Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:36 am**

Because you were truly annoyed at how I dismissed the Nacho kill, hey I'm sorry I know he's a bit of a hero to you, so you could not act in the calculated and robotic way you describe, you are human, not an agorithm that wants to win a mafia game. The actual fact you were annoyed is another tell by the way, JM was perplexed when asked, because ad far as he was concerned I had produced the most content, but you

knew

Nacho's content was qualitatively superior

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:50 am**

You weren't dismissing the Nacho kill with your reasoning. Even if you had been, who gives a shit? That he

is

dead is more relevant than

why

.

jmo has played plenty of games and is likely as familiar, if not more so, with Nacho as I am.

Nacho's content this game was not "qualitatively superior," as you put it.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:22 am**

So here I am finally back at my pc, first of all I'd like you all to notice how she is concentrating on some points of my accusation while completely ignoring others wheh she can't explain them away, like:

GM wrote: Besides which, what need would I have to warn anyone I was going to bus them? When I'm Scum it's the first thing I post in the QT.

Crisp wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know Mafia isn't allowed to talk separately during the day in newbie games, at least that's what I read in one of JMO's recent games, in this case you have every reason to try and communicate with your partner if the strategy you planned fell apart, if by any chanche I'm wrong then it was simply a slip.

GM wrote:No, Mafia in Newbie games absolutely does not have daytalk.

so the first post was a lie, as mafia she had a perfectly valid reason to do it, but let's not talk about it she says, and goes for:

GM wrote:And I said we would discuss why WIFOM is eminently dismissable postgame, unless you want to distract from actual gameplay to hold a theory discussion right now.
I did not say that we would not discuss your actual jmo reasoning.

Implying that I said somewhere that GM would not discuss my JMO reasoning post game, which of course I never stated (lie number 2), what I did say instead is that GM knew my reasoning was bad because she already knew why Nacho was killed, she also told me she knew by stating we would discuss it post game (bad slip there).

GM wrote: Nacho is a better player than any of us in this game. If you don't believe me you're welcome to go meta him.

Truth as she believes it, but completely unrelated to my line of questioning, part of GM's general MO of trying to mix as much truth as possible in her lies to appear convincing.

GM wrote:That he is dead is more relevant than why.

To you maybe, since your win condition is to kill off townies, for me the why is important because it can lead to the who did it, also another attempt to deflect away from the point I made about why she behaved like that.

Have a good look at this again and at her explaination

GM wrote: @Brian: conflict... of interest... senses... tingling

GM wrote: It has little to do with this game and everything to do with the other focus of his attention, if I guessed right

first she asks me why she did not play like a pre programmed robot and then she explains that cryptic message as saying she was referring to some out of game nonsence, clearly the truth as it often does lies in the middle.

I'd also like to repeat that all Brian did in this game, ISO him please, is defend GM, attack those who attacked GM and piggyback GM's reads, plus some fluffy questions about people's play he never bother to follow up on.

Note as well how she hurried to unvote JM, by far her biggest suspect, or are you now claiming JM was never a suspect? And how now she keeps appealing to him in her posts (please don't vote me JM! CrisP is a jerk and you know it

), this is mafia trying to save her skin at it's best.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:06 pm**

Ah yes, I was almost forgetting two other important points.

1. Nobody questioned my alignment while I was attacking JM, other than Brian, he gave a strong town read with one problem, he says he is worried about associative tells, that's the mafia cop out strategy if something goes wrong. So just from that by the way JM is actually the best town read we have, even assuming GM BR is not the mafia pair, it means mafia wants JM lynched, and GM voting JM from the start of day 2 takes on a new level of scummy.

2. What happened after GM posts her second defence, first she appeals to logic, which she thinks, and you are right!, is the best argument to make to convince me, in order for JM to look bad (post 350), then once she realizes she is flogging a dead horse she sends her cryptic message to Brian, and finally starts to question my alignment.

I think it's a pretty good case:

VOTE: Goodmorning

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:30 pm**

Actually I just noticed I still made one mistake, this:

GM wrote:@Brian: conflict... of interest... senses... tingling

is not GM telling Brian she is going to buss him, this is GM telling Brian to start executing the cop out strategy, we have a conflict of interest with CrisP (because he doesn't want to kill JM anymore), my senses are tingling (and well they should since she posted this just after I told Brian I was disappointed he hadn't resorted to posting kittens again, implying I thought he was scum).

And that, I think, is the nail to the coffin.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:36 pm**

In post 377, CrisP wrote:So here I am finally back at my pc, first of all I'd like you all to notice how she is concentrating on some points of my accusation while completely ignoring others wheh she can't explain them away, like:

GM wrote: Besides which, what need would I have to warn anyone I was going to bus them? When I'm Scum it's the first thing I post in the QT.

Crisp wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know Mafia isn't allowed to talk separately during the day in newbie games, at least that's what I read in one of JMO's recent games, in this case you have every reason to try and communicate with your partner if the strategy you planned fell apart, if by any chanche I'm wrong then it was simply a slip.

