Mafiascum.net

In post 272, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:

In post 270, Ythan wrote:I made a snap vote to him because ridiculous scummy behavior but then switched back when I came to believe he might be genuine albeit foolish.

this helped, thanks

I know I will just get called names again if I ask, so you can explain what you understand about how Ythan came to beleive he might be genuine albeit foolish on the basis that he repeated himself, so if you still don't get it yourself, ask him to explain?

That's the only issue I have here - he said he decided he foolish rather than trolling because he repeated himself; and if you know why repeating yourself helps disingush between the two, then maybe we can put this to bed finally.

In post 274, Leaven wrote:it should be even easier for you to accept that I have no choice but to hard-vote against this indefensible anti-town behavior (absent a better option) to prevent it from happening.

So, this a policy thing, rather than you thinking there is an actual scum advantage to scum claiming VT early?

I can understand that.

Hello. I'll be catching up when I wake up. cowsloveSushirolls is scum. I'll explain why when I wake up.

In post 246, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:just a thought, i'm thinking that mafia!james has partner equity with only like, ~2 people here
everyone else would have asked them to quit their self-destructive tendencies already in mafia daychat
if they already did, i have no way of knowing but what im saying is that their partner either shuts it down immediately from looking at the self vote or plays around it and future spontaneous acts (like the early claim and threat to death-tunnel) in an attempt to give off the above impression
I hate WIFOM

In post 249, Nahdia wrote:

Sometimes in life you've gotta page bottom to page top.

In post 259, Leaven wrote:And, in my opinion, outside of a better scum target, anyone who defends objectively anti town behavior done with basically the defense of "I know this is bad for town and last time I did it it was bad for town but i did it anyway because I'm experimenting" or because "as vt I'm more valuable to town on day 3 than a town PR" is at least equally if not more sus. Give me a better target, but without one, I'm going to go hard at antitown behavior and doing it doubly so to make it known that I will go hard against anyone who harms town for either scummy or personal gain over pro-town wincon reasons. We gave james an out by admitting this was objectively antitown and his defense was proff he has already done this before with an anti-town outcome. So he knew full well this strat doesnt help town and he did it anyway. If your conclusion is that anyone policing antitown behavior is now sus, town is already lost. Are we now in bizarro world where taking a hard stance against antitown behavior is now anti-town?

In post 262, Leaven wrote:Val, do you accept that james took an objectively anti-town line by claiming vt? If so, then it's that simple anti-town = pro-scum. If not, then that's where we don't see eye to eye.

UNVOTE: StrangeMatter

VOTE: Leaven

In post 263, Ythan wrote:

In post 260, Val89 wrote:

In post 258, Ythan wrote:Except I did answer clearly and immediately and you're just whining still to fill time.

Would you link me to the post where you did so?

If I am being a total idiot here, and I've just missed a post where you answered, I will owe you a full apology.

You've addressed it repeatedly you just continue to go off regardless because well ya know.

In post 264, Dannflor wrote:townies do outrageously pro-scum things all the time

scum try to look town

In post 270, Ythan wrote:

In post 269, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:

In post 264, Dannflor wrote:townies do outrageously pro-scum things all the time

scum try to look town

can you tell me more about James's tentatively town status

I made a snap vote to him because ridiculous scummy behavior but then switched back when I came to believe he might be genuine albeit foolish.

Salsabil Faria wrote:

In post 262, Leaven wrote:Val, do you accept that james took an objectively anti-town line by claiming vt? If so, then it's that simple anti-town = pro-scum. If not, then that's where we don't see eye to eye.

Wait, your joining date tells me you

should know

that anti-town behaviour is not always scum behaviour

UNVOTE: StrangeMatter

VOTE: Leaven

Join date aside he did qualify for this game as a newbie.

That being said I think it would be lovely if you elaborated on that vote a little more because I can see where you're coming from but also I can see where else you might be coming from if you know what I mean. I expect there's a at least a little more that could be said.

In post 285, Ythan wrote:

Salsabil Faria wrote:

In post 262, Leaven wrote:Val, do you accept that james took an objectively anti-town line by claiming vt? If so, then it's that simple anti-town = pro-scum. If not, then that's where we don't see eye to eye.

Wait, your joining date tells me you

should know

that anti-town behaviour is not always scum behaviour

UNVOTE: StrangeMatter

VOTE: Leaven

Join date aside he did qualify for this game as a newbie.

That being said I think it would be lovely if you elaborated on that vote a little more because I can see where you're coming from but also I can see where else you might be coming from if you know what I mean. I expect there's a at least a little more that could be said.

Is all this in response to just 262 or stuff he said later down the page I guess I'd like to know.

i'm on PC finally!

In post 275, Val89 wrote:

In post 272, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:

In post 270, Ythan wrote:I made a snap vote to him because ridiculous scummy behavior but then switched back when I came to believe he might be genuine albeit foolish.

this helped, thanks

I know I will just get called names again if I ask, so you can explain what you understand about how Ythan came to beleive he might be genuine albeit foolish on the basis that he repeated himself, so if you still don't get it yourself, ask him to explain?

