Mafiascum.net

I think this should be brought up. I noticed this but if Illwei has a mafia partner, they're either intentionally not helping them, or they don't have a partner at all.

illwei had a really good post early on that i feel is uh, pretty hard for a new player to make as scum. what's the reason they're scumread?

In post 374, The Bulge wrote:Cabd have you read yet?

I am now!

We had guests come in from out of town.

In post 401, Ydrasse wrote:illwei had a really good post early on that i feel is uh, pretty hard for a new player to make as scum. what's the reason they're scumread?

I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. I do think from their current playstyle that it seems less likely they're scum, and just low effort town.

In post 313, Roden wrote:

In post 255, GrandpaMo wrote:So I will ask you this @Roden, what do you feel like is different from here than in the game you played? Are there specific posts / quotes you can point out to me?

Bulge never fought people or engaged in ad hominem in that game. I answered his questions the same I did here and we both moved on. He didn't tunnel anyone, and in general he played a much more laid back game especially on Day 1.

I don't think town Bulge gets this invested in an argument that he doesn't think is going anywhere, and especially so when he's convinced someone is scum. Town Bulge is also more vote happy, but he RVS voted Nora just to get her attention, then voted and immediately unvoted Strange with zero explanation. He hasn't bothered to vote for anyone else, not even an apparent textbook scum.

PSA - this is the wrong way to use meta. "I don't think town Bulge _____" is a wildly bold statement to make after playing 1 game with me.

In post 318, Noraa wrote:Bulge is 0% of a threat compared to Cabd.

ow

Cabd, did I poke scum to the point of illogical flailing, or just piss off a newbie?

In post 404, The Bulge wrote:

In post 313, Roden wrote:

In post 255, GrandpaMo wrote:So I will ask you this @Roden, what do you feel like is different from here than in the game you played? Are there specific posts / quotes you can point out to me?

Bulge never fought people or engaged in ad hominem in that game. I answered his questions the same I did here and we both moved on. He didn't tunnel anyone, and in general he played a much more laid back game especially on Day 1.

I don't think town Bulge gets this invested in an argument that he doesn't think is going anywhere, and especially so when he's convinced someone is scum. Town Bulge is also more vote happy, but he RVS voted Nora just to get her attention, then voted and immediately unvoted Strange with zero explanation. He hasn't bothered to vote for anyone else, not even an apparent textbook scum.

PSA - this is the wrong way to use meta. "I don't think town Bulge _____" is a wildly bold statement to make after playing 1 game with me.

I'm not using meta. Mo asked for a direct comparison to a previous game, so my answer is based off of that.

I really hope this isn't the only thing you respond to.

In post 401, Ydrasse wrote:illwei had a really good post early on that i feel is uh, pretty hard for a new player to make as scum. what's the reason they're scumread?

Can you please
point this out to me tbh?

tbh it is sad that people never respond immediately it makes me sad sometimes but

basically this will be my almost 50th game of forum mafia tbh, albeit in not a long day format here, and not all of them super serious tbh.

In post 399, Roden wrote:

In post 391, Bimblesticks wrote:

In post 389, Roden wrote:

In post 369, Bimblesticks wrote:

In post 365, Roden wrote:

In post 358, Ydrasse wrote:oh, i wasn't asking for a response to anything particular, i just wanted some thoughts that weren't explicitly *at* someone i guess, but your read on things currently

I don't think Italiano/Cabd is town. I already mentioned it earlier but they have a lot of posts yet no real content. Italiano specifically kept teasing that he had a plan and a read list, but he never actually posted it.

Bimble vs Illwei is an interesting situation. Illwei has made a couple naked votes now and I don't think it's alignment indicative. I voted for them earlier, but I think they're at least trying to play the game, at least compared to Bimble who has an abysmally low post count as well as inconsistent sorting. He somehow managed to contradict himself within seven posts, or is at the very least way too wishy washy for someone with low content. I think Bimble is the more likely scum between the two and his "OMGUS" vote on Illwei indicates that to me.

