Mafiascum.net

In post 368, SausasaurusRex wrote:

In post 366, Joey_ wrote:

In post 347, SausasaurusRex wrote:

In post 325, rb wrote:

In post 319, SausasaurusRex wrote:

In post 295, Joey_ wrote:

In post 289, rb wrote:at this point i can't read saus apart from "i am hugely worried about how i'm perceived" but they seem to think that's what the game is actually about for both alignments

don't know how to interpret it

saus has been giving me vibes of open wolfing troll veteran or a genuine new player who flipped town but is being extremely self-conscious (trait I historically associate much more w/ scum than town)

It would make sense for you to perceive it as scum. If you look back at my previous games, you’ll see I’ve only ever played scum before, never town, so I apologise if my priorities are slightly wrong.

alright, so does anyone in this game jump out as you as being likely scummy or towny saus?

I think Jake the Wolfie is town. I know some people disagree, but he’s playing very similar to the last game I had with him when he was town. I know meta arguments aren’t great, but I think if you’ll look at newbie game 1966 you’ll see what I mean.

I don’t like the look of Dolly. Even if the mason claim was a joke, it wasn’t a good one, and only served to make people suspicious of her. Not a good play for scum or town. This alone isn’t good enough for a lynch in further consideration, however. UNVOTE: Dolly Parton

Kcdaspot isn’t great either. He frequently says things without justifying them (see 146, 52 (which is followed by the vague 57) and 290 (why exactly is it null? Can we have an explanation?) for examples). However, this isn’t scum-indicative by itself.

I think Invisible’s slip is worth following through. Invisible also doesn’t seem to try to make himself look townish to other players either. He mocks Kcdaspot’s style of writing in 123. However, like Kcdaspot (and Dolly), he fails to provide reasoning for some of his posts.

I think that currently, the best thing to do is to follow through with Invisible’s slip and lynch him, though this could change later depending on what happens.

VOTE: Invisible

Like, this is the perfect exemple to show my point in my last post. Its an overly justifying and posturizing post with no actual content where he sheeps a read he doesn't have. Saus even takes the time to explain a read on 3-4 slots, yet the most important part of his post should've been where he places his vote. All he does about that is claim that the slip is "worth following through" and that Inv is basically is not playing in an agreeable way

Saus, can you explain me the slip you are read to lynch someone for?

Firstly, I would like to say that nothing is ever “over-justifiable”. An argument for why you think something is always better than not having one. To say mafia, a game about convincing people to lynch scum, can have opportunities to over-justify, is to say that mafia is a game about guessing, rather than logic. If an argument can be expressed logically, an intelligent person will agree. By not justifying an argument, you give no reason for anyone to agree. Therefore, it is always better to explain an argument.

In answer to your question, I would say it is simply because of the slip. Nobody else appears more scummy than that slip to me, and since you should vote who you think is most scummy (unless you have ulterior motives) I voted him.
In addition, my vote is not just a vote, but a statement. It tells Invisible that there are people who suspect him, which is good for neither town or mafia.

By voting him, I ensure that he will provide a reason for why he is town.

We can then judge his reason to see if it makes sense or not, and then work from there. If he has a good reason, or someone else is seeming more scummy, my vote will change. However, his reason may contradict his earlier statements, or be a scumtell or a slip, which can prove that he is scum, or at least worthy of a D1 lynch.
This is why I voted Invisible, and will continue to do so until he changes my opinion or someone else seems more scummy.

How are you so sure that you can ensure this? What if he refuses to cooperate or self-votes like Jake did?

In post 434, eth0s wrote:

@Wake88 and Lil Uzi Vert:

How do you feel about alimdia, RB, tris, kcda, and each other?

The only player I have a good amount of experience with is rb. His play here feels like his town game. The others haven’t made much of an impression on me yet.

In post 441, Dolly Parton wrote:

In post 439, Invisibility wrote:

In post 413, Dolly Parton wrote:

In post 376, Invisibility wrote:

In post 333, Dolly Parton wrote:VOTE: Jake The Wolfie

Follow me Almi let's put this counter wagon to the test.

are we svs or do you not think I slipped anymore

I believed in the slip just enough to get on the wagon. SvS? Maybe, I highly doubt it though.

so you don’t believe the slip anymore

I don't don't believe it. I just don't think it's worth pursuing anymore. Doesn't mean it might be relevant later on down the road.

so is there a possibility that it was a real slip and a possibility that it wasn’t in your mind?

saus how do you want me to prove I’m town

In post 449, Joey_ wrote:BTW to anyone who actually cares, reading Ark's games shows a good portrait of what player she can be

Hey thanks! But, to make a counter point: I just don't really know what the ever living fuck is going on, and a lot of what I think has been stated already by better, stronger players. Maybe I'm more nervous stepping into the big leagues or parroting things I've already hard or read, but if you want my analysis of things properly, I'll be more than willing to give that a go.

