Mafiascum.net

Lol!

I'm going to reread because my head is completely empty

Rodent is in no danger of elimination at the moment if that's what you're asking, we need 7 votes to lim

Roden. Jesus. Autocorrect. Sorry.

In post 270, Salsabil Faria wrote:What is mc actually doing btw, feeling like not understandable noises only...

you understood me well enough to answer my question, clearly at least some of my "noises" are understandable. but sure, i can elaborate on the comments about pavowski.

of all the players who have been active since lq vs. roden blew up (it actually kinda started as guiltylion vs. roden), pavowski is the only person with neither votes nor explicitly-stated reads invested. this oddity seems the most obvious thing in the world to me; i cannot understand "not understandable" as a description.

even t3, who has repeatedly said he lacks reads and struggles to get anything out of the thread, has a vote on lq. even auro, who's barely been active throughout the drama and has stuck with his rvs vote, got a weak scumread on roden and a townread on darby out of it. nobody except pavowski is using the tedium of the "lq vs. roden" pages as an excuse to say literally nothing about these interactions.

i was initially going to accuse pavowski of dodging my question; but after garlon didnt understand me early game, and now salsabil doesnt understand me, i guess pavowski could be in the same camp. so:

pavowski, now that it's been laid out [hopefully] more clearly, are you going to reply this time?

Not deliberately dodging, just unable to do deep reading right now. I will say that I tend to see such conflicts early on as TvT, though I dont think it's particularly towny to be as defensive as they seem.

As for the intervening comments, I will cop to skimming/skipping them and will review later today.

This game went from memery to dead fookin serious faster than I was prepared for.

In post 87, Almost50 wrote:

In post 77, Bingle wrote:Going on 54 years now, we’re doubtful it’ll ever happen.

there you go.. and we're not even mid-way past D1.

A50 probably going to be more important than me in this game. Why?

In post 178, DArby wrote:

In post 175, mc esther wrote: im pretty sure t3 is talking about guiltylion, seeing as that's who he quoted and that's where his vote is.

I wouldn’t be surprised if T3 mixed GL and LQ.

aaah this actually makes those T3 posts make a lot more sense.

I'm definitely playing more aggro so far than I did in Situation Room (my only game I had with T3 I think), so I can buy town!T3 making that read. Situation Room was a completely different situation tho, initial one being that I was overgamed at the start of Situation Room so D1 I had to sit back for a lot of the early part of it

In post 191, Roden wrote:Honestly LQ why are you scum reading me at all when you've recently seen two of my scum games in depth? You should know this isn't it from my opening posts alone.

Roden, I'll give you an honest, non-confrontational reach out on this point

Can you explain why you think your opening posts are town enough that we should already conclude that this isn't your scum game? Wouldn't that be a tremendous insult to your scum game, if your town game is so apparent in contrast to it that you claim it takes just a couple opening posts to rule out the possibility of you being scum?

In post 201, T3 wrote:town lq
sorts people, actively scumhunts, makes walls
scum lq
just says his reads on people, one liners
VOTE: lq
thank you for coming to my ted talk

oh wait I guess I should actually do a full read through before catching up, so T3 didn't mix us up?

this is a pretty shallow meta read, not convinced

In post 226, Auro wrote:Did you read anything off my lack of vote?

not anything especially specific/strong beyond my general "not using your vote with purpose is antitown" standard, but I do wish you'd start using it!

In post 285, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 191, Roden wrote:Honestly LQ why are you scum reading me at all when you've recently seen two of my scum games in depth? You should know this isn't it from my opening posts alone.

Roden, I'll give you an honest, non-confrontational reach out on this point

Can you explain why you think your opening posts are town enough that we should already conclude that this isn't your scum game? Wouldn't that be a tremendous insult to your scum game, if your town game is so apparent in contrast to it that you claim it takes just a couple opening posts to rule out the possibility of you being scum?

I love this post so much I want to quote it at everybody who ever says on d1 any variation of "I'm obviously town", and that is a lot of people

Like, is Roden actually pulling the wool over my eyes as Town here? I sorta think not, but then again, I do kinda suck at this game, so... I don't want to finish this sentence.

my one main salient takeaway from the LQ/Roden bit is that both are making dubious claims on one particular front

Roden in 205 asks LQ if LQ thinks Roden "purposefully puts himself in this situation as scum". Again I think Roden is questionably taking credit for something that I feel I'm responsible for (early wagon/pressure on Roden). The logic of "why would I get wagoned as scum" isn't easy to understand from either a town/scum perspective, it's not clear what Roden specifically thinks that he did to get himself wagoned and whether that was intentional. However I have seen both alignments make the "I wouldn't be wagoned if I were scum here" claim, it's not something I feel comfortable reasoning about as AI but I certainly don't townread it, at best it's WIFOMy.

However, Roden has a point in 209 that LQ agreeing that scum!Roden might indeed intentionally "put himself in this situation" is also a bad take. Scum do not love early scrutiny, in almost any circumstance. I don't see LQ's logic in implying that this COULD be a scum plan - again, how and where did Roden even intentionally invite pressure on himself? Whatever Roden's alignment is, I'm sure he'd rather not be voted and rather not have to argue with people voting him.

