Mafiascum.net

↑ fferyllt wrote:

↑ goodmorning wrote:10: The jokey "So, are you Scum?" Maybe I'm pulling confirmation bias here, but it just strikes me wrong.

This post right here is why my eyelid twitched when you said you had a townfeel. My early posts were jokey. No questiion. Fropome and I know each other from elsewhere, btw. These posts were hellos/light sparring to see how he reacted and I imagine his to me were the same. I was happy with the results at the time.

In my experience, jokey posts mostly come from confident Town or nervous Scum. I pegged you as more likely confident Town of the two. BUT the jokiness can also come from confident Scum, though less often.

37: This list of her tentative light Townreads mostly consists of behaviours that can be displayed by either side, several of which she displayed as Scum in that other Newbie game.

Yep. hence tentative.

What I mean when I point this out is that coming out with tentative Townreads based on things you've done as Scum doesn't sit well with me from a Town perspective. If you're Scum, this can put these things into others' minds as 100% Town behaviours. (I know this is kind of a stretch. This is the main problem with chronocasing, the early posts are less revealing usually.)

39: This post initially gave me slight (though granted, playstyle-based) Townfeels. Posting without reading is not something Scum often do. She has before. (Also, in one of my responses, I expressed the opinion that this was alignment-indicative (which I don't feel now). She ignored this.)

claiming to get a townfeel off that post imo is weird and possibly scummy. Like looking for reasons to say "town" buddying up scummy. I thought I said that it is NOT alignment indicative. Will get back to this later.

At the time, you were aware that you didn't pay attention to your posting as Scum. I was not. It is eminently reasonable to see lack of care in writing as a light Towntell. And I said that it was alignment indicative, and you didn't react to that statement at all.

46: I might be imagining a bit of tiptoeing. I might not.

caginess for sure. You'd jangled my scumdar by then. Oh and look...cautious comment about Revenus.

NewbScum are often a bit initially cautious in their dealings with an IC.
I was looking for recent negativities.

50: Same as 39.

Another "townfeel" on a null post? And you wonder why I've gotten a scum vibe here?

Again, it was not Null to me at the time. You had information that I lacked.

54: It's not sheeping really but that's the closest word I can think of.

So, getting a town feel off a post is sheeping? Is that what you'd been doing?

What I'm trying to say here is that you didn't provide any thoughts of your own on why Fe's reasoning was good.

56: Suddenly we're suspicious where we weren't before with no reasons to feel that way that we didn't have the last couple of times we posted.

I have no idea what this means. At that point in the thread, I had enough off notes to wonder if it was a pattern and I put out my suspicion to see how you reacted.

You had posted a couple times since my last post as I recall, then came out with your suspicions without anything changing on my end. That said, your explanation here is reasonable enough.

69: The beginning of what appears to be a loving relationship with OMGUS.

The beginning of what appears to be an outbreak of OMGUS votes.

Seeing OMGUS everywhere tends to be a scumtell. It is one of the easiest ways to completely dismiss a case against someone - turn it into the OMGUS strawman and watch it burn.

82: The beginning of what appears to be a loving relationship with the "lurker=Scum" mentality. (In case someone doesn't know why this is a scumtell: it is much easier to accuse someone with no content than to try to find fake scumtells in the content of active townies.)

Interesting. I don't like lurking but I don't automatically default to "lurker = scum". I've been pretty patient with Mac IIRC. Carey's behavior IMO goes beyond ordinary lurking.

I don't think Mac had been lurking prior to this. He posted as much content as he was able and has since made good on his promise to catch up.
Perhaps my statement is colored by my knowledge of Carey, but that's pretty much how he plays.

85: Votes me, no appended reason.

I think it was pretty clear what drew my vote at that point.

And I don't.

88: "Lack of case on Fro" when the post before was my case on Fro. "indicating you liked Eye's case/vote" when I stated that I liked his thought process. "going after low-hanging newb fruit" when the object of the game is to go after Scum, no matter their join date. "Going after low-hanging newb fruit" also implies that she

knows

they are not Scum.

It implies no such thing. n00bs are hard to read

because

they tend to react in scummy ways no matter what their alignment. I take my time in assessing n00bs for that reason.

I think you understate two things: 1. the ability of newbs to play. 2. the amount of difference between newbTown and newbScum reactions. I don't often have difficulty in reading newbs myself, though this game I can tell is liable to be an utter clusterfuck in that arena.

