Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:22 am**

ok, lets discuss the utterly stupid ff "case"

as far as i can tell there are 4 arguments being made

(1)Her IC post says she may be scum

Spoiler: 114

In post 114, cAPSLOCK wrote:
In post 112, likeabauss wrote:
What is your read on fferyllt's IC post that you mentioned? Mine says scum. Tell me the reason for your read and I'll tell you mine?
Gladly. And the main reason I didn't jump right on it was I was seriously curious if it was bad form to mention a read from her in that mode. Since I have seen no clear answer to that I will carry on as if it is not.

In post 84, fferyllt wrote:
IC IntroAll of our roles were assigned randomly, so my chances of being town or scum were exactly the same as yours.
First of all. Unless she is somewhat obsessive I do not see any reason to be so clear here. It sounds a lot like "I am here to help you in spite of the fact that I
may actually be scum
. No really. don't be mad at the end... and know I will be fair as an IC anyway."

Then later:

In post 84, fferyllt wrote:
IC IntroI am playing for my team to win, though, so please treat me with the same skepticism in my non-IC posting that you treat everyone else.

Another nod towards awareness that she is not necessarily town. But why? Why admonish us not once but TWICE to remember that she is our advocate at the site in spite of the fact she may not be in the game.

She doth protest too much. It's really that simple.

And I asked her if this was boiler plate to the end of understanding if it had context in this game. A google search for these exact wordsturns up this: No results found for "All of our roles were assigned randomly".

I asked
Is that IC post personal boilerplate? Is it bad that I got a read from it? am I not allowed to do that?
and she responded:
Yeah, it's personal, though I looked at a few IC posts by others in thinking about what to include. Some IC's put in a lot of do this don't do that in theirs, but it doesn't look like this is a crowd that needs to be warned not to self-hammer or hammer someone without a chance to role-claim.
Since this is her first IC I think she just wrote it. It is not boiler plate yet... and I bet we see it change in the future. The fact she did not address the direct question of whether or not I am allowed to get (and discuss) a read from it makes me even more suspicious.

FWIW I am grateful for the fact the site does this in the newbie area and I feel a little bad for getting such a strong scum read from it.

DUMB
(a) that is a common thing for IC posts to say. every newbie game ive played in the IC has made that statement because its important for the newbies to know that just because the IC is there to help them understand the game it doesnt mean they arent going to helpful to town necessarily
(b) u r really saying she is scummy for saying she might be scum. HEY, GUESS WHAT, I MAY BE SCUM TOO can i be a scumread now?

(2) she has town reads? (this cant honestly be what ur argument is, is it?)

Spoiler: post 127

i dont even know what to say against this. if you think this is a good argument for scum-ff u r lying to urself.

(3) she hasnt given adequate responses to the "case" against her.

guess what: she's being nice, i wouldnt have responded at all. There is no content for her to respond to.

(4) this stupid 313 post by bauss which says that lynching the iC is a good play. not going to respond to that cuz i already did a few posts earlier.

I need to read meta on bauss, especially this previous game where he used the same strat.

while im doing that. Bauss, you need to make it clear what your arguments are for why ff is scum. I've had enough of this "oh i have my reasons" and the "im gonna vaguely alude to my reasons" BS. i want a case from you right now. doesnt have to be a wall, just give me what your reasons are for thinking ff is scum. I dont see it. I dont believe you could actually see ff as scum if you are being genuine.

sidenote: this post comes after the two hes been referencing as points for why she is scum, so like definitely possible that this is scum instigating things

In post 132, likeabauss wrote:
VOTE: fferyllt

That feels good.

I believe you to be scum. I have many reasons that I will share when the time is right. For now, I will wait patiently while others weigh in and share their opinions.

What say you all? Is fferyllt scum or am I crazy?

oh also ur crazy.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:39 am**

i'm gonna wait to vote until i let likeabauss respond to my questions, however, after all the things mentioned in my recent posts, and after reading the bauss game ff directed me to, I am on board for a LAB lynch.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:35 am**

Case against Fferyllt:

Please note, not all items are well explained as much of this is straight from my personal notes. I'll clarify anything that isn't clear upon request.