I can see what LQ is saying in that LQ just kinda went along with an idea (being intentionally wagoned) that Roden put out there, but it's just such bad reasoning on both sides ("if I were scum, I wouldn't be wagoned") ("no, if you were scum, this might be your plan!!") that I'm having a hard time parsing why either player is taking any of the logic seriously.

I think if I try to get into LQ's brain I can see where he's coming from overall, so I prefer staying on Roden here. But I would like Roden's answer to my 285 because I think the claim of "this should obviously be seen as not my scum game" is the real heart of everything that followed after that ("if I were scum, I wouldn't be getting pressured" being the subsequent claim)

In post 290, GuiltyLion wrote:my one main salient takeaway from the LQ/Roden bit is that both are making dubious claims on one particular front

Roden in 205 asks LQ if LQ thinks Roden "purposefully puts himself in this situation as scum". Again I think Roden is questionably taking credit for something that I feel I'm responsible for (early wagon/pressure on Roden). The logic of "why would I get wagoned as scum" isn't easy to understand from either a town/scum perspective, it's not clear what Roden specifically thinks that he did to get himself wagoned and whether that was intentional. However I have seen both alignments make the "I wouldn't be wagoned if I were scum here" claim, it's not something I feel comfortable reasoning about as AI but I certainly don't townread it, at best it's WIFOMy.

However, Roden has a point in 209 that LQ agreeing that scum!Roden might indeed intentionally "put himself in this situation" is also a bad take. Scum do not love early scrutiny, in almost any circumstance. I don't see LQ's logic in implying that this COULD be a scum plan - again, how and where did Roden even intentionally invite pressure on himself? Whatever Roden's alignment is, I'm sure he'd rather not be voted and rather not have to argue with people voting him.

I can see what LQ is saying in that LQ just kinda went along with an idea (being intentionally wagoned) that Roden put out there, but it's just such bad reasoning on both sides ("if I were scum, I wouldn't be wagoned") ("no, if you were scum, this might be your plan!!") that I'm having a hard time parsing why either player is taking any of the logic seriously.

I'll just say a tiny little bit about this, but I don't want to hammer on it.

The wagons at SoD 1 almost never last the whole phase. It one of the problems with 10 day Day Phases. You can catch Scum pretty badly, but the wagon usually just doesn't hold regardless of the evidence.

This game is not fun for me right now. That argument is a fucking mess. I might be back later.

UNVOTE:

i can see why scum!lickety would want the thread to be the way it is now; and salsabil and t3's meta read had me considering the scum vs. scum interpretation at one point. but i dont find it that compelling, i obviously cant corroborate their reads, and lickety clearly isnt the only person responsible for the state of the thread.

voicing doubts about the wagon in post #289 pings vaguely town. i dont see much reason for him to attempt to disengage as scum, he's very much "winning" as it were. the obvious reason would be "for the town cred", i guess; but scum changing a read after hard tunnelling for multiple pages is pretty gutsy imo.

In post 284, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 178, DArby wrote:

In post 175, mc esther wrote: im pretty sure t3 is talking about guiltylion, seeing as that's who he quoted and that's where his vote is.

I wouldn’t be surprised if T3 mixed GL and LQ.

aaah this actually makes those T3 posts make a lot more sense.

I'm definitely playing more aggro so far than I did in Situation Room (my only game I had with T3 I think), so I can buy town!T3 making that read. Situation Room was a completely different situation tho, initial one being that I was overgamed at the start of Situation Room so D1 I had to sit back for a lot of the early part of it

In post 58, Almost50 wrote:

In post 53, mc esther wrote:ive only ever seen the self-vote reaction test used by town. i could guess at reasons for this (mafia not wanting to draw attention to themself, mafia not wanting to do something daft that gets them policy-eliminated, the fact that moving the game out of rvs benefits town), but the theory behind it is far less relevant to me (because i think it's bad and shouldnt happen regardless) than what ive tended to observe.

I hate to shoot your theory down, but I have witnessed scum self-voting in RVS, and it was to avoid alienating others early. IIRC they said it was because they "didn't know whom to vote".

So far I have but only one TR, and it's not even that strong, so I'll let you all play it out a little and see where it gets us

Was that player a newb?

In post 97, DArby wrote:Don’t say that. I didn’t fully read the player list and thought I accidentally posted in a game I shouldn’t be in.

I feel like scum would be a little bit more conscious of the fact that they are playing in a game so weak townpoints for this

In post 102, DArby wrote:Actually, Bingle, why should A50 claim with there being a CPR doc? Shouldn’t the doc only have one person to worry about saving (A50).

Not to mention if it’s so that way we have an idea of who to hold responsible in the event of A50 dying, couldn’t that also be used against us?

This kind of thing is definitely something that would come up in the scum pt.

It doesn't read like a fake dumbtell so I'll townbin DArby for now.

Unlike last night, I don't have a legitimate reason to not catch up. I just don't want to. Deal with it, nerds. (Seriously though, I promise to get to this and actually provide content when I'm in a better mafia headspace.)