Mafiascum.net

In post 24, LuckyLuciano wrote:UNVOTE: 72
VOTE: Blopp

In post 374, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Nice why me?

Because I think that'd be hilarious fun. Also, you'd be doing a nice job of being suspicious of me without actually pressuring me.

In post 376, ClarkBar wrote:

In post 374, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Nice why me?

Because I think that'd be hilarious fun. Also, you'd be doing a nice job of being suspicious of me without actually pressuring me.

Im such a boring partner though. Really thought you'd says Jamsv here. You were so excited he came into the game.

Oh boy this is going to get us elimnated here... Im not doing it on purpose just had nothing to pressure you on with you not being around this past weekend. You came on and I made sure to get on you.

Soon enough someone will either meta me or figure out why you failed the test. But not you since you don't meta people correct?

In post 77, LuckyLuciano wrote:Players who push the game forward and generate AI content don't die D1.

Is my point getting across? Is LL Town because of their claim? Honest question.

In post 280, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 278, LuckyLuciano wrote:I have a TPR. Let's move on.

Why should I believe you wouldn't say this as Scum?

LL is also a lot less wordy as Town. I am assuming this pattern holds based on how I would assume LL would play as Scum given prior experience playing with them. This is not strictly a "meta read" but rather a personality trait narrative read. There's a diff but I don't really feel like explaining rn.

In post 378, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 77, LuckyLuciano wrote:Players who push the game forward and generate AI content don't die D1.

Spoiler: Nothing like a good old fashioned meme for this occasion

Is my point getting across? Is LL Town because of their claim? Honest question.

In post 280, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 278, LuckyLuciano wrote:I have a TPR. Let's move on.

Why should I believe you wouldn't say this as Scum?

For me more like not scum because I'm seeing red flags elsewhere. I don't townread people much. At least I don't try to day 1. For now I'm not risking elimanting a town when I have preferred targets. I think it's a waste of time to pursue it when we could be focusing our resources on the remaining player pool. Also making scenarios like if this happens then this must be why are bad before they happen. Aka if LL survives day 1 and has nothing meaningful for us then he must be scum. I would have been ok Day 2 for this but now I wouldn't be comfortable voting them unless special circumstances were to occur. So I think personally it put us in a bad spot.

In post 380, TheThirteenthJT wrote:focusing our resources... special circumstances were to occur...

You make zero sense in how you type things. Is this like a gimmick or something or just trying to hide your main?

In post 377, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Im such a boring partner though. Really thought you'd says Jamsv here. You were so excited he came into the game.

I was happy to see Jam, and I felt a little bad about how our last game ended so I was hoping for a better outcome.

In post 377, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Oh boy this is going to get us elimnated here... Im not doing it on purpose just had nothing to pressure you on with you not being around this past weekend. You came on and I made sure to get on you.

I thought you had stuff to pressure me on? If you don't then I suppose I'd be a pretty big town-read for you... and yeah, I like fun questions but I'm dubious about the value of the ones you posed.

In post 377, TheThirteenthJT wrote:Soon enough someone will either meta me or figure out why you failed the test. But not you since you don't meta people correct?

I can't wait to see what I failed and how. What I'm not really willing to do (unless maybe in a LyLo situation) is go read a whole other completed game thread to compare player meta.

In post 379, LicketyQuickety wrote:LL is also a lot less wordy as Town. I am assuming this pattern holds based on how I would assume LL would play as Scum given prior experience playing with them. This is not strictly a "meta read" but rather a personality trait narrative read. There's a diff but I don't really feel like explaining rn.

Can't this be manipulated? Plus, doesn't mood affect this? I've posted while I'm a moody bitch, when I'm a happy drunk, or when I'm a little distraught. They're pretty recognizable shifts. I think that's another reason I don't really trust meta or personality swings as very AI.

In post 381, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 380, TheThirteenthJT wrote:focusing our resources... special circumstances were to occur...

You make zero sense in how you type things. Is this like a gimmick or something or just trying to hide your main?

Private bit but I'm an author on the side lol. Sorry it's the way I type not really a gimmick. And I know I do a lot of typos. If I edited my stuff I would never have time to post

In post 379, LicketyQuickety wrote:LL is also a lot less wordy as Town. I am assuming this pattern holds based on how I would assume LL would play as Scum given prior experience playing with them. This is not strictly a "meta read" but rather a personality trait narrative read. There's a diff but I don't really feel like explaining rn.

