Mafiascum.net

In post 449, Nathann wrote:

In post 427, Pavowski wrote:

In post 406, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:If Pavowski and Cyrus can agree on a 5 that does not include Nathann I'll sheep it

I've been noodling on this all day, and I just don't think scum goes so hard against a single slot, especially one that's, if not being scum read, has had a hard time getting traction in the coalition.

I'm not saying Kyo is right, I just don't see why scum would tunnel like that here.

Isn't this an older Scum tactic? Tunnel a single Town slot to appear busy, save yourself from actually having to do fake analysis of other people and whatnot. If she is Scum here, I'd guess that means her partner is already on their way to be in the Coalition, and she's setting up a later Day plan to get me yeeted after we find her partner in the Coalition... But that's too far into speculation.

Pavowski, do you need anything from me to help you read me better? Like, I'm reading your hesitancy, and I really don't get it.

I haven't seen that tactic used ever.

I just answered a lot of that post in 446:

Why am I certain? Gut instinct on reading that post was that the repetition comes from.scum that is forcing it. I try to go with my gut on D1 because when I dont I feel bad later when I was right. Most recently, I can think of ItalianoVD in Mini Normal XXXX | Screaming (may be remembering the wrong mini) and Guillotina and Robert M Hunter in Chrono Trigger Chronicles, as well as RMH in 3d20. There was also T3 in Open 820 Siege of Aurelia, and MistyX in Owners Market Blitz, who I correctly scumread off a vibe of an innocuous post, but ended up eliminating them so it worked out.

Specifically Mistyx, ItalianoVD, and Guillotina reads are what my read on you now feels like to me.

Ignoring everything else? I've been duped out of my gut reads too many times recently to drop them easily anymore. I'm going to hold on to this one like a dog with a bone for the time being.

I'm not interested in meta diving right now. I may do it later of I feel stuck after rereading the thread.

Opinion on anything else you've said? I've been reading it, responding where I have questions/comments to share. If there is anything else specific of yours that you want me to address, same offer, q+ and @me and I'll address it

In post 450, Hakai wrote:I haven't seen that tactic used ever.

Okay. Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Gut instinct on reading that post was that the repetition comes from.scum that is forcing it.

Or, , the repetition came because I wanted to make myself clear and because there were two different theoretical disagreements at play - Fareen disagreeing on theory with Save the Dragons, and me disagreeing on theory with Farren.

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:I'm going to hold on to this one like a dog with a bone for the time being.

Should I read this as you not being interested in listening to literally anything that anyone else is saying about me and being willing to die on this hill?

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Opinion on anything else you've said? I've been reading it, responding where I have questions/comments to share.

This ties in to the above. I am highly skeptical of a good faith Town player making a read on me (or on anyone, really) based on tone from one (1) post and then not using literally anything else that that player has said in order to read them. The point isn't that I want you to respond to a certain point of mine, the point is that by not taking into account literally anything else I'm doing (or what others are saying about me), your read on me feels willfully ignorant.

In post 446, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:I'm just waiting for the coalition to settle in at this point. If we dont win, I'll give the thread a reread once I have info on which group of 5 is guaranteed to have scum. I'll continue to argue against you being in it and maybe try to get myself in but I think that ship has sailed. Maybe the replacement will reenergize me, but that's not what I'm waiting on.

i think im good with my 5. i dont need to get ssbm to agree with me.

In post 453, cyrus62 wrote:i think im good with my 5.

cyrus, please either give me an actual reason why Hakai is Town or explain to me why my 369 is wrong.

Now I'm getting the feeling Kyouko might be Town, there really is precedent to strong gut reads and play like this. Though even that would have to be taken with a grain of salt, considering the rest of her ISO is also, uh. Not Good.

In post 444, Pavowski wrote:Hard to say, I replaced in to my last game with him. Again, more of my TR on STD is coming from a few genuine-feeling interactions in this thread, rather than his tone (which feels pretty consistent across games, if a little more relaxed here).

Also I am getting whiffs of scummy "better make sure I post something" vibes from this. I compare farren earlier in the thread with farren here. This is the only substantive post in 24 hours, and calling it substantive is a stretch.

Do not like

I do take breaks from the game from time to time. I find it's better for my mental health that way. And yes, I will make brief check-ins during those breaks. And I will continue to do that as necessary. Anyone who doesn't like that - too bad.

With regards to STD: I'm not seeing the Town there. Hence my questions - enough other people are seeing it that I'm wondering if I'm barking up the wrong tree.

In post 452, Nathann wrote:

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Gut instinct on reading that post was that the repetition comes from.scum that is forcing it.

Or,

or

, the repetition came because I wanted to make myself clear and because there were two different theoretical disagreements at play - Fareen disagreeing on theory with Save the Dragons, and me disagreeing on theory with Farren.

This I'll have to take a look at, probably after work

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:I'm going to hold on to this one like a dog with a bone for the time being.

Should I read this as you not being interested in listening to literally anything that anyone else is saying about me and being willing to die on this hill?

I'm listening to what people are saying but I'm not interested in being convinced. If I something convincing, maybe I will be, but probably not before the coalition locks.

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Opinion on anything else you've said? I've been reading it, responding where I have questions/comments to share.

