Mafiascum.net

Will try and finish this catch-up later tonight or tomorrow.

↑ copper223 wrote:@Aneninen
So what's your read on Vettrock?

He could be town for now. I tried to meta him but I couldn't find any scum games so, eh.

↑ Wickedestjr wrote:

↑ copper223 wrote:@Wicked
How confident are you about Dave being scum? It's true the early claims happened in Rome.

72% sure

Why 72%?

Copper (and others): to tell the truth, the more I read Davesaz's posts the surer I am that he's town. His posts are very similar as they were in the first game I met him. (With the significant exception that I don't want to mislynch him now ^_^ )

↑ eyestott wrote:
I gave reasons for my vote. Why can't I give reasons and vote on my top scumread without it being "sheeping" simply because of how many other people are voting him for different reasons?

Mind my answer, you even quoted it:

↑ copper223 wrote:@Dave
Why did you attempt to read only the players on your wagon?

He attempted to read me too and I'm not on his wagon.

↑ copper223 wrote:

Who happen to be the only active players. I can't read inactive ones.

clearly Aneninen was chosen because of his activity level, the fact your read on him is null because you are waiting for content doesn't raise an eyebrow, right...

???

As for BBT's catchup. I don't know what to think. It seems to be townish but a catchup like that could be faked by a scum too. Also, I haven't got an idea why Dave rushed to "null-read" me. Maybe because I'm explicitly away from his wagon...?

@Aneninen
You're right, both Dave and I missed that you were not on his wagon, his reply that he chose the more active players, regardless of who they were voting, and then gave you a null read because of lack of content though makes 0 sense, so why did he put you in that list?

I don't think Dave missed who were on his wagon. Or did he post something like that? If so, I must have missed something. As usual.
Also, I don't think I'm that active.
And I don't understand why I was on his list.

(This has been one of the most useful posts I've ever wrote, I suppose. ^_^ )

@Aneninen
Lol, I'm used to your posting style.

I asked him why he was scumreading only people on his wagon (because this to me, like his reaction to the Mastin scumread, reeked of threat mitigation) and he replied he chose those people not because they voted for him, but because they are the more active players he could actually get a read on (so he also did not notice or forgot about you not being on his wagon, otherwise I'd have expected him telling me: I read Aneninen as well, and he is not voting for me), but this reason he gives seemed pretty suspect to me as you clearly were not one of those players.

Now I can see a world where town_Dave tries to read Aneninen because they previously had a game together and comes up with a blank, so idk, it's not such a strong scumtell anymore and I continue disliking everyone finding an angle to jump on the wagon (BBT being the latest addition).

@Killapenwin

↑ killapenwin wrote:@eyestott it is because your votes so far have just followed Tean's, which looks a bit sheepish. Also, Tean has only voted on players that have been voted on already so either him or you (maybe both) are trying to create bandwagons or give them some momentum in my opinion.

As Aneninen said, it is odd that Tean would call you out for sheeping when he himself is being a catalyst for bandwagons.

To start with, it'd be nice if you wouldn't lie when trying to cast suspicion on me. I was the first person who had a non-rvs vote on you when the game started and you should know that. I don't appreciate you lying to try to make me sound worse.

On top of that, I don't like how you're ignoring my posts. You seem to have outright missed #231, and I'd like you to try answering my questions, not just blindly calling me scum because I'm rude.

@Wickedestjr

↑ Wickedestjr wrote:

↑ Tean Samargo wrote:@eyestott
I find your vote on dav as rather opportunistic. I feel a little bit uncomfortable with my vote along side yours honestly. Right now it feels as if you are sheeping the biggest bandwagon.

Now this is a weird thing for

you

to say! Especially considering you cast the vote for davesaz immediately preceding eyestott’s vote (so you weren’t much faster to hop aboard). It also seems convenient how you start to cast doubt on the wagon, ‘coincidentally’, just after it starts to lose momentum.

Could you show me where I started to cast doubt on a wagon? I'm not seeing it. Also, I didn't dislike eyestott's vote for jumping on the wagon, it was for jumping on it with shitty reasoning. He finds dav his top scumread but he doesn't vote until dav isn't at L-2 because he's scared of dav getting hammered? If he thinks dav is scum why the fuck would he be so concerned about him getting lynched?