In post 447, Joey_ wrote: Then she posted (443), outing 4 reads and not a single piece of informations about why. This is not inherently AI but it just shows that there's no transparent thought process she could be read on.
Then she claims

"I'm going to give the thread another read and try to get some analysis going on."

and that's obviously a fucking lie because 443 is pure garbage with not an ounce of value. I also asked a question (403) which she didn't aknowledge at all. If she really was trying to reread the game and has some "analysis going on" she most likely would've seen my question and remembered to answer it.

Two things;

I actually didn't see 403 at all. That one is on me, but otherwise, yes.

443 was legitimately a meta question, since, as you've pointed out too, I don't generally play the way of quoting everything I disagree with, and prefer making a wall. I had my notes written and was just waiting for an answer before I made my posts.


Anyways,

In post 403, Joey_ wrote:Why can't you see any of jake and inv as mefia?

Jake himself doesn't come off as scummy to me, as much as someone try-harding into the scene. A lot of it has to do with his past games, but also this given game. It's a lot less 'scum' as much more as he's given up and not interested at all, as you can see in 115, 119 and 243 and 269. The running trend is a lot more apahtehtic and completely disinterested, but town. I get the feeling he doesn't like the group, or is somewhere near that.

Invisibility, however is a much more interesting case to me. A lot of his posts are provoking or snippets, like 73, 75 and 122. From what I gather when I first read it, the entire sus came out of nowhere, for some sort of 'slip'. His entire 'when town votes for itself' doesn't actually feel like a scumslip at all to me, but as much as "I love when people make idiot plays".

It's basically two people fighting over nothing, and neither of them are worth the vote, which is what it seemed like the group agreed on.


Now, moving on.

The newest thing I really had to comment on was Dolly.

I don't get her. Like at all, and when I was writing my notes, I was wondering what the point of the things she was posting was. 419 has it the best, a lot of the action and claim serves no purpose for town, and just makes a weird stance for me. 442, 340 and its ilk. To be more descriptive, I cant figure out the angle? Is it chaos? Is it just random stuff? I don't know what Dolly is trying to accomplish.

Finally, for you.

In post 446, Joey_ wrote:

In post 445, SausasaurusRex wrote:

In post 404, Joey_ wrote:@saus

This isn’t what I said. I voted Invisible because of the slip, not because I believe in the lynch. I believe in the lynch because I voted her. The original vote stems not from believing in the lynch, but from the scumminess of the slip.

Of course it's not exactly what you said, but it's what your answer heavily implies, basically dodging the question

Your were told "you don't seem to really believe in this lynch".
I am not tris, but I am going to assume that she's saying that the way you use the slip argument to justify your vote, seems ungenuine as if you didn't believe it yourself. Btw I shared that feeling when i said you were voting for a read you didn't have yourself.

You answered "Why would I vote for it if I didn’t believe it was the best choice?". You can rephrase your answer as "I believe it's the best choice of a lynch because I am voting him"
Basically, you are deflecting the whole point about you using the slip to push a vote, twice over considering I already asked you to explain the slip and you dodged it.

You have a bad habit of not answering questions

I will ask for a third time
Can you explain me what is inv's slip and what is the "scumminess of the slip"?

I think you're pretty much town. I know that's a pointless, shallow read, but it does bring up my starting point. I kind of agree I have no idea what the fuck Saus is talking about. Whereas Saus claims (his claim isn't circular as much as its just... not explained). He believes in his vote because he believes invis slipped something, but I dont know what the hell he slipped. Eh, it's weird.


But anyways, for my vote, I'm going with what my gut thinks.

VOTE: Dolly

Also, why are you calling me a she?

I feel pretty good about RB, Joey, kcda slot, and Arkias being town. In that order.

In post 446, Joey_ wrote:

In post 445, SausasaurusRex wrote:

In post 404, Joey_ wrote:@saus

This isn’t what I said. I voted Invisible because of the slip, not because I believe in the lynch. I believe in the lynch because I voted her. The original vote stems not from believing in the lynch, but from the scumminess of the slip.

Of course it's not exactly what you said, but it's what your answer heavily implies, basically dodging the question

Your were told "you don't seem to really believe in this lynch".
I am not tris, but I am going to assume that she's saying that the way you use the slip argument to justify your vote, seems ungenuine as if you didn't believe it yourself. Btw I shared that feeling when i said you were voting for a read you didn't have yourself.

You answered "Why would I vote for it if I didn’t believe it was the best choice?". You can rephrase your answer as "I believe it's the best choice of a lynch because I am voting him"
Basically, you are deflecting the whole point about you using the slip to push a vote, twice over considering I already asked you to explain the slip and you dodged it.

You have a bad habit of not answering questions

I will ask for a third time
Can you explain me what is inv's slip and what is the "scumminess of the slip"?

Invisible's slip was in post 122. It is a slip because Invisible wouldn't know Jake was town unless he was scum. Therefore, this tells me Invisible must be scum, because only scum knows who is town. This is the scumminess of the slip. In addition, even if he was town and somehow knew Jake was town, there would be no reason for him to love Jake voting himself.
Therefore, since this made me think Invisible is scum, I voted him. I also believe in the lynch because I think he's scum. This is not circular reasoning. I voted Invisible because I think he's scum due to the slip, and believe in the lynch because I think he is scum. I got the result that he is scum from the slip,not because I "believe in the lynch".
I don't see what other justification there can be for believing in a lynch. Surely it follows naturally that, by thinking someone is scum, I think they should be lynched. I apologize if you expected a different answer to the one I have given multiple times, but this is what I believe.