92: Compare this with her later feelings, particularly those pertaining to the Fe/Deras thing. Even with no new developments in the situation she gets much harder on this point each time she revisits it.

I had a solid town read on Fropome at that point. At the moment the only thing shaking that is a certain lack of paranoia about me.

Why would you find paranoia to be a Towntell? Simply because it is easier to look paranoid if you have no knowledge of players' alignments?

125: Assumes 39 is alignment neutral (which it is, but at the time wasn't 100%). Assumes I was calling her tentative reads not alignment indicative when I said "they are indeed usually Town, but good Scum can fake it." Ignores 2/3 of the points I made in explanation. Harder on the issues from 92. Accuses me of OMGUS, despite the fact that my suspicions of Fro predate his suspicions of me (unless you think he was suspicious of me in 35, which is questionable).

I thought he was suspicious of you in 35. As for the rest...there's nothing to refute there IMO.

Mmk. Agree to disagree then?

126: Made me sad. Also fails to provide reasoning as to why she thinks it is flails (yes, she's done it since, I'm getting there, she should have done it here).

I think this is a style thing. I make short posts to get reactions. WoTs come after I have the reactions. I'm not likely to change this style of play unless I find that it doesn't get results. So far, it's gotten results. I think a look back at my lovers game will show the same pattern of push-analyzie-push-analyze.

Playstyle? Fair enough. I tend not to set stock in self-meta though, because if you're aware of having a Town meta you're probably able to emulate it as Scum. Not to mention the accuracy, since people tend to view things vastly differently.

129: Comes after several people have given reads, and doesn't really cover much new ground (if any). In one sentence accuses me of going after easy targets while staying off of the... easy... targets? SEEMS LEGIT

.I think you'll find that I've telegraphed most of those reads in earlier posts. IIRC the only one where I had a lot of recent posts to think about was Alexis'. And yes, I've made the point more than once that it looked like you were ENCOURAGING a bandwagon while staying off it yourself. TBH, I think you can find that I've done something similar, though, and that would be a more legitimate argument - I'm not unhappy with votes on Carey, though I've chosen to focus on you.

"looked like" =/= actual events

Seriously, ask yourself: Who are the easiest targets in this game? Carey and Deras, right? Who's been going after them again? JUST SAYING. JUST. SAYING

. Not sure what your point is here.

My point is that you claimed Fro was an easy target. My point is that Carey was, not Fro, and that you were going after him, not me.

132: Who goes easy on someone acting scummy? SCUM

Who initially goes easy on someone acting n00b? Someone who has mislynched a lot of n00bs. n00bs get better with game experience and pointers. That's what we're all here playing for, right? If helping n00bs improve isn't the reason why we're playing this game, then I'm playing the wrong game.

Sometimes a vote is the best pointer of all.
Apparently I've not mislynched enough newbs yet, I should probably remember that for whenever I pull Scum.

135: Gave me an "interesting." All the "Oh no, I don't know if I'll still be alive, oh darn" is just trying a little too hard. Plus it's basically saying "I'm just gonna go after one scumread at a time." Why? Can't come up with enough fakery for two?

Bit of inconsistency here. Make up your mind. Am I going after too few players or too many?

You're going after too few, setting up for too many.

145: Fluff.

Not fluff. I'd called your vote-post a thinly veiled omgus without linking to it IIRC. That was to document my earlier comment.

Eh. Links aren't that necessary in that context.

157: This is actually something of a Towntell. Poor lonely thing.

This comment right here, this is where the level of condescension dripping from your posts goes critical mass. I'm going to try to take the rest of your post seriously, but it's not going to be easy.

Sorry. My hatred for case-making got away from me. Reading back, all my posts to you look kinda harsh and I have no idea why. I'm sorry if that's been frustrating to you. :[

175: Rather than just saying "I found it defensive and didn't like the Fe/Deras thing or your lack of vote on Carey," took the game back almost 100 posts and recycled arguments that had been responded to.

You need to decide whether you want short and sweet or detailed and thorough.

I think it's possible to be thorough in a short post.

179: Suddenly considering other suspects, so as to open up other potential mislynches.

Lots of posts by other players happened while we barked at each other. I got around to them. Once again, make up your mind. Am I scummy for focusing only on you? Or am I scummy for widening my focus? Short answer, I'm not scummy. I'm scumhunting.

As above: going after too few, setting up for too many.

181: This is classic nervous Scum trying to masquerade as relaxed and groovy Town.

Get me lynched and we'll find out. Town can have a town bandwagon to analyze along with a whole bunch of reads from a confirmed town player.