GM wrote:No, Mafia in Newbie games absolutely does not have daytalk.
so the first post was a lie, as mafia she had a perfectly valid reason to do it, but let's not talk about it she says, and goes for:

1. No, it was not a lie. I would have no need to tell my partner I was going to bus them, as the first thing I post in Mafia QTs is "don't be surprised if I bus you."
2. Not having daytalk doesn't really matter, especially in a game this size. There are plenty of subtle ways to telegraph one's intentions anyway.

GM wrote:And I said we would discuss why WIFOM is eminently dismissable postgame, unless you want to distract from actual gameplay to hold a theory discussion right now.
I did not say that we would not discuss your actual jmo reasoning.
Implying that I said somewhere that GM would not discuss my JMO reasoning post game, which of course I never stated (lie number 2), what I did say instead is that GM knew my reasoning was bad because she already knew why Nacho was killed, she also told me she knew by stating we would discuss it post game (bad slip there).

In post 373, CrisP wrote:- The truth (GM), crisP your reasoning about JMO is WIFOM and bad,
we will discuss it post game
, the Nacho kill had little to do with JM, the fact JM was then easier to lynch is just an added bonus!

So "your reasoning about jmo is WIFOM and bad, we will discuss it postgame" is what, exactly?
And what I am stating we will discuss postgame, again, is theory questions (why is WIFOM bad, why do I find VCA/NKA bad, etc.).

GM wrote: Nacho is a better player than any of us in this game. If you don't believe me you're welcome to go meta him.
Truth as she believes it, but completely unrelated to my line of questioning, part of GM's general MO of trying to mix as much truth as possible in her lies to appear convincing.

If you think I have a problem lying as Mafia then maybe you need to go meta me a bit better.

GM wrote:That he is dead is more relevant than why.
To you maybe, since your win condition is to kill off townies, for me the why is important because it can lead to the who did it, also another attempt to deflect away from the point I made about why she behaved like that.

The why could be any one of ten reasonable reasons and countless more unreasonable ones. Unless you are Scum, you cannot know which. To propose that important opinions should be based on conjecture is frankly ridiculous.

Have a good look at this again and at her explaination

GM wrote: @Brian: conflict... of interest... senses... tingling

GM wrote: It has little to do with this game and everything to do with the other focus of his attention, if I guessed right
first she asks me why she did not play like a pre programmed robot and then she explains that cryptic message as saying she was referring to some out of game nonsence, clearly the truth as it often does lies in the middle.

Um, no.
It's not something I can talk about, because ongoing games and not-mine-to-tells, but basically I was glad he was distracted by the other thing, but also sad he was away from this one.
That's the conflict of interest. It's my interest in this game vs the other thing.

I'd also like to repeat that all Brian did in this game, ISO him please, is defend GM, attack those who attacked GM and piggyback GM's reads, plus some fluffy questions about people's play he never bother to follow up on.

Do you think these actions tell on his alignment? On mine? Show your work.

Note as well how she hurried to unvote JM, by far her biggest suspect, or are you now claiming JM was never a suspect? And how now she keeps appealing to him in her posts (please don't vote me JM! CrisP is a jerk and you know it ), this is mafia trying to save her skin at it's best.

Why would I claim jmo was never a suspect?
What makes you think he's presently my

biggest

suspect?
Where was I appealing to him in my posts?

In post 378, CrisP wrote:1. Nobody questioned my alignment while I was attacking JM, other than Brian, he gave a strong town read with one problem, he says he is worried about associative tells, that's the mafia cop out strategy if something goes wrong. So just from that by the way JM is actually the best town read we have, even assuming GM BR is not the mafia pair, it means mafia wants JM lynched, and
GM voting JM from the start of day 2 takes on a new level of scummy.

Giving a Town read =/= questioning somebody's alignment.
Also, this point appears to have little to do with me, excepting the underlined.
As to that:
Which would be scummy at the beginning of D2: me voting my strongest scumread, me voting a weaker scumread, me voting a townread, or me not voting at all?
And which would be the towniest?

2. What happened after GM posts her second defence, first she appeals to logic, which she thinks, and you are right!, is the best argument to make to convince me, in order for JM to look bad (post 350), then once she realizes she is flogging a dead horse she sends her cryptic message to Brian, and finally starts to question my alignment.

Please demonstrate where I began to question your alignment. Also please include quotes, if you can find them.
Also, which of these is scummy: questioning someone's alignment, or acting as though one knows?
And which would be the towniest?

Please actually respond to what I'm saying instead of what you seem to think I'm saying. I find your misrepping disingenuous.

P-EDIT:

In post 379, CrisP wrote:Actually I just noticed I still made one mistake, this:

GM wrote:@Brian: conflict... of interest... senses... tingling
is not GM telling Brian she is going to buss him, this is GM telling Brian to start executing the cop out strategy, we have a conflict of interest with CrisP (because he doesn't want to kill JM anymore), my senses are tingling (and well they should since she posted this just after I told Brian I was disappointed he hadn't resorted to posting kittens again, implying I thought he was scum).

And that, I think, is the nail to the coffin.

