Mafiascum.net

In post 2599, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2590, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 2587, Zantetsu wrote:I'd rather lynch one of FB's partners today. But if we can't decide on one then I would compromise on FB.

Isn’t this a bit weird? If you literally think you’ve caught scum. Why would you try to lynch one of his partners before lynching him, rather than lynching him and seeing who could be partners outside the wagon or bussed?

I have reasons and I promise I will reveal them later. I agree it might seem weird at first blush but I'll just say that I think we have an opportunity to do real damage to the scum team and that in my evaluation FB is not the highest damage lynch for scum. I could be wrong about that but it's my working theory.

translation: Zan thinks i am prolly scum but not a scum PR. So we should prioritize the scum PR, not me. So he will look for whoever he thinks I am shielding.

In post 2432, popopopopopopo wrote:quick being clueless in thread, obviously not read the game, feels "town vt replacement" to me right now.

Why couldn't it all be an act?

In post 2459, Saudade wrote:and where is Nero

in bed. What the point of this post other than a manipulative attempt to make it look like I was "lurking"?

In post 2544, Zantetsu wrote:Nero Cain, would you be willing to lynch FireBringer today?

remind me why he's scum. Is it just that roleblocker fakeclaim?

Since FireBringer refuses to explain his fake claim I will say now what I was trying to go for.

FireBringer's only previous explanation was that he was trying to "protect the jaikeeper". First, I'll just point out that there is a lot of sloppiness in FB's claim because I asked who jailkept Churros, and FB replied that he blocked Churros, then later he's saying he was trying to protect the jailkeeper. So it's never clear to me if he was trying to claim roleblocker or jailkeeper. It's not especially AI but it's just annoying because clarity is needed.

So Firebringer's only explanation for his fake claim was that he was trying to protect the jailkeeper. The problem is, that at that point in the game, it was not clear that there was a town jailkeeper or blocker of any kind. town!Firebringer at the time of his claim could only have known that Churros was blocked somehow. It might not have even been town. So town!Firebringer making a fake claim to protect the town jailkeeper cannot be sincere because he could not have known there was even a town jailkeeper or blocker of any kind.

In post 2552, Quick wrote:

In post 1624, popopopopopopo wrote:these 2 lynches have been super disheartening. none of the 3 wagons day 1 were on scum. im p much completely lost. i dont even have a solid townread to sheep.

@Nero, why does Scum ever say this here? I'll listen if you have a reason. But you don't.

no scum have ever said anything remotely townie sounding ever. At best this is NAI.

In post 2602, Zantetsu wrote:Since FireBringer refuses to explain his fake claim I will say now what I was trying to go for.

FireBringer's only previous explanation was that he was trying to "protect the jaikeeper". First, I'll just point out that there is a lot of sloppiness in FB's claim because I asked who jailkept Churros, and FB replied that he blocked Churros, then later he's saying he was trying to protect the jailkeeper. So it's never clear to me if he was trying to claim roleblocker or jailkeeper. It's not especially AI but it's just annoying because clarity is needed.

So Firebringer's only explanation for his fake claim was that he was trying to protect the jailkeeper. The problem is, that at that point in the game, it was not clear that there was a town jailkeeper or blocker of any kind. town!Firebringer at the time of his claim could only have known that Churros was blocked somehow. It might not have even been town. So town!Firebringer making a fake claim to protect the town jailkeeper cannot be sincere because he could not have known there was even a town jailkeeper or blocker of any kind.

i was more trying to bait the nightkill than trying to protect the jk/rb, I claimed with the chance that scum had those roles and i was fake claiming and not gonna get killed or save anyone. If on Day 4 i was alive i was gonna assume the rb/jk was scum since i wasn't killed.

i also started to think my claim wasn't remotely believable because i did zero prep work for it. I just threw it out there. When alchemist caught it i thought he was very townie for noticing how fucking transparently bad it was.

Fire, who did u want to lynch today and why?

Quick because he is the least townie player for me rn.

Its starting to push to Popopop beause some things he says just doesn't add up to me in a town perspective and might be scum. Idk his thought process is fucking bananas at times.

In post 2600, Firebringer wrote: translation: Zan thinks i am prolly scum but not a scum PR. So we should prioritize the scum PR, not me. So he will look for whoever he thinks I am shielding.

OK well yes I've been outed here. I think that scum has to protect their roleblocker because if they lose their roleblocker they are in real trouble. If we lynch their roleblocker today they will be unable to prevent Alch's jailkeeper power which could completely screw them by protecting their kill target, and then they'll have the same problem with me tomorrow.

It takes them from a position of being able to choose their target without any interference (by just roleblocking Alch tonight) to having to WIFOM themselves to death worrying about who Alch is going to protect.

I was watching to see who scum was willing to bus. Everyone who is not town confirmed has already expressed willingness to lynch FB, except for Nero who I am not sure what he's said on the topic, I have to re-read. But given that everyone is willing to lynch FB I think he's not their roleblocker.

In post 2605, Firebringer wrote:i also started to think my claim wasn't remotely believable because i did zero prep work for it. I just threw it out there. When alchemist caught it i thought he was very townie for noticing how fucking transparently bad it was.

If it wasn't remotely believable, why would you think it would draw the NK?

