Mafiascum.net

Norris are you still scumming Windows and if so how has that developed since you voted there?

In post 261, Lars~ wrote:I'm somewhere around here:

Nauls
Garry
Blair

Fuchs
Bennings
Windows

MacReady
Childs
Clark

Palmer
Copper
Norris

I don't think I've talked about Palmer much but he's just seemed consistently a little off to me. Feels like he's been trying to pocket Nauls, and the way he followed on Windows in 249 felt slimy to me.

Hmmm this readslist is somewhat weird to me

In post 265, Childs~ wrote:I can see "Norris" dying and replacing someone in the roster as his strategy for this behavior, I didn't vote him right after that act because wey had'nt heard from Clark

I'm not sure if I agree with this thought but flagging this post for later.

I still think Norris is more likely than not a town troll, but I am also not really reading their posts anymore as I find them annoying

In post 269, Windows~ wrote:

In post 265, Childs~ wrote:I can see "Norris" dying and replacing someone in the roster as his strategy for this behavior, I didn't vote him right after that act because wey had'nt heard from Clark

On the flip side if he's town he's a pretty easy target for scum to assimilate. Alternate between snarky posts and copying other people's posts and no one would know the difference.

While I did like Windows' opening, they haven't felt that townie to me since then.
I'm also flagging this post so I don't forget about it later

This might seem sort of off-topic but I'm still curious and would be interested how people answer - are you calling scum 'scum' this game, or 'Thing' ?

In post 297, Clark~ wrote:

In post 292, Norris~ wrote:i guarantee if i make a actual good wallpost ill just be suspected anyways.

I'll bet you my vote for today and tomorrow you won't get suspected because of a good wall post if you make one

Nope! Love how hopeful you are though.
A recent off site experience I had has really opened my eyes to how often i'm poed, so I've decided having fun is more important than anything else but apparently its so criminal.

In post 300, Clark~ wrote:Norris are you still scumming Windows and if so how has that developed since you voted there?

I don't really know if I do or not, I've stopped paying any real good attention to the game after I started trolling. But nothing else has really pinged as something I want to vote > Windows so I've just kept my vote there.
Like I said before, Garry is in my eyes as well, but I'm not gonna develop something just for me to get poed.

I like both Blair and Childs on page 12.
Clark hasn't done anything to convince me to move my vote

In post 306, MacReady~ wrote:I like both Blair and Childs on page 12.
Clark hasn't done anything to convince me to move my vote

What is there on page 12 to like about Childs?

In post 299, Childs~ wrote:

In post 246, Nauls~ wrote:

In post 242, Windows~ wrote:165 and 166 from Nauls also seem like projection - he calls 116
a possible chainsaw defence but isn't that what 165 could be - a defence of Palmer by attacking the person criticising Palmer?

This is nonsensical to me. I disagreed with an argument someone made calling someone else scum, therefore it’s odd for me to theorize on a potential chainsaw defense??
and this is all implying that I’m scrutinizing my own posts for possible negative interpretations of them, which I happen not to be doing because yknow, I’m a townie.
I’m seriously confused as to how this is an actual point being made.

by the way what is a chainsaw defense? honest question

A chainsaw defence is a way for scum to indirectly defend their partner.
Let’s say player A and player B are scum and player C accuses player A of being scum, player B could step in and discredit/throw out a scumread on player C to make their partner safer.

In other words: “ a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker”

In post 264, Childs~ wrote:VOTE: Norris

In post 265, Childs~ wrote:I can see "Norris" dying and replacing someone in the roster as his strategy for this behavior, I didn't vote him right after that act because wey had'nt heard from Clark

In post 268, Childs~ wrote:

In post 267, Norris~ wrote:why didnt i just... try harder to appear town so I wouldnt have to changeling?

because you are too bad to do that. prove me wrong

In post 270, Childs~ wrote:

In post 269, Windows~ wrote:

In post 265, Childs~ wrote:I can see "Norris" dying and replacing someone in the roster as his strategy for this behavior, I didn't vote him right after that act because wey had'nt heard from Clark

On the flip side if he's town he's a pretty easy target for scum to assimilate. Alternate between snarky posts and copying other people's posts and no one would know the difference.

Don't forget the LaLaLa posts

I mean if trolling is a free pass to being townread as some people seem to be implying why don't we all just troll and random lim people everday?

This annoyed tone carried all the way through and the justification for the vote look very good for Childs. Don’t really think scum can fake these posts

In post 308, Nauls~ wrote:

In post 299, Childs~ wrote:

In post 246, Nauls~ wrote:

In post 242, Windows~ wrote:165 and 166 from Nauls also seem like projection - he calls 116
a possible chainsaw defence but isn't that what 165 could be - a defence of Palmer by attacking the person criticising Palmer?