Non Pro-Town Play:

1) No scum hunting to speak of early game. As soon as I called her out on this she rectified it immediately. Most of her early game posts read like a narrator telling a story, not a character in the story. Contributions are mostly about game play/mechanics, consistent with an IC role, but not a townie trying to hang bad guys.
2) Asking questions about game play mechanics and opinions of certain strategies doesn't help find scum. Things like:

In post 103, fferyllt wrote:What are your thoughts on the formation of town blocs?

In post 210, fferyllt wrote:What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of full, ranked reads lists?

It's adding content, without finding scum, IMO. Adding content is great so long as you're looking for bad guys too. At this point, I didn't feel that was the case.
3) Complete ambiguity in her reads. She's non-committal until something pushes her or somebody catches wagon momentum. Posts vacillate between suspecting somebody, but leaning town on the same player. After I call her out, she lashes out in 142, 143, and 144 with 3 "cases" for scum... weaksauce at best. Now, look forward to her post in 312. There isn't a single strong scum read in it, nor her original stuff. She's opening the door and waiting to see which wagons will catch steam. She hopped right in on my wagon when I started catching votes. She said she'd vote Kue, with the disclaimer that she thinks Kue is town (WHY WOULD YOU BE OKAY HANGING A TOWNIE IF YOU HAVE SUSPECTS? TOWN FAIL.) There haven't been any other wagons, she's not pushing for anybody, she apparently doesn't care who hangs... unless it's imking, jason, lynx (posts 142-144) or me-bauss, cAPSLOCK, cheery, or Kue (post 312.) Clearly, she doesn't care who we hang as long as it isn't her or Sikon or Trollie. Everybody else is game.
4) Overstatement of contributions to the Town side. Example:

In post 170, fferyllt wrote:What are your thoughts about the convo Lynx and I have had about Kueshina and Sikon?

In an effort to appear town, and to be playing pro-town, scum will point to something they did as if it was a bigger contribution than it was. I explained this in thread.
5) Psycho teaser bait I set + response:

In post 148, fferyllt wrote:In post 139, fferyllt wrote:
Substance and quantity is a little lacking in some quarters still, and it's primarily experienced players who seem to be holding back. I'm done waiting for content.

"I'm done waiting for content." Translation: HERE COMES THE BOOM

indeed.

There was no Boom in her response. It was a whimper. Look back and see her "Boom." You mean to tell me that an experienced pro mafia player lays out their best cases/reads and that's all we can expect? Nope. Scum.
6)

In post 127, Lynx_Shine wrote:
In post 108, fferyllt wrote:Agree on 85 and 97. I may be too much a part of the topic to judge re 81.
Agrees with Trollie when he offers his proof on caps after ffery specifically asks him for the reason, but never gives her own reads or reasoning. The IC is claiming Town reads on two players, shows no proof of her own hunting or clearing?

Lynx broke it, and stated it well, so I'll just share quote.

Guilty Conscience Maneuvers:

Concept explained:

In post 70, likeabauss wrote: It smells fishy to me, mostly because good guys (town) operate under the confidence of their innocence. Bad guys (scum) are forced to mask their guilt and put on a show. This subtle difference changes the nuance of some things. One of the things I look for is people who are overly defensive (which you've exhibited in this maneuver) because scum feel the need to defend and keep the heat off. A town player knows their innocence and wont be as touchy or knee jerk on defense, especially against an accusation made against a completely different player.

1) Defending against an accusation made against somebody else. See post 6 + 8.
2) Change in Play - Reactionary to Accusations - I call her out, she changes style. Good guys don't change the way they play because somebody calls them out on it and says its shady. See post 146 for details.
3) IC post - cAPSLOCK mentioned it initially, I had noticed it. In another game here on MS I picked up on a similar nuance. Please note, this is NUANCE, but it supports the guilty conscience maneuvers.

Straight Scum:

1) Control of conversation/information - Check thread activity. Huge post count. Lots of posts, not much scum hunting. Adding content without scum hunting. For IC portion of role, fine. For Townie role, no good. Look at changes of conversation direction, leading questions (opening doors), and constant interjection/restatement of positions.
2) Appeal to emotion - after my attacks/tunneling, direct responses to me drip with emotional appeals.
3) Waffling: Back and forth on reads, non committal, following the leader/momentum.
4) Buttering up/Buddying up to players suspicious of her: cAPSLOCK, Me, Lynx. See post 146 for explanation.

