Mafiascum.net

In post 245, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 213, Tanner wrote:does anyone else read 204 as me shading those three people for not assigning yet?

I did not think that it was shade

In post 239, imaginality wrote:

In post 201, Tanner wrote:that post was me questioning implo's read on me. part of me wants to say that means the team is imaginality/implosion/baltar because why else would he mix up you two, but realistically i know it's probably just a mistake.

Probably best you stick with the 'mistake' explanation not only because it's correct but also because what I

actually

mixed up was typing you instead of implosion:

In post 160, VP Baltar wrote:.

I will say, I give small +town points to implosion for spouting off his optimal strategy. He talks about it in the scum PT for that old game. Seems like it wouldn't need to be mentioned before I asked for a link if he were scum.

So your tinfoil theory would have me, you and implosion as scum, which I'm guessing you disagree with?

In post 240, Lukewarm wrote:Filtering back through to find what made you think this, in 103 Implosion expressed a town read on VP and Tanner. Then imaginality said that it was a VP read on Tanner. So VP was tangentially involved with that discussion?

I don't think I buy into this team solve

In post 246, VP Baltar wrote:He's most out there with reads. Those reads are probably overstated even, which seems like a riskier move than scum would need to take at like 10 pages.

In post 236, Lukewarm wrote:but Toog I like Toog

In post 249, imaginality wrote:As for why Ari/Tanner potentially being S/S, consider that my own tinfoil theory.

Basically that the whole "we wanna go in the same location" thing could be aimed at making town wary of letting you go in the same location. So you end up in different locations. Or if you do both end up in keep and have to swap one of you, you use it as a point to argue that you/Ari are being swapped so Ari won't vote you.

I don't know how likely it is but I do disagree with people who are saying it's too limiting for S/S to play like that.

That said it could be S/T with her wanting to buddy you. I think in that scenario they'd still nightswap you if you end up in same location so she doesn't have to vote you. But I could see that leading to you and others strengthening your townreads on her. Whereas again I see her play even if you're town as a perfectly viable scum tactic.

Whereas I don't know if Ari as town would be willing to risk the game on voting for you as an unknown alignment.

In post 253, Tanner wrote:

In post 240, Lukewarm wrote:Filtering back through to find what made you think this, in 103 Implosion expressed a town read on VP and Tanner. Then imaginality said that it was a VP read on Tanner. So VP was tangentially involved with that discussion?

I don't think I buy into this team solve

yeah, imaginality mixed up implo and vp. i'm already suspicious of imaginality for his very weird read on vp. so i think scum is more likely to mix up two people if they're of same alignment. and the imaginality's read of vp slightly smells like s/s, so.... here we are.

In post 255, Tanner wrote:i unironically want imaginality and baltar at the same location.

In post 256, VP Baltar wrote:Seems fair to call out imaginality's explanation as convoluted (I can barely follow it), but to think the mixup would be scum scum seems to not make sense to me.

In post 257, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 255, Tanner wrote:i unironically want imaginality and baltar at the same location.

That seems fine by me. I don't trust you to call an entire location, but if you want to test your theory in a 2/3, I don't think there is a lot of harm in that.

In post 258, Tanner wrote:i like how you think that scum!me would care enough to powerwolf and push through certain locations because...?

In post 252, Tanner wrote:

In post 239, imaginality wrote:

In post 201, Tanner wrote:that post was me questioning implo's read on me. part of me wants to say that means the team is imaginality/implosion/baltar because why else would he mix up you two, but realistically i know it's probably just a mistake.

Probably best you stick with the 'mistake' explanation not only because it's correct but also because what I

actually

mixed up was typing you instead of implosion:

In post 160, VP Baltar wrote:.

I will say, I give small +town points to implosion for spouting off his optimal strategy. He talks about it in the scum PT for that old game. Seems like it wouldn't need to be mentioned before I asked for a link if he were scum.

So your tinfoil theory would have me, you and implosion as scum, which I'm guessing you disagree with?

uhm. you posted the original thing in the section of your readslist that was describing your townread of me. you linked post 103, which is me responding to implo and asking why he's townreading me and vp.

so you're telling me you mixed up typing me instead of implosion, you mixed up which section you're putting it in, you ALSO mixed up the number of the post, but everything came out in such a way that it looks like you mixed up implo and vp?

In post 259, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 258, Tanner wrote:i like how you think that scum!me would care enough to powerwolf and push through certain locations because...?

Oh I absolutely think you'd powerwolf enough to try to get 1-1-1. You're good enough to do that in a natural way.

In post 260, imaginality wrote:To clarify:
- when I was writing notes for my reads on you I noted 'VP townreads Tanner' instead of 'VP townreads implo'
- when I wrote my notes on you I wrote 'Tanner questions townread on him' and grabbed the URL
- when I wrote up the section on you I combined these into the line about you questioning VP's townread on you

In post 236, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 189, Aristeia wrote:btw who are we liking for the 3 scummiest thrown into Gate?

I think rn my too early list is:

1. numberQ
4. imaginality
6. Toogeloo

Do you have reasons for these, outside of post count? I have had no thoughts on either numberQ or imaginality, which is kind of a bad sign, but Toog I like Toog

In post 231, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 229, Tanner wrote:what "questionable" comment, the one where i apparently shaded people for doing the exact same thing i am doing?

Yes.

why does it seem like you think i am so insanely confident in that solve? like. it was one (1) post that made me think that the three of you might be buddies. none of you have any preference between minigames, and nobody has any ideas on how to assign the rest of us. we can test my theory - if i'm right, town wins. if i'm wrong, nothing is lost. i don't have to be insanely confident in that being the correct solve to realize there is no harm in test it?

It's not about the confidence level. It just seems like a terrible solve. I know I'm town, so I know you're wrong there. Implosion looks fairly town in approach based upon the scum PT in the other game. So that's at least 2/3 that look like bad solves to me. What can I say, I have higher expectations from you.

In post 266, Aristeia wrote:I don't think its important to think about if tanners 3 is a legitimate solve or not.

things like getting all scum into 1 location are pretty unlikely

its more about taking a shot because what have you got to lose?

In post 269, Tanner wrote:oooh, spicy. any reasons for those? who goes to which one?

In post 271, Tanner wrote:you mean wall? if so, i actually don't hate the idea of going to the wall with you and imaginality, sending implo to the keep, and throwing the rest at the gate.

In post 268, VP Baltar wrote:If I'm grouping people, might be something like this:

numberQ, Toogeloo, Tanner

Lukewarm, Aristeia, implosion

VP Baltar, DArby, imaginality



Maybe flip Tanner and DArby