Mafiascum.net

In post 233, Masquerader Teal wrote:I don't like green anymore

Rescind offer to dance with green

I think their posts are little empty. I think finding me suspicious after page 1 after blue did as well seems like piggybacking onto something that doesn't actually have substance.

I like Magenta though I am liking their thought process on a couple of things.

If they want to pair that's fine I guess but I think green is more likely of the two to be scum so I'd rather pair with Magenta.

In post 325, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 233, Masquerader Teal wrote:I don't like green anymore

Rescind offer to dance with green

I think their posts are little empty. I think finding me suspicious after page 1 after blue did as well seems like piggybacking onto something that doesn't actually have substance.

I like Magenta though I am liking their thought process on a couple of things.

If they want to pair that's fine I guess but I think green is more likely of the two to be scum so I'd rather pair with Magenta.

If blue and teal are intruder slots, where is the intruder motivation here?

In post 327, Masquerader Cyan wrote:Intruder teal, again an assumption, would have thought teal had a better shot with magenta rather than green. Considering the posts after of green’s anger I kinda think that decision is not alignment indicative. That anger of green’s was loud.

In post 178, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 171, Masquerader Magenta wrote:@red, i re read your post and while I think my initial 'negative vibes ' impression is still valid, it's not quite as bad as I thought. There are some take.aways, but I guess I find it easier to find town than scum and that affects my take on those kind of posts. In particular, I think what you said about green was well thought through, that their logic seemed backwards.



Their posting on this page is terribad.

I wanted to dance with teal but also really want their catch up. Would anyone oppose this pairing?

I definitely want red to be paired but with Cyan now off the market, whoever I think is more likely to be invitee between you and blue.

Rn, I lean you over blue because they’re not doing as much.

In post 183, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 179, Masquerader Green wrote:

In post 43, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 41, Masquerader Yellow wrote:The usual phrasing would be "Äre you still confused

about why I do not trust olive, red?"

Not why red should not trust them.

Yeah, good point. I could see that as a possible perspective slip.

how could you see it as that
I think in context Purple's comment that Yellow was reacting to made way more sense. The most charitable interpretation of this is you were taking Yellow's comments at face value, which shows lack of effort on your part to determine the quote was not doctored.

Also, @Magenta, what makes my posting on the previous page "terribad"?

I’m not commenting on posts that I don’t see as currently relevant. If you’d been paying attention, you’d know I no long hold that opinion.

In post 184, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 180, Masquerader Purple wrote:Magenta seems the most suspicious to me. I'm not sure where their interest in teal comes from or their suspicion of red. Magenta seems to be the most worried about finding a partner (and how they will be perceived for asking or accepting) and the least worried about finding the intruders. If they wish, olive can elaborate on the depth of their feelings toward magenta and I will listen. I have read magenta's recent posting and am not impressed.

Green looks like an invitee who was wrongly accused or an intruder who is angry because they feel they were caught for wrong reasons. I don't know. The fact they seem unlikely to receive a partner probably means they are most likely to be invitee of the players I suspect. It's possible that magenta saw through the layers of wifom and asked to be paired with teal so that they would end up paired green, however, unless someone objects, since magenta and green seem so anxious to receive a partner and haven't voiced too much suspicion of each other, why not pair up together?

Teal dropping out looks like intruder who was pushed from the beginning of the game and lost morale over time. It could also be an invitee who lost morale or became sick and ran out of energy, though I consider this alternative explanation less likely. It hasn't escaped my attention that despite their claims to be slow in forming reads, here as the eleventh hour approaches they are even more absent than they were at the beginning. I think teal avoided outting reads and when they did out reads they sounded suspicious. I prefer that teal be left without a partner just to be rid of them.

