Mafiascum.net

In post 1952, MURDERCAT wrote:

@Ircher

RE reads list
You have a lot of scum reads and scum leans, no? I count 8 people you seen actively worried about.

Yes, but it's Day 1. Things will become clearer on later days with more flips.

In post 1973, Double the Trouble wrote:Gloria apparently is not giving this game her attention at all and generally when a hydra partner is mostly missing, that slot is more likely to be scum than town.

I don't really agree. One of the reasons people hydra is so that they don't have to constantly post like they do alone. Also, Noraa has mentioned multiple times that Gloria hasn't been feeling well, so it makes sense that Gloria would be in the thread less often.

In post 1973, Double the Trouble wrote:Seriously, if I mapped out this slot's progression on me you would see some really strange red flags

I would like you to do this actually if you have the time. (Moreso for my benefit so that I don't have to wade through 100+ posts to find the relevant ones.)

In post 1973, Double the Trouble wrote:Not Known 15 - Kill
- I've seen townies who are just bad at the game
- I've also seen scum pretend to be these kind of players
- I would kill it regardless

Meh, I don't find reads that amount to "policy eliminate this slot" very useful.

In post 1978, Double the Trouble wrote:even the mastina read in 1817 kinda just feels agenda motivated
and their interactions with spiffeh about me are kinda bad :/

What do you mean by agenda driven here? Like, mastina is one of the biggest proponents of Battle Mage's execution. I think Battle Mage's scum read there is reactionary and OMGUSy in nature.

1992 by Dr Easy Bake: "What TV personalities are you familiar with" --> I would like for you to give some reads rather than filling the thread with noise. I would tolerate the occasional noise post if the majority of your posts were content, but when it's all fluff and noise, I am a bit annoyed since I've been perpetually behind this game.

2002 by Dr Easy Bake: "I guarantee you I’ll catch at least one scum based off of the D2 reactions to the D1 elimination and the NK." --> I'm gonna hold you to this. You better have something useful to say towards the beginning of D2.

2006 by Dr Easy Bake: "Despite my feelings about Double they’re disgustingly obvtowning up and down the thread." --> Noted. I'm not sure what to make of this read.

2007 by Solstice: "The last time i saw the "out of left field SvS take early D1, it was from scum. And I disagree with the reads, and i saw a lot of people suspecting Ircher. so good enough for me" --> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds to me like "I saw scum do it once before, so scum must be the main ones who did this stuff." The rest of your read on me aside from the left field part sounds to me like just mindless sheeping of others. That isn't in itself a scum tell (not by a long shot), but it does make me wonder about the way you are approaching this game.

2012 by Solstice: "At this rate, I'm going to continue to null/SL right up until he's abt to be eliminated, where he'll do something emotional or otherwise towny, ill change my mind, then he'll die." --> This feels a little off and definitely a lazy way to approach the Battle Mage read.

2012 by Solstice: "[I think I should make my homework getting a real read on BM/Ircher and probably Double.]" --> Hold up, I thought you already had a read on me? What do you mean by you are going to get a "real read" on me?

2019 by Battle Mage: "surprised you have me as "maybe scum", when the reasons for my wagon generally go back to "I sheep mastina" and you recognise her takes are bad. You haven't given a reason for that read which I can recall as yet." --> Eh, "maybe scum" probably wasn't the proper wording back then. "Null with some scum equity" would be a more apt description (mainly the fact that your activity did have some issues like you posting so many times while V/LA. Not that I necessarily blame you for that, but it did hurt your credibility a little bit.)

2044 by Polar Bear Express: "We are not scum MC and I’m not liking you trying to drive a miselim on us." --> This may be confirmation bias creeping in, but honestly, I think Murder's push on your slot is rather awful. It seems to me that he's pushing your slot because he thinks he can get away with it rather than on any true merit of scum. One post is hardly a case or even compelling evidence, especially when it's mostly based on a tone read. (Granted, 1845 is probably one of Polar Bear's worst poss.)

2049 by Polar Bear Express: "This is what Murderkitty is trying to kill us over? When did not wanting to possibly risk miseliming a TPR get considered scummy?" --> I'm pretty sure it's a tonal read and not really based on the actual content of the post.

2061 by MURDERCAT: "Pretty sure you have to explicitly ask Titus this to get an answer. Or maybe Pooky knows?" --> (The question was more to the thread at large than at the moderator as everyone was assuming the mod chose them, but I guess in the end, I should've directed it to the moderator.)

2064 by MURDERCAT: "Do you think that BM, Ircher, and DT are all scum then?" --> Obviously not if you were reading her posts...

2081 by mastina: "Rare is the day that someone says my logic is fundamentally flawed, and then they accurately point out logical reasons that my logic is actually flawed--and when they actually do so, I will fully acknowledge them by owning up to having made a bad argument and listen to their point because of their genuinely good take." --> I think a general flaw in your way of playing is that you see and express a lot things in black and white with an overwhelming degree of confidence. I feel your reads accuracy as well as your credibility would increase greatly if you took the time to consider the null and alternative hypotheses that do not align with your own alternative hypothesis, and weigh each of them carefully by their likelihood.