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:ok im going to get the ball started here. i havent played in this set up before. what are peoples thoughts on the mechanics of this game? or how are you planning on approaching this game?

Wow, this is scummy as fuck.

Translation - 'Hey, can you all tell me how you're planning on approaching this game and then myself and my scum-team can adjust our game plan accordingly.'

this is my first game on this site, im trying to understand how you guys play here. please explain to me how thats allignment indicative?

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:121 -

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
Dave is a player i would consider voting right now but i want to know what your case against him is.

This looks like 'Give me a reason to vote Dave.' Don't like it.

↑ dodgy56 wrote:there's definiteyl something weird going on in the mastin-eyestott-dave interaction.

Yeah, elaborate on this?

i already answered the first part. my read on dave was independent of what mastin's read was. i was trying to use mastin's read on dave to get a read on mastin.

the 2nd part.

mastin was certain dave was scum- eyestott defended that read in a way which was weird, and seemed too certain of the reasoning when no reasons had been included. Eyestott then backed down and tried to down play it. Then we also have eyestott's vote which only came once dave had dropped down from L-2- even though eyestott was scumreading him before that.

My read on dave has been lessened by the way the wagon built up on dave

VOTE: eyestott seems the scummiest to me atm- all this plus include his buddying of me earlier, his role in the killapenwin bandwagon and the dave bandwagon.

i still dont like BBT's vote on me... it still makes no sense.. he has at least attempted to catch up though. However his read on Tean is slighty odd.
@BBT can you please clarify why you are town-reading tean and why exactly you voted for me when you did?

Hi Dave, I notice you're online.

Do you not have anything to respond to or are you purposely choosing to ignore it?

@dodgy - tean is town, I feel pretty sure on that. I voted for you because...well...you'll see when I catch up to that part.

↑ copper223 wrote:
Now I can see a world where town_Dave tries to read Aneninen because they previously had a game together and comes up with a blank, so idk, it's not such a strong scumtell anymore and I continue disliking everyone finding an angle to jump on the wagon (BBT being the latest addition).

Bingo.

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Hi Dave, I notice you're online.

Do you not have anything to respond to or are you purposely choosing to ignore it?

@dodgy - tean is town, I feel pretty sure on that. I voted for you because...well...you'll see when I catch up to that part.

I was asleep in my chair. Haven't tried posting while half awake before, don't think it would be terribly productive.

I find it odd that you're focusing so much on me. Perhaps understandable as the early wagon, but there are a few other things going on. Not as much as I would hope for, unfortunately.

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Hi Dave, I notice you're online.

Do you not have anything to respond to or are you purposely choosing to ignore it?

@dodgy - tean is town, I feel pretty sure on that. I voted for you because...well...you'll see when I catch up to that part.

why do you feel tean is town?

↑ Tean Samargo wrote:@dav
The point of my case against you dav is that you have been floating around the forum posting nearly daily and yet your strongest read is simply a 'mixed' read. While I'm not asking for a super strong 'that man is scum' read, I find it suspicious that you don't even have a weak scum read. It is as if you weren't really looking for scum until that point. That in my opinion is pretty dang scummy.

This is partly accurate and partly completely wrong. Your observation on activity is quite accurate. I have been active, in this thread or elsewhere, pretty much constantly when I have free time. There were a couple of times I would have wanted to post more in-depth (Thursday morning and Saturday morning) but could not because of RL obligations.

The completely wrong part is the interpretation of why my reads are useless, and even more so the analysis of what that means for alignment. If I were scum, I could toss out accusations willy nilly and pick one that sticks. It would even be beneficial for my team to toss weak scum reads in the direction of my teammates, and buddy the heck out of a couple of town to cast suspicion on them. I'm not taking the easy route -- that should tell you something.

↑ killapenwin wrote:@eyestott it is because your votes so far have just followed Tean's, which looks a bit sheepish. Also, Tean has only voted on players that have been voted on already so either him or you (maybe both) are trying to create bandwagons or give them some momentum in my opinion.