1. For conflict of interest discussion see above
2. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

sorry

sorry

it's just

I told Brian I was disappointed he hadn't resorted to posting kittens again, implying I thought he was scum

he hadn't resorted to posting kittens again, implying I thought he was scum

implying I thought he was scum

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i mean, usually i try not to be a dick but the massive weight of your bullshit just broke my civility filter

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:59 pm**

Read up to post 374 so far:
Really Gm, not going to vote brian this game? What has he done to give you such a great town read. There is no way he should be in anyone's definite town pile unless they know something we don't. So why is Brian so town to you?
I didn't think GM's answer was fishy as he can definitely hold back for some time but eventually needs to answer for it. This Brian thing is a red flag though.
Nacho didn't seem that great this game, but I've had one other game where he was certainly one of the better players.

I don't understand the Second half of Crisp's post 373.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:08 pm**

P-EDIT:

In post 379, CrisP wrote:Actually I just noticed I still made one mistake, this:

GM wrote:@Brian: conflict... of interest... senses... tingling
is not GM telling Brian she is going to buss him, this is GM telling Brian to start executing the cop out strategy, we have a conflict of interest with CrisP (because he doesn't want to kill JM anymore), my senses are tingling (and well they should since she posted this just after I told Brian I was disappointed he hadn't resorted to posting kittens again, implying I thought he was scum).

And that, I think, is the nail to the coffin.

1. For conflict of interest discussion see above
2. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

sorry

sorry

it's just

I told Brian I was disappointed he hadn't resorted to posting kittens again, implying I thought he was scum

he hadn't resorted to posting kittens again, implying I thought he was scum

implying I thought he was scum

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i mean, usually i try not to be a dick but the massive weight of your bullshit just broke my civility filter[/quote]

I don't mind at all, this kind of reaction is hard to fake so you were probably talking about some out of game related nonsence there.

I do find your attempt to drown the whole thing into walls of text rather tedious though.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:30 pm**

Trying to reply to this wall of text is impossible so:

"1. No, it was not a lie. I would have no need to tell my partner I was going to bus them, as the first thing I post in Mafia QTs is "don't be surprised if I bus you."
2. Not having daytalk doesn't really matter, especially in a game this size. There are plenty of subtle ways to telegraph one's intentions anyway."

Just b/c u tell your partner you will bus them does not mean you could not make use of a signal for a change in game plan.

"So "your reasoning about jmo is WIFOM and bad, we will discuss it postgame" is what, exactly?
And what I am stating we will discuss postgame, again, is theory questions (why is WIFOM bad, why do I find VCA/NKA bad, etc.)."

Again, I don't understand this part of Crisp's argument.

"If you think I have a problem lying as Mafia then maybe you need to go meta me a bit better."

Crisp, can you link a game where you see GM acting in this way?

"The why could be any one of ten reasonable reasons and countless more unreasonable ones. Unless you are Scum, you cannot know which. To propose that important opinions should be based on conjecture is frankly ridiculous."

The why is just of not more important than the fact as it promotes discussion. Only mafia would rather have ppl ignore the kill. Also, it one can get reads off of reactions to a kill.

"Um, no.
It's not something I can talk about, because ongoing games and not-mine-to-tells, but basically I was glad he was distracted by the other thing, but also sad he was away from this one.
That's the conflict of interest. It's my interest in this game vs the other thing."

I think he's saying he is in another game with Brian and it is giving him info? Did I just break a rule?

"Do you think these actions tell on his alignment? On mine? Show your work."

I believe it gives more info on Brian's alignment than GM's. If Brian and GM are in another game, I need to read it.

"Why would I claim jmo was never a suspect?
What makes you think he's presently my biggest suspect?
Where was I appealing to him in my posts?"

Questions for Crisp.

"Giving a Town read =/= questioning somebody's alignment.
Also, this point appears to have little to do with me, excepting the underlined.
As to that:
Which would be scummy at the beginning of D2: me voting my strongest scumread, me voting a weaker scumread, me voting a townread, or me not voting at all?
And which would be the towniest?"

Voting scummiest initially is towniest, voting townread would be scum. I sometimes like to vote the lesser scum reads to try to throw them deeper into one pile or the other from their reactions.

"Please demonstrate where I began to question your alignment. Also please include quotes, if you can find them.
Also, which of these is scummy: questioning someone's alignment, or acting as though one knows?
And which would be the towniest?

Please actually respond to what I'm saying instead of what you seem to think I'm saying. I find your misrepping disingenuous."

Neither is scummy if you have good evidence to support.

These walls are annoying. Also, where the hell is everyone else. This is BS. I won't be able to post for another 2 days.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:09 pm**

In post 380, goodmorning wrote:So "your reasoning about jmo is WIFOM and bad, we will discuss it postgame" is what, exactly?

It means you find it bad because you know beforehand that it's wrong, so naturally that reinforces your belief that WIFOM dicussion in general is problematic and you are going to say so after the game. If you were not mafia, you would not be so sure about it is the assumption.

