Mafiascum.net

In post 2622, Flavor Leaf wrote:I wouldn't have signed up for this game if they were in it.

Why is it so frustrating to you if you think they are scum? I thought it would be expected for scum to oppose your goals

In post 2625, Wallflower wrote:

In post 2622, Flavor Leaf wrote:I wouldn't have signed up for this game if they were in it.

Why is it so frustrating to you if you think they are scum? I thought it would be expected for scum to oppose your goals

they dont think im scum.

That's not the reason. It's the contradiction of every single one of my reads. Every fucking time.

I'm just done.

I don't want to play with them. they knew this, and they replaced in here.

I joined this game to replace the game I replaced out of because I didn't want to play with them.

their replace in was the personal attack

Maybe take a second to cool off

In post 2629, Klick wrote:VOTE: Flavor Leaf

You were just barely missing my fade list mark, you can confirm that with SP3 too.

They were asking about it, and I said i didnt want the lower posters faded.

what a post

I liked catboi's catchup and posting recently a lot

In 2261 move Norwegianboy up to Null and then I'd probably be willing to eliminate everyone else in the Scum reads

Well I don't need more drama than whats already in my life, I hope you all have a good evening, I found a bed, so I'm going to go recuperate.

We thought Meg might have been a monk due to being the only one to call it by its correct name early

I feel as though FL is frustrated I cannot just be convinced of his reads by just his word and that's uh, frankly very unreasonable of him considering I have my own level of experience and skill that is fully capable of finding scum.

I was bred in the flames of an aggressive chat mafia environment and know how to ignore AtE like this and have experienced it from the likes of Jeff, Dyl, etc. from epicmafia(catboi knows what I'm talking about) and I can press on through it.

I am asking for constructive conversation and not just "I think this how dare you not agree with me".

I'm sorry to anyone else here having to deal with this - I tried my best to be extra accommodating while not yielding ground that shouldn't be yielded.

In post 2636, SCP 682 wrote:I feel as though FL is frustrated I cannot just be convinced of his reads by just his word and that's uh, frankly very unreasonable of him considering I have my own level of experience and skill that is fully capable of finding scum.

I was bred in the flames of an aggressive chat mafia environment and know how to ignore AtE like this and have experienced it from the likes of Jeff, Dyl, etc. from epicmafia(catboi knows what I'm talking about) and I can press on through it.

I am asking for constructive conversation and not just "I think this how dare you not agree with me".

I'm sorry to anyone else here having to deal with this - I tried my best to be extra accommodating while not yielding ground that shouldn't be yielded.

I dont want to play with you.

In post 2631, Flavor Leaf wrote:

In post 2629, Klick wrote:VOTE: Flavor Leaf

You were just barely missing my fade list mark, you can confirm that with SP3 too.

They were asking about it, and I said i didnt want the lower posters faded.

Cool
I think your posting is achieving exactly what scum want in this scenario, and you're not towny
So I think you'd make a good lim today

it's literally the fact you came in here and disagreed with every fucking read of mine.

You're minimizing it to act like it's just my scum reads you're not agreeing with.

No. I dont even give a shit about that.


You came in here and pushed slots I had actively town read, defended as town in addition.

In post 2633, Well Done wrote:I liked catboi's catchup and posting recently a lot

In 2261 move Norwegianboy up to Null and then I'd probably be willing to eliminate everyone else in the Scum reads

So:

Nashville Dreams (Titus & Malakittens)
MegAzumarill
bnuuy
tictac
Enchant
Flavor Leaf

Would kill

In post 2610, Well Done wrote:Scp, can you confirm if it is possible for the malefactor to exist in the monastery?

It was not allowed in during the original running.

To follow this question up in a way that won't get shut down with the "But the OP Says Random" line.

Here was the SAME RULE in the op of the original game

In post 1, Cephrir wrote:This setup was created in part using a random element. If you find yourself thinking the mod would never make some particular role town or scum, you are probably wrong. This game may have the potential to ignore common setup design maxims. For example, if I rolled a neighborhood composed entirely of members of the same scumteam, I would not have a problem with that, given that I have now warned you about the possibility.

And then, here is Ceph telling us that despite that rule in the op, the malefactor was excluded.