I'm a bit at odds with olive here on blue: I'm willing to gamble blue is invitee (though it would be amusing if the intruders were blue and teal and the intruders have given up posting altogether) and I'm optimistic their absence is as frustrating to the intruder's as it is to us. Red will likely be an ideal target to be killed with an automaton and being paired with new blue may be a double edged-sword. The intruders have little information to guess new blue's identity, as we have little information to sort them. I prefer to tempt fate and hope new blue's absence is nai and that they will provide some protection to red by being awkward for the intruders to guess.

All I can say about cyan and yellow is that I really hope they are invitee. Cyan seemed genuine in their ketchup and yellow is yellow. I mean I can say more than that but I'll leave it there.

I liked magenta’s recent posts. Blue could be anything. I don’t have any issue with anything they’ve posted but it’s more that they haven’t really done too much for awhile, so with little time left, I’d expect them to be more active. I suppose they could just be a bored invitee?

In post 188, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 186, Masquerader Green wrote:like, I recognized you no longer held that stance, but I think it was a bad stance to begin with.

It was an opinion that I held that I no longer do and good for you I guess,

In post 329, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 327, Masquerader Cyan wrote:Intruder teal, again an assumption, would have thought teal had a better shot with magenta rather than green. Considering the posts after of green’s anger I kinda think that decision is not alignment indicative. That anger of green’s was loud.

You're either making sense, have the gift of a silver tongue or both. Until you replaced in I wasn't going to vote blue.

Also, I am assuming both teal and blue are intruders and looking for reasons why that can be wrong. I believe olive's changing stance on magenta and green could have been the motivation

In post 178, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 171, Masquerader Magenta wrote:@red, i re read your post and while I think my initial 'negative vibes ' impression is still valid, it's not quite as bad as I thought. There are some take.aways, but I guess I find it easier to find town than scum and that affects my take on those kind of posts. In particular, I think what you said about green was well thought through, that their logic seemed backwards.



Their posting on this page is terribad.

I wanted to dance with teal but also really want their catch up. Would anyone oppose this pairing?

I definitely want red to be paired but with Cyan now off the market, whoever I think is more likely to be invitee between you and blue.

Rn, I lean you over blue because they’re not doing as much.

In post 183, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 179, Masquerader Green wrote:

In post 43, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 41, Masquerader Yellow wrote:The usual phrasing would be "Äre you still confused

about why I do not trust olive, red?"

Not why red should not trust them.

Yeah, good point. I could see that as a possible perspective slip.

how could you see it as that
I think in context Purple's comment that Yellow was reacting to made way more sense. The most charitable interpretation of this is you were taking Yellow's comments at face value, which shows lack of effort on your part to determine the quote was not doctored.

Also, @Magenta, what makes my posting on the previous page "terribad"?

I’m not commenting on posts that I don’t see as currently relevant. If you’d been paying attention, you’d know I no long hold that opinion.

In post 184, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 180, Masquerader Purple wrote:Magenta seems the most suspicious to me. I'm not sure where their interest in teal comes from or their suspicion of red. Magenta seems to be the most worried about finding a partner (and how they will be perceived for asking or accepting) and the least worried about finding the intruders. If they wish, olive can elaborate on the depth of their feelings toward magenta and I will listen. I have read magenta's recent posting and am not impressed.

Green looks like an invitee who was wrongly accused or an intruder who is angry because they feel they were caught for wrong reasons. I don't know. The fact they seem unlikely to receive a partner probably means they are most likely to be invitee of the players I suspect. It's possible that magenta saw through the layers of wifom and asked to be paired with teal so that they would end up paired green, however, unless someone objects, since magenta and green seem so anxious to receive a partner and haven't voiced too much suspicion of each other, why not pair up together?

Teal dropping out looks like intruder who was pushed from the beginning of the game and lost morale over time. It could also be an invitee who lost morale or became sick and ran out of energy, though I consider this alternative explanation less likely. It hasn't escaped my attention that despite their claims to be slow in forming reads, here as the eleventh hour approaches they are even more absent than they were at the beginning. I think teal avoided outting reads and when they did out reads they sounded suspicious. I prefer that teal be left without a partner just to be rid of them.

