Mafiascum.net

In post 273, Auro wrote:

In post 233, Lamees wrote:

Anyway, this is def not town malakitty.

Town malakitty was less aggressive with pushes and was more prone to sheep other players. (In the game we played together at least).

Then again I'm not really gonna call her scum just off meta/one previous game together

.

@Egix

In post 274, Auro wrote:FWIW, I see it as a progression of her thoughts, not necessarily a "blatant contradiction". That's Lamees for ya.

Yes yes, I knew where the self-contradiction was. I was asking Smart why he thought it was towny.
"In what way was it towny?" was what I meant.

That's not even a contradiction. I said I played a game with malakitty. She was town and her behaviour is different to this game, which is why I don't think it's town of her. But I also acknowledge that it was one game and she got lynched day 1. So I do NOT want to scum read her solely for that reason.

People acting as if I said she is town and scum at the same time lol. Well there's obv scum on my wagon so I expect just about anything to get twisted.

Even if there was contradiction (which there isn't) how is it even alignment indicative? Why would I as scum make contradicting posts?

How about the fact that rb admitted his vote on me was not serious but continues to tunnel on it to look busy.

How about the fact that rb townread malakitty after ONE POST, and all of a sudden malakittys only case is a sheep of rb's not serious vote on me?

Also, "lamees is posting no content" LMAO I can list 10 players or even more with no content in this game

Out of curiosity, am I on that list?

I'm rearraning this a little.

In post 192, Auro wrote: Why would it be "inept" for Dunnstral to do that as scum?

Because people doing a surface analysis will read it as being scummy.

Why does someone have to be inept for me to dislike something they did or said?

They don't. It's incorrect to try to generalize that comment to all situations.

Two votes on page 1 and I don't think it's a bad *page 1* conclusion to make that "Auro is getting wagoned".

I do. It's two fucking votes. Besides, if you're town, you should welcome a D1 wagon. It's a wagon on the only person whose alignment you actually know, so it generates better information for you than wagons on others.

In post 278, Leodanny wrote:Out of curiosity, am I on that list?

Of course. Everyone is. I'm the only one who caught scum so far.

Well, we don’t know that yet.

In post 268, Auro wrote:Thing is, I don't think some "naturally scummy" players do it intentionally.

And? They should learn to play a better game.

It takes a little more effort to sort them correctly, but I think it's bad to lynch players who aren't doing it intentionally -- Lamees gets scumread and lynched early fairly often, but that hasn't stopped her from playing the same, has it?

Here's what I see in her complete games:
MT 2044 - killed N3
N 1892 - survived and won as mafia
N 1893 - lynched D2
N 1894 - lynched D1
N 1895 - survived and won as town
N 1900 - lynched D3

So, no, she isn't lynched early fairly often. She's surviving pretty well actually.

Why do you say she's an easy mislynch when that isn't the case?

Why hasn't she corrected you?

In post 279, Persivul wrote:I'm rearraning this a little.

In post 192, Auro wrote: Why would it be "inept" for Dunnstral to do that as scum?

Because people doing a surface analysis will read it as being scummy.

Why does someone have to be inept for me to dislike something they did or said?

They don't. It's incorrect to try to generalize that comment to all situations.

Two votes on page 1 and I don't think it's a bad *page 1* conclusion to make that "Auro is getting wagoned".

I do. It's two fucking votes. Besides, if you're town, you should welcome a D1 wagon. It's a wagon on the only person whose alignment you actually know, so it generates better information for you than wagons on others.

1. And people doing a surface analysis are easy to defend against, and I doubt town would bandy together on a surface analysis.
2. Cool, then. So someone doesn't have to be inept for me to dislike something they did; this implies that it's possible I disliked what he said without actually believing he'd be inept for doing it as scum.
3. "I do" what? I do welcome D1 wagons -- where did I say I disliked the *wagon*? I disliked his phrasing of the vote, two different things.

In post 277, Lamees wrote:Even if there was contradiction (which there isn't) how is it even alignment indicative? Why would I as scum make contradicting posts?

Well you wouldn't contradict yourself on purpose, would you?
Thing is, when someone is scum, they (in general at least) have to tell lies to win. If someone is trying to keep up a facade by telling lies, then they have to remember what they've said so far so that they don't accidentally contradict themselves. Makes sense?
But the most logical explanation, is that you simply had a change in your train of thought midway through writing that one post.

pedit @Leo: Yes, exactly.

In post 277, Lamees wrote:Even if there was contradiction (which there isn't) how is it even alignment indicative? Why would I as scum make contradicting posts?

Seriously? Appearing to be making reads while also maintaining ambiguity is what scum do. Good scum anyway, and I see you have a scum win.

In post 282, Persivul wrote:Why do you say she's an easy mislynch when that isn't the case?

Look at how she got lynched in the D1/D2/D3 lynch games.
You don't have to be mislynched D1 every time to be called an "easy ML" -- Leodanny got lynched in ending 2v1 LyLo in my last game with him, yet he's easy lynchbait to my eyes.