I doubt it would be possible for me to get you lynched, what with the Town's reads.
I don't know if I've mentioned this in this game, but I frequently call VCA bullshit. Honestly, I think it's a whole pile of WIFOMish crap that's ultimately pretty hit-and-miss. That said, if anyone else finds it helpful, knock yourself out.
ConfTown =/= ConfCorrect

183: Suddenly all the players have little things that "bother" her. ALL OF THEM (except Rev, I suppose) (interesting) (and Mac, but I don't know if he really counts yet)

Go back and read my list of reads. There was stuff that bothered me about every player, including my town reads in that list. Except possibly Fropome. I expected him to come back to the thread and get the heebies about my going after his nemesis. he didn't.

I think we're missing each other's points here, because I don't get what you're trying to say.

Let's have a look:
me - lots of things.
Fro - lack of paranoia(!) and similar reads to others (HALF THE PLAYERLIST HAS THE SAME GODDAMNED LIST)
Fe- stepping in on the 33/35 thing
AT3 - approval of Fe stepping in and also his backing down
Carey - lurking and uselessness
Deras - lurking and absorbing tips on gameplay which sets his bar higher for her
Mac - nothing, he's posted all of four times
Rev - nothing (interestinggggg)

Who's Fe again? And did you find my niggles about Rev? Or did you not look?

Fe is, as answered by him, Eye. I was, as above, looking for recent stuff.

I await some response eagerly, though I want to urge that we can suspect each other and still be nice. It's not a scumtell to back off of something if it's only frustrating you and not actually accomplishing anything.

Ditto. If I come out of this with a town read on you I'll consider it a positive. It's going to take some doing, though, given where I am at right now.

It's always nice when people can be civil.

↑ Eye Urn wrote:

54: It's not sheeping really but that's the closest word I can think of.
snip
69: The beginning of what appears to be a loving relationship with OMGUS.
snip
183: Suddenly all the players have little things that "bother" her. ALL OF THEM

So what?

When a good player accepts another players reads without comment it's a scumtell in my books.
Calling a vote OMGUS is the quickest way to (usually unjustifiably) bring down a case.
Every player having a little problem means every character is a potential candidate for lynch if the wind were to swing that way.

"Going after low-hanging newb fruit" also implies that she knows they are not Scum.

How so? Because you say so?

Because you don't tend to refer to someone you think could potentially be guilty as easy pickings. You refer that way to someone you're pretty damn sure is innocent.

157: This is actually something of a Towntell. Poor lonely thing.
snip
177: This is one of my posts. I am chronicling it here as the "OH SHIT" moment that made me do a complete 180.

You've added two things that are completely irrelevant to your argument. Why?

Towntells are very relevant to any case. It's good to examine and determine whether the person in question has even a slight possibility of being Town, whether their quantity and quality of scumtells outweighs that of their towntells.
177 is relevant here because the change in my read was an unusual one. Most of the time reads change because of something new someone says. This one changed because I was looking at that comment differently.

179: Suddenly considering other suspects, so as to open up other potential mislynches.

Why did you append the reasoning you did to this? Are we not allowed to find both scum at the same time? Must we tunnel in on one of them and not give up? What if we change our mind? What if we don't get enough support? There's more than one scum, we should be free to look for them.

If everyone were scum then you'd be right. The way I phrased that was pretty bad though.
Side note: I usually try to work from a pool of quantity (# of Scum + 1) as that tends to work for me.

I see serious logical errors and misrepresentation throughout. Such things could be signs of scummy behavior, but I'm actually tallying most of it to confirmation bias. There was one thing that set GM off, and now she can't back away from the conclusion she reached almost subconsciously. That's just how our brains work.

Or I biased myself into thinking she was Town and have now thrown off that bias.

I find it super-odd that she explicitly asked me for a read of herself. Usually you ask people for reads of others, as reads for yourself don't really help you find scum. Reads for yourself would help scum evaluate how good of a job they are doing so far and whether they need to change tactics. That request leaves a very sour taste in my mouth, and I am now leaning very heavily towards GM being scum. Not that I'm letting Deras or especially Carey off the hook but this is the first active, non-pseudo-lurking scum move I've seen.

Honestly you've not really said much about my alignment since post 93. I think I've responded to this better somewhere else too.

↑ Deras wrote:

↑ goodmorning wrote:The good news is that Scum can't NK me or I'll flip, so if there's a Doc it throws the choice "IC or Towniest, who will Scum kill" right out the window.