Glaring hypocrisies/Inconsistencies:

1)

In post 136, fferyllt wrote: IME, I tend to either pick up votes in the early phases of day 1 or go more or less unnoticed until there's more data to work with. I don't usually key in on specific posts for scum reads. It's more about body of work.

Then:

In post 328, fferyllt wrote:Post 313 was the tipping point.

Tipping point? Out of nowhere in your 312, you post me on your suspects list. Previous to that, you were reading me town. Is it body of work when it suits you, but single post when it suits you?
2) Her Meta dive on me goes from, "Looks scummy" to "Now looks town" to "Oh, he's aware of it, so it's null."
Nothing changed on my end. I know how I play, I'm cognizant of my game. But you're opening the door here, or trying to paint a picture of something that isn't. This whole Meta thing is useless, as I stated previously:

In post 101, likeabauss wrote:Regarding your argument about my meta, and refuting it:
In post 73, likeabauss wrote:
I'm not one to dive too deeply into meta history as it can be changed by an experienced player, or maintained to illustrate consistency and pseudo alignment.

I don't put much stock into meta reads (I know lots of people here do though.) I just prefer to focus the discussion/energy elsewhere. You can dig into old games of all the players all you want. I don't think it matters much, for the reason I posted above. A good player can/will adjust their meta or maintain it as they see fit.

I mean, really? Frequently in this game you do meta dives under the guise that "Meta helps" then later you say "If the player knows about their own meta it its null." And not a single one of your meta dives has yielded you a strong read, you stay non-committal. You're all over the map on this. We're playing mafia, of course an experienced player is aware of their meta. I even use that point in my argument against you in 211. Good players are hard to hang when they are mafia.
3) You say read lists are dangerous, then lo and behold! A READ LIST in Post 310.

End Logic, Insert Narrative

I have more, but it's really messy. I need to clean up my notes, but I just don't have a whole lot of time.

The bottom line here is: I'm town and I think Fferyllt is mafia. I strongly believe that the point of this game is for townies to hang mafia. So, I'm trying to hang my number one suspect. That's how I play.

But, I'll be damned if you're going to ignore everything I've posted and say, "Bauss is scummy because he wants to hang Fferyllt because she's experienced." Either read the things people post, in this game that requires reading/writing/thinking, or replace out. More than half of this post is things I've already shared... But I add on a "tactical" consideration that is completely consistent with my position, the current wagons, deadlines, and people freak out.

I can post answers to other questions later tonight, and probably tomorrow as well. There's a few things I'd like to respond to that Trollie/cAPS/etc mentioned.

For now, if you read nothing else, read this:

I'm fighting to avoid hanging somebody I think is town, and pushing to hang somebody I think is scum.
Fferyllt is okay with hanging somebody she thinks is town, and isn't pushing to hang anybody.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:47 am**

bauss, nolynches destroy the next day's bandwagon analysis and are a bad idea except in rare circumstances. So of course I'd vote someone I'm not reading as scum rather than nolynch.

That's in response to the bold. I'll read through the rest of your wall and reply in a bit.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:00 am**

Townreading bauss? I don't think so

The relevant parts are bolded. spoilered because quotewallz

Spoiler: My posts about bauss' alignment

In post 71, fferyllt wrote:
In post 70, likeabauss wrote:Fferyllt - let me clarify. I understand the point you are making about your play style, history, meta, etc. My question to you is why did you bring it up in the first place? I made mention of a different player doing a similar thing, as part of a line of questioning to that player, and you chimed in with a defense for YOUR actions. I never mentioned you doing it, neither did anyone else that I can see.

It smells fishy to me, mostly because good guys (town) operate under the confidence of their innocence. Bad guys (scum) are forced to mask their guilt and put on a show. This subtle difference changes the nuance of some things. One of the things I look for is people who are overly defensive (which you've exhibited in this maneuver) because scum feel the need to defend and keep the heat off. A town player knows their innocence and wont be as touchy or knee jerk on defense, especially against an accusation made against a completely different player.
It was in response to the player that I tentatively townread, and appeared to be an indirect dig in my direction. It also was the post immediately after Kus putting down a vote on me with the reasoning that I was buddying sikon, so it also looked like indirect support for that vote.

Your play in this game so far seems to be oblique and indirect in some ways. I am going to make some time for a meta dive to see if that's typical of your town game
.

