Mafiascum.net

should we claim who we passed to, or used our abilities on?

I used my ability on Crypto. I remember not claiming abilities in terms of what they were/who I passed to until d2
I am assuming town will repeat that, as it was beneficial last game for us

I did have a PR night one, though, as I softclaimed in the previous post

↑ Furcolow wrote:should we claim who we passed to, or used our abilities on?

Go read my post early in my ISO that details the plan.

Day 2 we claim ONLY if we passed an ability N1.
Day 3 we claim who we passed to N1 and if we passed an ability N2.

For the moment we DO NOT claim in any shape what that ability is.

And in regards to what I think you are talking about - No, that's non-standard and of no use to the Town.

↑ Furcolow wrote:I used my ability on Crypto. I remember not claiming abilities in terms of what they were/who I passed to until d2
I am assuming town will repeat that, as it was beneficial last game for us

I did have a PR night one, though, as I softclaimed in the previous post

We haven't had N1 yet ....

Okay..
First.... I think this entire wagon on me stinks on the basis that it started because someone didn't like how I played in previous games and draggged dirty laundry into this game, I was only 4 posts in and people were already discounting me based on those 4 posts and my meta game. Well I am here to stay bitches......

First.... Diddin why do you even have any crap on me? I believe in Toy Story I successfully got the Mafia one man down after day one did I not?
Second..... The reason why I was originally voting for crypto wasn't becasue he was super active it was more on the basis that he was being over zealous in the early stages of the day. I have found that in my history of games the over zealous players day 1 tend to be scum.... while there partners take a sit back and watch approach..... so looking at some of the lurkers as his possible partners ie Wazatron etc..

Third.... The case on Warrior is much more thought out then the case on me, Seeing the case on me is pretty much he is playing too bad to be a VI, It looks as though he is scum trying to play overly bad to make him self look VI, so lets kill him...... I do agree that my first 4 posts weren't the greatest and I was wrong in removing my vote after being pressured by two votes withing 20 mins of eachother but I can't take that back. I do however have to say that I believe Junpei and Crypto look pretty close to buddying right now with stringer an outside shot....

My current scum radar has mean going towards Diddin for early game horsemanship and lack there of reasoning for his vote on me.
Why was there a claim of an Anti-Town cycle ability?

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:Note that in all the explosion of play that Toogelo has faded into the background. He continues to provide no reads or positive input.

↑ Toogeloo wrote:I tend to be more background Day 1 if I can

I am living up to my personality then. Day 1 is my day to get the most motivational reads. I am not an aggressive player.

Also, I have already given two town reads and a scum read (plus I have a few more I am keeping an eye on).

↑ Toogeloo wrote:I am living up to my personality then. Day 1 is my day to get the most motivational reads. I am not an aggressive player.

Also, I have already given two town reads and a scum read (plus I have a few more I am keeping an eye on).

I really don't care if you are living up to some stated personality or not.

Your lack of commentary about the goings on in thread is not Pro-Town.

You are not a unique and special Snowflake.

Im reading around in the thread
ML's post helped me get a decent basis so far...
Crypto is good at towntelling as scum, by the way, but I am pretty good at meta-ing him

I dislike Junpei so far, and if I had to commit to a wagon, I would vote warrior I believe

Well, I guess I still have my ability
I sent in to the mod to pass and to use it, and I was wondering why he didn't confirm it

↑ MagnaofIllusion wrote:You are not a unique and special Snowflake.

Nope... I am a beautiful butterfly though.

MoI wrote:Cognititve Dissonance? Check – crypto is working back towards Town due to activity but Magister is ‘rubbing the wrong way’ for not giving reads. Crypto is also blatantly not giving reads. Yet crypto isn't also rubbing you the wrong way and is in fact becoming more Town as his 'wagon' disappates.

You seem to be misrepresenting what I said. Not giving reads <> not explaining tells. It really doesn't bother me that crypto doesn't want to give reads. Magister, on the other hand, votes for warrior and says that he is scummy, but he blatantly refuses to say why. Instead, he essentially says in 227 "go read warrior's ISO and figure it out for yourself." What that means to me is "I don't really have a reason, but if you can find one, I'll just pretend that's what I meant the whole time." Maybe it's just that I've only played newbie games before, but I've seen scum do that plenty. 


As far as "fence sitting" on Stringer... I suppose you could say that also about the 22 other players I didn't comment on either... -_-

Junpei 171 wrote:Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

No, I don't.

