Mafiascum.net

Up!

And for the record, the reason I'm such an ass as town is because I'm actually passionate about my play.

That is missing in my scum game. I've lost that spark.

Even in the distant past, I was personable as scum (most of the time), but that was just to avoid scumreads.

In post 4182, MathBlade wrote:Between that and Ari being in disagreement on every mechanics suggestion or probability suggestion is just odd

“Both scum off wagon” false
Wanting to not follow what’s probable false
Wanting a mass claim when it didn’t seem helpful
Wanting a no elim here when it’s not right

There’s just so many flags there

disagreeing with you on how to play the game is not a scum tell.

let me know if you actually want me to respond to anything.

In post 4071, MathBlade wrote:

In post 4069, Aristeia wrote:If the scum team is Dats/Andres isn't that exactly what they need you to believe to win the game?

But it’s not about belief though.

They don’t know how that system works so they don’t know what I am gleaming from it.

can confirm that i have no f'ing clue how math is coming to the "dats and andres aren't partners" conclusion

In post 4075, House wrote:There's literally nothing to be gained by pocketing me.

"there's literally nothing to be gained by pocketing me", he says as the most townread person in the poe, after just having admitted he is p much never voting ari

dude, you hearing yourself?

ok i read the rest (except the case) and it mostly feels like a huge waste of time because very little of it is focused on Who Is Scum. more from me when i get my coffee.

In post 1224, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 1211, House wrote:That RTP died over either of us, however, is disconcerting.

I agree with this. Why do you think that was House?

this was never answered...

In post 4018, House wrote:

In post 3995, Datisi wrote:house, have you ever explained *why* you were townreading iv so strongly on day 1?

Nope.

then please explain. i see that you posted 4022, but "i relate to the mindset" doesn't explicitly mean you were townreading him for it.

ok so, i reskimmed the beginning of day 2, and i don't see much worry from house about iv being scum. there's one line where he says how it's concerning or wtv that neither he nor iv were shot, but he shrugs it off and goes on to deadsheep rtp. which like, i don't think it adds up to a town mindset for if house really did only claim mason with iv because he related to iv and didn't want to see him eat the yeet on d1.

In post 1565, Something_Smart wrote:I think it's very odd that House and IV townread each other after neither of them died.

In post 1568, Something_Smart wrote:Like if I were scum and couldn't kill in the masons because I knew they were fake but didn't want to make that obvious, RTP would be the perfect kill because they were obvtown and a dayplay threat.

In post 1590, House wrote:Scum don't play along with fake Mason claims.

iv picked up what I was laying down.

mmm.

In post 1323, Aristeia wrote:RTP is extremely loud and had strong thread influence/universally townread so I don't think scum really had a choice regardless of whether they were TPR or not.

also, the fact that this ^^ post exists is making me :thonk: on an ari/house team.

help

can you expand on that further?

if house is scum, then scum *really* doesn't want the town to conclude that "neither of the mason claims has died, which means scum already knows that masons are fake, therefore there's scum in the claims".

and as far as i remember, the "it's concerning neither of them died" were only brought up by baltar and s_s, both of which flipped town. if house/iv *were* town/town, why wouldn't scum attempt to shade them and throw suspicion on them? or at least enable baltar/s_s in doing so?

if claiming mason and then unclaiming mason is scummy, why does house scum do it?

and before i'm hit with "why would house fakeclaim mason to stop the wagon on iv" -- he wasn't stopping the wagon on iv. this was called out at the time, but iv had just gotten a second vote, and a few people thought (i think skitter alongside me?) that the claim was very premature and that iv wasn't in that much danger. *especially* considering you had the loud motherfuckers like me and rtp calling for lapla's head.

the thing is, if lapla wagon had just gone through on day 1, house wouldn't look so hot afterwards, especially after a50 flipped green. look at the way he was treating lapla before the mason claim. but now, he gets to hammer on about how he claimed mason and saved iv when like... that's not what happened. also, right after the claim he started pushing frogs, who is another townie.

You seem to be saying that I am scummy for handwaving/defending why house survived n1 and this caused you to think me/house are scumteam... when the much simpler move for me if I were actually scum with house would be to get him to not claim mason in the first place?

In post 4215, Datisi wrote:also, right after the claim he started pushing frogs, who is another townie.

do you really think frogs was viable at d1?

In post 4214, Aristeia wrote:if claiming mason and then unclaiming mason is scummy, why does house scum do it?

that's not what i said. claiming then unclaiming mason can be townie. the fact that he showed absolutely no worry about iv being scum *after* they were both alive... that's what's sketchy.

(and also, i'm not sure i buy the "i didn't want to mislead town further, that's why i retracted my claim" because house clearly did not shy away from lying later in the game, and retracting the claim gives him more of an excuse for why the masons are not dying -- but this isn't a point that i can argue well enough, so.)

In post 4217, Aristeia wrote:

In post 4215, Datisi wrote:also, right after the claim he started pushing frogs, who is another townie.

do you really think frogs was viable at d1?

no, and i'm not saying he was. it sets up a trajectory for pushing frogs. i think the whole idea was that house gets a way to ~flashily~ get onto his scumbuddy's wagon, and later on claim how he stopped the iv wagon and how he wouldn't do that as scum and etc etc. because his associates with lapla before that are Not Good.

In post 4218, Datisi wrote:

In post 4214, Aristeia wrote:if claiming mason and then unclaiming mason is scummy, why does house scum do it?

that's not what i said. claiming then unclaiming mason can be townie. the fact that he showed absolutely no worry about iv being scum *after* they were both alive... that's what's sketchy.

(and also, i'm not sure i buy the "i didn't want to mislead town further, that's why i retracted my claim" because house clearly did not shy away from lying later in the game, and retracting the claim gives him more of an excuse for why the masons are not dying -- but this isn't a point that i can argue well enough, so.)

Isn't that only sketchy if house/iv are both mafia? It is not difficult for scum house to fake suspicion of town!iv and advantageous to do so

and what happens after house plants the idea into everyone's head that there's scum in iv/house, and iv flips green?

I don't think the blowback would be that bad


What is the motivation for house!scum to fakeclaim mason with town!iv?

actually if house!scum and iv!town wouldnt it make more sense for house to shoot IV to make it look like scum doesn't know the mason claim is fake?

In post 4222, Aristeia wrote:I don't think the blowback would be that bad

What is the motivation for house!scum to fakeclaim mason with town!iv?

it depends how "bad" the blowback would be, but it would also put scum!house in a very difficult position, where he'd have to fake trajectories that aren't that easily fakeable.

and i already explained that, attention-grabbing and towncred-grabbing. if the lapla wagon had gone through the way it was supposed to go through, house would've looked Bad. this way, he can say how he saved iv from the certain death that he was faced with (2 votes), and how the lapla wagon wouldn't have gone through without him.

In post 4223, Aristeia wrote:actually if house!scum and iv!town wouldnt it make more sense for house to shoot IV to make it look like scum doesn't know the mason claim is fake?

iv was still a very much possible misyeet. i think they were better off banking on the fact that nobody takes the "why isn't a mason dead?" too far.