But how is LL with power role? I will have to meta them myself when I get a chance. Can't take your word for everything either

In post 385, TheThirteenthJT wrote:

In post 379, LicketyQuickety wrote:LL is also a lot less wordy as Town. I am assuming this pattern holds based on how I would assume LL would play as Scum given prior experience playing with them. This is not strictly a "meta read" but rather a personality trait narrative read. There's a diff but I don't really feel like explaining rn.

But how is LL with power role? I will have to meta them myself when I get a chance. Can't take your word for everything either

Sure, but you will arrive at a different conclusion than I have.

By the way, does anybody think with good odds LL is a mason? If not then we can narrow down the game a bunch.

In post 387, JamSV wrote:By the way, does anybody think with good odds LL is a mason? If not then we can narrow down the game a bunch.

I gave my mason solve for LL already. If not with 72 I think it's a fools errand to try and speculate more than that.

In post 388, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 387, JamSV wrote:By the way, does anybody think with good odds LL is a mason? If not then we can narrow down the game a bunch.

I gave my mason solve for LL already. If not with 72 I think it's a fools errand to try and speculate more than that.

I more meant with good odds, ie, do you think its actually likely?

In post 389, JamSV wrote:

In post 388, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 387, JamSV wrote:By the way, does anybody think with good odds LL is a mason? If not then we can narrow down the game a bunch.

I gave my mason solve for LL already. If not with 72 I think it's a fools errand to try and speculate more than that.

I more meant with good odds, ie, do you think its actually likely?

Not unless LL is lying about being masons with 72. I don't know how I feel about LL/72 as masons, but that is why I think 72 is actually Scummier than LL.

I still think things like that should be great for private analysis and really only scum would want to know what prs are and who they are.

In post 278, LuckyLuciano wrote:If I'm not mistaking, that's 4 votes. I have a TPR. Let's move on.

Not sure if this was discussed yet but if you have a tpr you need to claim the exact role. That's why we have a matrix setup. So we can confirm/deny it was a cc

In post 284, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 282, LuckyLuciano wrote:So you are advocating eliminating a claimed power role day 1 when, in claiming, my slot because self-resolving as the game goes on anyway?

No, I'm claiming my case is rock solid and you claiming PR doesn't dissuade me at all given that is exactly what you would do if you were Scum. Like, what is my incentive to believe you are telling the truth about being TPR?

My last newbie game we eliminated a TPR claim D1 and it was scum. I'm confident Lucky is scum

In post 331, Nahdia wrote:

Battle Mage replaces Blopp.

This is what we needed!

In post 360, LuckyLuciano wrote:@Raya, thank you for the time it took to respond to that wallpost. I'm about to turn in for the evening, so a more thorough reading of your response and a subsequent response from myself is going to have to wait until tomorrow. From a quick skim though, it's worth noting that while this account is my current main, it is not my first mafiascum account. I have ~40 newbie games played on this site since 2015.

Sorry it took so long. Life got busier than I planned.
(Forgot you were an SE not a newbie slot, oops)

In post 364, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 348, ClarkBar wrote:except for maybe some questionable music taste

Excuse you?

Sorry Clark, I am very much on Quick's side here. This is real music. That norma jean song found it's way on my playlist

In post 369, TheThirteenthJT wrote:

In post 358, Raya36 wrote:

In post 242, TheThirteenthJT wrote:I went back to analyze the Blopp flake and it's so bizarre. I can see newbie players leaving for a bit and returning to see 4 votes on then as a bit overwhelming but I felt the pressure up to the point they removed their avatar was not that high. I've seen (and done so myself) people drilled early game as newbies which would cause enough frustration for a rage quit. This early wagon was rather tame. But at the same time why return at all to remove your avatar? Clearly no intention of returning and thus rage quit possibility over just not returning/forgetting about the site.

So here's the final scenario I have in my head. Blopp comes back because they remember they are in a mafia game, see 4 votes on them, says screw this, removes avatar and leaves forever.

Ok but this same reaction can come from town too.. It's not scum indicative.. It's NAI

And thus why I didn't join the Blopp wagon. I was giving the benefit of the doubt but at the same time understanding why someone would push it. I felt I had bigger fish to fry over the Blopp and Luciano case and had said I wouldn't really weigh in and focus elsewhere until a replacement came in.

Similarly now that BM has replaced in I want to see were Luciano goes from there.

This is good and town thinking. Scum would likely choose a side I think even just lightly.

In post 370, LicketyQuickety wrote:

Also your music share with Raya seems very suspicious now. It's almost as if you could have had the conversation in a scum player thread but purposefully choose to do it on this thread as a weird distancing attempt.

That's nice.