Junpei 171 wrote:Why is it that when I forget ONE thing, people think it's scummy. I know I'm great and all, but I'm not a perfect person.

Self-pity isn't helping your case.

---

FC 196 wrote:hmmm..... Ponder.....

Crypto is a pretty active player and that is very helpful for the town early on to generate discussion and what not so I'd like to see him stick around.....

unvote

I know this has been beaten like a dead horse, but this really is too beautiful to not take advantage of for D1. Can anyone read over FC's activity on page 8 and feel as though this is a natural progression of thought for a townie? If so, are you willing to actively fight for him?

---

ML 210 wrote:Predicted counterwagon in 3...2...1...

Could you elaborate on this comment, please? (Who, When, What, Why, & How)

---

nopoint 211 wrote:No opinion on warrior yet

I felt the same. I'm having trouble seeing how warrior earned so many votes. I think the wagon feels artifical.

---

SB 217 wrote:I didn't want to lynch warrior because I didn't think that the case against him was very good, and a quicklynch on a mediocre case is not a good start to a game.

I still don't think that quicklynching D1 is a good idea, but in this game you rarely get thrown the two posts that Fourseen threw us.

Although I still am not comfortable with you, I think this is the best answer you probably could've given.

---

Toogeloo 218 wrote:Fourseen's lynch isn't viable for information as it comes off more policy lynch-ish and people just want to get rid of him.

I get the complete opposite reaction. I think his connection to crypto is solid.

Why did you drop your discussion over your power? Why bring it up if you're not going to use it (as a discussion piece)?

---

MoI 223 wrote:Did you miss the part where I specifically called out, before any of his posts, fourseen as a clear VI? He is.

...and this excuses him from being scum?

MoI 223 wrote:I don't see what he did as very scum motivated.

I do. I think it's possible he wanted to be noted as voting crypto, but without commiting to or making any sort of effort to prolong crypto's wagon.

---

ML 227 wrote:Just iso warrior, should be self evident.

No. Wrong answer. If you don't have a strong enough argument to lay out a case for everyone to see, then you don't have an argument at all.

Moreover, this only serves to further validate my issues with the warrior wagon already. If main proponents can't be bothered to make their case, then it's likely because there's little case to be made.

ML 229 wrote:hmmm. Why?

You ask why should you fight for what you believe in?

Keep in mind that it's not just MoI you're talking to here. Everyone reads these posts.

---

MoI 236 wrote:Your ego gets in the way of stepping back and looking at other people's play. You are currently arguing that I'm scum because I have a play style with which you disagree. Get a grip.

As much as I like his analysis, I'm getting a similar vibe.

---

Pere 237 wrote:Re:Fourseen wagon- How did he gain 6 votes in 10 posts when he hasn't said shit? All the while people saying "good case on Fourseen". Fishy as hell.

The issue was with his vote and unvote on crypto. Did you see those two posts?

---

MoI 238 wrote:I'm more letting people know you are just generally bad.

Can we get serious, please?

---

Kdub 240 wrote:It looks like you put an RVS vote on warrior and then somehow evolved that into legitimate suspicion without explanation. You seem far more supportive of a warrior lynch than your posts have justified at this point.

This. I got the same sense. This is why I'm pushing ML on this point.

---

crypto 243 wrote:This isn't a game of ethics. Stop trying to turn it into one.

Why isn't Pere's request a fair one?

---

SB 248 wrote:I stand by my Fourseen vote, I haven't seen anything from him to make him less scummy than he was, nor anything from anyone else that has been scummier than Fourseen.

If this is directed at matt, I don't like how nonchalant it is.

---

Junpei 250 wrote:Also he has stated no real reads or given any real comments, he has backpedaled in the above post on the only opinion he had. It's time to get rid of this guy now. He is very scummy already and he is just going to annoy me with his awful posts and people going "VI TOO SCUMMY TO BE SCUM!".

I like this.

---

matt 261 wrote:Can we get back on Warrior please? Or at least off of Unforseen until he comes back with other contribution? Thanks.

I don't like this. Why does it bother you that UC has a few votes? Do you know something about his alignment that we don't?

---

ML 264 wrote:At the end of the day, who votes for whom and when is much more important than how or why.

I agree with this, but, in case you haven't noticed, it isn't the end of the day. So we don't have the luxury of working with votes in that way.