In post 83, fferyllt wrote:
In post 72, sikon327 wrote:I've had a look through his previous games -- there are two of them, one newbie, one mini normal, and in both of them, he's town. And in neither of those games does he display the hesitance to vote for possible scum that is present in this game. So why has he suddenly become cautious about voting? The way I see it, he either had some kind of epiphany in-between his previous game and this one, or he is merely playing differently now because he now has a different role -- that of the town's enemy.
I've had a chance to read his prior games this morning, and I've come to a similar conclusion about his play in those two games. My caveat is that the games are old - about 3 years old. In Mini1053 he mentioned that he played elsewhere, so it's not surprising that his games back then were aggressive. My play style 3 years ago is probably not a good indication of how I play today.

That said, as I mentioned earlier the indirect attack and indirect support for Kus's first vote pings. It pings harder than anything else in the game so far. I'm pretty deliberate with my vote when the game format allows, so I probably won't vote until after the weekend and there's more data to weigh up.

likeabauss, do you still play regularly on another site?

In post 115, fferyllt wrote:
In post 112, likeabauss wrote:What do you mean forming a town bloc?
It's the upside of town reads - some town players finding each other and actively working together to develop reads and push bandwagons.

Also, who do you suspect as scum? I'd love to hear your insights/thoughts/questions into this game, instead of the analysis of the way it is being/has been played. Seems like you're a very meta focused player, is that true?
I'm still developing my reads.
I have you down as possible scum, but I'm worried that it could be a false positive due to your current play style/rustiness after a few years away from mafia.

I need more data from a few players.

I'm not sure about "very" meta focused, at least at MS. When I have experiential meta I use it. When I wind up with a leaning scum read based on in-thread play I like do a meta dive and look for reasons to rethink.

In post 133, fferyllt wrote:
In post 132, likeabauss wrote:
VOTE: fferyllt

That feels good.

I believe you to be scum. I have many reasons that I will share when the time is right. For now, I will wait patiently while others weigh in and share their opinions.

What say you all? Is fferyllt scum or am I crazy?

You are my strongest scum read atm. Your vote adds more doubt about the accuracy of that read.
:/

In post 136, fferyllt wrote:
In post 135, likeabauss wrote:
In post 133, fferyllt wrote: You are my strongest scum read atm. Your vote adds more doubt about the accuracy of that read. :/
I can assure you that this logic is faulty.

Please review the post #127 Lynx_Shine made and offer up your thoughts on the concerns presented about you.

Also, cAPSLOCK's post #114 rings true with me. Having reread my previous games here, you'll notice that I strung up an IC mafia goon on Day 1 on an almost identical maneuver.

I don't think you parsed my statement correctly. Your vote on me makes me think my scum read could be wrong. I've felt that your approach was indirect, and that you are basing your FoSes on what other players dig up. This is similar in that you're vauting off cAPS and Lynx' posts, but you're not being indirect now.

IME, I tend to either pick up votes in the early phases of day 1 or go more or less unnoticed until there's more data to work with. I don't usually key in on specific posts for scum reads. It's more about body of work.

In post 153, fferyllt wrote:
In post 150, imkingdavid wrote:fferyllt - is your vote on me simply pressure or what? I see in #133 you say that bauss is your "strongest scum read" but I don't see a vote on him. I find it odd that you'd place your first vote in the game on a self-admitted inactive player rather than on your strongest suspect. Also, you're voting me, as I understand it, due to inactivity. But as others have rightfully pointed out, you've done a lot of talking without saying much (up till recently when you posted your reads on a few players). I don't see the difference between my inactive inactivity and your active inactivity.

Anyway, I won't be voting you at the moment. Inactivity is a fact and not really something you can defend against, and I don't find it strong enough to be a reason for you to be lynched, especially this early on.
That's two people who misunderstood my post about bauss.
To clarify, bauss was my strongest scum read up to the point where he started making a case on me. He went from indirect to direct stance of attack, though I think his case is mostly rehashing others' comments.

I never put a vote down purely for pressure. If I vote then at that point in the game, I am willing to lynch. You have been inactive, though you've been slightly more of a presence than Lynx. But, lynx' two posts had IMO good, thoughtful content and questions. I like questions. Prior to this, though you had 5 posts, there was only one with even a little bit of content.