I just like music lol

Raya36 ISO fun! Gonna steal this little format from Umlaut who, I am sure, stole it from somebody else. Be prepared to be wildly underwhelmed!

20 Not too hard to give a random reason for a vote, now is it? Looking at you Homura...

34 An appropriate question.

39 A fine vote for fine reasons. At this point in the game I think the pressure on Blopp is totally acceptable.

44 I did however have some questions/comments about LL's reasons for voting, and in asking those questions I suppose I gave the appearance of defending/speaking for Blopp. I can appreciate the suspicion/irritation that Raya is expressing here.

45, 47, 49 Are all along the same vein. Don't disagree with Raya here.

67 I I'm ok with the unvote here. I don't know that E-1 was too risky at that point. Jam is a big fan of pressure, and part of the reason I incorrectly scum-read Jam in our past game was his habit of putting players at E-1 with not much reason given. So this is a mixed bag for me. There is a LAMIST feel to the unvote that I don't entirely care for. What I also dislike is throwing shade at LL for not unvoting. Again, I don't think Blopp at E-1 was that big of a risk there. Furthermore, LL added to his case against Blopp after Jam placed his vote. Why on earth would LL unvote there?

69 Has me, Blopp, and LL on his scum reads. At this point I don't know how Raya is getting scum vibes from LL. Because he didn't unvote the person he suspected was scum when they got to E-1? Why be on the Blopp wagon at all if you're going to get all huffy when it gets to E-1? Why not vote for Jam for placing the E-1 vote in the first place if that was such a concern? Jam doesn't even get a scum read for Raya here. This is pretty peculiar.

106 If you don't want pressure on a player then just don't be on their wagon at all. This is weird. Raya criticizes the Avatar Removal Theory (ART from now on) as a bad case. That's a fine opinion to have in my view, but I also don't think that LL's logic is baseless. But, Raya moves her vote over to Lucky and when doing so criticizes LL's case. Then why was she on the wagon at all? The only thing that changed is that LL threw the ART into his case. Raya won't vote for Blopp because E-1 is unacceptable (still no reference to the player who put Blopp at E-1 btw) but will vote for the person whose vote she shipped earlier. The last paragraph of this post is worth looking at again.

107 A town read on Jam. This just doesn't follow.

108 Nothing much, but apparently I don't understand RQ's as I fail them.

110 That's a fine reason for giving a town-read. But...what about that E-1 vote from Jam that forced her to unvote Blopp? That led her to suspect LL (who she had been sheeping) for not unvoting?

113

147 Many, many players on this site I have encountered have the "cool 500 IQ anime protagonist" vibe. Y'all could use a dash of modesty over here.

148 Fine question.

154, 155 Association stuff. No comment.

181 Got some juicy reads here. Looks like I moved up to possible town, Homura town-lean for agreeing on LL, 13JT just cuz I guess. Another town read for Jam here. Finally mentions the E-1 vote from Jam, but calls it a "bad town play". Again, how is LL scummy for not unvoting a player he believes is scum but Jam is town despite placing the E-1 vote? Raya reiterates how flimsy the case on Blopp is, and criticizes LL for wanting to pursue an execution on that slot regardless of replacement (a position that I've actually somewhat come to agree with).

182 Ok, this is a better argument against LL. I can see the perspective here a little clearer.

185 Ok.

191 Good question.

193 Meta meta meta meta meta meta.

206 Fair enough indeed.

212 I should ISO 72 as well.

214 Well you have BM in that slot now, so good fucking luck not getting information out of that guy.

215 ME TOO!

217 Ok.

218 It'd be nice if people just quoted what they are responding to and not four other posts surrounding it.

225 I haven't hit those post links, but like I said I should look at 72.

226 nothing.

228 Boy does Raya hate the ART. And that's fine I guess. I don't think LL is wrong in his position on it, but whatever. It's also not proof of anything. I like Raya in this post, I believe her.

231,233,234 Everyone is entitled to their own taste I suppose.

354 This is a pretty great post that addresses a lot of the issues I had earlier with Raya. Again, I think that I believe Raya here. My guess is that the debate between LL and Raya may just be some hot town-on-town action. Two different perspectives clashing. Interestingly I find myself in the middle.

358 Something mildly similar happened to me my previous game that I think is affecting how I see LL's POV.

359 LL's tunneling of that slot is a bit much. It'll be quite interesting to see how things shake out now that BM is in the Blopp slot.

Well there it is. Conclusion? I was pretty down on Raya early in this process, but after posts 182,228, and 354 I think I have to give a slight town-read to Raya.