I only once rolled scum and it was my first game, can't really use that as an example. I was super noob idk how I won.

But auro is correct, as town I usually get lynched early (in newbie games at least). None newbie games I work better with town so I got night killed late but at that stage we already had the win in the bag.

This isn't a newbie game though, so can we all vote rb please. Thanks.

In post 283, Auro wrote:1. And people doing a surface analysis are easy to defend against, and I doubt town would bandy together on a surface analysis.

You're admitting that you made a push that wasn't going to do anything.

2. Cool, then. So someone doesn't have to be inept for me to dislike something they did; this implies that it's possible I disliked what he said without actually believing he'd be inept for doing it as scum.

You can dislike whatever the fuck you want. Point is that, unless you think he's inept scum, it's not going to get you anywhere, as you admit above - such things are easy to defend against if the scum are any good at all.

3. "I do" what?

You said you don't think it's a bad conclusion. I do think it's a bad conclusion.

I do welcome D1 wagons -- where did I say I disliked the *wagon*? I disliked his phrasing of the vote, two different things.

136 gives me that impression - particularly the *me*.

In post 255, Auro wrote:I effort as both alignments. I'm not covering up that I'm efforting, am I? O.o
I'm saying there's no special

scum motivation

for me to effort, when I know that efforting alone won't make me look any townier. So if you're going to evaluate my alignment based on that question, it shouldn't be for "trying to look like you're efforting". Agree?
Therefore, an accusation of me "trying to look like I'm efforting" shouldn't hold any weight.

I'm saying you're not efforting and are trying to cover it up.
Address the presented attack, pointing out that you can effort as scum AND town is utterly meaningless to my presented issue. I'll agree - I think you can effort as town and scum, I still don't think you're being fully honest about your effort here.

In post 255, Auro wrote:If you think this case isn't "good", do tell me your definitions of it, because I think a lynch off this case is superior to someone whose playstyle is naturally scummy.

Your case was "you're playing inconsistent" That's a fine Day 1 case.
So is "you're playing pro-scum"
I find both of equal worth.

In post 260, Auro wrote:

In post 253, Thor665 wrote:Please delve deeper into that first response and my rebuttal - I feel like the answer to your alignment is there.

Also, interesting that you use the term "rebuttal" -- I simply asked a question based on an assumption I made and an inconsistency I felt, which wasn't AI -- I never made an argument that you were scum for it, so why was your response a "rebuttal"?

"The grass is blue."
You can rebut that without me even being involved in a game of Mafia. I challenged your stance, you offered a reason why you did what you did, I showed that it was illogical - that's a rebuttal.
What even is this question?

In post 262, Auro wrote:Also remember that my initial question was about you "tossing" people into pools based on their playstyle, and starting from there; something I felt then was different from actual "reads".
"I posted about my tossing people into pools so people could sort me"
"I'm done sorting now" (in a later post without mentioning any updated reads)
If you explicitly said you were *scumreading* Leo/Dunn earlier, instead of the "pool-tossing", I probably wouldn't have made the incorrect assumption when you said "I've already done sorting".

"I'm done sorting" was offered as an explicit answer to your question about how what I was doing would help me sort my town and scum reads.
To expand that to suggest you believed my answer was "I'm done sorting everyone/more people than I've offered sorts on" is a reeeeeeal stretch, yeah?
This looks wonky as a thought process.

In post 254, Something_Smart wrote:How do you feel about Lamees?

I think Lamees is town. The attack on her is weak, and her attack on rb is so silly it reads town to me.

In post 254, Something_Smart wrote:And, I think you're not using "attacking" correctly. Attacking implies aggressive intent; so I would be wanting to call someone either scum or a bad player-- but clearly I don't want either of those things. I'm just giving my opinion on the value of a tell.

If you downplay something you are weakening a stance/belief/player - that's an attack. You pointing out you're doing it while not assessing scum/town intent actually is my point. You're sidelining and not gamesolving while still attacking.
If you want to call it an avocado instead of an attack - that's fine with me, but it doesn't change the meaning of what I pointed out. You're avocadoing other people while sidelining.

In post 288, Persivul wrote:

In post 283, Auro wrote:1. And people doing a surface analysis are easy to defend against, and I doubt town would bandy together on a surface analysis.

You're admitting that you made a push that wasn't going to do anything.

2. Cool, then. So someone doesn't have to be inept for me to dislike something they did; this implies that it's possible I disliked what he said without actually believing he'd be inept for doing it as scum.

You can dislike whatever the fuck you want. Point is that, unless you think he's inept scum, it's not going to get you anywhere, as you admit above - such things are easy to defend against if the scum are any good at all.

3. "I do" what?

You said you don't think it's a bad conclusion. I do think it's a bad conclusion.

I do welcome D1 wagons -- where did I say I disliked the *wagon*? I disliked his phrasing of the vote, two different things.

136 gives me that impression - particularly the *me*.