In post 160, fferyllt wrote:
In post 71, fferyllt wrote:
In post 70, likeabauss wrote:Fferyllt - let me clarify. I understand the point you are making about your play style, history, meta, etc. My question to you is why did you bring it up in the first place? I made mention of a different player doing a similar thing, as part of a line of questioning to that player, and you chimed in with a defense for YOUR actions. I never mentioned you doing it, neither did anyone else that I can see.

It smells fishy to me, mostly because good guys (town) operate under the confidence of their innocence. Bad guys (scum) are forced to mask their guilt and put on a show. This subtle difference changes the nuance of some things. One of the things I look for is people who are overly defensive (which you've exhibited in this maneuver) because scum feel the need to defend and keep the heat off. A town player knows their innocence and wont be as touchy or knee jerk on defense, especially against an accusation made against a completely different player.
It was in response to the player that I tentatively townread,
and appeared to be an indirect dig in my direction.
It also was the post immediately after Kus putting down a vote on me with the reasoning that I was buddying sikon,
so it also looked like indirect support for that vote
.

Your play in this game so far seems to be oblique and indirect in some ways.

I am going to make some time for a meta dive to see if that's typical of your town game.
I didn't use the word "pings", but I certainly did indicate concern about the indirect attack and the indirect vote support. In fact, it was enough concern to do a meta dive and read his earlier games.

And the dive
did not
turn up a propensity for indirect and oblique stuff.. He was direct and aggressive in his play back then. Given the passage of time (more than 2 years) I think he may have needed a little time to get back into the groove.

bauss was much more direct and aggressive right from the start in his earlier games. His later posts in this game, which I have said make me doubt the validity of my initial lean toward scum, are more in the vein of his first two MS games from a couple years ago.

In post 310, fferyllt wrote:I decided to go back and reread the first 5 or so pages of the game this morning to remind myself why I had the reads I started with and think about whether they are justified. This is from my handwritten notes, and I'm not going to bother with post links. For the most part I'm not talking about later developments here - just the first 5 or so pages unless there wasn't enough content early on.

Sikon - post 22 struck me as town mindset. post 29 she seemed gratified at getting a tentative town read from me. She had good trajectory on her first non-RVS vote, and again on bauss for FoSing with no vote early on.

capslock - post 25 seems empty of real content. post 27 seems hedgy about rvs of all things. 43, 44 make excuses. 56 puts down a vote for lynx not posting (makes it clear that's why - oh the futility of pressure votes that are basically labeled as such). 78 more excuses. I liked that he questioned my IC post comment that I'm as likely to be scum as any other player, thought it was interesting that people read that as emphasizing I'm as likely to be town as any other player. Agree with trollie about the football metaphor, but on reread his contribution is comparatively weak.

kueshina - right off the top, a "townslip", not realizing scum can communicate via QT prior to the game starting with 7 confirmations. The only way this would happen if scum, I think, would be if kues was coached to make a townslip. 31 is a lot of theory. I feel like kues' general theory stuff kept getting read as suggestions about this game. Overly defensive about kingdavid's rvs vote, and in general pretty prickly and defensive. I keep reading this as paranoid town, but could be confirmation bias. kues looks worse as the game day progresses and doesn't seem to be advancing their reads.

morthas/trollie - morthas looked town as fuck to me. To the extent he gave reads, I agreed with them based on what was in the thread up to that point. His vote on bauss made sense to me. If I had wanted to put a vote down in the thread that early, I would have put it on bauss. He liked kues for town. Trollie's posts, aside from not including a lot of support, also look good to me. When I ask for support what he says makes sense. I can see his reasons for voting (and unvoting) sikon and then kues.

bauss - initially posts questions, including leading questions and foses without votes. In 51, reacts to morthas. oblique, indirect series of posts about buddying. Sometime after 70 he starts tunneling me, and since then his posts have been worthless for discerning alignment. I guess I can't tell town tunneling from scum tunneling when I'm the object, not without priors and some idea of whether my play style is by default scummy looking to him.

king david/cheery - KD's posts were substance free with one exception when I first ISO'd him. Lots of excuses for why he wasn't posting substance. Cheery's better, but he's not taking strong stances about other players. Vote is currently on capslock.

Lynx - votes kues in 64. posts have good content.

jason - I've posted about him several times, mostly with concern about his tunneling capslock. But, my capslock read has suffered a bit since going back over the first 5 or so pages. I like his content since returning. feel kinda unsure about his sikon vote.