As Aneninen said, it is odd that Tean would call you out for sheeping when he himself is being a catalyst for bandwagons.

Just because my votes happen to be the same as teans doesn't mean it's anything to do with it.
If it continuously happens, sure, lend it some weight.

↑ vettrock wrote:

↑ eyestott wrote:
It's something I do as town and scum in games where I dont know most of the players, I guess. These ones all came from town-me.

...

Scum me.
...

Pulling your own meta, and showing you do things as scum as town, Especially to the point of pulling scum quote and town quotes, seems to be a little too focused ond manipulating and tracking their own meta. I would say slightly scummy, but more it mean you doing any kind of meta on eyestott is worthless as he is actively manipulating it.

I was specifically asked to do so.

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:121 -

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
Dave is a player i would consider voting right now but i want to know what your case against him is.

This looks like 'Give me a reason to vote Dave.' Don't like it.

↑ dodgy56 wrote:there's definiteyl something weird going on in the mastin-eyestott-dave interaction.

Yeah, elaborate on this?

i already answered the first part. my read on dave was independent of what mastin's read was. i was trying to use mastin's read on dave to get a read on mastin.

the 2nd part.

mastin was certain dave was scum- eyestott defended that read in a way which was weird, and seemed too certain of the reasoning when no reasons had been included. Eyestott then backed down and tried to down play it. Then we also have eyestott's vote which only came once dave had dropped down from L-2- even though eyestott was scumreading him before that.

My read on dave has been lessened by the way the wagon built up on dave

VOTE: eyestott seems the scummiest to me atm- all this plus include his buddying of me earlier, his role in the killapenwin bandwagon and the dave bandwagon.

When he was at L-2, I decided not to put him at L-1 ONLY for the reason that he had already said that he was considering self-voting, and I had no wish for him to end the day early.

↑ eyestott wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:121 -

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
Dave is a player i would consider voting right now but i want to know what your case against him is.

This looks like 'Give me a reason to vote Dave.' Don't like it.

↑ dodgy56 wrote:there's definiteyl something weird going on in the mastin-eyestott-dave interaction.

Yeah, elaborate on this?

i already answered the first part. my read on dave was independent of what mastin's read was. i was trying to use mastin's read on dave to get a read on mastin.

the 2nd part.

mastin was certain dave was scum- eyestott defended that read in a way which was weird, and seemed too certain of the reasoning when no reasons had been included. Eyestott then backed down and tried to down play it. Then we also have eyestott's vote which only came once dave had dropped down from L-2- even though eyestott was scumreading him before that.

My read on dave has been lessened by the way the wagon built up on dave

VOTE: eyestott seems the scummiest to me atm- all this plus include his buddying of me earlier, his role in the killapenwin bandwagon and the dave bandwagon.

When he was at L-2, I decided not to put him at L-1 ONLY for the reason that he had already said that he was considering self-voting, and I had no wish for him to end the day early.

yes but if you felt he was scum why was that an issue? lynching scum is good. Moreover it would have been a good test, you find out if he is actually bluffing, and more importantly if he doesnt self-vote but someone hammers on him, it provides good data. You obviously felt fairly confident in your read on him as you voted him as soon as you realised he wasnt at l-2 anymore.. so why wasnt that confidence there when he was on L-2?

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ eyestott wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:121 -

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
Dave is a player i would consider voting right now but i want to know what your case against him is.

This looks like 'Give me a reason to vote Dave.' Don't like it.

↑ dodgy56 wrote:there's definiteyl something weird going on in the mastin-eyestott-dave interaction.

Yeah, elaborate on this?

i already answered the first part. my read on dave was independent of what mastin's read was. i was trying to use mastin's read on dave to get a read on mastin.

the 2nd part.

mastin was certain dave was scum- eyestott defended that read in a way which was weird, and seemed too certain of the reasoning when no reasons had been included. Eyestott then backed down and tried to down play it. Then we also have eyestott's vote which only came once dave had dropped down from L-2- even though eyestott was scumreading him before that.