If you think I have a problem lying as Mafia then maybe you need to go meta me a bit better.

What I said (talk about misrepping) is you interject as much truth as you can toghether with your lies, I'll check to see if I can find a game that can be cited when I have time.

Do you think these actions tell on his alignment? On mine? Show your work.

They show there is a connection between the two of you so you probably share the same alignment, it's not something that happens very often by chance, and is more likely to happen to the 2 mafia than 2 random townies because the two mafia know they have a common goal, so yes, yes, and here you go.

Why would I claim jmo was never a suspect?

Based on what you are currently stating or not stating about your Buck read, early, not random, reaction test, who knows.

What makes you think he's presently my biggest suspect?

You said you had 2 suspects at the start of day 2, since what you are doing with the Buck read is very murky, that leaves JMO. Again a question about sematics that has no bearing with the accusations per se, the accusation being you are voting someone that mafia probably wants to kill, the reason behind this is nobody really questioned my alignment up to now, the assumption being mafia would try to question my alignment or discredit me like you did with your p-edit if I was heading a lynch against a mafia.

Where was I appealing to him in my posts?

Appealing in the sense of look, I respect you JM and I'm unvoting you:

jmo has played plenty of games and is likely as familiar, if not more so, with Nacho as I am.

Which would be scummy at the beginning of D2: me voting my strongest scumread, me voting a weaker scumread, me voting a townread, or me not voting at all?
And which would be the towniest?

This is another attempt to bog down the issue with a pop quiz, the point is JM is likely to be town, you should have likely noticed, but you were still voting him

I'll retract on my alignment because that was mostly based on my bus interpretation.

Actually your massive use of walls of text is another tell, why would town want to create so much content it's very much impossible to sift through it, find the good stuff and the nonsense, only mafia profits from the total confusion you appear to be trying to create.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:48 pm**

In post 381, Buckwild wrote:Read up to post 374 so far:
Really Gm, not going to vote brian this game? What has he done to give you such a great town read. There is no way he should be in anyone's definite town pile unless they know something we don't. So why is Brian so town to you?

It's almost entirely for his catching-up post: when someone seems to come to the same conclusions as you do and says the things that you were thinking, that person is usually on your team.

In post 382, CrisP wrote:I do find your attempt to drown the whole thing into walls of text rather tedious though.

You accused me of selectively responding to your points.

So I decided I'd respond to all of them, like you asked.

In post 383, Buckwild wrote:
"1. No, it was not a lie. I would have no need to tell my partner I was going to bus them, as the first thing I post in Mafia QTs is "don't be surprised if I bus you."
2. Not having daytalk doesn't really matter, especially in a game this size. There are plenty of subtle ways to telegraph one's intentions anyway."

Just b/c u tell your partner you will bus them does not mean you could not make use of a signal for a change in game plan.

Signals can be anything, including "if I'm going to start bussing I'll start my next post with the word 'really'" or "if I investigate him as JK I'll start my first post with a k".
Why, then, would anyone use such an obvious signal to their partner when a non-obvious one would do?

"The why could be any one of ten reasonable reasons and countless more unreasonable ones. Unless you are Scum, you cannot know which. To propose that important opinions should be based on conjecture is frankly ridiculous."

The why is just of not more important than the fact as it promotes discussion. Only mafia would rather have ppl ignore the kill. Also, it one can get reads off of reactions to a kill.

The problem with this is that the discussion it promotes is ultimately pretty useless as far as the actual game. Like I said, there are quite a lot of reasons an NK could happen, and unless you're the Scum and you

know

, then it's just chasing shadows.

"Um, no.
It's not something I can talk about, because ongoing games and not-mine-to-tells, but basically I was glad he was distracted by the other thing, but also sad he was away from this one.
That's the conflict of interest. It's my interest in this game vs the other thing."
I think he's saying he is in another game with Brian and it is giving him info? Did I just break a rule?

That's not really what I'm saying, it isn't anything about info, and you didn't break a rule but you're pushing it.

Curious about your butting in.

In post 384, CrisP wrote:
In post 380, goodmorning wrote:So "your reasoning about jmo is WIFOM and bad, we will discuss it postgame" is what, exactly?
It means you find it bad because you know beforehand that it's wrong, so naturally that reinforces your belief that WIFOM dicussion in general is problematic and you are going to say so after the game. If you were not mafia, you would not be so sure about it is the assumption.

I think you need to reply to this one again in context, because that is not what I was asking.

Do you think these actions tell on his alignment? On mine? Show your work.
They show there is a connection between the two of you so you probably share the same alignment, it's not something that happens very often by chance, and is more likely to happen to the 2 mafia than 2 random townies because the two mafia know they have a common goal, so yes, yes, and here you go.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of whiteknighting?

Why would I claim jmo was never a suspect?
Based on what you are currently stating or not stating about your Buck read, early, not random, reaction test, who knows.

When did I say it was a reaction test?