Subject: Not Quite Normal -- The Monastery

Cephrir wrote:The malefactor cannot be a monk.

-----

I am literally asking if the rules of monestary in this game are the same as the last game.

If they are the same, then spc can stop considering a malefactor possibility for FL. If they are different, I would like to know that information.

I'll compromise on Klick, and we go to Day 2.

In post 2635, Well Done wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 615, Flavor Leaf wrote:With the idea that a Masonry/Monkery were randomized, I rolled 50 randomizations. In these cases, it's not possible for both scum to be in it, so was doing the randoms out of 19.

if there is those roles here, of course.



If Malefactor can be in them.

21 times no scum
18 times 1 scum, no malefactor.
4 times 1 scum, and malefactor
3 times 2 scum, no malefactor
4 times, just malefactor

if malefactor cant be in them

25 times no scum
22 times 1 scum
3 times 2 scum


I don't know what type of merit this has, but it does show a higher possibility of all townies than i would normally suspect, albeit not enough to clear anyone in it.

It's basically 50/50 if scum is in a Masonry/Monkery.

In post 618, bnuuy wrote:

In post 615, Flavor Leaf wrote:With the idea that a Masonry/Monkery were randomized, I rolled 50 randomizations. In these cases, it's not possible for both scum to be in it, so was doing the randoms out of 19.

if there is those roles here, of course.



If Malefactor can be in them.

21 times no scum
18 times 1 scum, no malefactor.
4 times 1 scum, and malefactor
3 times 2 scum, no malefactor
4 times, just malefactor

if malefactor cant be in them

25 times no scum
22 times 1 scum
3 times 2 scum


I don't know what type of merit this has, but it does show a higher possibility of all townies than i would normally suspect, albeit not enough to clear anyone in it.

It's basically 50/50 if scum is in a Masonry/Monkery.

Was this for a 3-person masonry/abbey (a more fitting term for the monk group)?
You don’t need to run a simulation to determine odds of at least one scum in a masonry/abbey, you just need to use conditional logic for each step (if a scum is put in during one step, the next doesn’t need to be run)

In post 621, MegAzumarill wrote:Relying on percentages is moot because we don't know if everyone was an opportunity for each role. Some roles may be locked to a certain faction (i.e. A seer and an alpha werewolf exist, seer can be any alignment but alpha is forced to be ww)

That said those percentages are for a 3 person monastery or masonry correct?

We thought Meg might have been a monk due to being the only one to call it by its correct name early

Note from Luke (original post was Dunn's)

In this series of posts, with FL giving the wrong name, bnuuy correcting it to a different wrong name, and then Meg commenting with the correct name (and not defaulting to either name already said) I stopped thinking that FL was a monk, and started thinking that Meg was one.

In post 2641, Well Done wrote:

In post 2610, Well Done wrote:Scp, can you confirm if it is possible for the malefactor to exist in the monastery?

It was not allowed in during the original running.

To follow this question up in a way that won't get shut down with the "But the OP Says Random" line.

Here was the SAME RULE in the op of the original game

In post 1, Cephrir wrote:This setup was created in part using a random element. If you find yourself thinking the mod would never make some particular role town or scum, you are probably wrong. This game may have the potential to ignore common setup design maxims. For example, if I rolled a neighborhood composed entirely of members of the same scumteam, I would not have a problem with that, given that I have now warned you about the possibility.

And then, here is Ceph telling us that despite that rule in the op, the malefactor was excluded.

Subject: Not Quite Normal -- The Monastery

Cephrir wrote:The malefactor cannot be a monk.

-----

I am literally asking if the rules of monestary in this game are the same as the last game.

If they are the same, then spc can stop considering a malefactor possibility for FL. If they are different, I would like to know that information.

Ah well I'm not sure if it can be modconfirmed to the thread as the role is not confirmed to exist due to it being a closed setup, but as part of my role that I claim the malefactor thing is true and I hardclaim it.

Bookmark

You hard claim that it can be in the monastery in this run?

In post 2646, Well Done wrote:You hard claim that it can be in the monastery in this run?

Yes.

Nothing says that it can't for us, so yeah, I think Malefactor could be there.

Noted. Thank you.