Mafiascum.net

In post 396, Ame wrote:@Hectic - associative. You randomly mentioned him earlier. And your interaction looks partnery. Also suspect that you two are likely to have done thins configuration. Not ignoring you or anyone. I'll fully address posts I've gleaned over Friday-Saturday

In post 394, Mohab500 wrote:

In post 16, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:hi friends!

for some reason I thought that mafia had to place at least one of each of themselves in each group. can someone confirm for me whether this is the case?

- Daenerys

Someone called this fake recently: I can confirm I had a similar thought when we began the game, perhaps because the listed mafia partition game had some ambiguous wording which made this seem like the case, so I can't really agree with that claim.

In post 407, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:welp I remembered why I don’t enjoy playing with ABR when I’m town

- Daenerys

In post 386, Mohab500 wrote:This stuff is why I told people to stop stressing so much about partitions earlier. Partitions should be used a secondary method of determining a lynch, not as the main one. Scuminess of a player should always, always take priority over random thoughts about 'what scum would do with partitions!'. Yes, lynching group 1 is incredibly risky, because if there is anything less than 2 scum in there, we instantly lose. So yes, scum probably put three there because they know we think a group 1 lynch is too risky, and they're playing on our paranoia. But hold on, what if they knew that we knew that we'd figure out they'd put all three in group 1 because we consider it too risky? So they split them up to 1-1-1, or 1-0-2. But hold on, we also know that they'd know that we would know that they would know that we would know the risk of lynching group 1. So we don't lynch group 1, but hey, hold on...

And it goes on and you could make the same argument for pretty much every logical partition choice. It makes no sense to keep theorising this much about partitions when there are way too many possibilities and in the end, we only end up misleading ourselves into thinking someone is scum because of how we think the partition is split.

I am going to go ahead and skim the previous pages to get reads on players, I am still fairly lost on what's going on and who's reading who in what fashion. I recommend everyone drop the partition issue for now and we'll deal with it when we actually get some good leads regarding the players themselves. Anyone who keeps trying to predict the partitions isn't trying to scumhunt: they're just pretending to scumhunt.

In post 408, Albert B. Rampage wrote:GROUP 3 IS LYNCHBAIT DO NOT VOTE GROUP 3

VOTE GROUP 1 OR 2

1 IF YOU LIKE TO WIN FAST

2 IF YOU LIKE LONG GAMES WITH LOW INFO

THERE ARE YOUR CHOICES

In post 155, Ame wrote:Clidd and Albert for scum

In post 395, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:

In post 385, Hoctac wrote:

In post 377, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:It’s not the “ie” I missed. I think I read this as “one of them [mafia] must be in each of the groups.”

I don’t even think this could be called a townslip, I just read the rules incorrectly.

- Daenerys

Really, you don't think that would be a townslip? I struggle to believe you think that.

Are you aware mafia form partitions pregame, and would therefore be very aware of how they can insert themselves in the groups, and would be discussing strategies?

I mean I just had the rules wrong in my head this whole time about how mafia have to allocate themselves. I don’t particularly think that’s alignment indicative? Are you saying it’s a “townslip” because mafia would discuss whether or not they have to allocate one to each group?

- Daenerys

In post 174, Albert B. Rampage wrote:
1/1/1 is a long hard road to victory for the scum, they automatically lose 1 player no matter what the town does.

If I were scum I would put all in 1 group.

In post 418, Mohab500 wrote:

In post 174, Albert B. Rampage wrote:
1/1/1 is a long hard road to victory for the scum, they automatically lose 1 player no matter what the town does.

If I were scum I would put all in 1 group.

Aren't you just now suddenly criticizing this move? What happened?

In post 408, Albert B. Rampage wrote:GROUP 3 IS LYNCHBAIT DO NOT VOTE GROUP 3

VOTE GROUP 1 OR 2

1 IF YOU LIKE TO WIN FAST

2 IF YOU LIKE LONG GAMES WITH LOW INFO

THERE ARE YOUR CHOICES

In post 417, Hoctac wrote:

In post 395, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:

In post 385, Hoctac wrote:

In post 377, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:It’s not the “ie” I missed. I think I read this as “one of them [mafia] must be in each of the groups.”

I don’t even think this could be called a townslip, I just read the rules incorrectly.

- Daenerys

Really, you don't think that would be a townslip? I struggle to believe you think that.

Are you aware mafia form partitions pregame, and would therefore be very aware of how they can insert themselves in the groups, and would be discussing strategies?

I mean I just had the rules wrong in my head this whole time about how mafia have to allocate themselves. I don’t particularly think that’s alignment indicative? Are you saying it’s a “townslip” because mafia would discuss whether or not they have to allocate one to each group?

- Daenerys

Yeah, it would be a townslip since that misinterpretation would certainly be addressed and corrected while they formed partitions, as understanding that rule correctly is essential to that process.

Do you still disagree it would be a townslip?

In post 420, Hoctac wrote:

In post 408, Albert B. Rampage wrote:GROUP 3 IS LYNCHBAIT DO NOT VOTE GROUP 3

VOTE GROUP 1 OR 2

1 IF YOU LIKE TO WIN FAST

2 IF YOU LIKE LONG GAMES WITH LOW INFO

THERE ARE YOUR CHOICES

Albert could be scum for this post tbh.

Like, why

never

vote Group 3 because "lynchbait", but Group 2 is fine, especially when he should know he's town?

In post 422, Hoctac wrote:It's not a stupid conversation. We're establishing the fact that your posts at the start of the game are definitely not NAI.

If it's a genuine slip, you are town.

Otherwise, you are scum, since you wouldn't be confused about that detail.