Mafiascum.net

I mean if you think it's a forged townslip you need to murder it, I still think the slot is scummy. I bought into it. But maybe I shouldn't.

For some reason I feel like 342 is a scummy post if it's not catching scum but I don't feel very able to articulate why.
Probably how it's such a stinging accusation so gently worded?
Which might be a tweet thing and have to do with me scumreading her every game, but it might not have to do with that, what can I do about it.

In post 408, tea leaves wrote:[
119: Exactly what I mean in Farren, Morning Tweet! But why don't you just call him out on it instead of mentioning it in this shady way?

I thought it was a very thoughtful, methodical approach to playing the game. But i have no reason to believe Farren only does this as scum.

at the moment (or at least during that post) i was honestly taken back by the deliberateness of his posts. There was part of me that goes "Really, you had all that planned out?" but I dont quite see why scum!Farren would feel the need to over explain his minor interactions.

And im guessing from the way Farren explains in some of his later posts, he has a tendency to play like this (although I havent checked)

In post 371, Morning Tweet wrote:no

I'm pretty sure the error was that there was 3 scum. GL and I both had Farren as our partner. that's why i made the face at farren during my RVS vote (・ω<)

While I had GuiltyLion specifically as mine. And here I was thinking it was a clever ploy of some sort.

In post 425, Isis wrote:I mean if you think it's a forged townslip you need to murder it, I still think the slot is scummy. I bought into it. But maybe I shouldn't.

For some reason I feel like 342 is a scummy post if it's not catching scum but I don't feel very able to articulate why.
Probably how it's such a stinging accusation so gently worded?
Which might be a tweet thing and have to do with me scumreading her every game, but it might not have to do with that, what can I do about it.

It's funny how i liked clidd but tea leaves' over emphasis on being a tree + explicitly claiming tree just feels weird to me.

Essentially i could tell they werent a new player, so i wondered if they were going for the newish player townslip approach. Scum has a lot to gain from townslipping a tree claim, town doesnt really have much reason to emphasize it. Tea was like "Hah I didnt think I'd be a tree, but I am that's nice! ... Hah I didnt want to reread but I'm a tree so that's nice!" twoish posts apart

Town doesnt really need to do that other than for WIFOM I guess which is what they claimed to be doing. So idk.

I love your line about gently wording a stinging accusation. describes it perfectly

ughhhhhhhhhhhh
tweet can you just get mechcleared in one of my games please

you're complimenting me! I'm attacking you!

In post 355, tea leaves wrote:Isis resonated some feelings of Treeness when she reacted to my entrance so I like her already because she seemed honestly frustrated at her scumread maybe being wrong. MT asking me about slipping on being a Tree also seemed like a good question

what do you all make of these two townreads then

I guess I can imagine scum faking a townslip and then buddying both their accuser and defender, but it feels like a narrow path to take as scum here

does scum admit that being pressed on their fake townslip is a good question?

Tree is the word I was using for being a townie Tweet! I wasn't claiming my role.

In post 425, Isis wrote:I mean if you think it's a forged townslip you need to murder it, I still think the slot is scummy. I bought into it. But maybe I shouldn't.

For some reason I feel like 342 is a scummy post if it's not catching scum but I don't feel very able to articulate why.
Probably how it's such a stinging accusation so gently worded?
Which might be a tweet thing and have to do with me scumreading her every game, but it might not have to do with that, what can I do about it.

I don't think it's a townslip or a forged attempt at a townslip. To me, a townslip is where a Town shows ignorance of something that scum would have to be knowledgeable of.

For example: when I got that scum PM, I noted that this game didn't have daytalk. I'm used to games that have daytalk and had assumed that this game followed suit, so I made a note to myself to "slip" that I thought we had daytalk. Voila - forged townslip. Then I got a Town PM on the second roll, and the plan was wasted.

Here, that's not what happened. tea leaves demonstrated knowledge of the flavor and rules. That's available in the rules post. NAI.

In post 428, Morning Tweet wrote:Town doesnt really need to do that other than for WIFOM I guess which is what they claimed to be doing. So idk.

No that's not what I was trying to do. I was just claiming I was a townie and Tree is the flavor for townies in this game.

yeah Farren's right, especially given tea saying that they were trying to claim townie. NAI when it's possible that tea leaves read the setup post as scum.

In post 431, GuiltyLion wrote:

In post 355, tea leaves wrote:Isis resonated some feelings of Treeness when she reacted to my entrance so I like her already because she seemed honestly frustrated at her scumread maybe being wrong. MT asking me about slipping on being a Tree also seemed like a good question

what do you all make of these two townreads then

I guess I can imagine scum faking a townslip and then buddying both their accuser and defender, but it feels like a narrow path to take as scum here

does scum admit that being pressed on their fake townslip is a good question?

as a life principle when someone validates my reason for scumreading them I say "thanks for the help". It's too often the case that doing the to placate is easier than refutation.

in specific circumstances I would find validating a scumread reason unlikely but I don't see anything in this situation that makes me want to move away from my rule of thumb

In post 426, Morning Tweet wrote:I thought it was a very thoughtful, methodical approach to playing the game. But i have no reason to believe Farren only does this as scum.

at the moment (or at least during that post) i was honestly taken back by the deliberateness of his posts. There was part of me that goes "Really, you had all that planned out?" but I dont quite see why scum!Farren would feel the need to over explain his minor interactions.