I have never townread you. I backed you down from top scum read due to ambivalence over my objectivity when being obsessively and irrationally tunneled.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:06 am**

The rest of your case is, as I have said before, gripes about my town game which can be meta'd to death at MS. Some things vary, including how aggressively I play, because that's dependent on the game setup and on the player list.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:55 pm**

Is it bad strategy to defend yourself when you are l-2? As far as I can tell likeabauss is doing a good time building a case against another player but is not spending much time talking about being l-2?

It is not a rhetorical question.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:55 pm**

In post 337, TheTrollie wrote:

@likeabauss:
this is so not true. (a) an experienced town player way helps town. (b) this is a bad reason to lynch someone, especially on D1. if on D3 u have no good leads and ur still paranoid about an experienced player playing a good scum game, then MAYBE u should consider that lynch (c) you need to weigh your read on the person against this analysis, which means (1) since I have a town read on FF that would be a dumb lynch and (2) since it is more likely for her to be town than scum, its stupid to lynch on the basis of "oh no if she is scum she is gonna beat us up" (d) you say urself that scum will kill off experienced townies (not true, but lets assume u really feel that way). that means its stupid to lynch FF if you think she would be the obvious target of the NK.

I'm not saying this is a general rule of thumb that I would apply across the board. I said specifically that for this game, considering the waning involvement in this game, the noobiness, my read of Fferyllt, my read of Kue, and what is going on. Look at the activity here... Fferylt is literally commanding the conversation with triple the post count of the next most active poster. So to respond specifically:
a) Yes, in general I agree. But Fferyllt's play this game hasn't been very pro-town IMO (I know you and I disagree on this.)
b) All by itself, yes. But that's not my only reason. Also, at the time I posted those things, there were two viable wagons (Kue and Fferyllt.) I'd be stupid or lame to sit back and let the majority hang somebody that I believe is town over somebody I believe is mafia. This point is merely a tactical consideration, in addition to a case I already laid out, not a crux point on which I'm advocating a lynch. This is a distinct difference.
c) I'm confident in my read on both her and Kue. So the tactical consideration is to push to hang the scum, not sit by (avoid making waves), and let my town read get hung. I made a post/point earlier about conviction.
d) Scum will take a lot into consideration in making a kill, of course. If I were scum, given the flow of this game, Its a reasonable strategy to kill the experienced contributors and leave the noobs floundering... the only exception would be trying to hit a PR. So, in that scenario (keeping in mind that I believe Fferyllt to be scum), its reasonable to assume that killing the experienced contributors would be a viable strategy. Nowhere in that scenario is Fferyllt an experienced townie though, I think she's scum. The focal point of this scenario is: I'm worried that if we dont lynch her, it'll be easy for her (as scum) to control the game of non active, lightly contributing players after offing the few invested/experienced/active townies. If I'm wrong about Kue being town, I don't see Kue running away with the game (no disrespect Kue).

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:00 pm**

bauss,

If I were scum and if you are town, I'd leave both fferyllt and bauss in the game so it could fill up with our 1v1 and leave a pile of chaff in the air to hide behind.

I still am not liking cheery's level of involvement. Lynx needs a really close look tomorrow. One thing that she and cheery both have done is put down votes without putting much effort into seeing them through to lynch, and had little but friendly dialog with their other scum read.

^^ consider that my last will and testament if I'm dead tomorrow, btw.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:02 pm**

In post 357, likeabauss wrote:Nowhere in that scenario is Fferyllt an experienced townie though, I think she's scum.

so let's not lynch her and see what happens tonight.

I'm ready to vote bauss... i still have a gut town feeling on him but he's not helpful cuz he's stupidly tunneling and hes being scummy enough that I will want him dead before the end of the game anyway

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:04 pm**

is he back at l1
if so take this as intent to hammer.

claim time bauss

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:06 pm**

he's at L-2. cheery, jason and sikon have votes down atm.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:31 pm**

So I'm seeing likeabauss:
-Accusing fferyllt of changing her playstyle. It never really changed. It's been focusing on her interest in forming a town-group since the start of the game. She gave reads because you bugged her about it. I don't think that's something that's solidly scummy. Honestly if there's anyone here who's completely changed their playstyle it's you, bauss. You started this game flinging accusations in random directions without committing, multiple people took issue with your noncommittal nature, and then at some point you went into full tunnel mode on ff. The only difference is you didn't do it as a direct response to any specific accusation, but the correlation is still there, at least enough to make your accusation seem hypocritical.
-Misinterpreting fferyllt's willingness to lynch outside her personal scumreads to avoid a no-lynch as a desire to lynch townies. Nobody wants a goddamn no-lynch. That's tantamount to giving the scum team a free kill in exchange for another two weeks to argue fruitlessly.
-Interpreting all uncertainty on fferyllt's read on him as somehow scummy.
-Interpreting fferyllt's uncertainty about your three-year-old meta as somehow scummy. Would you prefer that she declared meta to be law and threw all logic to the wind?