GrandpaMo is town for actually trying to scum hunt and ask questions. Seems to generally just be excited to play the game, which isn't alignment indicative but makes me town lean them for that as well.

I've already given my case on Bulge.

Strange is null for me, but they haven't done anything particularly scummy. I need to reread their ISO but they're not pinging me enough to demand an immediate closer look.

Bakslash/piisirrational don't have enough posts but I think Bakslash town slipped by avoiding RVS.

And I have you town locked because of Nora.

"He somehow managed to contradict himself within seven posts" Could you elaborate? I think I've been completely consistent. Also, the reason behind my "abysmally low post count" is a) few people have pinged me or attacked me directly, b) I tend to write longer posts where I respond to everything I want to and c) I've already laid out my takes on everybody.

Your reads on people seem to change from post to post. Wishy washy is probably the better descriptor but I also thought your vote on Illwei made no sense. It wasn't even really OMGUS, you just kinda, voted. No scum read, no analysis, not even any real pressure.

I think your low post count has more to it than your given reasons. I don't really see you questioning anyone or pressuring your scum reads. All your posts do is state your mindset and keep your options open on who to vote for. There's no real scum hunting going on and you don't have any game reason not to do so.

Can you tell me why you seem so reluctant to pressure Illwei?

Let's dive into this:

"Your reads on people seem to change from post to post" Are reads not supposed to change as new information comes in? Like I don't understand this point. My read has changed on Illwei pretty hard, but for justifiable reasons (he's acting bizarrely apathetic). I initally read Noraa as slight scum lean bc she was a little agressive pushing you initially and she seemed to be a tad too defensive in justifying why she wanted the opinion of The Bulge. Her posts since, especially concerning you, have seemed sincere and reasonable, so I shifted to a town lean. For GrandpaMo I just made a point about how he posted a lot which made this thread harder to read, but I never said that makes him scum. From what he's been saying, I think he's town, so I don't think that counts as a shift in position. I'm pretty sure I've been consistent on literally everyone else? So how am I "Wishy washy"? Care to elaborate?

Reads should naturally change, yes, but yours seem to just be following general consensus. Like you're reading the room and then changing your reads accordingly, rather than having any real conviction with what you're saying. It wouldn't be so noticeable if you were more active, but when you only have seven posts (at the time) and you've changed your read on Nora three times, it looks off. You went from believing me vs Nora was TvT to ambiguous TvS. You believed Nora was town, then thought she was scummy, then back to town, just as the game state had already dictated. You believed I was town, then potentially scum, to now "too scummy", just as the game state already dictated again. These are not original thoughts.

Your read on Illwei meanwhile just feels half-hearted and ambiguous. You're claiming your read on Illwei shifted hard, but by your own words, this isn't true.

In post 323, Bimblesticks wrote:
I think that's a bit quick to throw a vote on me there. I'll go ahead and return the favour.

UNVOTE: Bakslash

VOTE: Illwei

...

Even though I did vote for Illwei, it was mainly because he voted for me. I honestly don't know if I think he's scum, he still reads to me as town, and from his perspective his vote might've just been intentioned to see if it annoyed me and made me say anything suspicious, as opposed to wanting to actually see me hanged. I actually still read Illwei as town.

So what exactly is happening here? Illwei hasn't acted any differently. You apparently now scum read them though according to your most recent post, but there isn't any kind of progression to this conclusion. It just looks like every other one of your reads where you're just taking general consensus into account.

"All your posts do is state your mindset and keep your options open on who to vote for" I mean I'm pretty confident in pushing Illwei to elaborate right now, I think the way they're acting is hella strange. I also think you were acting defensive and bitter, so I said I was leaning scum for you and I still am. I said I was leaning very much town on the Bulge and I still am. I don't think not having strong opinions on everybody or even most people is a justifiable criticism, especially on d1. Like you call it "leaving your options open", I call it "not wanting to rush to conclusions and giving people time to defend themselves".

I don't think it's unreasonable to have more than three solid reads after 16 pages worth of posts to dissect. Your current scum reads are just parroting what everyone else has said.

