Extreme carelessness? I wouldn't call the post extreme carelessness, you're way overstating. It's just him being particularly fatalistic when its not appropriate, which can be alignment indicative.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:16 am
by Nahdia
Please for the love of everything forever don't let mhsmith0 reach endgame. He's scum. He's scummy scummy scum.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:16 am
by MariaR
Nat is scary when she goes into pure "I caught scum" mode
*cowers*
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:16 am
by mhsmith0
In post 3248, Nahdia wrote:Holy crap I'm so incredibly pos mhsmith is scum from that. I just feel bad about murdering pieguyn before the intermission tho.
You made a lazy read of that post, got pushback from me for your lazy read, and now assume I'm scum because I put more thought into it than you did.
At some point this game I'll probably flip, and when that happens I hope you go back and look at this and realize just how dumb this is.
(inb4 "it was smith's fault he got lynched" becomes the consensus take)
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:19 am
by mhsmith0
In post 3250, Nahdia wrote:Extreme carelessness? I wouldn't call the post extreme carelessness, you're way overstating. It's just him being particularly fatalistic when its not appropriate, which can be alignment indicative.
Except there's no reason for him to be fatalistic given his vote count, which means that either he's
1) town being sloppy about paying attention to the game and about how bad his post made him look
2) scum being sloppy about paying attention to the game and about how bad his post made him look
3) scum intentionally making bad posts in order to WIFOM "would scum make bad posts like that"
I don't feel like #2 is the likeliest answer here. Either he's being really clever scum, or he's just being dumb lynchbait town. And the post itself doesn't scream out that it's one vs the other.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:19 am
by Nahdia
Why on earth is 2 any less likely than 1!?
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:21 am
by mhsmith0
How often do you see scum make transparently awful posts? Typically when scum make scummy posts they're the sorts of thing you actually have to think about before you realize it's obvious. Or have you played a lot with really incompetent non-newbie scum?
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:22 am
by mhsmith0
Here, let me grab a portion of my IC post from newbie games:
Spoiler: Bad Posting vs Scum Posting
In a lot of games you can see people posting badly, whether it means lurking, saying really stupid things, being intellectually lazy about their engagement, or all sorts of other pretty transparently anti-town behaviors.
And, unfortunately, a lot of the time (though NOT always) really bad posting is done by townies instead of mafia. Sorting between “bad” and “scum” is one of the hardest things to do in the game, but it’s a tremendously important part of your development if you want to get good at scum-hunting.
Sociopath wrote:I'm showcasing my lynchbait status the way a peacock showcases their feathers. I make awful posts day after day, daring you to lynch me.
lulz wrote:Scum is not as demonstratably awful as sociopath.
In that game, both lulz and sociopath were town. Sociopath got mislynched essentially for making a parade of terrible posts (the cited post was just one of many), which is a fairly predictable outcome of that behavior. But it’s notable that she wasn’t actually mafia.
Example #2
In post 1083, mhsmith0 wrote:DS is a mild scum read for me at this point. Not a huge priority sort but I don't see the obv!town there. MoZ just seems bad rather than obv!wolf to me, and the IMO self-vote continues along that vein. Some of that may simply be me being over-sensitive to that after watching Ranger pull similar shit as town in open 642 (including the shitty self-vote), but I'm starting to come around the idea that shit like that actually does come more often from town, even though it never ever ever should. In this case, it's conceivable that they're scum/SK giving up, but it's also plausible that they're town giving up. I know Ircher (who I think was making those posts) is bugged by being a lynchbait type, so I can reasonably see him getting pissy and pulling a stunt like that out of frustration at being wagoned. Obviously it could be him pulling a scam and faking it, but I just don't see why it's wolf-indicative instead of essentially null. I'd still much rather wagon RachMarie at this point.
This is the sort of thing that normally comes with something better than "their ISO sucks". What about their ISO sucks? You seem to not really be able to explain what exactly you're finding voteable.
You talk a bit about it in
In post 923, RachMarie wrote:@ Nacho
1. The way they are moving their vote around looks like they are looking for a good wagon, not looking for scumz
2. The freaky color vote thing looked like they were trying to appear to be town and trolling, it did not feel genuine the way Nero's trolling does,
3. The way they threw shade on KTS but did not vote for him seems scummy AF
but
1) you aren't addressing the possibility that moving their vote around might be part of a process to look for a good wolf wagon, or for that matter, separating them from anyone else's vote hopping.
2) The "freaky color vote thing" ( http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p8421517 ) seems like the epitome of a playstyle thing; calling it AI just seems bizarre;
3) I presume you mean this
In post 889, Maker_of_Zanos wrote:...
This totally not troll KTS we're seeing here. He's actually being useful for once, but I fear that is because he is scum.....
