Mafiascum.net

In post 4022, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 4019, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 4012, Lukewarm wrote:Masons in a game without flips feels like it could be messy, but I don't actually know the best way to try to avoid the messiness :/

It opens Roden up to claiming mason with any random person who dies.

Or conversely, for anyone to claim to be bernard after Roden has died.

In post 1, Save The Dragons wrote:1. Roles are not revealed upon kills, but alignment is. There may or may not be ways to uncover roles. Flavor is not revealed upon flip.

In post 4146, T-Bone wrote:

In post 3997, RCEnigma wrote:

In post 3981, Bellaphant wrote:RCA, talk to me about mala and bell?

I know I need to dive Dunn

Both feel loose and free flowing. Mala just exudes town demeanor.

The Klick townread is more substantial. My only real issue with Klick was the voting but I asked myself what I found scummy about it and couldn’t pin it down. Their votes are very openly displaying what they think at that particular moment readswise and have actually been used to develop those reads (Example, the step back from cephrir and again on my slot.)

What I think is happening in regards to Klick is twofold. People are conflating thread presence with perceived town behavior and playing as if the two go hand in hand. As well as, slots are just giving Klick the old jab, jab, step back…..but they keep stepping back and Klick gets scummier in retrospect as a result.

What do I mean by that? Well I don’t recall an instance outside of ceph where Klick engaged with a slot and they came out with a Klick scumread from it. It’s all been after the fact.

If I’m wrong call me out but that’s how I’m seeing it.

I'm gonna think about this. Good points maybe you're right.

In post 4153, Bellaphant wrote:I think you aren't being open to the reasons roden's claim could be true, Dunn.

In post 3163, Dancing Puppets wrote:

In post 3159, Rad wrote:To simplify the fuck out of my thoughts here:

1. Are you (anyone reading me scum) scum for reading me scum? NO
2. Does scum have to knock me down from my heavy town read? YES
3. Can town do that for them? YES
4. Does scum need to do it if town doesn't? YES
5. Why does scum need to do that? Because I'm town and heavily town read and scum can't survive if town solves the game properly.

So what do you make of RCE pushing Luke? I’m actually a bit suss on him now and it has nothing to do with him reading me wrong but it’s really hard to tell with him. \_0_/

In post 4155, Bellaphant wrote:...why would mafia not want to cast doubt on someone who could be confirmed town??

In post 4134, Lukewarm wrote:I am of the opinion that Bernard should claim if he exists.

If no one claims masons with Roden, we kill Roden.

If someone does, we kill Dunn

In post 4157, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:

In post 4155, Bellaphant wrote:...why would mafia not want to cast doubt on someone who could be confirmed town??

I have literally never seen a mafia shade a mason claim on d1 like ever.

at least not in my memory

In post 4079, Dunnstral wrote:

Frogsterking, Cat Scratch Fever, Cytosine and Guanine, MalcolmTucker, Bellaphant, Dunnstral, Klick, Enchant

These are players who were voting for Roden, which forced him to claim. It is safe to assume that masons wouldn't be bussing, right? So these players are not masons with Roden.

Lukewarm, ProfessorDrapion

These players reactions following the claim make it obvious that they are not masons with Roden.

Off The Hook

In post 704 OTH writes that Roden is in their "list of interests". Post 1577 further cements that OTH is not masons with Roden.

Cephrir, JohnnyFarrar, BlueBloodedToffee, RCEnigma, Rad

These players are not masons with Roden because of the way that Roden treated them.

In post 1572 Roden lists Cephrir and the toad (RCEnigma) as mafia in their reads list.

In post 2195 Roden says that BBT looks like they are "trying to create a narrative". That is not how masons talk to each other in the main thread. Also, BBT is listed as null in his reads before this.

In post 2203 Roden shows that they are isoing JohnnyFarrar, and while they have a vaguely positive impression, it seems unlikely that Roden is using some of his limited thread time on reading his own mason partners iso and ending with "it's fine". Also, Johnny is listed as null in his reads before this.