In post 2609, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2605, Firebringer wrote:i also started to think my claim wasn't remotely believable because i did zero prep work for it. I just threw it out there. When alchemist caught it i thought he was very townie for noticing how fucking transparently bad it was.

If it wasn't remotely believable, why would you think it would draw the NK?

because scum believe any claims u give them. They suck at figuring out real vs fake claims because they instinctively believe townies.

My only concern is that I wouldn't be surprised if scum also as a 1-shot strongman because it would be a super swingy setup for scum to lose their rb and have no answer to a split jailkeeper/roleblocker role that takes two kills to completely shut down.

In post 2610, Firebringer wrote:

In post 2609, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2605, Firebringer wrote:i also started to think my claim wasn't remotely believable because i did zero prep work for it. I just threw it out there. When alchemist caught it i thought he was very townie for noticing how fucking transparently bad it was.

If it wasn't remotely believable, why would you think it would draw the NK?

because scum believe any claims u give them. They suck at figuring out real vs fake claims because they instinctively believe townies.

That's not even remotely convincing.

At best I would say your claim was NAI.

In post 2612, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2610, Firebringer wrote:

In post 2609, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2605, Firebringer wrote:i also started to think my claim wasn't remotely believable because i did zero prep work for it. I just threw it out there. When alchemist caught it i thought he was very townie for noticing how fucking transparently bad it was.

If it wasn't remotely believable, why would you think it would draw the NK?

because scum believe any claims u give them. They suck at figuring out real vs fake claims because they instinctively believe townies.

That's not even remotely convincing.

At best I would say your claim was NAI.

u telling me u instinctively don't believe claims when ur scum and u see a townie make them?

In post 2613, Firebringer wrote:

In post 2612, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2610, Firebringer wrote:

In post 2609, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2605, Firebringer wrote:i also started to think my claim wasn't remotely believable because i did zero prep work for it. I just threw it out there. When alchemist caught it i thought he was very townie for noticing how fucking transparently bad it was.

If it wasn't remotely believable, why would you think it would draw the NK?

because scum believe any claims u give them. They suck at figuring out real vs fake claims because they instinctively believe townies.

That's not even remotely convincing.

At best I would say your claim was NAI.

u telling me u instinctively don't believe claims when ur scum and u see a townie make them?

Not when they are "not remotely believable".

In post 2614, Zantetsu wrote:Not when they are "not remotely believable".

U BELIEVED IT THIS GAME!

sorry Zant, Fire is pocketed me and I think we should be lynching Quick today. U said u wanted to vote outside of him anyways.

In post 2615, Firebringer wrote:

In post 2614, Zantetsu wrote:Not when they are "not remotely believable".

U BELIEVED IT THIS GAME!

I'm not scum. Your point was that scum believe stuff that town says instinctively.

I also didn't know at that time whether or not you had crumbed anything, so I didn't know how strong your claim was going to end up being. Scum would be in the same position, so why are you saying that the claim was not remotely believable?

It's like when you are trying to justify your claim you are saying "it wouldn't out the true blocker because town wouldn't believe it because it was not remotely believable" and at the same time "it would draw the NK because scum would believe it."

You can't have it both ways.

In post 2617, Zantetsu wrote:

In post 2615, Firebringer wrote:

In post 2614, Zantetsu wrote:Not when they are "not remotely believable".

U BELIEVED IT THIS GAME!

I'm not scum. Your point was that scum believe stuff that town says instinctively.

I also didn't know at that time whether or not you had crumbed anything, so I didn't know how strong your claim was going to end up being. Scum would be in the same position, so why are you saying that the claim was not remotely believable?

It's like when you are trying to justify your claim you are saying "it wouldn't out the true blocker because town wouldn't believe it because it was not remotely believable" and at the same time "it would draw the NK because scum would believe it."

You can't have it both ways.

i dont like playing word gmes so let me rephrase.

When I say not remotely believable I am talking about people who are trying to analyze it and figure out the likelyhood of it being real in a critical way. Scum are not going to think critically of it because they aren't trying to decipher lies/truth from town players.

Does this make sense?

In post 2618, Firebringer wrote:i dont like playing word gmes so let me rephrase.

When I say not remotely believable I am talking about people who are trying to analyze it and figure out the likelyhood of it being real in a critical way. Scum are not going to think critically of it because they aren't trying to decipher lies/truth from town players.

Does this make sense?

It is clearer. The only conclusion I can draw is that you are town and made a bad play or are scum hoping you could draw a claim and fall back on pretending you are town who made a bad play. Like I said, at best it's NAI.

In post 2618, Firebringer wrote:Scum are not going to think critically of it because they aren't trying to decipher lies/truth from town players.

And to be clear I do not agree with this but that doesn't mean you yourself can't believe it. NAI.

In post 2603, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 2552, Quick wrote:

In post 1624, popopopopopopo wrote:these 2 lynches have been super disheartening. none of the 3 wagons day 1 were on scum. im p much completely lost. i dont even have a solid townread to sheep.

@Nero, why does Scum ever say this here? I'll listen if you have a reason. But you don't.

no scum have ever said anything remotely townie sounding ever. At best this is NAI.

Thank you Nero. I totally wanted to say this on your behalf but waited for you to say it.

Let's do popop.

Or Norwegian. I like you Norwegian but you're not even trying to scumhunt.

Alchemist needs to un-disappear.