I don't like this reasoning, I feel like you're setting up an excuse because you KNOW you won't be NK no matter what.

YES
GOOD
GOOD JOB
I was waiting for someone to call that WIFOM or worse and nobody did. This is exactly what I was looking for and it's a minor point in your favour.

↑ goodmorning wrote:129: Comes after several people have given reads, and doesn't really cover much new ground (if any). In one sentence accuses me of going after easy targets while staying off of the... easy... targets? SEEMS LEGIT.
Seriously, ask yourself: Who are the easiest targets in this game? Carey and Deras, right? Who's been going after them again? JUST SAYING. JUST. SAYING.
132: Who goes easy on someone acting scummy? SCUM

Unless I'm misinterpreting this, the second point seems to contradict the first, on 132 you're arguing against ff for going easy on me because of perceived scummy behaviour, but in the first one you said going after Carey and me was the easy (and thus scummy) thing to do?

The first point was about hypocritical and untrue accusations. I also called the two of you the easiest targets based on the feelings of the playerlist and amount of content you both had. The second point was that if someone is being scummy you go after them. I personally would disagree that it's a contradiction but I suppose it could be as applied to some people? Words are failing me.

↑ Fropome wrote:

↑ goodmorning wrote:1. What are the scumtells you think you saw in my post 33? (I know I didn't ask you this, but at least one other player did, and it involves me, so close enough.)

I outlined them to fer, I've recounted them since, most recently to Eye on the very pagebefore you posted this load of shit. You are not reading my posts, as evidenced by the fact that you keep on misdirecting what I say.

If any of those were scumtells I might agree with you.

2. Why do you think my 90 looks flaily?

Because that's what flail looks like.

Not an answer.

3. Explain what about 35 wasn't an overreaction.

I love the way you premise your questions with your own fake assumptions included.
It was sarcasm about your post. Read it, you'll see two sarcastic statements, one about the meaning of my posts being clear, and one about your failure to understand. I get it made you sore or w/e, but your emotional response is your own reaction.

I am well equipped to find and understand sarcasm. None of 35 looks even remotely like sarcasm.

4. Do you agree with ffffff's reasoning (125) in light of my responses (137)?

Problem with your responses is . yes I pretty much agree with ffer. This is one of those things which happens in mafia, people agree with each other's statements.
bold: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Yes, sometimes people agree on something. Rarely do they agree on everything.

5. Where are you seeing defensiveness?

from edit: the whole dishonest redirection and reformulation of what has been said, the dismissal of the obvious, you're either scum, or just pathologically dishonest.

Even if dishonesty were defensive, which I'm not going to get into because it's largely irrelevant, this is not an answer. It is not even close to an answer. When I say something like "you're being defensive" and can't provide any examples of such, I expect to be laughed at all the way to the gallows. I don't sit there smugly and expect to be lauded for making claims I can't back up.

Right about here I was ranting, something about useless sons of bitches, but I think I'm going to turn the other cheek instead.

6. Explain what about 35 wasn't an overreaction and actually make sense instead of trying to spout some garbled bullshit about sarcasm.

If you can't recognise sarcasm, I can't help you. Calling it bullshit doesn't make it so, anyone can read for themselves (apart from you, apparently).

If you fucked up and had to backpedal and the only excuse you could find was sarcasm, I can't help you. Calling it sarcasm doesn't make it so, anyone can read for themselves (apart from you, apparently).

Also here's what really strikes me wrong on Fro: he asks a question or makes an accusation, I respond, then he never mentions it again.

Some of your responses are hardly worth pursuing, I'm not interested in exchanging WoTs with someone who uses language so dishonestly as you do.

There you go again with "dishonest." If I had known this was going to turn into ad hominem I would have worn my wellies.

I'll take your sig bet!

If you agree to the conditions that I outlined wherever it was, then we're on.

↑ Deras wrote:I still believe the ammount of discussion generated by her is more likely to come from town than scum.

Effort does not correlate with alignment.

↑ Fropome wrote:Before you even asked:
viewtopic.php?p=4825759#p4825759
Since you asked the first time:
viewtopic.php?p=4830708#p4830708

Thank you, I guess I missed the fact that those referred to the scumtells on GM's post. [/quote[
I would personally opine that they don't. (just saying)

GM agreed on the conclusion, aka "Deras = scum"

No. Very much not so. I said, and I quote "

It's a bit early on

, but I like the

thought process

"
Translation: It's too soon to call someone an active lurker. I like that you are looking for active lurkers, however.