Mafiascum.net

M4yhem wrote:

armlx wrote: Why does the amount of agreement concern you?

Because if he's mafia, he should have scumbuddies disagreing/diverting attention away from him.

Alabaska is an easy bus. It would take a heluvalotta resolve and effort from the town to actually kill him, so the best response to his being suspected is ambivalence or bemoaning how difficult/costly it will be to kill him(and we're seeing some of each).


Rereading, it's still my opinion that it is the town's repsonsibility to kill Alabaska ASAP, so my vote stays where it is. There's no sense in entrusting to night-actions something we have the ability to do in the open.

In an emergency situation, I would likely go to Pug. Plain-sight lurking, opportunistic, L-2, OMGUS vote on TheHermit, yadda yadda yadda.

Nab wrote:Rereading, it's still my opinion that it is the town's repsonsibility to kill Alabaska ASAP, so my vote stays where it is. There's no sense in entrusting to night-actions something we have the ability to do in the open.

Are you concerned that his lynch would be easily explained by the mafia? Actually would the mafia really be all that happy with lynching Alabaska today...have to think about that. Seems they'd take a lot more comfort in removing a threatening role than in removing a life from Alabaska.

Rereading, it's still my opinion that it is the town's repsonsibility to kill Alabaska ASAP, so my vote stays where it is. There's no sense in entrusting to night-actions something we have the ability to do in the open.

I do not like this one bit.

armlx wrote:

Rereading, it's still my opinion that it is the town's repsonsibility to kill Alabaska ASAP, so my vote stays where it is. There's no sense in entrusting to night-actions something we have the ability to do in the open.

I do not like this one bit.

QFT. And not just because I'm me.

I do agree with NabNab about Pug, however.

I haven't been able to follow the last page or two... but I'll have a shot at picking something out.

*does so*

I don't like M4yhem's post 415, particularly this comment:

M4yhem wrote:Pretty much anything I might say has been said before, so there are alway going to be people who agree with me (and people who disagree with me). I don't see why that means I'm 'trying to please them'. That seems like a baseless accusation.

Acknowledging this kind of thing in my experience is more often than not a scum move to try and employ WIFOM in order to muddy the waters and make people cautious to raise a given accusation again.

I agree with Nabakov's point about Alabaska being an easy bus, though IMO the required resolve to finish him off on the part of the town makes him an equally easy target for a push for his lynch without needing to worry too much that it will be seen to fruition.

As for Pug... eh. I see why he's drawing votes but I don't think he's our best target for today. I'm still happy with my iamausername vote; he hasn't contributed anything of real value at all. Second on my list is Pug, and third is M4yhem.

Upon review, there isn't much strong on Rishi. He didn't do much until the Hermit vote under the basis "everyone was playing it close to the vest", then there was the hop of Hermit which doesn't really look that on upon review.

Rishi wrote: Yes, but there's no reasoning why Pug's vote continues to be on TheHermit. He talks about the suspicion in the past tense, but yet he never unvoted.

I referred to events in the past in the past tense it doesn't indicate anything other than those actions took place in the past. Just because they happened longer ago doesn't make them less scummy.

shaft.ed wrote:I'm much more concerned about his "but the cool kids were doing it" reason for his vote not being scummy.

My point was that two other people, whom TheHermit wasn't voting for, also found his vote scummy for similar reasons so it obviously wasn't just me. Yet since I'm the one he voted for I'm getting all sorts of suspicion for it while I don't think the other two received any. Just because someone votes for someone else after they for them them it doesn't mean their vote is baseless and I'm not going to hold my vote on someone I find someone suspicious merely because it might appear suspicious to some people.

NabakovNabakov wrote:Plain-sight lurking, opportunistic, L-2, OMGUS vote on TheHermit, yadda yadda yadda.

People keep saying my vote was opportunistic, and I guess I can see were they were coming from, but my vote being the last one on TheHermit is a coincidence. In hindsight, I probably should have FOSed him instead of voting to show my suspicion since when he reached L-2 everyone immediately backed off.

Pug89 wrote:

Rishi wrote: Yes, but there's no reasoning why Pug's vote continues to be on TheHermit. He talks about the suspicion in the past tense, but yet he never unvoted.

I referred to events in the past in the past tense it doesn't indicate anything other than those actions took place in the past. Just because they happened longer ago doesn't make them less scummy.

I believe Rishi is referring to the fact that your was in the past tense.

Pug89 wrote:

shaft.ed wrote:I'm much more concerned about his "but the cool kids were doing it" reason for his vote not being scummy.

My point was that two other people, whom TheHermit wasn't voting for, also found his vote scummy for similar reasons so it obviously wasn't just me. Yet since I'm the one he voted for I'm getting all sorts of suspicion for it while I don't think the other two received any. Just because someone votes for someone else after they for them them it doesn't mean their vote is baseless and I'm not going to hold my vote on someone I find someone suspicious merely because it might appear suspicious to some people.

This post helps shaft.ed's argument, I believe. I didn't really see his argument as anything more than a misread or a bit of a reach, but this post sounds like you are voting with the crowd. At this time of the day it is alright to do so but when you voted that was not the case.

Pug89 wrote:

NabakovNabakov wrote:Plain-sight lurking, opportunistic, L-2, OMGUS vote on TheHermit, yadda yadda yadda.

