Mafiascum.net

Baby- you know those things you see or hear and for whatever reason they stick with you? That 72% thing is one of those things. I picked 5 or 6 random games and they all had 1 scum in the first 4 votes. It may not always work but I'm keeping that one in my back pocket.

@ stranger - got into the game yet?

I'm good to go. I'm still happy with my vote.

UNVOTE: Xis was mainly curious if you'd call it null when you're staying on the wagon and comment on not to read your vote post so narrowly made it sound like the scum read existed.

And as for the card I was asking about what card robert got from the CC.

↑ Jake from State Farm wrote:Mehdi, why are you asking people what cards they have? Robert why did you claim double voter?

Cause I wasn't before and its only for this day phase apparently. This is new to me a bit as I have never randomly became a double voter before. Or even been a double voter before and I've played a bunch of games. I rather be honest and not withhold information.

So Really now, I can really place 2 votes one person or one vote on Player A and one on Player B. But I think that be just counter Productive. (via confirmation from the mod).

So I'll place my second vote now.



@Couger, you seem different.

How so?

You just do, course I've only seen you Mod, your posts seem like its almost not the same person? Idk why.

I really should be unpicking that quilt now that I can see colour again. (tired eyes)

But:

Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.

That took all of five minutes.

Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.

Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.
Strange that you wont attempt to show why the reason for your vote isn't blatant misrepresentation. You bitched about it, but didn't try and show it.

Simply put, your reactions are scummy, your reasonings for the vote was scummy, and you resort to everything but defending your actions, which is scummy.

↑ Robert2424 wrote:You just do, course I've only seen you Mod, your posts seem like its almost not the same person? Idk why.

Again with the chronic? I gotta smoke like you homie.

↑ Robert2424 wrote:You just do, course I've only seen you Mod, your posts seem like its almost not the same person? Idk why.

I really can't explain. It feels like you're trying to compare apples and oranges—modding and playing are two entirely different things, as I discussed earlier (though on the more specific subject on if I pick up on tells players give off as a mod).

↑ Jal wrote:

↑ Mehdi2277 wrote:
As for the argument it's more of newer players thinking early discussion is relatively unimportant isn't new. What lurker did isn't very different from Robert's idea that no lynching is better day 1. Both show the idea that current discussion doesn't help much and while it's bad idea it is not a scummy idea.

You say some scum like to defend a lot. I'm the only defending him a lot. And I'm supposed to naturally understand it was meant in general vs at me?

I can easily see what Robert is doing being associated with a newer player. I've seen it all the time and it's almost an expected discussion topic for most Newbie games. I wouldn't quite pin what Lurker did as thinking earlier/(then current) discussion as weak and and not helping much. It was more so like he was blowing everything off and just signing into the thread.

I'll give you the defending bit as I can see how you can interpret that.

Being willing to actually back away on a point vs argue it a ton.

↑ Jal wrote:Wagons get results, Mehdi. That is how you git dem scums. Actually Mog's turn against you looks pretty scummy.

↑ Mogadishu Jones wrote:Six pages in and this medhi guy seriously is about to wet himself to lynch someone, its tripping me out.

Willingness to comment on most people read wise and to take advantage of the wagon. It wasn't just a push on lurker, but also being observant of who voted him herself.

Yeah, putting those first or second votes on people. He really wants a lynch. So, do you think Mehdi be da scums?

↑ Jal wrote:*How* Lurker claimed was pretty townie. It also looks like he looked at his pm and to read his role before posting. The only thing that caught my eye about it was that he has 2 cards. I have a different amount. Do we all not start off with the same amount of properties?]

If either Baby Spice or Mhork flip scum, the other would be more likely to flip scum.

A bit more detail on lurker's claim besides back away he claimed watcher. And the if they flip scum is also a weak town tell since it'd mean either bussing or looking at a line of logic that won't help you.

There's a couple other minor things, but I think jal is town. Heavily doubt the wagon on lurker is pure town. Mog already mentioned and mhork/xis already mentioned. Currently leaning towards SC or numberQ (even though numberQ is part lurker lynch).

SC what do you think of the wagon you're on?

Xisiqomelir and Lord Mhork are both town reads with the latter being a good deal more solid.

Sorry for being so late to the party, but I'm all caught up now.

I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him? What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?

Also, take a look at the mini-theme queue, at the post that introduces Monopoly Mafia. I didn't find this info in the first post of this thread. It says that deeds are randomized AFTER alignments are given. Lurker could be a watcher, but also scum.

Anyway, I'll provide some analysis/reads later, I spent my last amount of non-laziness just reading the thread. I'll be probably looking at Lurker and SC, maybe some Mhork and Robert thrown in for good measure.

For now,

UNVOTE:

PEdit: Am I being voted for just because I was lurking?

What do you think of SC not backing off of lurker?

Mainly. That and I'm still not sure on how to treat the wagon on lurker.

Was rereading, question to : Do all your cards say "for now" on them?

↑ Agent_Ireland wrote:The property card I don't know how I feel about because I feel like their power can be given or taken at any time due to the "for now" statement in mine.

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:

↑ Mehdi2277 wrote:SC why didn't you unvote lurker before? He claimed before your last two posts.

My interpretation of the claim is that the watcher comes from one of the cards, which, as far as I know, everybody has. If it were not tied to the cards, I don't think he would have claimed "vanilla with a one-shot ability"; I think he would have dropped the "vanilla" qualifier. The claim itself is not in question as far as I'm concerned, but the way it's worded, I don't think it warrants an unvote.