What makes you think he's presently my biggest suspect?
You said you had 2 suspects at the start of day 2, since what you are doing with the Buck read is very murky, that leaves JMO. Again a question about sematics that has no bearing with the accusations per se, the accusation being you are voting someone that mafia probably wants to kill, the reason behind this is nobody really questioned my alignment up to now, the assumption being mafia would try to question my alignment or discredit me like you did with your p-edit if I was heading a lynch against a mafia.

Presently, it is no longer the start of Day 2.
Is it a bad thing to question one's reads?

Where was I appealing to him in my posts?
Appealing in the sense of look, I respect you JM and I'm unvoting you:
jmo has played plenty of games and is likely as familiar, if not more so, with Nacho as I am.

I don't unvote people because I respect them, and allowing that he may have more experience with Nacho than I do is hardly an appeal.
I unvote people for one reason and one reason only.

Which would be scummy at the beginning of D2: me voting my strongest scumread, me voting a weaker scumread, me voting a townread, or me not voting at all?
And which would be the towniest?
This is another attempt to bog down the issue with a pop quiz, the point is JM is likely to be town, you should have likely noticed, but you were still voting him

This is an attempt to dodge any admission of incorrectness.
Actually your answers to the direct questions (including the ones you didn't include) were the most important things about that post. But you didn't give any.

Actually your massive use of walls of text is another tell, why would town want to create so much content it's very much impossible to sift through it, find the good stuff and the nonsense, only mafia profits from the total confusion you appear to be trying to create.

If you think I wall, wait til you play with mastin.

Hmmmmm I really need a reread.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:29 am**

2.04With 7 alive it's 4 votes to lynch.

Voting for:

*CrisP -
*Yiu113 -
*goodmorning - CrisP [1]
*Brian Skies -
*jmo16mla - Buckwild [1]
*ArcAngel9 - jmo16mla [1]
*Buckwild -
*Nachomamma8 -

Not voting: ArcAngel9, Brian Skies, Yiu113, Goodmorning [4]

Day 1 ends in (expired on 2013-11-29 21:56:00)

Added an extra day to the DL due to the outage

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:40 am**

In post 385, goodmorning wrote:
Actually your massive use of walls of text is another tell, why would town want to create so much content it's very much impossible to sift through it, find the good stuff and the nonsense, only mafia profits from the total confusion you appear to be trying to create.
If you think I wall, wait til you play with mastin.

Also: pot, meet kettle.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:07 am**

Your walls are walls of questions to others, which would require even longer walls to answer, to which you then reply with other questions, often generic in nature, that would create a longer wall if answered. Most of my long posts were opinions I had at the time, reasons why I was accusing someone or more in general stuff you could just read about, get a read on me based on what I was saying and agree or disagree on.

Everyone is a white knight this game it appears, yes I have heard of it and since when does white-knighting include piggybacking on someone's reads? Also I would understand him white-knighting you now but he did so when there was no reason to as well.

Basically Brian has been an extension of you this whole game, I find that very strange, I find also very strange that your reaction to his behavior is: he is clearly town, if that happened to me I'd be suspicious as fuck about the guy doing it.

Also I find ArcAngel9's behavior unacceptable at this point.

I agree with you that Buck chiming in is strange, I think it was probably a good natured attempt to help but it's the kind of thing you can easily misinterpret, so I'll have a re-read as well.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:21 am**

I'm not entirely certain that I agree with massive walls of text being a scum tell. While more text does mean that it takes more time for a town member to respond(Having to sift through everything, thinking about it all, etc) I do believe that it also helps town, as it causes discussion. If they're filled with completely useless information, that's another matter, but most of the time large posts are better than lots of small posts for town.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:29 am**

Yui113 it may be a tell if it looks like someone is generating walls for the sake of it, they may also be used to hide information you don't want people to pick up on.

I agree that long posts per se is a small town indicator if anything because mafia risks making a slip with everything they post whereas town needs to blunder about to try and find them out

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:38 am**

In post 388, CrisP wrote:Your walls are walls of questions to others, which would require even longer walls to answer, to which you then reply with other questions, often generic in nature, that would create a longer wall if answered. Most of my long posts were opinions I had at the time, reasons why I was accusing someone or more in general stuff you could just read about, get a read on me based on what I was saying and agree or disagree on.

My questions to you are vitally important to my read of you, generic as they may seem.
Also, many of the things in your long posts were not exactly kosher.

Everyone is a white knight this game it appears, yes I have heard of it and since when does white-knighting include piggybacking on someone's reads? Also I would understand him white-knighting you now but he did so when there was no reason to as well.

Equally possible that it's just buddying or any one of a number of other things.

Basically Brian has been an extension of you this whole game, I find that very strange, I find also very strange that your reaction to his behavior is: he is clearly town, if that happened to me I'd be suspicious as fuck about the guy doing it.

Indeed.

I agree with you that Buck chiming in is strange, I think it was probably a good natured attempt to help but it's the kind of thing you can easily misinterpret, so I'll have a re-read as well.

Actually I ultimately find his chimed-in answers somewhat satisfying.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:09 am**

My questions to you are vitally important to my read of you, generic as they may seem.