This ties in to the above. I am highly skeptical of a good faith Town player making a read on me (or on anyone, really) based on tone from one (1) post and then not using literally anything else that that player has said in order to read them. The point isn't that I want you to respond to a certain point of mine, the point is that by not taking into account literally anything else I'm doing (or what others are saying about me), your read on me feels willfully ignorant.

My reads in most games are willfully ignorant of most of the playerlist. When I townread a player I believe to be strong, like Koba, I will listen to their reads on a slot that I am having trouble reading. I'm not having trouble reading you and I dont have a strong enough townread on what I believe to be a strong enough player to sheep a read on you.

Because the consensus seems to be on Pavowski, Cyrus, and I'm not being widely TRed, I'm trying to find a compromise: I'll sheep their coalition if they keep you out of it. I get what's most important to me (aside from putting myself in, which doesnt seem to.be happening), and we get a coalition locked in that I'm with, but would not be my 5 if I had full say.

In post 454, Nathann wrote:

In post 453, cyrus62 wrote:i think im good with my 5.

cyrus, please either give me an actual reason why Hakai is Town or explain to me why my 369 is wrong.

if its who i think it is he is town. okay i think i seen his scum. i just dont get that feeling here. . 5 people we all pick one but what of us pick one each . why am i or pav the better 5 with or with out nathan?

In post 452, Nathann wrote:

In post 450, Hakai wrote:I haven't seen that tactic used ever.

Okay. Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Gut instinct on reading that post was that the repetition comes from.scum that is forcing it.

Or,

or

, the repetition came because I wanted to make myself clear and because there were two different theoretical disagreements at play - Fareen disagreeing on theory with Save the Dragons, and me disagreeing on theory with Farren.

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:I'm going to hold on to this one like a dog with a bone for the time being.

Should I read this as you not being interested in listening to literally anything that anyone else is saying about me and being willing to die on this hill?

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Opinion on anything else you've said? I've been reading it, responding where I have questions/comments to share.

This ties in to the above. I am highly skeptical of a good faith Town player making a read on me (or on anyone, really) based on tone from one (1) post and then not using literally anything else that that player has said in order to read them. The point isn't that I want you to respond to a certain point of mine, the point is that by not taking into account literally anything else I'm doing (or what others are saying about me), your read on me feels willfully ignorant.

Not really.

In post 457, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:

In post 452, Nathann wrote:

In post 451, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Gut instinct on reading that post was that the repetition comes from.scum that is forcing it.

Or,

or

, the repetition came because I wanted to make myself clear and because there were two different theoretical disagreements at play - Fareen disagreeing on theory with Save the Dragons, and me disagreeing on theory with Farren.

This I'll have to take a look at, probably after work

So you've locked me in as Scum for a post that you didn't even understand correctly.

In post 457, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:I'm trying to find a compromise: I'll sheep their coalition if they keep you out of it.

And you're trying to impose this shitty veto on me being in the Coalition on the basis of it.

Okay, I'm logging out for the night before I say something bad.

Let's see how this feels.

HURT: All
HEAL: cyrus62
HEAL: ssbm_Kyouko
HEAL: Pavowski
HEAL: Save The Dragons
HEAL: Hakai

This does not reflect my current reads (obviously; I'm not in it). This is more of a "what happens when I push this button?" deal.

i'm not putting kyouko in my coalition no matter who the other 4 are

I know I'm Town. I think Kyouko's Town. I think Nathann's Town. If all three of us are out, I think the Coalition fails.

Vote Count 1.07

Enchant (2):

yessiree, cyrus62

ssbm_Kyouko (1):

Save The Dragons

Nathann (1):

ssbm_Kyouko

Enchant (1):

Hakai

Not Voting (4):

Enchant, Nathann, Pavowski, Farren

Coalition Count 1.07

Hakai (4):

cyrus62, Pavowski, Hakai, Save The Dragons

Pavowski (4):

Save The Dragons, Hakai, Pavowski, cyrus62

cyrus62 (5):

Pavowski, Nathann, Hakai, Save The Dragons, cyrus62

Enchant (2):

cyrus62, Pavowski

ssbm_Kyouko (5):

ssbm_Kyouko, Farren, cyrus62, Pavowski, yessiree

Save The Dragons (4):

Save The Dragons, cyrus62, Pavowski, Nathann

Nathann (5):

cyrus62, Pavowski, Save The Dragons, Farren, Nathann

Farren (5):

cyrus62, ssbm_Kyouko, Pavowski, Save The Dragons, Hakai

yessiree (5):

yessiree, Save The Dragons, Pavowski, cyrus62, Farren

Spoiler: # of Coalition Votes for Each Player

Pavowski - (9)

cyrus62 - (9)

Save The Dragons - (7)

Nathann - (3)

Farren - (3)

yessiree - (2)

Hakai - (4)

ssbm_Kyouko - (2)

Enchant - (0)

Still searching for a replacement for yessiree.

HEAL: Nathann

Look, Cyrus, we match.

We're actually starting to look close-ish, here. STD how do you feel about hakai?

if other people are confident in hakai i could probably go there but i'm not quite convinced he's town yet

Fair.

The countdown continues.

Hey working right now will read later.

Can someone say who they absolutely want in the coalition please? Only one name allowed no naming yourself.

cyrus

Also feel fairly sure about Cyrus.

Welcome Math.