Also not sure how you can say I'm "bitter and defensive" with a straight face when you yourself got so incredibly defensive and bitter in your post here. Ad hominem is usually a scum tell though so I'm not surprised.

"I think your low post count has more to it than your given reasons. I don't really see you questioning anyone or pressuring your scum reads." I've questioned both you and Illwei multiple times. Like, I don't understand how to respond other than to say that's flatly untrue.

Can you show me where? I keep scanning your ISO and I'm not seeing anything resembling questions or pressure. You even admitted you didn't do any of this in your previously stated reasons so I'm not sure why you've decided to immediately contradict yourself.

"There's no real scum hunting going on and you don't have any game reason not to do so." I'll give you an example of a scum hunt. I think you're being completely unreasonable and am moving you from a scum lean to a scum read. I don't buy you're town, I understand the concept of too scum to be scum, but I just don't think any townie could possibly write a post with as many false statements as this one.

This isn't scum hunting lol. This is OMGUS without the vote. How am I being unreasonable? All I did was ask some questions and make some observations. Can you point out any specific false statements I've made about you? Can you show me an example of you scum hunting anyone at all?

OK, let's dive into this long screed of nonsense:

My first read on Nora was "I'm ever so slightly suspicious of Nora", in post 195. My next take on her was in post 369, where I said "I'm leaning town on Nora/Ydresse". That's changing that read once: from SL to TL. Not three times. You lied.

My take on You v Noraa was saying "I don't buy Noraa vs Roden is tvt" in Post 323, specifically referring to you as the scum. At no point before then did I ever say I bought that Noraa vs you was tvt. Again, you lied.

I don't understand how my reads on Illwei are . I voted against Illwei because I wanted to prod him to explain why he voted for me with so little evidence. He then didn't explain that, or respond to any of the other questions I asked of him. I find that really suspicious, I feel like any townie would want to respond to questioning. Could you like, show me where my own words disproved me? Instead of just saying that?

How can you say he hasn't acted differently? Are we in the same game? He's spent the past hundred or so posts refusing to answer questions and reacting to everything with apathy. My scum read against him is based on the fact he still hasn't explained his vote against me.

Have you considered the possibility that if things are general consensus it's probably for good reason? Like I don't understand, would you trust me more if I was claiming The Bulge and GrandpaMo and Noraa are all scum?? Also, to be completely honest, most people seem to be reading you as just an aggravated townie, I think I'm in the minority in reading you as scum, so if you're looking for a deviation from the general consensus, there ya go.

What is it with people on the internet and not knowing what an ad hominem is. Ad hominem is a position against a person based on anything other than the susbstance of the argument itself. In real political or logical debate, ad hominems are generally a bad thing. In mafia, people do them constantly, because taking people's behaviour into account, as opposed to the logic behind their arguments, is very much important to determining if somebody is scum.

Again, with the idea that my own words contradict me without providing the words that contradict me. But sure, I'll answer your question. I don't believe a statement needs a question mark in order to be considered a question, I think it just has to warrant a response. For example, if I said "Roden, why are you being unreasonable?", it would prompt the same response as "Roden, I think you're being unreasonable". Post 324 is a perfect example of this. It's not framed as questioning, but that's what it is, as you respond to it and substantiate your argument. To give specific examples:

a) In Post 325 I voted against Illwei to try and get him to substantiate his vote against me. Then, in Post 369, I questioned him on what he said in Post 363, and pointed out he still hasn't explained why he voted for me, which I initially asked in Post 325. He responded to GrandpaMo's questioning in Post 370, and I found his response ridiculous so I questioned him again on it. He has not responded.

b) In Post 324 I pointed out why I think you're being unreasonable, invoking a response. You responded. Then in Post 369, I asked you to elaborate on your seemingly nonsense statements about me being contradictory. You responded in a long post, full of innacuracies. I responded in a long post, asking you a bunch more questions. You responded, now I'm responding again, asking you more questions.

I think this easily constitutes "questioning or pressuring my scum reads". In what way does it not? I think I've taken time to resopnd to and ask plenty of you and Illwei.