Ok, tell me again what you want me to answer and keep it reasonable and I'll do my best to answer the question directly and not the context you pick them from

Equally possible that it's just buddying or any one of a number of other things.

Definitely, most of which should raise a big red flag for you from my POV, so I don't understand your blanket statement on not planning a Brian vote at all. Or are you saying that Brian as town usually buddies up with you, do you have an example if this is the case?

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:40 pm**

In post 392, CrisP wrote:
My questions to you are vitally important to my read of you, generic as they may seem.
Ok, tell me again what you want me to answer and keep it reasonable and I'll do my best to answer the question directly and not the context you pick them from

Basically anything from my last couple posts with a question mark after it that's in response to you, if you don't mind.

Equally possible that it's just buddying or any one of a number of other things.

Definitely, most of which should raise a big red flag for you from my POV, so I don't understand your blanket statement on not planning a Brian vote at all. Or are you saying that Brian as town usually buddies up with you, do you have an example if this is the case?[/quote]
My Brian townread is independent of his actions and is based solely on his words.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:08 pm**

I do mind, in fact I'm convinced you are scum and making me waste time, but since I can't be sure here it is.

For the rest of the players I'd like you to note the nature of the question she asks, if you take it out of context and answer general questions the way she asked them, her behavior looks perfectly fine, but if you consider the context then all the answer I'm about to give change, as an example: what is most town to vote for? Your strongest scumread of course, but does her scumread make sense for a townie considering what happened during the game? I think not

Is it a bad thing to question one's reads?

No

Which would be scummy at the beginning of D2: 1. me voting my strongest scumread, me voting a weaker scumread, me voting a townread, or me not voting at all?
2. And which would be the towniest?

1. You voting a townread.

2. You voting your strongest scumread

(the number are not part of her quote, I put them there to make it easy to read).

So "your reasoning about jmo is WIFOM and bad, we will discuss it postgame" is what, exactly

A tell that you have more information than the rest of us.

When did I say it was a reaction test?

You said you used it as a reaction test:

Nobody yet picked up on the thing that I wanted them to pick up on. Why is it that my reaction tests never work?

@Crisp: Nice avoidance of my dislike there. Also nice sudden noticing of the part of my post I left for you pertaining to Buck.

So I don't know if your read is a valid read or it's a read you left there for some other reason, assuming as I am not, that you are town.

I'm starting to lose enthusiasm about forum mafia by the way, considering a slot can go afk for the whole duration of the game, in real life I can just harass the shit out of quiet people at least.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:41 pm**

Thank you.

As far as the last quote goes, I was referring to my most recent post before that one.

Second-to-last is still out of context but I'm not too fussed about it in comparison to the rest.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:14 pm**

I love your walls I text. They're great.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:56 pm**

These walls...

Reading up.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:31 pm**

Spoiler:

Skipped some stuff because I felt it was better not to discuss it.

Also kind of sad that I missed my glorious wagon.

In post 303, CrisP wrote:Here you are answering a question you were not asked, clearly worried that someone might check if you were active during your supposed V/LA (which makes it even more artificial), instead of the reply I was expecting, which would have gone along the lines of: no I did not think about what others would think about my post because I was just telling something to the mod. Guilty conscience someone?

V/LA is not alignment indicative. People still post and do stuff, so it's not like people are using it as an excuse to hide or lurk, especially during a night phase. If she were to do it right as pressure mounted on her, it would be a different story, but that's not the case here.

In post 303, CrisP wrote:So what you are saying is we should just ignore NK's?

Just when it's Nacho. Nacho likes to lurk sometimes because people like to NK him straight off when he's town.

In post 304, Yiu113 wrote:I'm certainly not the best at finding reads, so I often base my opinions on people off of how active they've been. Probably hardwired into me from playing on a different website where the average day length was 3 days, so a person lurking would be missing days very easily.

The content a player produces when they're around is generally more important than how active they've been (so long as they haven't been so inactive that they've become a liability). But I can see a town you saying this because I had the same issue in my Newbie game.

In post 304, Yiu113 wrote:Voting Goodmorning would allow the mafia to quickhammer him, assuming he's town, CrisP is town, and I am town, which would end up putting us into MyLo faster.

Wait, what? I'd love mafia to try a quickhammer outside of Lylo and make themselves obvious as hell. Easy pickings.

In post 305, goodmorning wrote:@Yiu: Lurking is not a scumtell. Depending on the player, defensiveness may not be either.

I think it depends on the nature of the scum-tell. I don't think it applies in all situations, but there are times where lurking is scummy (like disappearing right when pressure appears on a slot) or defensiveness is scummy (town flail vs scum flail; way the slot reacts to the pressure it's given [dependent on the type of pressure]).

In post 306, CrisP wrote:The forefront of my reasoning is that there is a very high chance that inside the 4, or 5 if you extend it to BW, of you that voted for RM there is at least 1 mafia.

Can you elaborate on this reasoning?

What is the scum-motivation in getting rid of the player championing the mislynch? Nacho was at the forefront of that lynch and would have received the most pressure on Day 2. It also wouldn't have helped his case that his reads were based mostly off of lurker prejudice and actually lynched one of the lurkers.