ML 264 wrote:It was at this time that forseen came in and posted, and the entire world suddenly came down on him. It looks like the growing of the forseen wagon is in direct response to warrior's wagon growing larger, which indicates to me that the scum were concerned that warrior may have been lynched and wanted to pile on an easy mislynch, that being forseen, and force it through.

This is a fair point. I like this post in general, and I'm glad you made it. It makes your motivations seem much more sincere.

---

crypto 272 wrote:Joke posts – which the nauseatingly pretentious, socially bankrupt players who infest this site apparently can't recognize if I don't hang Las Vegas lights on them – are the exception.

I was honestly surprised you'd be willing to join a game this large with this many unknown variables in the player list. Then again, I had thought you had written this site off altogether.

As an aside, if it's really that frustrating to you, I'd recommend you stick with smaller, more structured boutique games if you're simply going to piss and moan about the "players on this site" all day. Sorry, there is just no middle ground between the retardation of EM and the ostentation of MS. Naturally, there's some cross-breeding between the two. And, of course, there's always cool guys like me, but, really, suck it up or go home, man.

---

matt 275 wrote:A case on Warrior so far is impossible with his amount of posts, but here's the reason why I initially voted him. (i've had my reasoning's scattered throughout a lot of my posts but they need to connect together.)

This is a much better post than your last post. It also seems a touch more relatable than ML's recent posting.

I get a good town vibe off you, matt. Don't let me forget I said this.

---

FC 281 wrote:While I got a sec, Ethereal why did you vote for me immidiately after you stated that I am probably dumb town, shouldn't you be voting for someone you truly find scummy?

Why me = Fry me

---

Junpei 286 wrote:I would like a more detailed explanation on your warrior scumread, because the case against him is terrible

Do you think he's being dishonest or do you think he's just wrong?

---

MoI 299 wrote:Note that in all the explosion of play that Toogelo has faded into the background. He continues to provide no reads or positive input.

Agreed.

MoI 299 wrote:Both Junpei and myself have clearly explained that Fourseen is a Shotty style VI.

Okay, but what's the plan, then? Just ignore him and have him tag along for the ride?

---

Fur 301 wrote:I used my ability on Crypto.

What are you talking about?

↑ RedCoyote wrote:Why did you drop your discussion over your power? Why bring it up if you're not going to use it (as a discussion piece)?

It accomplished what I needed to do already.

--

Workdawg wrote:You seem to be misrepresenting what I said. Not giving reads <> not explaining tells. It really doesn't bother me that crypto doesn't want to give reads. Magister, on the other hand, votes for warrior and says that he is scummy, but he blatantly refuses to say why. Instead, he essentially says in 227 "go read warrior's ISO and figure it out for yourself." What that means to me is "I don't really have a reason, but if you can find one, I'll just pretend that's what I meant the whole time." Maybe it's just that I've only played newbie games before, but I've seen scum do that plenty.

No, that’s not what I am saying at all. Crypto on multiple occasions has rendered votes with no reasoning. He voted for me ostensibly because I pissed him off. Dragging his reasoning for voting and calling warrior scummy out of him was like pulling teeth and the result was basically ‘instinctive’ with some garbage “He’s not showing Townie Enthusiams”. Crypto has basically done exactly what sets you on edge about Magister – not supporting his reasons why players are scum.

Workdawg wrote:As far as "fence sitting" on Stringer... I suppose you could say that also about the 22 other players I didn't comment on either... -_-

Nice deflection.

You basically chose to comment on Stringer and said effectively “He’s sort of scummy but I’m not sure if he should be voted”. You’ve just laid the groundwork to go either way on him depending on the wagon and to have an out if he ever flips.

Town doesn’t have reason to lay ‘escape hatches’ like that.

--

Red wrote:...and this excuses him from being scum?

Red wrote:Okay, but what's the plan, then? Just ignore him and have him tag along for the ride?

Of course not on either case. You judge a clear VI by what you perceive as the intent behind their motives and the totality of their votes / suspicions. Players like Fourseen are much more readily caught via VC Analysis than saying “That’s so bad, it must come from scum”. And if you need a test suspect for linked passing (like from a caught scum to non-confirmed) you put him first in line in hopes of catching a free kill if he is scum.

I read fourseen via what I perceive his motivations to be currently as not scum.

Red wrote:I do. I think it's possible he wanted to be noted as voting crypto, but without commiting to or making any sort of effort to prolong crypto's wagon.