I didn't intend to ignore you, I had forgotten you asked me. This is a bad habit, and I apologize for it.
I also don't see what makes my argument seem ingenuine either. I have explained many times why I thought it works, and the argument is logical and makes sense. As nobody else seems more scummy at the moment to me, I should vote Invisible, no?

In post 451, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:

In post 434, eth0s wrote:

@Wake88 and Lil Uzi Vert:

How do you feel about alimdia, RB, tris, kcda, and each other?

The only player I have a good amount of experience with is rb. His play here feels like his town game. The others haven’t made much of an impression on me yet.

I get that you're generally lurky and don't really case things but I truly don't see how you have nothing to say about anyone but rb

hi

EYYYY BILLY MY MAN

I'm loving these replacements

oh hey, another person I know.

Wow, few folks I know here. Hey Arkias, is this your first game outside newbie queue?

Imma try and catch up over the next 24 hours. 19 pages so give me some time.

In the meanwhile, I see that the votes are pretty spread out so UNVOTE:

Eth0s, we played anywhere but 223 together, where you pulled one of the weirdest gambits I ever saw when you were town?

Billy, can you give a readlist?

In post 467, Billy Pilgrim wrote:Eth0s, we played anywhere but 223 together, where you pulled one of the weirdest gambits I ever saw when you were town?

yeah we played in Newbie 1950 together, too.

It is in fact my first game out of Newbie Queue. It's pretty cool so far to be at page 19 in like 2 days.

In post 407, alimdia wrote:

In post 360, tris wrote:

In post 202, alimdia wrote:

In post 195, Wake1 wrote:Dolly, rb, Alimdia, do you also feel that Jake's post comes off as Try-Hard Scum?

126

I'm gonna be honest its really hard to read cos I gotta keep going back and forth.

Its really fluffy as well.
He mentions me calling out Invis's 'slip' but then puts eth0s at the most scummy.

Something that might make sense is Kcdaspot and eth0s power-wolf'ing/mafia'ing but he didn't even mention that.

I'm inclined to think that invis vs jake is actually SvS. That's pretty rare I must say, but it seems like some light bussing gone wrong.

what makes you think he might be town and not scum?

Um I'm pretty sure at that point I thought it was SvS, so this question makes 0 sense.

You said you were going back and forth. so presumably, there were also reasons for you to think that jake was not scum.

In post 414, Dolly Parton wrote:

In post 379, Invisibility wrote:kdca and saus townreads have drained away because not enough work
also the saus read was kinda of dumb to begin with but it’s okay
also kdca was kind of kicking jake a few times when I was arguing with him does that make sense?
in retrospect it’s kinda scummy
yeah actually I don’t like that at all

also UNVOTE:
if it’s Jake’s meta
has he played as scum?

anyway VOTE: alim

Alim votes at this point are POINTless. What info will we get from this lynch today, even if Alim flips red. I mean it could clear you but I disagree with your read here.

why would that lynch give less information than other lynches?

In post 431, eth0s wrote:

In post 381, tris wrote:

In post 295, Joey_ wrote:

In post 289, rb wrote:at this point i can't read saus apart from "i am hugely worried about how i'm perceived" but they seem to think that's what the game is actually about for both alignments

don't know how to interpret it

saus has been giving me vibes of open wolfing troll veteran or a genuine new player who flipped town but is being extremely self-conscious (trait I historically associate much more w/ scum than town)

or newer scum who thinks he can get away with hiding behind his newbishness.

apparently ethos has experience with him. i would like to hear more from ethos about him.

well.. what aspect do you want to hear about? ngl I don't understand why you'd say something like that without asking me a relevant question or something

fair enough

In post 443, Arkias wrote:I need to ask moving forward,

is the accepted meta doing posts per thing you're responding too, or doing big wall texts? Historically, I've done wall texts, but it also gives me an incredibly low post count -- but reading Ethos/Dolly/Tris doing it, makes me wonder if I'm playing this wrong?

Thanks

however you want to do it.

In post 468, Jake The Wolfie wrote:Billy, can you give a readlist?

I'm only through pg 4. I will get to the rest later. But as of pg 4, I'm liking invisibility a good bit. Not liking Dollys play all that much, think that she opportunistically hopped onto Sausarex, then backed off after a pretty nai explanation. Not scumreading her, but it just felt strange and stuck out. I think I like Alimdia's interactions with invisibility, I think that their interactions with your slot on pg 4 are less natural. I dont know why when they're looking at the interaction you are having with invisibility and identify what you're doing as a misrep they dont vote and put pressure on you.

Not liking your play as of the end of pg 4. I think your interactions with Invisibility arent good. I see you excessively shading and i dont see you trying to sort his motivation. I think you're trying to make him look bad rather than find out his alignment, and that sort of play comes from scum more than it comes from town.

Still catching up. Will have more tomorrow morning.

I'll be posting soon. Working currently. (Night nurse.)

hi again billy!