My read on dave has been lessened by the way the wagon built up on dave

VOTE: eyestott seems the scummiest to me atm- all this plus include his buddying of me earlier, his role in the killapenwin bandwagon and the dave bandwagon.

When he was at L-2, I decided not to put him at L-1 ONLY for the reason that he had already said that he was considering self-voting, and I had no wish for him to end the day early.

yes but if you felt he was scum why was that an issue? lynching scum is good. Moreover it would have been a good test, you find out if he is actually bluffing, and more importantly if he doesnt self-vote but someone hammers on him, it provides good data. You obviously felt fairly confident in your read on him as you voted him as soon as you realised he wasnt at l-2 anymore.. so why wasnt that confidence there when he was on L-2?

Because it would end the day way too early. Why not get as much information as we can?
Ending the day about 3 days in is very bad. Scum lynch is good, but a mislynch after 3 days is bad, as we could have possibly prevented it.

↑ eyestott wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ eyestott wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ BlueBloodedToffee wrote:121 -

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
Dave is a player i would consider voting right now but i want to know what your case against him is.

This looks like 'Give me a reason to vote Dave.' Don't like it.

↑ dodgy56 wrote:there's definiteyl something weird going on in the mastin-eyestott-dave interaction.

Yeah, elaborate on this?

i already answered the first part. my read on dave was independent of what mastin's read was. i was trying to use mastin's read on dave to get a read on mastin.

the 2nd part.

mastin was certain dave was scum- eyestott defended that read in a way which was weird, and seemed too certain of the reasoning when no reasons had been included. Eyestott then backed down and tried to down play it. Then we also have eyestott's vote which only came once dave had dropped down from L-2- even though eyestott was scumreading him before that.

My read on dave has been lessened by the way the wagon built up on dave

VOTE: eyestott seems the scummiest to me atm- all this plus include his buddying of me earlier, his role in the killapenwin bandwagon and the dave bandwagon.

When he was at L-2, I decided not to put him at L-1 ONLY for the reason that he had already said that he was considering self-voting, and I had no wish for him to end the day early.

yes but if you felt he was scum why was that an issue? lynching scum is good. Moreover it would have been a good test, you find out if he is actually bluffing, and more importantly if he doesnt self-vote but someone hammers on him, it provides good data. You obviously felt fairly confident in your read on him as you voted him as soon as you realised he wasnt at l-2 anymore.. so why wasnt that confidence there when he was on L-2?

Because it would end the day way too early. Why not get as much information as we can?
Ending the day about 3 days in is very bad. Scum lynch is good, but a mislynch after 3 days is bad, as we could have possibly prevented it.

sometimes ending the day early might actually provide more information. it might mean that the scum havent had time to get organised and hide their votes like they do towards the end of the day. note im not saying that we should just be ending the day straight away. you point out some fairly obvious points such as that if we get it wrong and mislynch after 3 days when we might have been able to talk and come to a better lynch is not optimal. im just saying that an early end to the day is not as bad as you seem to be suggesting. Also for the record the sole reason you didnt vote dave originally is that he was at L-2? correct? Was that because of how early in the day it was? or because you didnt want someone at L-1?

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
sometimes ending the day early might actually provide more information. it might mean that the scum havent had time to get organised and hide their votes like they do towards the end of the day. note im not saying that we should just be ending the day straight away. you point out some fairly obvious points such as that if we get it wrong and mislynch after 3 days when we might have been able to talk and come to a better lynch is not optimal. im just saying that an early end to the day is not as bad as you seem to be suggesting. Also for the record the sole reason you didnt vote dave originally is that he was at L-2? correct? Was that because of how early in the day it was? or because you didnt want someone at L-1?

Correct. Both. Mainly the first option, as having someone at L-1 is only dangerous if there is someone who might quickhammer, in this case, himself.
Do you think It would have been more pro-town of me to put someone who has contemplated Self-voting at L-1?
Yes or no?