I've just wasted half an hour of my life responding to your lies. I'm becoming sympathetic to Noraa's position of just voting you out regardless of your alignment, you're too annoying to work with and I find it frustrating responding to an argument against me that's just based on nonsense.

In post 409, Illwei wrote:tbh it is sad that people never respond immediately it makes me sad sometimes but

basically this will be my almost 50th game of forum mafia tbh, albeit in not a long day format here, and not all of them super serious tbh.

If you prefer it when people respond immediately, could you please explain why you voted for me, which I've been trying to get you to do for about 100 posts now? Could you please also respond to what I asked in Posts 369 and 372?

elimination

Illwei [3]:

GrandpaMo, piisirrational, Bimblesticks

The Bulge [1]:

Roden

Bimblesticks [1]:

Illwei

Roden [1]:

Ydrasse

not voting [3]:

The Bulge, StrangeMatter, Cabd

mod notes

~ Ydrasse is the new Noraa

flavour

In post 410, Bimblesticks wrote:
OK, let's dive into this long screed of nonsense:

My first read on Nora was "I'm ever so slightly suspicious of Nora", in post 195. My next take on her was in post 369, where I said "I'm leaning town on Nora/Ydresse". That's changing that read once: from SL to TL. Not three times. You lied.

Not according to post 83, where you specifically give a stance against Nora's reasoning and claim she was too aggressive without a lot of evidence. You also claim that our argument was a "two-way street", implying that you believed our argument was just a misunderstanding. This makes no sense to say if you think either of us are scum.

My take on You v Noraa was saying "I don't buy Noraa vs Roden is tvt" in Post 323, specifically referring to you as the scum. At no point before then did I ever say I bought that Noraa vs you was tvt. Again, you lied.

Refer to the above.

I don't understand how my reads on Illwei are

"ambiguous and halfhearted"

. I voted against Illwei because I wanted to prod him to explain why he voted for me with so little evidence. He then didn't explain that, or respond to any of the other questions I asked of him. I find that really suspicious, I feel like any townie would want to respond to questioning.

"You're claiming your read on Illwei shifted hard, but by your own words, this isn't true."

Could you like, show me where my own words disproved me? Instead of just saying that?

You specifically say in two different posts that you town read them, I quoted one of them so idk how you're confused here. 323 and 327 show this. Can you show me a post before 365 where you claim otherwise? Because you scum reading Illwei now literally doesn't matter if you think that counts, as that now seems to be in reaction to me pointing it out in 365 that you were wishy washy with your reads at the time.

How can you say he hasn't acted differently? Are we in the same game? He's spent the past hundred or so posts refusing to answer questions and reacting to everything with apathy. My scum read against him is based on the fact he still hasn't explained his vote against me.

Hundred or so posts? They've only got 34. This behavior has been pretty consistent with their past posts anyway, can you show me a massive change somewhere?

Have you considered the possibility that if things are general consensus it's probably for good reason? Like I don't understand, would you trust me more if I was claiming The Bulge and GrandpaMo and Noraa are all scum?? Also, to be completely honest, most people seem to be reading you as just an aggravated townie, I think I'm in the minority in reading you as scum, so if you're looking for a deviation from the general consensus, there ya go.

You're missing the point. You're the last to read but the first to want to take credit. The problem isn't that your reads align with general consensus, but that they only ever come out everyone else has said their piece. The most blatant example of this is that you voted for someone you thought was town (Illwei), and didn't actually scum read them until other people began to do so. This is quite literally what chronologically happened.

What is it with people on the internet and not knowing what an ad hominem is. Ad hominem is a position against a person based on anything other than the susbstance of the argument itself. In real political or logical debate, ad hominems are generally a bad thing. In mafia, people do them constantly, because taking people's behaviour into account, as opposed to the logic behind their arguments, is very much important to determining if somebody is scum.

This is just flat out wrong. Ad hominem is an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Such as your random insults and attacks against my character.