This is nonsensical to me. I disagreed with an argument someone made calling someone else scum, therefore it’s odd for me to theorize on a potential chainsaw defense??
and this is all implying that I’m scrutinizing my own posts for possible negative interpretations of them, which I happen not to be doing because yknow, I’m a townie.
I’m seriously confused as to how this is an actual point being made.

by the way what is a chainsaw defense? honest question

A chainsaw defence is a way for scum to indirectly defend their partner.
Let’s say player A and player B are scum and player C accuses player A of being scum, player B could step in and discredit/throw out a scumread on player C to make their partner safer.

In other words: “ a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker”

oh I see, thanks

Pages 11 and 12 actually
I feel like his approach to your slot, particularly from these posts are unlikely to come from scum - he feels truly annoyed at the situation, is not pushing a policy lim, and is trying to understand Norris's behavior in an AI context. The cumulative effect feels townie to me, doesn't feel like a policy lim from scum

Oh exactly what Nauls said while I was trying to get that formatted on mobile .

I feel very good about Nauls being town as well, I don't remember if I said that

In post 312, MacReady~ wrote:Oh exactly what Nauls said while I was trying to get that formatted on mobile .

Nice mindmeld

I don't agree.

You don't seem to like Childs pushing you so I wouldn't expect you to

In post 316, MacReady~ wrote:You don't seem to like Childs pushing you so I wouldn't expect you to

I don't like everyone pushing me, but I don't complain about every single one of them.

In post 311, MacReady~ wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 265, Childs~ wrote:I can see "Norris" dying and replacing someone in the roster as his strategy for this behavior, I didn't vote him right after that act because wey had'nt heard from Clark

Others have said this sounded weird, which eh don't know if I agree about that specifically. But its already just drawing a conclusion first. "can see it" as my strategy, the way thats worded makes it a bit easy to go back later after I flip and say the opposite as well. They haven't actually thought through what would or wouldn't be a valid strategy for me, since the follow from me questioning it... isn't all that descriptive?

In post 268, Childs~ wrote:

In post 267, Norris~ wrote:why didnt i just... try harder to appear town so I wouldnt have to changeling?

because you are too bad to do that. prove me wrong

^ "You're too bad for that" doesn't seem like weighing the options, it just straight out goes as a hit to my confidence.

In post 270, Childs~ wrote:

In post 269, Windows~ wrote:

In post 265, Childs~ wrote:I can see "Norris" dying and replacing someone in the roster as his strategy for this behavior, I didn't vote him right after that act because wey had'nt heard from Clark

On the flip side if he's town he's a pretty easy target for scum to assimilate. Alternate between snarky posts and copying other people's posts and no one would know the difference.

Don't forget the LaLaLa posts

I mean if trolling is a free pass to being townread as some people seem to be implying why don't we all just troll and random lim people everday?

They're just shading me in this post "Don't forget the lalala posts" comes off as... I don't know if wording this right.. but know-it-allesque? if that confuses I can explain slightly... I think. The later part of the post just seems like theyre pissed its working for me.

In post 283, Childs~ wrote:

In post 275, Blair~ wrote:

In post 268, Childs~ wrote:

In post 267, Norris~ wrote:why didnt i just... try harder to appear town so I wouldnt have to changeling?

because you are too bad to do that. prove me wrong

If Thing Norris is incapable of not trolling I'm not sure how jumping into another body is going to change anything

why are you defending a troll old man?

do you like being trolled?

as for your question, he trolls today to "appear" town because his actions are "too scum to be scum" and then changelings to someone, I can totally see scum trying to pull that off

Same thing here, they're overly pissed its working for me. Trolls are in every game lol you can't escape them.
This also assumes I would be confident enough to try and pull this off as scum, but earlier they said I'm bad at the game?
If you want to be extra nitpicky, the wording on the ending of this post.

In post 284, Childs~ wrote:

In post 278, Clark~ wrote:

In post 269, Windows~ wrote:

In post 265, Childs~ wrote:I can see "Norris" dying and replacing someone in the roster as his strategy for this behavior, I didn't vote him right after that act because wey had'nt heard from Clark

On the flip side if he's town he's a pretty easy target for scum to assimilate. Alternate between snarky posts and copying other people's posts and no one would know the difference.

On a similar flip side, if he's town and starts solving and not trolling later on someone might case that as having been assimilated

this is tea leaf reading type of stuff

It's still antitown behavior to answer like he did to a simple explain your thought process question

I don't know what tea leaf means here so I won't "make up a read" about this. (I believe this is me shading Lars but I might be wrong about that).