So your scum motivation is that he wanted to vote his partner but not effectively push / prolong the wagon. In a manner that is sure to look like weak distancing that doesn’t earn him any actual Town reads if crypto ever flips scum.

I don’t see that at all.

Red wrote:Sorry, there is just no middle ground between the retardation of EM and the ostentation of MS.

Red wrote:Why me = Fry me

I found the conflicting positions taken in these quotes from that post to be interesting.

On one hand you present EpicMafia as the scourage of Mafia existence and then turn around and use a phrase that germinated and became well know from there.

Also I disagree that asking EC to support his reasoning when it was highly suspect (as I pointed out myself) is ‘Why Me’ posting.

↑ Toogeloo wrote:It accomplished what I needed to do already.

Active Lurking Achieved?

@Redcoyote, what is the point of your last post exactly?

I get a derp read on warrior. Same for fourseen. I'm not a fan of the whole cognitive dissonance line of argument concerning stringer, I don't see scum wanting to look town with the whole "I don't want an easy lynch" thing just hopping on the next available wagon.

@Junpei,

↑ Junpei wrote:

vote fourseencircumstance

Not dealing with this. This ends now.

↑ Junpei wrote:Projectmatt, I'm not lynching him because he's 'playing badly', rather he is playing very scummy. Go read my post on the matter, Fourseen backpedals hard.

I detect back-pedalling with much hypocrisy from you. Also the whole "case" post on fourseen is just blerh with nothing in it. It's very long and not clear on whether you want a policy lynch or find him scummy.

I never accused Magister of not supporting his votes, I accused him of keeping those reasons to himself. When crypto was asked for his reasons, they werent great, but he provided them. I already explained why I felt magister's actions were scummy.

The reason I provided my feelings about Stringer is because he was someone who stuck out in my head. That's all the justification I can offer you.

↑ Kdub wrote:

↑ Junpei wrote:I'll speed up your wait, Kdub.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... =3&t=18300

ISO him, I believe he asks to be lynched many times.

Well, that link demonstrates FC's VI behavior, but it doesn't explain the behavior that diddin called scummy when crypto did it.

diddin says crypto is scum for backtracking on warrior wagon after someone calls him on it. FC does the exact same thing against crypto. diddin then says FC is town because he's playing similar to his town meta supposedly. I asked for evidence of FC doing this (not just being a VI in general, which I accept). diddin himself has yet to provide evidence of this past behavior.

There's not just one. TV Mafia and Toy Story mafia are the games I'm talking about.



I guess I'll give Crypto's replacement a chance for now. Willing to change to SB but I don't think that lynch is happening either MoI.

Too scummy to be scum, MoI? I don't like your logic at all. Fourseen has been scummy, lurking, and utterly stupid. I am not focusing on point 3 for my vote, points 1 and 2 are also important. Do not misrep me by saying "Junpei is just screaming "LYNCH THE IDIOT!"."

Also, I know crypto from epicmafia, he's a complete "love to fuck around and troll" kind of person.

Springlullaby, I don't understand the contradiction. My case was VERY clear. The fact that many people have read it and you're the only one who doesn't understand it is evidence of that. And if you think that case is long, you are going to cry later in the game. At first I saw his post and was like "god damnit, he's going to do that thing where he acts extremely scummy and float by through the game", so I voted him. That was half policy/half anticipative scumminess. Then he posted more and I had a firm scum read on him.

diddin where did that vote come from? I don't see anywhere other than you putting my name on a list that you are displeased with me.

Also it's too bad that crypto is replacing out, he wasn't as VI as you implied MoI, just his posting style is indicative of VI, but falsely so.

I also don't like Toogalo leaning on the personality question I gave out so much.

So hey, I'm exhausted from applying to college and i have a debate tournament tomorrow that I have to wake up at like 5 AM for, so it's quite possible that I won't be posting again until Sunday, though I might get something in Saturday evening.

I'm getting kind of paranoid of Magnascum, but I guess we'll see that based on whether or not he dies night one .

Just to reiterate. I think there is an almost zero percent chance that Fourseen is actually going to flip scum. Sure, he may sound unpolished at times, but I have never seen a wagon grow so quickly, or with such weak reasons for voting, and wind up lynching scum.

DGB enters the game this DAY?!!!!!
Makes me happy to the core, i must say.

Still fine with vote and reason,
but will change if it turns into a stringer bell lynching season.