Mafiascum.net

To elaborate further - because a defence like George's opens up the possibility of a defence without being committed to it.

@PranaDevil: let me try to clarify this. Drew’s 81 was the resolution of the miller role. This was when he believed to be the only miller. If/when he is lynched, I will be the only unresolved miller claim come day 2 with Drew gone. Therefore it’s the same situation as one unresolved miller claim. So why shouldn’t his 81 apply to that scenario as well in day2? Instead Drew suggests I should push my own lynch which wouldn’t line up with his “let me be NK’ed by mafia.” In order words, suggesting an unresolved miller would attract mafia’s attention and scare them to target him at night, why then would he suggest an unresolved miller claim push their own lynch? Drew’s view of the miller role and how it should be resolved has changed. 81 was with one miller claim at that point. Day 2 (presumably after Drew’s lynch) there will be one miller claim as well. Does that make sense? It’s more how the single miller claim should be resolved.

In post 61, UnaBombaH wrote:I'd be interested in a thing I've never seen or done before.
Feel free to call me a dummy dumb-dumb if it suits you, but

what if we all agree that Wake doesn't vote for anyone today?

Hear me out - we obviously want his input and reads throughout the day as much as possible, simply because he is the only conf.town in the game so far.
But we won't be able to lynch scum 100% of the time D1 anyway, even if we had three conf.townies.
So my point is, that

whoever we end up lynching D1, and whatever their flip might end up being, the wagon will only consist of unconfirmed players.

Does that make sense for anyone?

In post 62, UnaBombaH wrote:No wait, does that make any sense?
Do we actually ABSOLUTELY want Wake to be in the final lynch-wagon?
If we lynch scum, it would be better to achieve the lynch without his vote, right?
Because we'd likely have more resistance from scum, and we would KNOW one townie would've been off the wagon?

But how does it work if we mislynch today, is it then actually worse?

This kind of thing pings me because, while it looks helpful and everything, it happened when the game had already moved out of RVS, and it disrupts AI interactions in favour of game theory.

It's a safe and easy way of making Una look like a kind of town leader, without having to actually get his hands dirty.

In post 401, mavsfan41 wrote:@PranaDevil: let me try to clarify this. Drew’s 81 was the resolution of the miller role. This was when he believed to be the only miller. If/when he is lynched, I will be the only unresolved miller claim come day 2 with Drew gone. Therefore it’s the same situation as one unresolved miller claim. So why shouldn’t his 81 apply to that scenario as well in day2? Instead Drew suggests I should push my own lynch which wouldn’t line up with his “let me be NK’ed by mafia.” In order words, suggesting an unresolved miller would attract mafia’s attention and scare them to target him at night, why then would he suggest an unresolved miller claim push their own lynch? Drew’s view of the miller role and how it should be resolved has changed. 81 was with one miller claim at that point. Day 2 (presumably after Drew’s lynch) there will be one miller claim as well. Does that make sense? It’s more how the single miller claim should be resolved.

Because it's still a different scenario.

Claimed Miller solo is still different to Claimed Miller with a dead Miller. (Assuming that's what happens)

I'm not saying I agree with it (nobody who is town should EVER push for their own lynch, as lynching known town is a stupid idea, and the miller would know if they are town).

If Drew flips Miller, there will still be TWO miller claims, the fact one has been lynched does not change that, and it drastically changes the dynamic, as we're going into this lynch assuming Drew will flip scum, based solely off the "Why would scum CC just to die day 2?" situation.

If Drew does, indeed, flip town, we will obviously need to consider other possibilities, and a huge one will obviously be "do we believe there to be two millers?" And... we're lynching Drew off the back of the idea there's unlikely to be two Millers... so what actually changes if he flips town? Are you suggesting everyone should just accept there's "obviously two millers"? Because it would be your word against that then.

I highly doubt there's two millers, so if Drew flips town, I'm more than happy to come after you tomorrow. I will still be looking elsewhere to see what happened, and what interactions happened and where, but to ignore how unlikely two millers would be, would be extremely poor.

In post 125, UnaBombaH wrote:OK, I do not see a world where we have two millers.
I did get some nasty flashbacks from a game where I was a Town-Universal Backup though, and I fought the "claimed Miller"-lynch until the end..
I believe that same game had a Doc and other useful stuff as well, and I got slapped with a Miller-tag starting from N2.

Anyhoo, I guess we are ready for the lynch now?
Don't think much of anything useful will come from the scumteam anymore, now that one of them is already caught red-handed?

He pops back in later with this.

It just feels like scum trying to limit the info in the day. I can't see a town-mindset behind it.

Definitely not a townleader here..
This just felt like a perfect opportunity to test something like this out, and I'm always interested in finding out what works mechanically and what doesn't.

I find it interesting that Luca feels like scumcasing me here..?

In post 167, UnaBombaH wrote:VOTE: Tanner <---- this right is far more likely to yield a scumflip.

He then votes Tanner, which makes no sense to me, despite saying he can't see a world where there's two millers.