~Zanos ~Zanos ~Zanos
but I fail to see how this is AI. It's essentially expressing a mild scum read on the slot; failing to vote for what is presented as a mild scum read (and one that is essentially paranoia-driven) is not in and of itself suspicious
Frankly, none of those seem like particularly good reasons for voting them; to me it seems a lot more like you're going survivalistic and looking for an easy target to try and buy another day off of.
In post 611, RachMarie wrote:It is a tentative read so far but feel like KTS could be town he is already invested enough to get ticked off at the hyperposters and that means he is genuinely trying to sort shit out.
It is a tentative read so far but feel like Rach could be scum she isn't invested enough to make real reads and just drops off a lazy kts town read and that means she isn't genuinely trying to sort shit out.
VOTE: rachmarie
adding smith to my scum pile as well this pinged my scumdar this vote on me sucks, plus like MoZ she keeps flipping her vote around.
What about the vote sucks? Surely if you find my vote on you to be itself vote-worthy, you can actually explain what about it "sucks". I personally thought it to be a solid vote, mainly for the content (wolf-reading you becuase of the lazy read you made) but I also liked the snarky way I turned around your language relating to KTS. Nothing about it seems off, and it seems like you just want to shade it as somehow being a bad vote without actually doing the work to demonstrate that it's actually a bad vote.
I also don't see your point about vote-hopping (you were my 4th vote, with my 1st being a joke vote on the mod and the 2nd being near-RVS level). Nor do I see how vote-hopping is itself wolf-indicative, unless you think that I'm just lazily bandwagoning (which would be weird considering that I was the first vote on you), or that something else in particular about my vote movement seems wolfy. It seems like you're struggling to make a case on why your pushes make sense, which to me suggests that they're probably just made up.
PS I'm a he. You can see it right there in the box where my user info is.
In that game MoZ (Ircher/BTD hydra) was town, I was also town, and RachMarie was scum (bonus points: DS was also scum). What you can see in the quotes I made was
1) My sarcastic callout of her lazy pocketing read of KTS in my post #620
2) My pushing her on her inability to actually substantiate decent reasons for her reads, and the fact that she was pretty flagrantly pushing on MoZ for essentially being bad (which is largely null) and other null behaviors, in what was a survivalistic push to avoid her own lynch d1.
As it happened, MoZ got mislynched d1 (in a case that boiled down to “they suck”), but Rach was still scum, and she was the one actually being scummy and pushing an agenda, not MoZ. Again, if you look closely you can see the difference between simply being bad and actually being scum.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:28 am
by pieguyn
In post 3244, mhsmith0 wrote:Then help consolidate down to two wagons, either by pushing harder for jester or by self-voting. Or you could game throw by leaving the game like you occassionally hint at wanting to do.
in addition to what Nahdia said, I just cannot believe that a mhsmith who is reading the game and thinking critically posts this.
like his posts are just all off and I want to attribute it to him being scum who doesn't need to think critically or scum hunt, just pick posts and invent reasonable-sounding comments to make in response to them.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:29 am
by mhsmith0
Another one (look especially at the large/bold/underlined section that I'm highlighting for you):
Spoiler: Micro vote analysis
thewysecat wrote:
Understanding how a scum’s motives and a townie’s motives differentiate their respective voting behaviours
So scum vote for townies right? Well, yeah…often enough, but that doesn’t get you very far. Firstly scum vote for other scum far more often than might be initially assumed, but your biggest problem is that townies vote for other townies…a lot!
So how does a townie tell the difference?
Well if each townie is bringing their best game then they should be intellectually invested in their lynch vote. They want that player killed. Consequently, they want to influence and persuade their fellow townies and drive their preferred lynch. In short, it matters to a townie who specifically is lynched that game day.
A townie might initially throw a vote or two around to see what happens, but essentially a townie lynch vote ought to be righteous
in the moment of being cast
.
Simultaneously a townie will be continuously reviewing their reads and triaging their suspects (everyone else in the game). They are genuinely searching for the best vote. That means if they change their vote…that process is righteous too.
…
Well preferably they [scum] want a townie lynched, but more than that
they want to blend in
. Ideally they also want someone else set up to take most of the heat for mislynches.
…
So…scum voting is therefore a part of their elongated active lurk – look busy, but don’t help. They want to surf along on the edge of your consciousness and low in your triage of suspects. Meanwhile townies throw suspicion at each other over misconstrued nothings.
…
So whether on or off the current leading mislynch, a scum in this mode is relatively passive and their lynch vote rationales underwhelming.
Also fake scumhunting is hard! It’s difficult to both contrive some reason to vote someone and then plausibly ‘sell' that contrivance. It is much easier to window-dress plagiarised arguments or just try and slip a token 'scumhunt' into thread without fanfare.
…
If a scum does try some fake scumhunting it will lack righteousness. It will smell feeble. You will struggle to see how or why this vapour is vote-worthy relative to alternative issues present in the thread. Knowing this some scum players might try and fake passion for their vote to disguise the deficit in intellectual integrity underpinning it. Then you are looking for a disproportionate level of zeal and/or confidence. A scum in this mode is not necessarily harder to spot, but can be harder to lynch since they can impress weaker-minded townies. They can shamelessly segue from one terrible vote underpinned by garbage to another and not miss a beat. Scum also tend to gravitate to this mode the closer they are to the win.