Again, with the idea that my own words contradict me without providing the words that contradict me. But sure, I'll answer your question. I don't believe a statement needs a question mark in order to be considered a question, I think it just has to warrant a response. For example, if I said "Roden, why are you being unreasonable?", it would prompt the same response as "Roden, I think you're being unreasonable". Post 324 is a perfect example of this. It's not framed as questioning, but that's what it is, as you respond to it and substantiate your argument.

Questions don't need to be actual questions now huh.

To give specific examples:

a) In Post 325 I voted against Illwei to try and get him to substantiate his vote against me. Then, in Post 369, I questioned him on what he said in Post 363, and pointed out he still hasn't explained why he voted for me, which I initially asked in Post 325. He responded to GrandpaMo's questioning in Post 370, and I found his response ridiculous so I questioned him again on it. He has not responded.

Yes, and you town read them for this.

b) In Post 324 I pointed out why I think you're being unreasonable, invoking a response. You responded. Then in Post 369, I asked you to elaborate on your seemingly nonsense statements about me being contradictory. You responded in a long post, full of innacuracies. I responded in a long post, asking you a bunch more questions. You responded, now I'm responding again, asking you more questions.

I think this easily constitutes "questioning or pressuring my scum reads". In what way does it not? I think I've taken time to resopnd to and ask plenty of you and Illwei.

I literally had to push you to do any of this. Again, it doesn't count if you only do it I point it out.

I've just wasted half an hour of my life responding to your lies. I'm becoming sympathetic to Noraa's position of just voting you out regardless of your alignment, you're too annoying to work with and I find it frustrating responding to an argument against me that's just based on nonsense.

If you're legitimately scum hunting, wouldn't this be exactly what you wanted? Why are you annoyed by having to play the game?

You also just didn't even bother responding to everything. It's convenient that you ignored everything that you know you can't defend yourself against.

In post 413, Roden wrote:

In post 410, Bimblesticks wrote:
OK, let's dive into this long screed of nonsense:

My first read on Nora was "I'm ever so slightly suspicious of Nora", in post 195. My next take on her was in post 369, where I said "I'm leaning town on Nora/Ydresse". That's changing that read once: from SL to TL. Not three times. You lied.

Not according to post 83, where you specifically give a stance against Nora's reasoning and claim she was too aggressive without a lot of evidence. You also claim that our argument was a "two-way street", implying that you believed our argument was just a misunderstanding. This makes no sense to say if you think either of us are scum.

My take on You v Noraa was saying "I don't buy Noraa vs Roden is tvt" in Post 323, specifically referring to you as the scum. At no point before then did I ever say I bought that Noraa vs you was tvt. Again, you lied.

Refer to the above.

I don't understand how my reads on Illwei are

"ambiguous and halfhearted"

. I voted against Illwei because I wanted to prod him to explain why he voted for me with so little evidence. He then didn't explain that, or respond to any of the other questions I asked of him. I find that really suspicious, I feel like any townie would want to respond to questioning.

"You're claiming your read on Illwei shifted hard, but by your own words, this isn't true."

Could you like, show me where my own words disproved me? Instead of just saying that?

You specifically say in two different posts that you town read them, I quoted one of them so idk how you're confused here. 323 and 327 show this. Can you show me a post before 365 where you claim otherwise? Because you scum reading Illwei now literally doesn't matter if you think that counts, as that now seems to be in reaction to me pointing it out in 365 that you were wishy washy with your reads at the time.

How can you say he hasn't acted differently? Are we in the same game? He's spent the past hundred or so posts refusing to answer questions and reacting to everything with apathy. My scum read against him is based on the fact he still hasn't explained his vote against me.

Hundred or so posts? They've only got 34. This behavior has been pretty consistent with their past posts anyway, can you show me a massive change somewhere?

Have you considered the possibility that if things are general consensus it's probably for good reason? Like I don't understand, would you trust me more if I was claiming The Bulge and GrandpaMo and Noraa are all scum?? Also, to be completely honest, most people seem to be reading you as just an aggravated townie, I think I'm in the minority in reading you as scum, so if you're looking for a deviation from the general consensus, there ya go.