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:33 pm**

Vote Count 1.05

Kueshina (1) Lynx_Shine
fferyllt (2) Kueshina, likeabauss
likeabauss (3) Cheery Dog, JasonWazza, sikon327

Not Voting

cAPSLOCK, TheTrollie, fferyllt

With 9 it takes 5 to lynch

V/LA: Lynx_Shine through Sunday July 7

Deadline: (expired on 2013-07-05 00:14:37)

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:50 pm**

In post 359, TheTrollie wrote: so let's not lynch her and see what happens tonight.

I'm ready to vote bauss... i still have a gut town feeling on him but he's not helpful cuz he's stupidly tunneling and hes being scummy enough that I will want him dead before the end of the game anyway

I'm okay with this, but I think Kue is town. So I don't like that wagon. And we have a deadline fast approaching with no other viable lynch candidate.

My next big question mark is Sikon. I'm null/town reads on everybody else.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:59 pm**

In post 358, fferyllt wrote:bauss,

If I were scum and if you are town, I'd leave both fferyllt and bauss in the game so it could fill up with our 1v1 and leave a pile of chaff in the air to hide behind.

Well it's not like you'd be able kill yourself.

What I'm wanting to see currently is caps's vote down on his biggest scum read as I'm really not liking his vote history. (which was a vote on a lurker and then the vote on jason after I joined the game) I have no real idea of where he is standing.

Posted: **Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:54 pm**

VOTE: bauss

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:25 am**

In post 358, fferyllt wrote:bauss,

If I were scum and if you are town, I'd leave both fferyllt and bauss in the game so it could fill up with our 1v1 and leave a pile of chaff in the air to hide behind.

I still am not liking cheery's level of involvement. Lynx needs a really close look tomorrow. One thing that she and cheery both have done is put down votes without putting much effort into seeing them through to lynch, and had little but friendly dialog with their other scum read.

^^ consider that my last will and testament if I'm dead tomorrow, btw.

This is the most clear and real post you've made all game, IMO.

At this point, I'm L1. Somebody state their intent to hammer and Ill claim appropriately. I'll also leave a full list of my reads/questions before lynch that folks can look back at after I'm confirmed town. Just give me a little time, as it's a holiday and I've got some running around to do.

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 am**

You realize we have less then 14 hours right?

I don't mean to rush it but do the shit now.

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:35 am**

Top scum reads: Fferyllt, Sikon
Slight scum?/need development: Lynx, Trollie
Null: Jason, Cheery
Town: Kueshina, cAPSLOCK

Take it for what it's worth.

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:42 am**

Might I just say, I love how your scumreads consist almost entirely of just the people on your wagon.

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:54 am**

You can say all you want now homie. In thirteen hours or less, everybody will know I'm town, but I won't be able to say anything. You have any questions for me or just snark?

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:56 am**

I can't remember you building much of a sikon case. If it's not in your iso already, why do you think sikon is scum?

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:10 am**

I, too, find it very interesting that you've made me one of your top scum reads all of the sudden now that I'm on your case. But I guess that should go without saying.

I would also like to say that you seem to be making an awfully exaggerated show of how UNBELIVEABLY TOWN I AM, GUYS. "after I'm

confirmed town

," "everyone will

know I'm town

." It seems like you're making a big show of being a noble townie who's resigned to his fate at the hands of the HORRIBLE, SCUZZY SCUM on your wagon in hopes of making everyone say "oh, well, if he's okay with being lynched for the good of the town, then there's no way he's not town!" and second-guess lynching you.

Posted: **Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:12 am**

ebwop: having said that, I still want to hear his case against me. No one hammer just yet.

Mafiascum.net

Newbie 1389 Trouble in River City Game Over Scum win