When he first claimed, he just said Vanilla Townie. He wouldn't drop the Vanilla qualifier if his role says "Vanilla Townie" and one of his cards has a power.

I am pretty confident in my StrangerCoug vote.

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm

None of this was said when StrangerCoug voted for Lurker. StrangerCoug quoted Mhorkie Pie's post which had nothing relevant to do with Lurker and said "sold" followed by a vote like that post was the driving factor to do so.

Also, a lot of that stuff didn't happen

VOTE: SC mostly based on the post above.

↑ Jal wrote:

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:

↑ Mehdi2277 wrote:SC why didn't you unvote lurker before? He claimed before your last two posts.

My interpretation of the claim is that the watcher comes from one of the cards, which, as far as I know, everybody has. If it were not tied to the cards, I don't think he would have claimed "vanilla with a one-shot ability"; I think he would have dropped the "vanilla" qualifier. The claim itself is not in question as far as I'm concerned, but the way it's worded, I don't think it warrants an unvote.

When he first claimed, he just said Vanilla Townie. He wouldn't drop the Vanilla qualifier if his role says "Vanilla Townie" and one of his cards has a power.

This is simply a rephrasing of what you just quoted. My opinion of his claim is that it is card-based and he would not drop the vanilla qualifier if he had it no matter what card he had. What you're saying is that he got the power from his card and wouldn't be dropping the vanilla qualifier if "vanilla" is in his role PM and he got his one-shot ability from a card. These are mutually inclusive, and I don't see what your problem is.

↑ Jal wrote:

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm

None of this was said when StrangerCoug voted for Lurker. StrangerCoug quoted Mhorkie Pie's post which had nothing relevant to do with Lurker and said "sold" followed by a vote like that post was the driving factor to do so.

Also, a lot of that stuff didn't happen

Very well then, you dissect Lord Mhork's post.

↑ Baby Spice wrote:Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.

That took all of five minutes.

Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.

Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?

I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.

↑ Baby Spice wrote:Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.

How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.

Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:This is simply a rephrasing of what you just quoted. My opinion of his claim is that it is card-based and he would not drop the vanilla qualifier if he had it no matter what card he had. What you're saying is that he got the power from his card and wouldn't be dropping the vanilla qualifier if "vanilla" is in his role PM and he got his one-shot ability from a card. These are mutually inclusive, and I don't see what your problem is.

I am having trouble understanding what exactly about the wording of his claim that you believe doesn't warrant an unvote.

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:Very well then, you dissect Lord Mhork's post.

Well, firstly we're talking about the reasons you voted for Lurker, and we can start off with Mhork not voting for our dear Boberto.

↑ Jal wrote:

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:This is simply a rephrasing of what you just quoted. My opinion of his claim is that it is card-based and he would not drop the vanilla qualifier if he had it no matter what card he had. What you're saying is that he got the power from his card and wouldn't be dropping the vanilla qualifier if "vanilla" is in his role PM and he got his one-shot ability from a card. These are mutually inclusive, and I don't see what your problem is.

I am having trouble understanding what exactly about the wording of his claim that you believe doesn't warrant an unvote.

The fact that it comes from a card and that everybody has cards to my knowledge. It's basically a scaled-down 100 Boxes with the boxes already open to start.

↑ Jal wrote:

↑ StrangerCoug wrote:Very well then, you dissect Lord Mhork's post.

Well, firstly we're talking about the reasons you voted for Lurker, and we can start off with Mhork not voting for our dear Boberto.

Whoops—misunderstood that part. It still stands that Lurker's vote on Lord Mhork is inherently ridiculous.

↑ Jal wrote:

Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you

days

just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?

I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.

↑ Baby Spice wrote:Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.

How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.

Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.

Well, actually, as I said, you would still need to go check on what I posted, so the fact that you wouldn't seems strange. Simply, if you don't take what I said at face value, you wont take me providing anything to support it at face value. That you still haven't bothered to check, that you must be relying on someone else's checking without actually saying so speaks badly for you.

Five minutes for those four. Well a lot less actually, I checked what the most recent games were and looked them up in the notes I had made. half a minute more like. But none of that changes the basic point. Had I provided the lot you would still need to check it for yourself or take all of it on face value.

I'm not trying to hide behind stats. You're trying to make it look like that's all I'm using, whereas what I did was decide to use a simple fact to decide where I would start to look for scum.

It's strange that you decided that of "72% of mini games will have at least one scum on the first wagon to get to four votes judging by the vote count posts" and "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets", one was acceptable at face value and one wasn't. If you didn't believe me on one surely you would not believe me on the other. But it appears that that's what happened.
Especially given as it was the basis for where to start looking for scum, not as an actual reason for you to be scum.

Since you asked.
Scum: Jal

Leaning scum: Agent I, Xis *****

Null: Jake* Medhi, Mog ***

Vig bait: Mhork, NS & NumberQ ****

Leaning town: Lurker** Robert** SC

Town:


*I did have Jake as leaning scum until recently

**Not sure scum would mention getting Community chests cards so quickly, otherwise was null.

*** Not sure if he's leaning town or just faking so null.

**** Needs to post or be replaced. Vig bait due to LAL

*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.

That's a horrible "leaning" town list, fwiw.