In post 296, Childs~ wrote:

In post 294, Blair~ wrote:if we don't have any better leads by the end of the day I'd be down to incinerate Norris but I'm not going to waste my time trying to sort some troll.

you know what could fix that? maybe start liming trolls first to discourage such behavior?

but anyway you at least aknowledge that it's a possible and deserved lim

Childs is more interested in their own emotions instead of actually solving to find scum... I wonder why they wouldnt feel a need to find scum...

Pages 11 and 12 actually
I feel like his approach to your slot, particularly from these posts are unlikely to come from scum - he feels truly annoyed at the situation, is not pushing a policy lim, and is trying to understand Norris's behavior in an AI context. The cumulative effect feels townie to me, doesn't feel like a policy lim from scum

But.. whatever

I don't know how I feel about the fact that Windows just listed the posts of Lars that I consider the worst from him, and then called them genuine attempts to solve.

And something about Windows' joke-reason to townread Lars feels really forced, though I guess I might be conf-biasing here.

In post 281, Windows~ wrote:You finished the backread in the 2 minutes between those posts?

I don't see a problem, no? Norris' trolling is on the same page as Bennings' question. It doesn't take a lot of time to read Norris' trolling and feel it's scummy and want to comment on it. Those sort of things happen to me as town a lot, so I can see it coming from a town perspective.

In post 318, Palmer~ wrote:I don't know how I feel about the fact that Windows just listed the posts of Lars that I consider the worst from him, and then called them genuine attempts to solve.

And something about Windows' joke-reason to townread Lars feels really forced, though I guess I might be conf-biasing here.

You said Lars shouldn't be pushing Norris early but should basically just let him be. I don't see why scum are more likely to push Norris in the way Lars did than town though? Especially in an anonymous game where meta doesn't factor into it?

In post 318, Palmer~ wrote:I don't know how I feel about the fact that Windows just listed the posts of Lars that I consider the worst from him, and then called them genuine attempts to solve.

And something about Windows' joke-reason to townread Lars feels really forced, though I guess I might be conf-biasing here.

are you talking about 271?

In post 319, Palmer~ wrote:

In post 281, Windows~ wrote:You finished the backread in the 2 minutes between those posts?

I don't see a problem, no? Norris' trolling is on the same page as Bennings' question. It doesn't take a lot of time to read Norris' trolling and feel it's scummy and want to comment on it. Those sort of things happen to me as town a lot, so I can see it coming from a town perspective.

I feel like if that were the case either the earlier post or the later one would be phrased differently. Like the second post might have begun "and since then" as an additional reason to stick with the vote rather than "also" which connects it back as a justification for the original vote.

In post 304, MacReady~ wrote:This might seem sort of off-topic but I'm still curious and would be interested how people answer - are you calling scum 'scum' this game, or 'Thing' ?

I was planning to use "Thing", but there is just no good substitute for "scummy".

Pedit:

In post 320, Windows~ wrote:You said Lars shouldn't be pushing Norris early but should basically just let him be. I don't see why scum are more likely to push Norris in the way Lars did than town though? Especially in an anonymous game where meta doesn't factor into it?

Not quite. I don't mind people pushing Norris in a productive manner, but I think it is kind of obvious that the way Lars was pushing him wasn't actually going to get him to co-operate or show his alignment. And it felt like Lars was trying harder to convince the rest of us why Norris is scummy and why he (Lars) is the reasonable one in that discussion, which I think is scum-motivated, as I don't think a townie can have that good of a read on Norris already.

PPedit:

In post 321, Childs~ wrote:

In post 318, Palmer~ wrote:I don't know how I feel about the fact that Windows just listed the posts of Lars that I consider the worst from him, and then called them genuine attempts to solve.

And something about Windows' joke-reason to townread Lars feels really forced, though I guess I might be conf-biasing here.

are you talking about 271?

Yeah, sorry, should've linked it. 271.

PPPedit:

In post 322, Windows~ wrote:

In post 319, Palmer~ wrote:

In post 281, Windows~ wrote:You finished the backread in the 2 minutes between those posts?

I don't see a problem, no? Norris' trolling is on the same page as Bennings' question. It doesn't take a lot of time to read Norris' trolling and feel it's scummy and want to comment on it. Those sort of things happen to me as town a lot, so I can see it coming from a town perspective.

I feel like if that were the case either the earlier post or the later one would be phrased differently. Like the second post might have begun "and since then" as an additional reason to stick with the vote rather than "also" which connects it back as a justification for the original vote.

This feels like further nitpicking into obscurity. The post seems fine to me, even in the context of "additional reason to stick with the vote".

I don't really get the town reads on Childs, he is still firmly in my null pile.

@MacReady, do you scum read anyone other than Clark?