I'm a bit at odds with olive here on blue: I'm willing to gamble blue is invitee (though it would be amusing if the intruders were blue and teal and the intruders have given up posting altogether) and I'm optimistic their absence is as frustrating to the intruder's as it is to us. Red will likely be an ideal target to be killed with an automaton and being paired with new blue may be a double edged-sword. The intruders have little information to guess new blue's identity, as we have little information to sort them. I prefer to tempt fate and hope new blue's absence is nai and that they will provide some protection to red by being awkward for the intruders to guess.

All I can say about cyan and yellow is that I really hope they are invitee. Cyan seemed genuine in their ketchup and yellow is yellow. I mean I can say more than that but I'll leave it there.

I liked magenta’s recent posts. Blue could be anything. I don’t have any issue with anything they’ve posted but it’s more that they haven’t really done too much for awhile, so with little time left, I’d expect them to be more active. I suppose they could just be a bored invitee?

In post 188, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 186, Masquerader Green wrote:like, I recognized you no longer held that stance, but I think it was a bad stance to begin with.

It was an opinion that I held that I no longer do and good for you I guess,

I think it's logical for teal to pair with magenta over green based on olive's read of magenta.

In post 94, Masquerader Teal wrote:I'm also a little wary of blue mostly for the predecessor's reads; the more I think about them, the more I don't like them. I feel the "yay, role play!" is in a similar vein to me joking about asking the back-up mod to dance so I think blue just is stiff and picked people who were looser because blue doesn't play that way and assumed that people joking around are doing so nervously, trying to hide something. Or something. I don't really know. Regardless, I'd like more from new blue as well before I can say that I truly worry about blue or not.

In post 331, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 94, Masquerader Teal wrote:I'm also a little wary of blue mostly for the predecessor's reads; the more I think about them, the more I don't like them. I feel the "yay, role play!" is in a similar vein to me joking about asking the back-up mod to dance so I think blue just is stiff and picked people who were looser because blue doesn't play that way and assumed that people joking around are doing so nervously, trying to hide something. Or something. I don't really know. Regardless, I'd like more from new blue as well before I can say that I truly worry about blue or not.

Genuine, shade or distancing?

In post 332, Masquerader Cyan wrote:

In post 331, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 94, Masquerader Teal wrote:I'm also a little wary of blue mostly for the predecessor's reads; the more I think about them, the more I don't like them. I feel the "yay, role play!" is in a similar vein to me joking about asking the back-up mod to dance so I think blue just is stiff and picked people who were looser because blue doesn't play that way and assumed that people joking around are doing so nervously, trying to hide something. Or something. I don't really know. Regardless, I'd like more from new blue as well before I can say that I truly worry about blue or not.

Genuine, shade or distancing?

That’s my first impression of blue. So I would go with shade. I think teal + blue doesn’t work as a pair based on what I see so far. Again what do you make of your hoodmate?

In post 330, Masquerader Cyan wrote:I hope it’s a little of both. I tend to fair better when people don’t know who I am. I wouldn’t go rearranging reads for blue right now. I just expressed my opinion right now.

I am more wanting to get a mindset and a feel of the game. Do you trust your hoodmate?

I want to establish if both scum are together. Unless yellow starts improving or someone gives a good reason yellow is an invitee I may take my mask off. Just flirting with the idea.

In post 112, Masquerader Yellow wrote:Teal's post about dancing with Datisi was clearly a joke.

In post 335, Masquerader Purple wrote:It sounds like you read the red and teal interaction as invitee versus invitee.

In post 303, RH wrote:

In post 302, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 298, RH wrote:

In post 293, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 252, Datisi wrote:Session I concludes in 2 days, 22 hours, 7 minutes.

how do deadlines work?

Assuming that it's directed at me and Datisi, I originally intended that if no players reach majority, it will be counted as a No-Lim.

However, upon realising that a majority in ELO is almost identical to Exiting the Session by a player's own accord, I'll allow plurality by seniority for ELO if ties occur.

