Mafiascum.net

In post 397, Disaster Cartel wrote:idgi how are those two things not the same? like the people who are most towny looking are surely also the ones you have the most doubts about being scum?

NM is a perfect example of why it's not, they will never look towny but you will always have doubts about whether they are scum

Nacho looks relatively towny from an Objective Standpoint^TM but I don't have that many doubts about him being scum

VOTE: leafy and glacey

-Mena

In post 400, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 397, Disaster Cartel wrote:idgi how are those two things not the same? like the people who are most towny looking are surely also the ones you have the most doubts about being scum?

NM is a perfect example of why it's not, they will never look towny but you will always have doubts about whether they are scum

Nacho looks relatively towny from an Objective Standpoint^TM but I don't have that many doubts about him being scum

are you saying you SR nacho or nah?

-Mena

Like yes, I may have doubts about whether NM is scum because he never does anything

But if you ask me to choose between someone who looks town and someone who I just don’t know if they’re scum, I’d rather lim the one who doesn’t look town like 99.99% of the time or something

-Mena

In post 355, Disaster Cartel wrote:(1) :rolleyes:

<snip>

These responses make sense, thanks for the clarification.

I feel like that’s not what you’re saying bc it seems nonsensical to me but I really don’t get the point you’re trying to make if it’s not that

-Mena

In post 404, Nachomamma8 wrote:

In post 355, Disaster Cartel wrote:(1) :rolleyes:

<snip>

These responses make sense, thanks for the clarification.

Welcome

-Mena

I would also love to hear thoughts on my point that I think scum are bus!disincentivised unless in a lot of trouble, and the fact that there seems to be no appetite for NM is therefore +scum

-Mena

That’s @thread i guess

-Mena

In post 358, SirCakez wrote:That's because of how long my catchup was. I read like 10 pages of posts in one go, so it wasn't like "hmm this is scummy" "hmm this is weird" it was like a whole bunch of posts that added up at once.

You're not responding to my point at all.

My point is just is that you kept pointing out things that were weird and not scummy. And you called them weird not scummy. Three weird posts doesn't normally equal a scumread so when did your read change from "what Nacho is doing is weird" to "what Nacho is doing is scummy"?

In post 402, Disaster Cartel wrote:are you saying you SR nacho or nah?

Yeah I do. Basically if someone has a strong scumgame they can still be >rand scum on play whereas NM can't unless you're notsci I guess. This may just be something we fundamentally disagree on though

PEdit: maybe? I think a lot of the people defending NM are towny

In post 407, Disaster Cartel wrote:I would also love to hear thoughts on my point that I think scum are bus!disincentivised unless in a lot of trouble, and the fact that there seems to be no appetite for NM is therefore +scum

-Mena

I made that exact point in a post directed at skitter so. I agree with it.

In post 409, Nachomamma8 wrote:My point is just is that you kept pointing out things that were weird and not scummy. And you called them weird not scummy. Three weird posts doesn't normally equal a scumread so when did your read change from "what Nacho is doing is weird" to "what Nacho is doing is scummy"?

Do you think this is scum-indicative (for cakez)?

In post 410, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 402, Disaster Cartel wrote:are you saying you SR nacho or nah?

Yeah I do. Basically if someone has a strong scumgame they can still be >rand scum on play whereas NM can't unless you're notsci I guess. This may just be something we fundamentally disagree on though

PEdit: maybe? I think a lot of the people defending NM are towny

this just doesn’t make any sense

like if someone is being actively towny, even if you also are aware that they can play scum, how are they more likely than rand to be scum than the do nothing slot?

And okay, who is towny of the people defending NM and why?

-Mena

In post 393, Disaster Cartel wrote:The 13-14 range? Not following

page 13-14

In post 358, SirCakez wrote:My main hangup is I don't understand your obsession with elimming NM and I don't feel it like town!you at all.
I don't really see a path to elimming you right now anyways, but I am genuinely baffled by your early posts this game in a way that I wasn't in Popcorn.

