Mafiascum.net

Also, I’d know what was going on if I was in the scum PT and would just go there for an explanation.
But ahah, that’s just what I want you to think.

But actually.

In post 4273, Cephrir wrote:

In post 4268, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Wait, hold on. Roles are not revealed upon death so it's surely +EV for scum to NOT have the Mason claim? If it's a fake claim, and only one of them claim, then they get a ride off of it. If it's fake, two scum would have to claim Mason to make it viable, no?

What is the downside to Mason claiming if it's true?

a lot of players seem to be struggling with this concept:

masons being dead isn't good

they should easily be able to construct an unassailable crumb. like, spell out their name with the last letter of the second word in each post multiple times, or something

By the same token, if Roden is lying then scum being alive is also very much not good.

Masons are hardly game breaking either so to assume they would be insta killed is kind of like, meh?

An unassailable crumb would be difficult to find, no?

In post 4276, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 4273, Cephrir wrote:

In post 4268, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Wait, hold on. Roles are not revealed upon death so it's surely +EV for scum to NOT have the Mason claim? If it's a fake claim, and only one of them claim, then they get a ride off of it. If it's fake, two scum would have to claim Mason to make it viable, no?

What is the downside to Mason claiming if it's true?

a lot of players seem to be struggling with this concept:

masons being dead isn't good

they should easily be able to construct an unassailable crumb. like, spell out their name with the last letter of the second word in each post multiple times, or something

By the same token, if Roden is lying then scum being alive is also very much not good.

yes, but i don't think he's likely to be lying. rose and bernard are exactly the best mason claim possible by flavor, too

Flavor =/= alignment

In post 4277, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Masons are hardly game breaking either so to assume they would be insta killed is kind of like, meh?

An unassailable crumb would be difficult to find, no?

the surviving partner should be told about the crumb in the PT so they can point it out

In post 4280, Cephrir wrote:

In post 4277, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Masons are hardly game breaking either so to assume they would be insta killed is kind of like, meh?

An unassailable crumb would be difficult to find, no?

the surviving partner should be told about the crumb in the PT so they can point it out

I'm dumb.

OK, if Roden leaves clear crumbs then I guess Mason shouldn't claim then

In post 4271, Dancing Puppets wrote:

In post 4264, Frogsterking wrote:@Pooky

Ceph -> scum
Bell -> scum
Roden -> Town

Why is Bell scum?

I explained my rationale in 4254.

In post 4278, Cephrir wrote:

In post 4276, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 4273, Cephrir wrote:

In post 4268, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Wait, hold on. Roles are not revealed upon death so it's surely +EV for scum to NOT have the Mason claim? If it's a fake claim, and only one of them claim, then they get a ride off of it. If it's fake, two scum would have to claim Mason to make it viable, no?

What is the downside to Mason claiming if it's true?

a lot of players seem to be struggling with this concept:

masons being dead isn't good

they should easily be able to construct an unassailable crumb. like, spell out their name with the last letter of the second word in each post multiple times, or something

By the same token, if Roden is lying then scum being alive is also very much not good.

yes, but i don't think he's likely to be lying. rose and bernard are exactly the best mason claim possible by flavor, too

they r not the best mason claim

i wouldve made them lost masons who have to find each other

I'm down to wagon Ceph, Bell or Dwlee.

In post 4283, Frogsterking wrote:

In post 4271, Dancing Puppets wrote:

In post 4264, Frogsterking wrote:@Pooky

Ceph -> scum
Bell -> scum
Roden -> Town

Why is Bell scum?

I explained my rationale in 4254.

I explained what I was doing immediately after you made your rationale.
Any questions?

In post 4285, Frogsterking wrote:I'm down to wagon Ceph, Bell or Dwlee.

Cool. Alright then.

best mason flavor claim probly jin/sun

On a scale of 1 to 10 how mad would you be Nancy if Titus was trying to cover for Dunnstral’s mistake?

What mistake?

In post 4287, Bell wrote:

In post 4285, Frogsterking wrote:I'm down to wagon Ceph, Bell or Dwlee.

Cool. Alright then.

Nothing personal, I've been talked down from my tone reads successfully by scum before. My experience is that I don't give my observations of this kind enough weight and I regret it later.

Dunnstral openly doubted Roden’s claim.

In post 4092, MathBlade wrote:Why is it a facepalm?

You defend me because you know I am trying and realize I got a short end of the Schlick

Nancy then realizes I might be miselim able and gradually flips

A mason partner will eventually be clear why the fuck are you fishing?

I don’t know whether I should be sad or amused by how little you still know me after all this time. I genuinely want to sort you and now, you look more town again.

But bb is still definitely more suss than Klick. His entire reasoning for voting us is utter bs, which is why he’s still in my PoE.

And you clearly ignored the post where I unvoted you and said I didn’t want to rush anything? Remember?

OK? And that's a mistake because?

Am I missing context here or?

It's funny how people are talking about BB or Dunn being scum and I was laughed off the face of the thread for suggesting it earlier in the game.

In post 4291, Frogsterking wrote:

In post 4287, Bell wrote:

In post 4285, Frogsterking wrote:I'm down to wagon Ceph, Bell or Dwlee.

Cool. Alright then.

Nothing personal, I've been talked down from my tone reads successfully by scum before. My experience is that I don't give my observations of this kind enough weight and I regret it later.

Well, I gave you my full real reasoning. I’m not worried about being eliminated for awhile if ever. So, you can have it but know that you’re not gunna get brownie points for having a wrong read that went against the grain. You only get that for having a right read that went against the grain.

In post 4095, MathBlade wrote:Like if y’all elim Roden it’s not the end of the world as we likely get a conf town tomorrow but I’d rather not elim what is probably a true claim.

I don’t think I want to vote Math anymore.

In post 4286, Bell wrote:

In post 4283, Frogsterking wrote:

In post 4271, Dancing Puppets wrote:

In post 4264, Frogsterking wrote:@Pooky

Ceph -> scum
Bell -> scum
Roden -> Town

Why is Bell scum?

I explained my rationale in 4254.

I explained what I was doing immediately after you made your rationale.
Any questions?

In post 4287, Bell wrote:

In post 4285, Frogsterking wrote:I'm down to wagon Ceph, Bell or Dwlee.

Cool. Alright then.

In post 4289, Bell wrote:On a scale of 1 to 10 how mad would you be Nancy if Titus was trying to cover for Dunnstral’s mistake?

In post 4290, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:What mistake?

In post 4292, Bell wrote:Dunnstral openly doubted Roden’s claim.

In post 4294, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:OK? And that's a mistake because?

Am I missing context here or?

I think this looks like Bell!scum choking because they were distracted from arguing down my tone read.

How do you know Dunn made a mistake?

In post 4294, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:OK? And that's a mistake because?

Am I missing context here or?

Already explained that a Mason claim is bad for scum to make here. It’s unlikely to be false.
Dunnstral is probably better than this.