That's the only issue I have here - he said he decided he foolish rather than trolling because he repeated himself; and if you know why repeating yourself helps disingush between the two, then maybe we can put this to bed finally.

disclaimer: i am putting words in peoples mouths. also, this topic kind of stinks and val being so performative about the name calling despite not finding it important/AI* also stinks
(257)*


i'll keep it short and hopefully satisfactory. to me all loose ends have been tied up

so the question is why a troll doesn't repeat themselves right
well i'm assuming here that trolls do what they do for reactions/attention
from this very loose idea of what a troll wants to do we can say that james is trolling. therefore a troll will repeat themselves so that they can continue to call to attention their posts
BUT
its a matter if they should (or if they're more likely to do this than someone being genuine)
james and their word choice + behavior imply that the reaction grabbing is just that, reaction grabbing
trolls and what james was trying to do have very similar goals but their nonchalant demeanor when repeating themselves suggests no ulterior motive other than to generate game-related discussion and reactions, albeit in a self-destructive way that is akin to being an annoying dum dum stinky troll. this is further exemplified with posts like these

In post 146, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 142, Leaven wrote:

In post 119, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 116, Dannflor wrote:you didn't do that to get the game going

why did you actually do it

You'll be very surprised by the answer.

Would it be possible to walk through some hypothetical answers for why you did it that would be surprising?

Sure. This bit isn't hypothetical. I did the same thing in my last game then got hammered from 0 votes to 5 votes within the span of about 4 hours before D1 ended due to time. I wanted to try it again. I won't comment further regarding that game as said game is ongoing.

Hypothetical answers:
From a mechanics point of view even town vs even scum, ie 6 town vs 2 scum, benefits town, I get conftowned by claiming and we get to a beneficial mechanical stage?

The first non-newbie game I read over Dannflor did this, and I wanted to try it.

If I make everythone think I look stupid with random claims and hard-tunnelling. I won't get killed during the Nights and can save the game D3 or D4.

no one's sure of james's true intentions (the ones deep deep down) but im taking it as surface level and i'm assuming that ythan is too, with their reexplained vote switch
i asked for ythan to reexplain it so i could use that context to figure out what "trolling" meant, then i worked from there to write the above post

if this makes no sense i dont mind answering questions for a fellow non-SE
tl;dr the focus on the case for james being genuine is in their attitude, not their actions

In post 288, Ythan wrote:Is all this in response to just 262 or stuff he said later down the page I guess I'd like to know.

I thank you very much for your attempt at trying to explain this, CLSR, but I don't think you've managed to solve the mystery for us yet since you actually ended up with the opposite conclusion to the one Ythan made.

In post 289, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:therefore a troll will repeat themselves so that they can continue to call to attention their posts

In post 134, Ythan wrote:I wasn't expecting you to repeat what you had said previously.

You conclude that a troll will repeat themselves, but Ythan implies he finds James is 'wrong town' and a troll because he repeats himself.

And the fact we are still here, with this confusion, after your post and Ythan rephrasing and everything else that's happened on this is exactly my point. Ythans response to my question was that I was "being intentionally dense." I take that to mean 'the answer is so self-evident, you can't really be this stupid, and so you are play acting as not knowing the answer'.

If it takes all this, and we are still not clear in understanding how Ythan can use James repeating himself as evidence he was genuine, then was the answer really self-evident? I think clearly not, and the follow up question I am trying to solve is ‘Why does somebody try and shut a question as to their motivations' , and frankly I can't find a town reasoning for it.

The reason why I am pushing this is as I am, CLSR, is because If you have read all the way through 2068, you will remember I had a bit of a disagreement with NorweigianboyEE about a read on James (of all things!) and he gave me an explanation I didn't follow, and when I tried to follow it up, he also shut me down with the "Ok, newb." attitude. When I came back to it and said I was starting to scumlean that slot, the attitude got more pronounced (he was 'tired of spoon feeding' me, etc) whilst simultaneously posting on the scum PT that "Val could be troublesome." and suggesting I be NK'd, which is what happened. Now, in this game, I have a slot doing the same thing HARDER, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to consider it scummy in the same way I did previously.

In post 292, Salsabil Faria wrote:

Btw, if

Leaven

flips red,

StrangeMatter

most likely their partner I think.

Well, you’d be wrong about only this, if he does flip red.

Also, do you have Town reads?

So if Salsa, Leaven, and James all flip town this game. What are the takeaways.

- With Salsa, scum can freely do anti-town things and even be town-bucketed for it. Furthermore, if people vote that scummy behavior, they will actually be scum-bucketed for it.
- With myself, scum will know they can't easily get away with anti-town things.

What advantage does town get (now or in the future) from laying a red carpet down for scum to freely behave against the interest of town? I'm happy to create an environment that discourages anti-town behavior.

If James was randomly 25% Scum, 25% PR, 50% VT, now I have him at 30% Scum, 5% PR, 65% VT. Still overwhelmingly likely to be VT, but as I've said previously, outside of a better option (which we likely will have in 5 days), my vote lands there.

While I agree that anti-town should not be encouraged by either town or scum, I’m not sure what you mean from some parts. The one thing about anti-town behavior is that eventually, they will get voted. None of us are fully letting him off the hook, despite thinking he is town. I already said this, but I’m not policy voting James today and that’s final. At this point I think this discussion is only helping scum from what I think.

Speaking of which, can you give some reads?

If I have James as my top scum read, then it's not a policy vote. He reduced his odds of being PR and increased his odds of scum and VT with that action The policy aspect is only a consideration because of the meta conversation. If James is going to VT claim early for his own experiment, then I'm going to vote it so people stop experimenting to the town's detriment.

James - Do you think I would unvote you if you moved to E-2 before the last day? I may be way off-base, but I'm guessing that VT-James is probably is more sus of Salsa, Dan, and Sushi for defending him than he is of me for prosecuting him.

In post 293, Val89 wrote:You conclude that a troll will repeat themselves, but Ythan implies he finds James is 'wrong town' and not a troll because he repeats himself.

this is what I meant by "me putting words in people's mouths". i think it's pretty clear that both trolls and people in james's mindset will do this action, so ythan isn't telling us about the action they find genuine. i chalked it up to a difference in demeanor because that's what i was thinking