1. You and Dunnstral keep saying I made a "push" -- No, I just said I'd be happy with a lynch there, quote me where I was "pushing" Dunn for that?
2. He could be lazy scum doing that and hiding behind his playstyle. Again, *I* can dislike whatever I want.
3. Well, disagree.
4. Again, this is dependent on me not believing (3). I don't mind wagons on me, though.

In post 289, Thor665 wrote:"I'm done sorting" was offered as an explicit answer to your question about how what I was doing would help me sort my town and scum reads.
To expand that to suggest you believed my answer was "I'm done sorting everyone/more people than I've offered sorts on" is a reeeeeeal stretch, yeah?
This looks wonky as a thought process.

"How does tossing people into pools based on playstyle help you?"
"Helps others sort me. I've already done sorting"
"Oh, so what are your sorts then?"

Do you really find this a huge stretch?

In post 289, Thor665 wrote:"The grass is blue."
You can rebut that without me even being involved in a game of Mafia. I challenged your stance, you offered a reason why you did what you did, I showed that it was illogical - that's a rebuttal.
What even is this question?

Ah, I thought you were referring to your initial response to my question as a "rebuttal", nevermind.

In post 289, Thor665 wrote:I'm saying you're not efforting and are trying to cover it up.
Address the presented attack, pointing out that you can effort as scum AND town is utterly meaningless to my presented issue. I'll agree - I think you can effort as town and scum, I still don't think you're being fully honest about your effort here.

My posts minus the "Cover-up question to Thor" don't seem like effort? Any parts you find dishonest?
Strictly speaking in a meta sense, NOT efforting wouldn't earn me scumreads because it's against my scum meta (and town meta, too, anyway); and I don't think I've been generating such bad content before that as to get scumread for that, so there's still no motivation for me to "look efforty".
Trying to look efforty isn't beneficial for me, anyway.

In post 291, Auro wrote:

In post 289, Thor665 wrote:"I'm done sorting" was offered as an explicit answer to your question about how what I was doing would help me sort my town and scum reads.
To expand that to suggest you believed my answer was "I'm done sorting everyone/more people than I've offered sorts on" is a reeeeeeal stretch, yeah?
This looks wonky as a thought process.

"How does tossing people into pools based on playstyle help you?"
"Helps others sort me. I've already done sorting"
"Oh, so what are your sorts then?"

Do you really find this a huge stretch?

Anyway, sure, let's go down this and assume I made that stretch dishonestly.
What was my scum motivation in doing this?
Do you think I would've pushed you on the basis of "Hey look he said he had scumreads but only posted them when I asked, this is scum for sure!!"?
If I was scum and actually wanted to push you there, this means I didn't expect that you were going to correct me saying you meant you'd sorted by the time you made the first post, because if I did expect that, I wouldn't bother pushing on it in the first place.
So regardless of alignment, that question was genuine - do you agree?

In post 201, Thor665 wrote:

In post 127, Auro wrote:I don't see how that helps you sort more accurately, can you explain? This applies to the townleans as well.

It doesn't help me sort - it's supposed to help others sort me - I've already done sorting.

Yes, I do find it a stretch.

There was no scum motivation in doing it.
There was evidence of not efforting - which is what I said, and I think there is scum motivation in not efforting.

In post 295, Thor665 wrote:Yes, I do find it a stretch.

There was no scum motivation in doing it.
There was evidence of not efforting - which is what I said, and I think there is scum motivation in not efforting.

Okay, so we've established that there was no scum motivation -> this implies my thought process WRT the post was genuine.
In the universe where I hadn't asked that question, would you call my play "not efforting"?
Because this is supporting evidence at best; so if you don't think I was "not efforting" apart from that, it's a weak attack.
If you do think I wasn't "efforting" in that universe, we can talk about that further.

And even then, you're attacking my thought process -- saying it wasn't dishonest, rather a lack of effort -- which is weak anyway, considering that I *asked* about it and didn't case you for it, implying that it's not necessary to deeply think about all the ways I could have misread what someone said.

In post 296, Auro wrote:

In post 295, Thor665 wrote:Yes, I do find it a stretch.

There was no scum motivation in doing it.
There was evidence of not efforting - which is what I said, and I think there is scum motivation in not efforting.

Okay, so we've established that there was no scum motivation -> this implies my thought process WRT the post was genuine.
In the universe where I hadn't asked that question, would you call my play "not efforting"?
Because this is supporting evidence at best; so if you don't think I was "not efforting" apart from that, it's a weak attack.
If you do think I wasn't "efforting" in that universe, we can talk about that further.

As already discussed - there is scum motivation in covering up your lack of effort by claiming you're efforting.
Hence, again, as I already flat out stated, why I'm exploring your thought process to see if it makes sense.
Why is this suddenly something you're forgetting?
I do think you weren't efforting, I am starting to think you're fake efforting and word spewing emptiness.

That you're - halfway through the discussion - kind of trying a gear change makes me feel like you're worried I was coming too close to reality.