In post 306, CrisP wrote:If you often give early scumreads, sometimes you will get it right, maybe it makes sense for you but I can't really see someone picking up something by reading their first post.

You'd be surprised at what little things you can find off of nearly nothing. I got a pretty good scum-read off a player by page 2 just based on a discussion between two players and I was right about it. I can link it to you if you want, but this site is pretty cool in that there's some pretty interesting and somewhat reliable mafia theory floating around.

In post 306, CrisP wrote:It should be, also you voted RM mainly for that over JM, which now apparently is a confirmed mafia to you.

Lurking isn't a reliable scum-tell, especially when some people are notorious for doing it (and there are people on this site that do lurk pretty heavily early on but show up stronger later [not all of them get better]).

In post 307, goodmorning wrote:but then I do mildly pedestalize Nacho.

He was the IC in my first game on-site and is my biggest influence. However, Mastin gets the pedestal because Nacho tends to be wrong in my games.

In post 307, goodmorning wrote:The initial reason was his immuno vote.

Hope there's more to this because this is just lame.

In post 307, goodmorning wrote:so I'm looking again at the reasons the jmo wagon failed.

It's called Nacho's lurker prejudice and lack of presence from other players.

In post 310, CrisP wrote:For the rest of town, what do you think about a possible JM BW pair,
what about a GM BR one?

Looks like mine from Day 1. Oh wait, it is!

Why is Jmo not lynched yet (in before it's my fault somehow)?

In post 312, Buckwild wrote:DC/AA: This ones ez. Still null, but this all changes depending on AA's next post.

I agree that this slot is null, but the inactivity is starting to become a liability.

In post 312, Buckwild wrote:Now that Crisp is moving away from JMO, what do you think of JMO?

He's a slippery fuckin' scum!

In post 312, Buckwild wrote:Ultimately my vote would be on 1. YUI 2. JMO or 3. Brian right now.

Help me

bus your partner

lynch Jmo and I might let you live another day.

Why do you think Jmo is scum?

In post 313, CrisP wrote:but I agree, the more I look at her defence day 2 the more it looks like she is town.

Oh hey! Looks like you're coming around.

I don't know about her being a solid townread, but her defense towards the pressure definitely feels town.

You guys should tone down the ad hominem. Attack the post, not the poster. Remember, this is a game and people are playing to their wincon.

In post 337, CrisP wrote:What is this? First it's not proper english, second it's false cause anyone can just hammer (very scummy I agree) and third what are you supposed to claim?

General etiquette on this site is to not hammer without at least having a claim.

In post 344, CrisP wrote:I think there is a good chance they are both town, I still wouldn't mind killing JM off because he is a liability

If you want to kill off a liability, there are better choices. The DC/AA slot hasn't done much and I disappeared for a bit (which would have put me in the liability category). Jmo's insanely active (still think he's scum).

In post 344, CrisP wrote:Now that both GM and JM have been pressured, I think it's important to check the lurker slots because I don't want us to get boxed into thinking it's either JM and BW or GM and BR.

This is good. Associative tells can be bad and if you're town, you've been repeatedly boxing yourself in. If you're scum, you've been lining up lynches (but you seem pretty town thus far, so I'm not leaning towards this right now).

In post 346, Yiu113 wrote:Crisp, I honestly do believe that if they pulled off the quick hammer they would be able to talk themselves out of it. While I'm not entirely certain how likely it would be here, things like that are fairly common where I play.

They wouldn't. A lot of the players in this game have enough experience that I'd policy lynch the fuck out of 'em.

In post 347, CrisP wrote:What do you think about JM's, BW's and my recent interaction and the conclusions I draw from it?

They point towards my earlier conclusion and this makes me feel like we're on the same page.

In post 347, CrisP wrote:Why do you think mafia isn't (quick) hammering JM?

A) Mafia isn't around or doesn't have the gull to claim intent and hammer.
B) 1 or both scum are on the wagon.
C) The wagon is on scum.

Definitely think it's C, with the possibility of B.

In post 347, CrisP wrote:What's your stance on VCA (vote count analysis) and talking about NK's?

VCA is fine if you know how to do it (or even if you don't, there's only one way to get better

)

Talking about NK's can put you in some pretty murky situations and generate WIFOM where it's not needed.

In post 349, CrisP wrote:I agree but that does not mean we are right, it's you who is not listening: my point was that both of you (JM and BW) did not even think about it which was a possible mafia slip, because mafia would not even consider it, at least it looked convincing enough for me to try and claim you were screwed, post the mistakes you would have made as mafia and see how you reacted.

No, Jmo's in the right. Unless the scum-team was a pair of noobs, it's unlikely to happen.

In post 350, goodmorning wrote:Logic isn't the only way to scumhunt.

Sometimes you just gotta trust the gut.

In post 350, goodmorning wrote:Anybody see a problem with these two posts?

Yes, he's been

contradictive

contradictory[?] as fuck and now he's doing the same thing he accused Buck of.

