Mafiascum.net

hmu with some reads clem

RC i am sheeping u and i am assuming ur town.
tell me what to do

ohh wait rc is phoning in this game....

ill sheep keyser.
keyser r u town?

this game is so content dry i think some of my posts are better than most of ur guys iso.
thats sad.

i guess i should lead the town to a lose here instead of letting anyone dictate my vote.

sheep us!

vote volxen

no.

VOTE: aster

this person could be a threat to my town leadership role.

actually reading ur posts i would also vote u blackjack

but i only have one
and primary threats to my candidacy for town leader must be dealt with.

now i need a good trump killshots to use at aster to get the masses to follow me

disaster aster

thats what you get with aster, a disasater!

In post 382, Firebringer wrote:disaster aster

thats what you get with aster, a disasater!

i am so proud of myself for this lol

In post 368, volxen wrote:Hello.

That's a scum post

VOTE: Volxen

-rh

^ forum mafia in a nutshell

In post 375, Blackjacks wrote:hmu with some reads clem

dang i was just gonna sleep
yell at me tomorrow and i'll do it thank

In post 385, Clemency wrote:^ forum mafia in a nutshell

why haven't u sheeped me on disaster aster

i sheep to no man

except when it brings me convenience

i am a bringer of conveniance

you're a bringer of fire

fire is pretty convenient when u think about it

As per Nibbui's request, here is my list of reads on some players.


"Lurker" captivates most of what can be said about them. They haven't posted a grain of content until I accused THE MEME MEN, after which they haven't posted a grain of content that was not related to THE MEME MEN. This makes me suspicious because I think THE MEME MEN is scum, but I probably shouldn't start association hunting this until scumflips happen. At least some of his questions (300 & 307) raised valid points.

This particular post is an eyesore:

In post 260, Blackjacks wrote:People who shitpost in Mafia games are the scum of the earth, which makes them Literally mafia. I wanted to make sure everyone understood my Stance on the issue.

... says the shitposter. Not sure why, but for some reason I interpret this as "I have no intention to ever start contributing to this game."

Most unfortunately lurking isn't alignment indicative, which makes it hard for me to establish any proper read on them.


There seems to be a lot of discussion about Gamma Emerald's meta. I won't comment on his meta, but unlike what some people claim, he doesn't seem very high effort or gamesolvey to me in this game.

His biggest contribution consisted of his RQS. After his RQS was handled, his contributions mostly consisted of (1) answering questions, and (2) asking others to explain something. Both of them are fairly safe methods of active lurking. Even the posts that others call LAMISTy such as 52 could be interpreted as trying to make others do the thinkwork rather than Gamma himself.

His active lurking while dancing around "my meta has changed" and calling it a town meta (323) does draw my attention as potentially scummy.


Reading through Keyser Söze's ISO, I get the impression that he's somewhere inbetween an active lurker and an active player. His posts contain a fair amount of noise. The extent of it that isn't noise is divided into questions and short opinions. It seems he suddenly had a bump of productivity on the current page and was more lurky if you look at his ISO before post 319.

The questions he does ask do often seem to be relevant and often make me wonder about the answer to it as well. To that extent he's helpful.

So far Keyser Söze has given me no concrete reasons to think he's town nor reasons to believe he's scum. I'm writing him as "neutral".


The first player so far who's not a lurker. I don't agree with most of his reads because they seem to be based on vague or unverifiable things such as feel, but his reads do not feel like they're scum-motivated.

There is one read that looks curious to me though: the part where he scumread Blackjacks based on "putting effort in RVS" (185) and then hypothesized that Blackjacks wrote their RVS post during pregame. For starters I think that "effort in RVS = scum" is a load of hogwash, but took interest in the discussion anyway to (1) see how much pinturicchio was willing to bend circumstances in his favour, (2) see whether Blackjacks would lie to get out of the situation.

Blackjacks states (199) that they wrote the post after THE MEME MEN voted them, and I think that their statement is most likely true. Small honesty town bonus to Blackjacks.

This statement from Blackjacks ought to aid pinturicchio's case: his main scumtell was "effort in RVS = scum" and the dispute was about whether Blackjack's post was written before or after they learned their role. We had just confirmed that Blackjacks' post was written after they learned their role.

Case closed? Nope.

In post 233, pinturicchio wrote:Even if I still believed that the message was prepared beforehand, I still would be inclined to believe that ruru is town here

This is strange. First, if I still believed that the message was prepared beforehand, then I would definitely scumread Blackjacks under lynch all liars. Maybe he meant "Even if Blackjacks had instead told me the message was prepared beforehand, I would be inclined to believe ruru is town here"?

Anyway, whether Blackjacks wrote their post during pregame or during day one ought to be beyond the point. What matters is whether it was written before or after Blackjacks received their role. Pinturicchio's post makes me think that he forgot what his case was actually about, thought that he was now working with "writing posts during pregame = scummy", and then decided to drop the case.

I am somewhat wary of pinturicchio because of this.

fire kills people
VOTE: firebringer

In post 335, Blackjacks wrote:

In post 328, Aster wrote:Their revised answers answer questions in a way that conflicts with his warning to be careful with voting.

How so?

In particular the following two revised answers provided:

• Q: Do you think RVS is a bad thing?
  • A: bad as in people making joke votes then later complaining about fluff posting or inactivity - then yes it's bad
• Q: Is it a bad thing for players to generally have votes standing to indicate who they are most suspicious of, or to exert pressure?
  • A: nope. Why would you ask this question?

He states that RVS is only bad if people complain about fluff posts. He does not seem to think that the RVS votes themselves are bad. That contrasts with his earlier warnings during RVS about being careful about our votes because " there are players who quick vote rashly".

Since RVS votes are always quick and rash, it appears that THE MEME MEN originally warned about the existence of random votes themselves, yet in their revised answers, they do not indicate that the random vote aspect of RVS is bad.


The second answer about it not being bad to cast votes to indicate who they are most suspicious of or to exert pressure, also contrasts with his earlier statement about not voting rashly, which gave me the impression he tells us to only vote when we've got a reasonable degree of confidence the votee is scum. After all, voting whomever is the most suspicious right now without sufficient evidence or voting just to exert pressure usually manifests as "quick voting".

In post 336, Blackjacks wrote:Idk about crusading, but I do think 134 was LH insisting his initial statement was correct. as you pointed out in 144, that was slightly town indicative

You're right. THE MEME MEN did argue about the correctness of his statement over arguing that he wasn't LAMIST. The latter would've been way scummier.

However, although he picked the townier option of the two, that does not mean that he's town for sure, just less likely to be scum; his later posts do make him more likely to be scum. Moreover, while he maintained that his statement was right, he did not particularly defend it well. His statement

In post 134, THE MEME MEN wrote:it actually is, considering there are players who just quick vote rashly

did feel quite passive. It is not an assertive statement that we townies are doing dangerous things and should stop it. It is not quite what I would call "crusade". His statement could come from a not-very-interested townie, but it could also have come from scum who wanted to defend themselves but didn't want to make a big deal out of it.

His initial reply is not what makes him scum, his later handling of my follow-up questions is.

aster you're really messing the vibe firebringer and i got going

In post 394, Clemency wrote:fire kills people
VOTE: firebringer

it only kills those who aren't pure of heart.

In post 397, Clemency wrote:aster you're really messing the vibe firebringer and i got going

aster the disaster.