You're missing the point. You're the last to read but the first to want to take credit. The problem isn't that your reads align with general consensus, but that they only ever come out

after

everyone else has said their piece. The most blatant example of this is that you voted for someone you thought was town (Illwei), and didn't actually scum read them until other people began to do so. This is quite literally what chronologically happened.

What is it with people on the internet and not knowing what an ad hominem is. Ad hominem is a position against a person based on anything other than the susbstance of the argument itself. In real political or logical debate, ad hominems are generally a bad thing. In mafia, people do them constantly, because taking people's behaviour into account, as opposed to the logic behind their arguments, is very much important to determining if somebody is scum.

This is just flat out wrong. Ad hominem is an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Such as your random insults and attacks against my character.

Again, with the idea that my own words contradict me without providing the words that contradict me. But sure, I'll answer your question. I don't believe a statement needs a question mark in order to be considered a question, I think it just has to warrant a response. For example, if I said "Roden, why are you being unreasonable?", it would prompt the same response as "Roden, I think you're being unreasonable". Post 324 is a perfect example of this. It's not framed as questioning, but that's what it is, as you respond to it and substantiate your argument.

Questions don't need to be actual questions now huh.

To give specific examples:

a) In Post 325 I voted against Illwei to try and get him to substantiate his vote against me. Then, in Post 369, I questioned him on what he said in Post 363, and pointed out he still hasn't explained why he voted for me, which I initially asked in Post 325. He responded to GrandpaMo's questioning in Post 370, and I found his response ridiculous so I questioned him again on it. He has not responded.

Yes, and you town read them for this.

b) In Post 324 I pointed out why I think you're being unreasonable, invoking a response. You responded. Then in Post 369, I asked you to elaborate on your seemingly nonsense statements about me being contradictory. You responded in a long post, full of innacuracies. I responded in a long post, asking you a bunch more questions. You responded, now I'm responding again, asking you more questions.

I think this easily constitutes "questioning or pressuring my scum reads". In what way does it not? I think I've taken time to resopnd to and ask plenty of you and Illwei.

I literally had to push you to do any of this. Again, it doesn't count if you only do it

after

I point it out.

I've just wasted half an hour of my life responding to your lies. I'm becoming sympathetic to Noraa's position of just voting you out regardless of your alignment, you're too annoying to work with and I find it frustrating responding to an argument against me that's just based on nonsense.

If you're legitimately scum hunting, wouldn't this be exactly what you wanted? Why are you annoyed by having to play the game?

OK, another long-ass post, let's go:

I at no point said I thought Noraa was scum or was leaning scum. I thought her reasonsing was slightly a stretch, and that she was slightly agressive at the start of her questioning of you, but that doesn't mean she's scum, a well-meaning townie could just as easily question aggressively or read too much into something. I comment on things people do sometimes, even if I'm leaning neutral on them. If you interpret that as me thinking they're scum without me ever saying that's the case, that's on you.

A "two-way street" was just referring to how she was slightly agressive. That's not a comment on the alignment of either people in the argument. I'm considering if you're just misunderstanding here, but I think given the context (saying it's a "two-way street", putting in a comma, and then saying Noraa was a bit agressive, implying the two statements are connected), it's pretty clear it wasn't a statement on whether your argument was tvt but whether your Noraa did anything to provoke you.

I think you just don't understand what I'm saying on Illwei - I initially read him as slightly town, something I've never denied. However, as he hasn't explained his vote on me and doesn't seem to care about the votes on him, I shifted to a scum read. I was responding to the idea that my read on him is ambiguous or halfhearted, which I don't think it is.

By "hundred or so posts" I meant posts in this thread as a whole, not specifically his posts. The change occured when he voted for me and didn't explain why, then didn't answer any of my follow up posts or questions. I really think that's a justifiable reason to change your opinion on somebody, I have no idea why you're acting like this is some crazy turnaround. If I stopped responding to the posts you were making, it would be perfectly justifiable for you to be suspicious of me.

I scum read them after they failed to explain their vote for me or answer any of my questions. You can make an argument about how the timing is suspicious, but my reasons are perfectly valid.