In summary
: If all is well for them, scum are just trying to find a quiet spot for their vote where they hope to avoid any scrutiny for their choice and its rationale and/or where they retain the maximum level of freedom to redeploy it if that suits their aims.
Either way,
it is a truism that a scum-advantageous town environment is one where it is an accepted norm for most lynch-votes to be cast for reasons other than the quality and history of the lynch target’s own voting choices
.
For example, scum might vote on people for alleged anti-town behaviours that usually amount to their (townie) lynch target saying/doing something daft about roles or mechanics. Or it might be some alleged incongruity woven from the target tripping over themselves in their mis-communication of something or other. Maybe even some misspeak that gets twisted into an alleged scumslip. All of this is normally absolute garbage!
The reality is that most clumsy in-thread behaviour and expression labelled as anti-town is (regrettably) town-indicative. Typically, scum are more calculating and careful in what they say and how they say it.
…
The point is you want to parse out the difference between the player who really believes this guff is vote-worthy and the player who can hardly believe his luck that townies seem to believe this guff is vote-worthy.
In post 3244, mhsmith0 wrote:Then help consolidate down to two wagons, either by pushing harder for jester or by self-voting. Or you could game throw by leaving the game like you occassionally hint at wanting to do.
in addition to what Nahdia said, I just cannot believe that a mhsmith who is reading the game and thinking critically posts this.
like his posts are just all off and I want to attribute it to him being scum who doesn't need to think critically or scum hunt, just pick posts and invent reasonable-sounding comments to make in response to them.
Then self-vote if you're that sold on it. Because the idea that I'm not engaging in critical thinking is beyond ridiculous if you actually bother to read what I've been posting.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:31 am
by pieguyn
I feel bad that both Kagami and Nahdia are saying they want to lynch mhsmith but they don't want to because they don't want to kill me before intermission. :/
regardless, even if people choose not to lynch my pair for some reason, there is 0% chance mhsmith survives this game with me as his partner. I agree with not suiciding now but if it gets to 6p or 4p, it's the first thing I'm doing.
PS my 3244 was a perfectly acceptable response to your empty complaint "ya this has gone on for way too long". Either it was a prelude to you game-throwing via suicide or it literally meant nothing at all, because lo and behold, you just said it without having any actual action resulting from it.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:33 am
by MariaR
^Upset scum.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:33 am
by Nahdia
Stop calling suicide game-throwing. It's not gamethrowing.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:34 am
by mhsmith0
Pie: "Yeah guys this whole thing has just dragged"
Pie then does nothing with/about that statement, whether pushing harder on jester, making an active attempt to dismantle the arguments against shadow-maria wagon, or vote her partner. But sure, it's scummy of me to tell her to actually bother doing something about her complaint instead of just dumping it on the table and leaving it there. Sure it is.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:35 am
by Nahdia
You don't know what gamethrowing is until you've played with abc on Day 9 of a competitive round.
Oh good, you're back to suspecting me again. Maybe you can actually explain why I'm scum this time?
In post 3266, Nahdia wrote:Stop calling suicide game-throwing. It's not gamethrowing.
Yes it is, ESPECIALLY early. We're not in LYLO, and waht town actually needs is voting data to evaluate who's pushing who and why after flips.
Your inability to understand this very incredibly
BASIC AND OBVIOUS
aspect of this setup is itself a good reason not to take you seriously, despite your being a cleared IC. But of course, doubtless that's just discrediting or the like.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:37 am
by MariaR
In post 3268, Nahdia wrote:You don't know what gamethrowing is until you've played with abc on Day 9 of a competitive round.
Oh good, you're back to suspecting me again. Maybe you can actually explain why I'm scum this time?
In post 3266, Nahdia wrote:Stop calling suicide game-throwing. It's not gamethrowing.
Yes it is, ESPECIALLY early. We're not in LYLO, and waht town actually needs is voting data to evaluate who's pushing who and why after flips.
Your inability to understand this very incredibly
BASIC AND OBVIOUS
aspect of this setup is itself a good reason not to take you seriously, despite your being a cleared IC. But of course, doubtless that's just discrediting or the like.
No, it's not. You're wrong. Objectively.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:38 am
by mhsmith0
In post 3268, Nahdia wrote:You don't know what gamethrowing is until you've played with abc on Day 9 of a competitive round.
I've seen plenty of gamethrowing in games. I've seen plenty of incompetence in games. "Something else is even more gamethrowing than this" is irrelevant. Suiciding early in this game (and frankly, at any time before LYLO) is game-throwing. Vedith's action was shameful, and if people learn nothing else from my eventual flip, hopefully that will actually make it through their heads. My optimism that this will happen, though, is limited.