And im guessing from the way Farren explains in some of his later posts, he has a tendency to play like this (although I havent checked)

Correct. There's usually a point in the game where I shift styles. If I become conftown, that tends to trigger it. But my ability to deliberately switch it is one-way only; I can deliberately try to play more mechanically and methodically, but I can't deliberately shift in the other direction. It just happens at some point.

Isis wrote:you're complimenting me! I'm attacking you!

im the kind of player who will apologize for playing bad if other ppl are pushing me

tea leaves wrote:

In post 428, Morning Tweet wrote:Town doesnt really need to do that other than for WIFOM I guess which is what they claimed to be doing. So idk.

No that's not what I was trying to do. I was just claiming I was a townie and Tree is the flavor for townies in this game.

Orly

hmmmm

In post 435, GuiltyLion wrote:yeah Farren's right, especially given tea saying that they were trying to claim townie. NAI when it's possible that tea leaves read the setup post as scum.

it's actually the weighted average of 0*(chance they read the setup) and 100*(chance they didn't read the setup) unless the scum role PM or scum PT is pretty explicit about the weird sample role PM where you are a tree and not a person
people don't always read the setup so that might be better than the dumb stuff I go on to try to use to read everyone later this game

In post 437, Farren wrote:

In post 426, Morning Tweet wrote:I thought it was a very thoughtful, methodical approach to playing the game. But i have no reason to believe Farren only does this as scum.

at the moment (or at least during that post) i was honestly taken back by the deliberateness of his posts. There was part of me that goes "Really, you had all that planned out?" but I dont quite see why scum!Farren would feel the need to over explain his minor interactions.

And im guessing from the way Farren explains in some of his later posts, he has a tendency to play like this (although I havent checked)

Correct. There's usually a point in the game where I shift styles. If I become conftown, that tends to trigger it. But my ability to deliberately switch it is one-way only; I can deliberately try to play more mechanically and methodically, but I can't deliberately shift in the other direction. It just happens at some point.

you're not going to be my font of memes for this game, are you?

What happens when you become conftown Farren? Do you change your avi to a cat one?

In post 386, Isis wrote:

In post 369, GuiltyLion wrote:- I had some reservations about Menalque/Isis slot but I think that read on it makes sense

Can you tell me why you were scumreading my slot so that even if you townread me and burn me from here out I'm sure to make you play on hard mode

I've townread Menalque both times I played against him as scum in the past, soooo I don't have a great track record with reading him. and I was a little uneasy whether scum was scumreading clidd slot with me.

I also think it's kinda wonky that Menalque made a bunch of noise about clidd but wound up townreading him, then you come in and immediately reverse course and go back to pushing him, meanwhile both of you indicated suspicion of Farren but no real action there

In post 388, Isis wrote:GL I'm not finding where ydrasse talked about her read, is the pop-in being complained about several pages ago?

page 12, posts 283 and 285

In post 442, GuiltyLion wrote:I've townread Menalque both times I played against him as scum in the past, soooo I don't have a great track record with reading him. and I was a little uneasy whether scum was scumreading clidd slot with me.

I also think it's kinda wonky that Menalque made a bunch of noise about clidd but wound up townreading him, then you come in and immediately reverse course and go back to pushing him, meanwhile both of you indicated suspicion of Farren but no real action there

What do you define as real action?

In post 395, Ydrasse wrote:i think this is probably a self-centered view regarding guiltylion because he voted me, but it feels as if he's hyperfocused on a few small things that are at odds with being as cognizant of the game state as he is?

In post 396, Ydrasse wrote:like, i guess it seems like a macro assessment of things (that i agreed with, no one pushing anything with vengeance) that zooms in onto me for reasons that don't hold much weight fmpov (the vote and me not trying to find the baddies) which seems... contradictory? in how to view the game as a whole.

how am I not being cognizant of the game state?

like from my view - I'm re-evaluating clidd slot and pressuring a slot that has been voting him the whole game yet not seemingly updating that read based on the content he's given. That leads me to decide to vote/pressure you. Why can you not imagine this coming from a town!GL perspective?

In post 399, Isis wrote:GL how do you read farren?

I see him as town, I think the stuff pinging me early game was tone clash

@Farren - a vote and a push? Isis gave some reasons for not liking you on entry but went on tea leaves instead, didn't move to you when vocalizing doubts about tea leaves, that's what I'm pointing to here

395 looks like it's saying you *are* cognizant of the gamestate, and is reinforced by her agreement of your assessment in 396.

Your second question is a good one, though.

I want to make some reads and analyzing everything was taking too long so I'm just quickly reading everything and then gonna post them.

In post 442, GuiltyLion wrote: I also think it's kinda wonky that Menalque made a bunch of noise about clidd but wound up townreading him, then you come in and immediately reverse course and go back to pushing him, meanwhile both of you indicated suspicion of Farren but no real action there

The former I agree with. The last part, I'm uncertain but that's indistinguishable from the bad angle so sure. The middle point doesn't make sense as an actual reason to be suspicious, it's just a thing that happened. My reads only have like a rand probability to be the same as Menalque's.