In post 405, UnaBombaH wrote:Definitely not a townleader here..
This just felt like a perfect opportunity to test something like this out, and I'm always interested in finding out what works mechanically and what doesn't.

I find it interesting that Luca feels like scumcasing me here..?

I'm giving my thoughts and reads after catching-up?

Said it before and I'll say it again... is a scum claim. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. I used it in my very first scum game here. It didn't work then, and it's still scummy af now. Tomorrow is when we deal with what we'll do tomorrow. Like the vig discussion, it's just a distraction from what's going on now.

In post 369, Drew-Sta wrote:Farside considers it. Even mavs is now open to it. It took several days for them to get there though, which is what I believed should be the case. Tanner and Pers have not accepted it. I don't think Pers reaction is quite right (he's tunnelled) but it is consistent at least with what I'd expect.

Both George and Una accepted the situation without any bargaining. I expected to have to basically shovel for the remainder of D1. They accepted it with ease. Their response was highly unusual. I consider the situation an accidental reaction test.

I think you are trying so see something here that is just not there.
At least not for me.
I do not see a percentage for the likelihood of us not having 2 Millers vs having 2 Millers.
I just see two Miller-claims -> I always think Miller-claims ought to be lynched unless proven somehow -> we now have two playerslots that need to be lynched/vigged/confirmed.
Simple as that.

Now, I still do not think we have to Millers, and I STILL do think we lynch both of the claims ( no matter what).
How is this stance of mine so fking difficult for some people to understand, and so easy to turn into a scummy agenda?
No idea, but I'm not backing down on it here.

In post 225, UnaBombaH wrote:
Drew is 50/50 because of the claim, but I think Tanner is scum unrelated to Drew. (just pointing this out right away before someone jumps on me for not voting Drew. )

Do you mean that Drew/Mavs have an equal chance of being scum? Or are you factoring in the 2 Miller possibility?

In post 404, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 125, UnaBombaH wrote:OK, I do not see a world where we have two millers.
I did get some nasty flashbacks from a game where I was a Town-Universal Backup though, and I fought the "claimed Miller"-lynch until the end..
I believe that same game had a Doc and other useful stuff as well, and I got slapped with a Miller-tag starting from N2.

Anyhoo, I guess we are ready for the lynch now?
Don't think much of anything useful will come from the scumteam anymore, now that one of them is already caught red-handed?

He pops back in later with this.

It just feels like scum trying to limit the info in the day. I can't see a town-mindset behind it.

Luca, you've fully caught up, right? I've given my thoughts on this post. Have you read them?

In post 405, UnaBombaH wrote:I find it interesting that Luca feels like scumcasing me here..?

Why is that interesting? We should either be:
- lynching and moving on (my choice), OR
- pushing players other than Drew

His pushing you is a lot better than all the discussion of what we'll do tomorrow, or what a hypothetical vig should do.

And BTW, his point on your post also crossed my mind at the time. It's a valid point.

In post 411, Tanner wrote:

In post 404, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 125, UnaBombaH wrote:OK, I do not see a world where we have two millers.
I did get some nasty flashbacks from a game where I was a Town-Universal Backup though, and I fought the "claimed Miller"-lynch until the end..
I believe that same game had a Doc and other useful stuff as well, and I got slapped with a Miller-tag starting from N2.

Anyhoo, I guess we are ready for the lynch now?
Don't think much of anything useful will come from the scumteam anymore, now that one of them is already caught red-handed?

He pops back in later with this.

It just feels like scum trying to limit the info in the day. I can't see a town-mindset behind it.

Luca, you've fully caught up, right? I've given my thoughts on this post. Have you read them?

I've skimmed everything, I'll have to remind myself of what you said about it.

Una has later said that post was a reaction test, yet almost nobody seemed to acknowledge it.

Yes I noticed that, but it seems to me it could equally be a scum reaction test as a townie one.

Scum can easily say 'let's end the day now', and if others buy it then great - his objective is complete and it succeeds in making others look scummy in the process. If no-one buys it then he can play it off as such.

I'm struggling to see what town gains from that tbh. Maybe if Una could talk more about what kind of reactions he was expecting and what the lack of reaction actually means in this context, then it'd be helpful?

I see. I'd be willing to hear about that, especially considering Una keeps refusing to talk to me.

In post 415, Luca Blight wrote:I'm struggling to see what town gains from that tbh. Maybe if Una could talk more about what kind of reactions he was expecting and what the lack of reaction actually means in this context, then it'd be helpful?

I'll also point out Persivul is also pushing to rush the day to completion for the sake of it, and cut off extra discussion, seemingly to stop "WIFOM" discussion... and seems to ignore the fact that it's more we can look at later.

In post 410, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 225, UnaBombaH wrote:
Drew is 50/50 because of the claim, but I think Tanner is scum unrelated to Drew. (just pointing this out right away before someone jumps on me for not voting Drew. )

Do you mean that Drew/Mavs have an equal chance of being scum? Or are you factoring in the 2 Miller possibility?