How am I obsessing over an NM push? I brought it up. I explained reasons why. Why are my reasons for pushing him incorrect?

Like it drives me crazy when you go "ah this sucks" without even making a token effort to address my reasons for doing something - you jumped down my throat for Norfolk defense early last game when we weren't defending Norfolk and instead were pointing out that the people attacking him early for dumb reasons.

Also, why do you think that you can differentiate between the way town me pushes something and the way scum me pushes something when you can't find town me in the first place?

In post 413, Disaster Cartel wrote:how are they more likely than rand to be scum than the do nothing slot?

I don't understand this question. The assumption is that NM is always gonna be =rand scum (I disagree, but w/e)

If you have a scumread on a player, and if you have any faith in your reads at all, that player is >rand scum. Maybe they're playing towny in an objective sense but that doesn't matter because you know they would as either alignment.

VFT and kismet are towny, so is salsa somewhat. I forget who else was defending NM

In post 400, Infinity 324 wrote:Nacho looks relatively towny from an Objective StandpointTM but I don't have that many doubts about him being scum

I'll rephrase this, I have doubts about being scum but he's still >rand scum which is scummier than NM

In post 400, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 397, Disaster Cartel wrote:idgi how are those two things not the same? like the people who are most towny looking are surely also the ones you have the most doubts about being scum?

NM is a perfect example of why it's not, they will never look towny but you will always have doubts about whether they are scum

Nacho looks relatively towny from an Objective Standpoint^TM but I don't have that many doubts about him being scum

I don't understand the argument that you're making here.

You shouldn't be 100% confident someone is flipping scum before you flip them or you have ego issues. It is a more valuable skill to fight off a lynch on you then it is to lurk so much that people can't confidently write a case on you.

In post 410, Infinity 324 wrote:Yeah I do. Basically if someone has a strong scumgame they can still be >rand scum on play whereas NM can't unless you're notsci I guess. This may just be something we fundamentally disagree on though

Should have kept reading.

Yes, this is a fundamental disagreement. I think people also value their scumreads more highly than they should - case in point, you scumreading me here.

In post 418, Nachomamma8 wrote:You shouldn't be 100% confident someone is flipping scum before you flip them or you have ego issues. It is a more valuable skill to fight off a lynch on you then it is to lurk so much that people can't confidently write a case on you.

Screw 100% confident, if someone is 1% more likely than rand to be scum I'm limming them over someone who's =rand scum

It may be a more valuable skill in the abstract but in a game where people know each other and will adjust their expectations of others' scumgames accordingly, not really

In post 407, Disaster Cartel wrote:I would also love to hear thoughts on my point that I think scum are bus!disincentivised unless in a lot of trouble, and the fact that there seems to be no appetite for NM is therefore +scum

I think it's a fundamentally weak point because it requires that scum came into the game in this headspace and you have no way of testing that assertion
it also relies partially on the alignments of the people pushing n_m so it's something to maybe come back to d2+ at best for me
and mostly....there's just no need to use this as a crutch in lieu of like....getting reads and shit like normal which i kiiiiiiinda feel you've been doing the whole game

In post 419, Nachomamma8 wrote:I think people also value their scumreads more highly than they should - case in point, you scumreading me here.

I agree, though in the past few months my day 1 scumreads have been >>rand scum

But yeah 1% more likely than rand is a better elim than =rand

In post 419, Nachomamma8 wrote:I think people also value their scumreads more highly than they should - case in point, you scumreading me here.

=/

In post 412, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 409, Nachomamma8 wrote:My point is just is that you kept pointing out things that were weird and not scummy. And you called them weird not scummy. Three weird posts doesn't normally equal a scumread so when did your read change from "what Nacho is doing is weird" to "what Nacho is doing is scummy"?

Do you think this is scum-indicative (for cakez)?

I find that Cakez might take this approach as either alignment because, as I've talked about in thread several times now, he's done it before.

I think the more alignment indicative piece will be his responses when he decides to do something other than just straight up blow me off.