↑ eyestott wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
sometimes ending the day early might actually provide more information. it might mean that the scum havent had time to get organised and hide their votes like they do towards the end of the day. note im not saying that we should just be ending the day straight away. you point out some fairly obvious points such as that if we get it wrong and mislynch after 3 days when we might have been able to talk and come to a better lynch is not optimal. im just saying that an early end to the day is not as bad as you seem to be suggesting. Also for the record the sole reason you didnt vote dave originally is that he was at L-2? correct? Was that because of how early in the day it was? or because you didnt want someone at L-1?

Correct. Both. Mainly the first option, as having someone at L-1 is only dangerous if there is someone who might quickhammer, in this case, himself.
Do you think It would have been more pro-town of me to put someone who has contemplated Self-voting at L-1?
Yes or no?

do you really think as scum he would have selfvoted at L-1? im trying to work out whether you are being sincere here or whether you just didnt want to be vote 6 on him, as you know his allignment? it could easily be distancing, l-1 puts him in real danger if he is your buddy, L-2 is safer. it could be that you dont want to be vote 6 on a townie. idk.

would your vote stay there now if i voted dave and pushed him to L-1 or would you unvote?

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ eyestott wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
sometimes ending the day early might actually provide more information. it might mean that the scum havent had time to get organised and hide their votes like they do towards the end of the day. note im not saying that we should just be ending the day straight away. you point out some fairly obvious points such as that if we get it wrong and mislynch after 3 days when we might have been able to talk and come to a better lynch is not optimal. im just saying that an early end to the day is not as bad as you seem to be suggesting. Also for the record the sole reason you didnt vote dave originally is that he was at L-2? correct? Was that because of how early in the day it was? or because you didnt want someone at L-1?

Correct. Both. Mainly the first option, as having someone at L-1 is only dangerous if there is someone who might quickhammer, in this case, himself.
Do you think It would have been more pro-town of me to put someone who has contemplated Self-voting at L-1?
Yes or no?

do you really think as scum he would have selfvoted at L-1? im trying to work out whether you are being sincere here or whether you just didnt want to be vote 6 on him, as you know his allignment? it could easily be distancing, l-1 puts him in real danger if he is your buddy, L-2 is safer. it could be that you dont want to be vote 6 on a townie. idk.

would your vote stay there now if i voted dave and pushed him to L-1 or would you unvote?

Answer my question, and Ill answer yours.

it depends on the confidence of your read. if you strongly believe he is scum then you should be voting him. if not then you shouldnt. but its your later vote that is making this hard for me to find sincere

↑ dodgy56 wrote:

↑ eyestott wrote:

↑ dodgy56 wrote:
sometimes ending the day early might actually provide more information. it might mean that the scum havent had time to get organised and hide their votes like they do towards the end of the day. note im not saying that we should just be ending the day straight away. you point out some fairly obvious points such as that if we get it wrong and mislynch after 3 days when we might have been able to talk and come to a better lynch is not optimal. im just saying that an early end to the day is not as bad as you seem to be suggesting. Also for the record the sole reason you didnt vote dave originally is that he was at L-2? correct? Was that because of how early in the day it was? or because you didnt want someone at L-1?

Correct. Both. Mainly the first option, as having someone at L-1 is only dangerous if there is someone who might quickhammer, in this case, himself.
Do you think It would have been more pro-town of me to put someone who has contemplated Self-voting at L-1?
Yes or no?

do you really think as scum he would have selfvoted at L-1? im trying to work out whether you are being sincere here or whether you just didnt want to be vote 6 on him, as you know his allignment? it could easily be distancing, l-1 puts him in real danger if he is your buddy, L-2 is safer. it could be that you dont want to be vote 6 on a townie. idk.

would your vote stay there now if i voted dave and pushed him to L-1 or would you unvote?

I honestly dont know what he would have done as either alignment. Self voting is playing against your wincon, regardless of alignment, and yet he has contemplated it. If I were buddies with him, and I wanted him to survive, why would I then bus him? Also, information can be gained by seeing who places the hammer vote. Especially at such an early point, the person who hammers is basically saying "I am so sure this person is scum that I'd be willing to bet the rest of the day". Placing someone at L-1 while they are willing to self vote removes this opportunity for information.
Now that he has calmed down, and does not show an intention to self vote, no, I wouldnt unvote if you put him at L-1.