OK, I'll acknowledge my definition of ad hominem was phrased poorly. I had what you just typed in mind but made it broader than necessary. However, within that defintion, everthing I said about the use of ad hominems is true. For example, if I decided I thought Player A was scum because they were acting too relaxed, that would be reacting to the player rather than the position they are maintaining. That would be an ad hominem attack.

I mean, do you disagree with the example I gave? Like, do you understand the concept of begging the question? Even if it's not explicitly a question, if it's supposed to provoke the same response that an actual question would give? You say it's not questioning but in the example I gave, Post 324, I invoked a response from you that attempts to refute what I said, without me explicitly including any question marks or phrasing anything as a question. So... it worked? So... my argument is valid? There are plenty of posts in this thread which throw shade on people and invite them to explain themselves without explictly asking a question.

See above. I never denied townreading Illwei.

What??? When did you have to push me to question you? And when did you have to push me to question Illwei?

I'm annoyed because I expect attacks on me to not be based on falsehoods.

In post 414, Roden wrote:You also just didn't even bother responding to everything. It's convenient that you ignored everything that you know you can't defend yourself against.

You have this incredibly annoying habit of beginng the question... what did I not respond to?

In post 411, Bimblesticks wrote:

In post 409, Illwei wrote:tbh it is sad that people never respond immediately it makes me sad sometimes but

basically this will be my almost 50th game of forum mafia tbh, albeit in not a long day format here, and not all of them super serious tbh.

If you prefer it when people respond immediately, could you please explain why you voted for me, which I've been trying to get you to do for about 100 posts now? Could you please also respond to what I asked in Posts 369 and 372?

I did at the bottom of page 16 tbh did I not?

In post 406, The Bulge wrote:Cabd, did I poke scum to the point of illogical flailing, or just piss off a newbie?

Finishing my read-up but I'm torn if Roden makes sense as the Ilwee partner.

I guess uh spoiler alert about scumread primero uno.

In post 417, Cabd wrote:

In post 406, The Bulge wrote:Cabd, did I poke scum to the point of illogical flailing, or just piss off a newbie?

Finishing my read-up but I'm torn if Roden makes sense as the Ilwee partner.

I guess uh spoiler alert about scumread primero uno.

yea all I had on illwei's slot before was the one early post that gave me good vibes that I think ydra mentioned as well, but upon catching up Illwei looks a lot more to me like scum without a lot to latch onto than low-effort town.

My hesitation on Roden here is that there was like one or two posts that are REALLY hard to see as coming from a partner.

Still working on a formal reads list but real time is great for me to get engaged, let me go find them.

In post 410, Bimblesticks wrote:I've just wasted half an hour of my life responding to your lies. I'm becoming sympathetic to Noraa's position of just voting you out regardless of your alignment, you're too annoying to work with and I find it frustrating responding to an argument against me that's just based on nonsense.

god I relate to this whole post so hard. why I didn't respond to 239. bimble's recent string of posts are very very townie.

In post 400, StrangeMatter wrote:I think this should be brought up. I noticed this but if Illwei has a mafia partner, they're either intentionally not helping them, or they don't have a partner at all.

NM it was this post by strange matter, but yeah still if Roden is mafia with illwee it's like a turbobus of the century.

And I'm pretty sure it's just Ilwee here.

To me, Roden reads as somebody incredibly frustrated by the game and people's perception, and determined to feel heard and validated, damn the torpedoes.

if illwei flips scum after Zyla was scum in 2065, I'm never doubting the TBH tell again

In post 422, Cabd wrote:To me, Roden reads as somebody incredibly frustrated by the game and people's perception, and determined to feel heard and validated, damn the torpedoes.

I think what grandpamo was saying makes sense to me now, about roden staying this path. I think people on this site too often assume that scum plays optimally at all times and is immune to accidentally weakening their own position (like when people say "why would they make this really sloppy move as scum?" I tend to think "because whatever we were doing worked"). but the statements Roden makes in his moments of passion are so consistently false and nonsensical I'm not sure I'm comfortable reading the reactionary posting as AI after all.