Like in this particular context, you decided ahead of time that Battle Mage was scum based on an initial impression and then went to great efforts to find evidence to support your case. I see very little evidence that you ever stopped and asked yourself, "Could this had come from town!Battle Mage?" Instead, you let yourself be overwhelmed by confirmation bias, and well... we saw how this particular instance turned out.

2085 by mastina: "Ever since I had the pleasure of playing with Fonz in that game, I have taken this to heart, and yes, it remains true to this day, and anecdotally I've noticed I follow it myself. (Where as scum when V/LA I use it as an excuse to not be around but as town when V/LA I still try to give something.)" --> While this might be a general trend, you can't just flat out ignore the alternative possibilities and the instances when town does this stuff.

2100 by Polar Bear Express: "I've decided to bow down to all of Gloria's reads, look from a different perspective, and see what comes of it bc I've been really over the top this game :/" --> Uh, we would still like for you to form your own reads, even if you defer a bit more to Gloria's reads.

2123 by Double the Trouble: "did you just defend battle mage for softing PR but not even read the arguements for why he was being pushed?" --> Yes, she did, but I think that post was a townie one from her.

At bottom of page 85.

2135 by Polar Bear Express: "Some moments I'm thinking I want to defend BM bc he just has to be town
Some moments I'm thinking I should vote BM bc he just has to be scum" This indecisiveness with regards to Battle Mage actually seems really strange. Double the Trouble's post right after sums up my impression of this post very accurately.

2145 by mastina: "And yet, people never cease to be surprised that I'm making reasonable and rational points in my cases." --> Perhaps this is the case because your points have a habit of being overblown and expressed with too much confidence.

2160 by mastina: "No. When you claim to have done an action you've never done before as town or scum, there is, very likely, an alignment-indicative reason for having done it for the first time." --> Is there actually any evidence in support of this? I don't think there is.

2172 by MURDERCAT: "BM I think you basically have to go at some point this game for multiple reasons." --> No, that's not how it works. Either you believe BM is scum and has to go, or you think he is town and let him live. If you think he is town, there is very little reason for you to think that we (the town) should eliminate him. Eliminating scum is better than any alternative.

2192 by Polar Bear Express: "Like you've kinda been like 'BM is scummy. Let's lim Noraa today' In translation, 'I agree with consensus but I think we ought to not go with it' I don't think u've been indecisive or conflicted. I think you've been derailing in a very sneaky way." --> I get this impression too. Hence, MURDERCAT remains one of my top scumreads as of rn.

2206 by mastina: "The idea that I have bias in my reads is a scum narrative. (It is an argument almost exclusively made by scum." --> Except it's true. It's quite clear to me that ever since BM posted his first post, you have been biased against him this entire game. An unbiased person would weigh the alternative hypotheses against one's hypothesis and at least attempt to address/acknowledge some of the counterarguments to their case. You have done no such thing towards BM, at least as far as I can tell. (Also, tbf, you aren't the only one guilty of this. Double Trouble also decided upon seeing BM's first post that BM was scum, and nothing was gonna change that for them.)

2236 by mastina: "Yup, and which alignment do you think will contribute less when under this sort of pressure?" --> That's a loaded question. While it wasn't a point in Battle Mage's favor, it wasn't really a point against him because the first several pages also have a lot of noise. In addition, I have very little experience with Battle Mage, so I am wary of making a definitive conclusion too early; that is, the way he posted might just be his style. (And it seems it is.)

At start of post 2261 on page 91.

2261 by mastina: "While the majority of my content is outlining why you are scum, my posts are not exclusively about your scumness" --> This is false. Your last 10 posts have been exactly you outlining your case again and again.

2274 by Netflix and Chill: "I'm fine with the BM elimination if only for the Fonz quote. My other head feels better about this elimination than I do, but I think Mastina is town this game and am willing to trust her on this. Also, BM already claimed VT and running up another slot that may or may not be a town PR seems silly. And I think stalling to use up the full deadline is apathy-inducing and runs the risk of town getting stuck with poor compromise options which are likely to land on miselimination options due to lack of scum cooperation and is also silly." --> I actually don't like this post at all. 1) The Fonz quote, while it may contain a sliver of truth, ultimately isn't something that should be relied olone. There are just too many alternative explanations. 2) Deferring to mastina here just because you think she is town is actually bad, in part because it's obvious (to everyone except her) that her read on Battle Mage is biased. She can be town and yet have terrible reads/terrible cases. 3) The BM claimed VT thing is just pure nonsense. Sure, we probably don't want to force several slots to claim, but it is ridiculous to force town to only run up one slot and eliminate them if they are VT. That's just not something that happens in practice. 4) No one said anything about stalling to the deadline. I'm encouraging people not to rush and be hasty in making decisions; that's not equivalent to stalling.

Page 92 --> Mostly fluff with a twinge of MURDERCAT continuing to make comments that don't advance the game.

Page 93 --> More fluff and a nice comment from pichu.

Page 94 --> Even more fluff.

Page 95 --> Also pure fluff.

Page 96 --> More fluff.

At the bottom of page 96.