In post 350, goodmorning wrote:That said, I would definitely give the side-eye to someone who hammered here without intent.

Not side-eye. POLICY LYNCH!

But if Jmo flipped scum, I might give them a medal (not really, DON'T DO IT).

In post 353, jmo16mla wrote:Brian hang posted any content.

What does this mean? And whatever it is, it's probably just my play-style.

In post 360, Buckwild wrote:GIF was not saying JMO was definitely town, but that the reasons for the wagon were poor.

DING DING DING!

This man gets it!

But no, this wagon is going to be glorious.

In post 364, CrisP wrote:By the way it's not strange at all that I was town-read by everyone day1 JMO, as long as I was pushing on you mafia had no interest in disputing it, it was actually better for them because it gave more weight to my accusations.

Bothered by this statement a bit.

In post 368, goodmorning wrote:It has little to do with this game and everything to do with the other focus of his attention, if I guessed right.

Multiple games and real life responsibilities. So yes, yes you did.

In post 369, ArcAngel9 wrote:How does it help by voting me?
I am on today.. will get my opinion today.

I'm assuming the missing content has something to do with the servers. I had the same issue.

Shit got interesting in my absence.

In post 371, CrisP wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know Mafia isn't allowed to talk separately during the day in newbie games, at least that's what I read in one of JMO's recent games, in this case you have every reason to try and communicate with your partner if the strategy you planned fell apart, if by any chanche I'm wrong then it was simply a slip.

Hypothetically, even if we were a scum-team, I don't think I'm bad enough that I'd need her warning. General inactivity shows up throughout my meta and it's largely due to being a part of multiple games, being a slow reader, and other real-life responsibilities or hobbies.

The rest of that post has some logic to it.

In post 373, CrisP wrote:My reaction, why didn't they kill me, I've done and said the most this game

You do know, that a completely valid response to this argument you keep throwing around is that you're part of the scum-team, right?

In post 376, goodmorning wrote:Nacho's content this game was not "qualitatively superior," as you put it.

Lurker prejudice. Mislynched a lurker. Nope, not seeing the superior quality.

In post 378, CrisP wrote:Nobody questioned my alignment while I was attacking JM, other than Brian, he gave a strong town read with one problem, he says he is worried about associative tells, that's the mafia cop out strategy if something goes wrong.

More along the lines of lining up lynches. And I've caught scum trying to do that.

In post 380, goodmorning wrote:Um, no.
It's not something I can talk about, because ongoing games and not-mine-to-tells, but basically I was glad he was distracted by the other thing, but also sad he was away from this one.
That's the conflict of interest. It's my interest in this game vs the other thing.

This, so fuck-off from this particular line of logic before somebody gets mod-killed.

In post 384, CrisP wrote:Actually your massive use of walls of text is another tell, why would town want to create so much content it's very much impossible to sift through it, find the good stuff and the nonsense, only mafia profits from the total confusion you appear to be trying to create.

Making massive walls of text isn't a tell. It's the content within that is.

In post 385, goodmorning wrote:If you think I wall, wait til you play with mastin.

Or me. This will be put in a spoiler tag, btw. A lot of the content in here is kind of meh and it's mostly a catch-up post.

In post 388, CrisP wrote:Also I would understand him white-knighting you now but he did so when there was no reason to as well.

Uhh, no. The wagon on GM was bad and I fought the person I thought was scummiest driving it.

In post 388, CrisP wrote:Also I find ArcAngel9's behavior unacceptable at this point.

Server went down. I had the same issue.

In post 393, goodmorning wrote:My Brian townread is independent of his actions and is based solely on his words.

I think you have it backwards.

And it's the backbone of my case against Jmo.

Posted: **Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:06 am**

I'm fine with this kind of wall Brian, if you prefer then the nature of goodmorning walls is a possible scum tell to me:

Can you elaborate on this reasoning?

Simply that mafia always gains when a town is lynched because it gets them closer to their win condition, so it's very unlikely that at least one of the mafia would not put in his vote in this situation, given that RM was scummy enough it would have been perfectly town to vote as well, masking their intetion to lynch a town, and that the case was not a blitz vote but something that developped during the day and lastest till 3 hours from the deadline (so the possiblity that both mafia were otherwise occupied during the process and didn't vote simply because they were not aware about it is very slim).

Looks like mine from Day 1. Oh wait, it is!

Yes and does this pair make sense to you now? (also it's GM's pair before it's yours

)

Consider that if BW and JM are mafia buddies, BW just bussed him so hard that a random vote from a newcomer (Yui113) or an unpredictable lurker (ArcAngel9) would have killed his partner and made it so much likelier that you and GM had picked scum from the get go, so next day he would have to defend himself the whole time from you. Does this seem like the kind of play a mafia would make? Does this seem like BW's mafia playstyle? Also like I asked GM and BW, have you seen JM fake the asshole defence under pressure or is it something he does when he is accused by new players like RM said and I verified by ISOing him?

I agree that this slot is null, but the inactivity is starting to become a liability.[

Mafiascum.net

Mewbie 1442 the second -- Game over