OK, I'll make it as plain as I can, but it's likely a can of WIFOM anyway so who cares.


So if Drew is a Miller, I DO think mavs is actually town, and yes, a Miller as well.
So while I do not THINK we have two Millers here, Drew potentially flipping Miller here would mean to me that mavs is likely to be town.

Giving scum a free pass for a brilliant gambit is still giving scum a free pass.

Just to beat the horse a little more:

And yet again, Drews alignment doesn't necessarily mean anything for mavs alignment.
WIFOM has it going both ways - he's either a scumbuddy and they tried to make a silly gambit to get mavs into lategame "for free", but come on... So we lynch them both in this scenario as well.
Only thing though, and I believe mavs already said this, IF we get a red flip from drew, I can see a scenario where mavs isn't lynched immediately D2, but more like D3/D4 if it comes to that.

So you see what I have here?
A game where I do not think 2 Millers is a "fair" or likely thing for town to have, but also a game where I do not see WHY both of them would claim Miller here.
Obviously Drews claim is independent of mavs claim because that came after, so I guess the most "sensible" solution is still "Drew is scum who tried to do a weird gambit, and we had a Miller to actually counter it."
Ech anyway.

In post 415, Luca Blight wrote:I'm struggling to see what town gains from that tbh. Maybe if Una could talk more about what kind of reactions he was expecting and what the lack of reaction actually means in this context, then it'd be helpful?

I believe it yielded as much information as it could have, MINUS everything.
Meaning that so many people got busy crucifying me for that post that no one jumped on hastily voting for Drew.
Guess that is information in itself then?
Drew is scum, so scum did not consider this a worthy fast lynch?
Dunno. If I'd be scum here with Drew, I'd take that as a permission to bus with the might of Zeus.

Anyhoooooooooooooooooooo....
I think we still lynch Drew today, no matter what.
And getting a red flip would now make those reactions some interesting reading material.

A green flip would make me think that scum were either already on her, or playing a completely different game.
And in that case, I guess we didn't get much out of it?

In post 416, Tanner wrote:I see. I'd be willing to hear about that, especially considering Una keeps refusing to talk to me.

Guess I need to ISO you backwards then?

In post 309, Tanner wrote:Also, the longer Una deliberately continues to ignore me, the more annoyed I'm getting, but I'm not sure if I can in good faith call that scummy.

OK, apparently it was before this as well...

In post 229, Tanner wrote:You can call me observative.

Yes, they were early posts. Tone is generally what I go for early.
Your very first post called Prada scum right after Prada did things that could be analysed as AI. I thought you actually saw something.
What does "that didn't fit your read on me" mean?

Also, how is Drew just 50/50?

pedit: is that true? I'm an only child, I can't imagine that honestly.

Ah, now I see.
Sorry to have missed this for so long..

In post 247, Tanner wrote:Una, I've responded in 229. You don't want to talk?

There was also this post, for the record.

In post 421, Tanner wrote:

In post 247, Tanner wrote:Una, I've responded in 229. You don't want to talk?

There was also this post, for the record.

Yeah, I saw this too.

...so....whats up?

Ok Ok, I'm really going to answer you.

In post 229, Tanner wrote:Your very first post called Prada scum right after Prada did things that could be analysed as AI. I thought you actually saw something.

Sorry to disappoint you there.
Whenever I do one of those early posts, it's just me being a silly goose.

In post 229, Tanner wrote:What does "that didn't fit your read on me" mean?

Well, what I said in context was this:

In post 225, UnaBombaH wrote:Then the very hasty feel I got from their posts regarding the Drew-lynch didn't fit my read on them, ESPECIALLY since they backed down from that vote rather quickly.
I feel like they faked a concede on the matter, just to be able to unvote.
TBH, I really like a theory where both Drew and Tanner are scum.

My early read on you was maybe a bit "try-hard", maybe a bit "newbie"? (not trying to insult you, just the vibe I got)
So when you went for the "easy" vote on Drew I was a bit surprised because I assumed you would be the type to actually be paranoid all around it and look for alternatives first - vote later.
Ok, I accepted your vote, but then it wasn't long after that you already unvoted, and started to do more of what I assumed you'd do from the start. Make any sense so far?
I could see a reality where you are scum, and got too excited for the chance to do some "acting".
You let people "convince you", and you feel like once enough posturing has happened you get your room to unvote.
Leading to an interesting scenario where you are actually scum with Drew as well, but you work as a solo-scum here too, who wanted to benefit from the situation.

In post 229, Tanner wrote:Also, how is Drew just 50/50?

He's either a Miller or he's scum?
That is what the Miller-claim does - it creates the WIFOM that always comes with the role, and even when played "correctly" you should always be lynched.
No really, if Drew flips town!Miller, even mavs is still 50/50.
Because he would then LIKELY be the second Miller he claims to be, BUT he could also be a scummie who decided to go balls to the wall.
(If this is the case, I am going to be in his fanclub until the end of time. )