Otherwise, there's no Plurality.

so what happens if we don't get 5 votes on a pair by the deadline?

I'll count it as a No-Lim. So nobody exits.

In post 338, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 303, RH wrote:

In post 302, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 298, RH wrote:

In post 293, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 252, Datisi wrote:Session I concludes in 2 days, 22 hours, 7 minutes.

how do deadlines work?

Assuming that it's directed at me and Datisi, I originally intended that if no players reach majority, it will be counted as a No-Lim.

However, upon realising that a majority in ELO is almost identical to Exiting the Session by a player's own accord, I'll allow plurality by seniority for ELO if ties occur.

Otherwise, there's no Plurality.

so what happens if we don't get 5 votes on a pair by the deadline?

I'll count it as a No-Lim. So nobody exits.

so what happens then? do we get a new session or do the mafia get to kill?

In post 314, Masquerader Cyan wrote:Funny because this summary is how I feel about Blue so far.

There’s a lot of declarative statements and a few open ended questions but not seeing a push anywhere. Does this improve?

In post 339, Masquerader Cyan wrote:

In post 338, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 303, RH wrote:

In post 302, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 298, RH wrote:

In post 293, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 252, Datisi wrote:Session I concludes in 2 days, 22 hours, 7 minutes.

how do deadlines work?

Assuming that it's directed at me and Datisi, I originally intended that if no players reach majority, it will be counted as a No-Lim.

However, upon realising that a majority in ELO is almost identical to Exiting the Session by a player's own accord, I'll allow plurality by seniority for ELO if ties occur.

Otherwise, there's no Plurality.

so what happens if we don't get 5 votes on a pair by the deadline?

I'll count it as a No-Lim. So nobody exits.

so what happens then? do we get a new session or do the mafia get to kill?

Why so negative? Why not help us get an elim?

In post 340, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 314, Masquerader Cyan wrote:Funny because this summary is how I feel about Blue so far.

There’s a lot of declarative statements and a few open ended questions but not seeing a push anywhere. Does this improve?

push where?

the only three people viable to be eliminated at that point are people I town-read

In post 280, RH wrote:

Replacing Yellow

If they return before a replacement is found, they may keep their slot.

In post 282, Masquerader Yellow wrote:I would like to post now.

Not really.


Someone said something about a PT.

Are we all supposed to have PTs?

In post 283, Masquerader Yellow wrote:

In post 270, Masquerader Magenta wrote:Teal's PT content is basically non existent, doubting that read now.

In post 284, Masquerader Yellow wrote:Never mind.

I see the PM now.

In post 286, RH wrote:

Replacing Cyan and Red

In post 340, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 314, Masquerader Cyan wrote:Funny because this summary is how I feel about Blue so far.

There’s a lot of declarative statements and a few open ended questions but not seeing a push anywhere. Does this improve?

push where?

the only three people viable to be eliminated at that point are people I town-read

In post 343, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 280, RH wrote:

Replacing Yellow

If they return before a replacement is found, they may keep their slot.

In post 282, Masquerader Yellow wrote:I would like to post now.

Not really.


Someone said something about a PT.

Are we all supposed to have PTs?

In post 283, Masquerader Yellow wrote:

In post 270, Masquerader Magenta wrote:Teal's PT content is basically non existent, doubting that read now.

In post 284, Masquerader Yellow wrote:Never mind.

I see the PM now.

In post 286, RH wrote:

Replacing Cyan and Red

Old yellow wasn't replaced by the way, new cyan.

In post 344, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 340, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 314, Masquerader Cyan wrote:Funny because this summary is how I feel about Blue so far.

There’s a lot of declarative statements and a few open ended questions but not seeing a push anywhere. Does this improve?

push where?

the only three people viable to be eliminated at that point are people I town-read

It would help if you explained your invitee read on teal and addressed new cyan's entrance.

In post 347, Masquerader Blue wrote:I still think Cyan/Yellow has the highest scum equity of all the pairings and would like to eliminate there.