In post 861 Roden says that Rad's post is "Day Vig-able"

Dancing Puppets, Taly, Mathblade

These players are all in neighborhoods. As we've learned with toogeloo, neighbors know each others flavor. The alleged other mason has the flavor "Bernard". Additionally, I think it unlikely that any neighbor would also be a mason with a completely different person.

Dwlee99, T-Bone, Malakittens, Best Bird

Listed as "Null" or "TBD" in Roden's read list in post 1572, and then never mentioned again.

Best Bird has Roden as null in 1173

PookyTheMagicalBear

The last person left and the top of Roden's town list. They list Roden as null in 883.

In post 4160, Lukewarm wrote:At best, I think that this becomes the list of people that Dunn wants to look at more closely.

But he is acting like he was ready to out the whole list already at this poin

t.

In post 4160, Lukewarm wrote:What methodolgy was used here?

He cross referenced Roden's reads lists across the other people.

And decided that if either party listed the other party as null, it is not impossible for them to be mason partners.

I don't buy this hard and distinct disconnect from reasonable reasons to discredit mason options to this.

At best, I think that this becomes the list of people that Dunn wants to look at more closely. But he is acting like he was ready to out the whole list already at this point.

Furthermore, with the similarities between these, what is the thing that puts pooky in his own category? why would pooky be the person that he quotes the reads lists for?

The fact that Roden was town reading Pooky
vs
Both players mutually null reading the other.

That is a reason to GUESS pooky, not discredit the pooky option, nor is there a reason to prioritize quoting his reads list earlier

(Further more, Pooky moves Roden to his town reads, and in the spread sheets the are mutually town reading one another. Which is part of why I guessed Pooky)

In post 4163, Dancing Puppets wrote:

In post 4160, Lukewarm wrote:What methodolgy was used here?

He cross referenced Roden's reads lists across the other people.

And decided that if either party listed the other party as null, it is not impossible for them to be mason partners.

I don't buy this hard and distinct disconnect from reasonable reasons to discredit mason options to this.

At best, I think that this becomes the list of people that Dunn wants to look at more closely. But he is acting like he was ready to out the whole list already at this point.

Furthermore, with the similarities between these, what is the thing that puts pooky in his own category? why would pooky be the person that he quotes the reads lists for?

The fact that Roden was town reading Pooky
vs
Both players mutually null reading the other.

That is a reason to GUESS pooky, not discredit the pooky option, nor is there a reason to prioritize quoting his reads list earlier

(Further more, Pooky moves Roden to his town reads, and in the spread sheets the are mutually town reading one another. Which is part of why I guessed Pooky)

I think Pooky early claimed #not Bernard.

I think the next step to investigate the other people for how to treat Roden.

~Titus

In post 4167, T-Bone wrote:Excluding 5 people besides Pooky for no reason is weird, but it's not like anyone one of those players couldn't come in and either affirm or dispute the claim. If it was me, I'd have just claimed and left Dunn's theory dead in the water. It's not really that manipulative imo, because if Roden is actually a mason and the partner claims then everything Dunn says is moot. It really only applies if Roden is fake claiming.

In post 4169, T-Bone wrote:So like maybe you can make an argument that Dunn knows Roden is fake claiming cause they are both scum...but that doesn't seem to be the argument you're making?

In post 4170, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 4167, T-Bone wrote:Excluding 5 people besides Pooky for no reason is weird, but it's not like anyone one of those players couldn't come in and either affirm or dispute the claim. If it was me, I'd have just claimed and left Dunn's theory dead in the water. It's not really that manipulative imo, because if Roden is actually a mason and the partner claims then everything Dunn says is moot. It really only applies if Roden is fake claiming.

In post 4169, T-Bone wrote:So like maybe you can make an argument that Dunn knows Roden is fake claiming cause they are both scum...but that doesn't seem to be the argument you're making?

I don't think that scum!dunn wanted to make this argument.

I think that he intended to quote them, copy them, post them in a scum chat, but accidentally posted those reads lists here, and then was backed into explaining why he did that.

In post 4166, Lukewarm wrote:The point is what methodology did DUNN USE.