hammer me anyway. And in the unlikely case that town is unable to find any other player to hammer me, then this will be brought up against me for the rest of the game.

Sounds like pretty poor deal for a scum to be fair. I wouldn't have done that if I were scum or a town PR. It would be unlikely for me to do that in most games, but like I said multiple times before, I think this time it's worth it.

In post 253, MafMen wrote:this may be arguing semantics but once again val it is not setup speculation

In post 256, MafMen wrote:

In post 255, frogsfrogs wrote:what do you define "setup speculation" as then, yourself, Mafmen

speculating on what the setup is
so if greeting was trying to figure out what the other pr is, thats setup speculation
giving his own two cents on what the pr could do in each setup is not speculating

In post 259, Val89 wrote:

In post 253, MafMen wrote:this may be arguing semantics but once again val it is not setup speculation

Well, if it's a semantic problem, what would you prefer to call it?

My issue is that saying "we could have a JK, or an FN, or a Doc, at these probabilities" (and I say the correct word for that is 'speculation', but I am open to alternatives) is saying "I am not in a position to CC Igors claim" before everyone who could have CCd that claim checked in; and further more implying that, if Igors claim was un-CCd, he doesn't know the pairing that goes with it, was essentially a huge clue to scum that he was a VT, and might prompt others to give clues as well, and that is anti-town.

Now he have an explicit VT claim; so my point has been basically proven.

What would call that, if you think setup speculation defines something else?

In post 262, MafMen wrote:if anything couldnt that be understood as a bit of a derpclear?

In post 266, Val89 wrote:Sorry, but that's bullshit. It's basically the only defense that would fly.

You are trying to tell me if you are scum, you would consider shooting a claimed VT with 2 PRs outstanding, unless you thought there was a chance they were lying?

In post 266, Val89 wrote:Sorry, but that's bullshit. It's basically the only defense that would fly.

You are trying to tell me if you are scum, you would consider shooting a claimed VT with 2 PRs outstanding, unless you thought there was a chance they were lying?

In post 268, Greeting wrote:

In post 266, Val89 wrote:Sorry, but that's bullshit. It's basically the only defense that would fly.

You are trying to tell me if you are scum, you would consider shooting a claimed VT with 2 PRs outstanding, unless you thought there was a chance they were lying?

PR roles can be useless if their players can’t make good use of them. Plus, some PR roles are stronger than others. If I were scum, I wouldn’t care more about a Friendly Neighbor than a claimed VT who has had good suspicions.

In post 270, Val89 wrote:Yes, and if a slot is Universally townread, or has a repuation deserving of fearkilling, the only reasonable excuse when town start wondering "Why the hell are you still alive? is "Well, scum must have decided this is the situation it's worth PR hunting instead".

That was exactly my point.

In post 273, Val89 wrote:What strange world have I woke up in when the newbies are consistently making more sense then the supposed SEs.

Can some other people weigh in here, please, because I am starting to doubt my reality.

Are these two talking out their arses, or have I taken a blow to the head or something?