People keep saying my vote was opportunistic, and I guess I can see were they were coming from, but my vote being the last one on TheHermit is a coincidence. In hindsight, I probably should have FOSed him instead of voting to show my suspicion since when he reached L-2 everyone immediately backed off.

You probably should have FoS'd him? That last sentence reeks of pleasing the town scumminess.

I am more than willing to change to Pug if needed.

I am more than willing to change to Pug if needed.

Nth'ed. In fact, he is probably worth lynching before Hermit just based on the connection there to see what comes of it.

armlx wrote:

I am more than willing to change to Pug if needed.

Nth'ed. In fact, he is probably worth lynching before Hermit just based on the connection there to see what comes of it.

Unvote, Vote Pug

Eh, might as well. I think iamausername's wagon has kinda died, but I'll def look into him tomorrow.

Just as a heads up, thats 5 by my count (M4yhem (x2), Rishi, armlx, Alabaska).

This post helps shaft.ed's argument, I believe. I didn't really see his argument as anything more than a misread or a bit of a reach, but this post sounds like you are voting with the crowd. At this time of the day it is alright to do so but when you voted that was not the case.

I wasn't voting with the crowd. I would have voted for him even if no one else was, I was just pointing out that I wasn't the only one to find his vote suspicious.

You probably should have FoS'd him? That last sentence reeks of pleasing the town scumminess.

It's a hindsight thing, since my voting for him seems to have upset a lot of people. FOSing TheHermit would have been a more effective way of showing my suspicion without putting him closer to lynch at that time.

Why is NabNab still voting me?

Alabaska J wrote:Why is NabNab still voting me?

I have no clue.

pug wrote:In hindsight, I probably should have FOSed him instead of voting to show my suspicion since when he reached L-2 everyone immediately backed off.

So you should have FoSed instead of voting and killing the wagon? So you wanted him to get quicklynched?

Because A) I find that highly suspect and B) a mildly informed lynch is better than no lynch

L-1 btw.

Done a reread on Pug, and I am fairly indifferent to his wagon. Twomz's putting him at L-1 like that makes me more convinced that my vote is in a good place right now.

armlx wrote:What about IAUN's stuff, M4haym's behavior after reappearance, etc. No thoughts on those Hermit?

Caught this question. Sorry for the delay, I'll respond now.

I don't think IAUN's suspicion of Twomz was well justified. His recent turnaround on Pug is somewhat worrying as well. As well, 454 makes the (relevant) argument that he hasn't been contributing a whole lot. This isn't enough to make me lynch him, but it does raise my eyebrows.

I have private thoughts on Mayhem about why he thinks I'm town, and I am keeping them "private" because, while plausible and perhaps even correct, it is all mere speculation and the logic tends to break down on serious scrutiny. I'm keeping it in mind, but I don't think sharing it will benefit anyone right now. He seemed a bit pushy on the Pug case, which makes me think he might be trying to lead the town. I need to look up Mayhem's other games to fully commit to this point, since without taking playstyle into account it's an unreliable tell at best.

In more current events, Naba's pushing of the Alabaska wagon is a bit strange. While I will admit (as I have before in this game) that his reasoning is a little borked, I do not believe an Alabaska lynch is our best move at this time. Also, as I mentioned in 257, Nabakov seems to hold the opinion that if you don't think as he does you're anti-town (a reasonable interpretation of "It is the town's responsibility to kill Alabaska" is "If you're not voting for Alabaska you are not town"). I think it's totally possible for people to have different playstyles and have them both be town, so this false dichotomy of his isn't winning any points with me. In fact, it's having the very opposite effect. If Alabaska is town I would think the scum would be ecstatic about his wagon. It uses up one of the town's lynches and possibly a vig action when town viggs are very finite, provides no immediate information, and gives them the chance to get a two-for-one by nightkilling whoever shaft.ed hides behind. This makes you trying to strong-arm support of the wagon very suspicious.

Pug does not seem to be responding well to pressure at all. I'm really not fond of the way the wagon grew; Mayhem repeated that Pug was scummy until it became an issue, then everyone piled on based on rhetorical questions about the wording he used. His last post, however? It's really hard not to read that as, "Dammit, he might have gotten lynched if I hadn't been so hasty! I shouldn't have stuck my neck out!" I am somewhat torn; I pointed out that his vote on me was OMGUSy, but since we have some time remaining I would like to try to explore Nabakov a bit before the day ends.

My top three right now are Naba, Pug, and Alabaska (in that order). If there is inadequate support for a Naba wagon or he's able to assuage my concerns I am not opposed to hammering Pug (so don't think you're off the hook just yet).

iamausername Twomz is prob not gonna be lynched today and TheHermit I am saving NabNab for tomorrow. I suggest you vote somewhere constructive instead.

TheHermit wrote:His recent turnaround on Pug is somewhat worrying as well.

What turnaround? Post #466 is the first time I've said anything at all about Pug.

TheHermit wrote: I have private thoughts on M4yhem about why he thinks I'm town, and I am keeping them "private" because, while plausible and perhaps even correct, it is all mere speculation and the logic tends to break down on serious scrutiny. I'm keeping it in mind, but I don't think sharing it will benefit anyone right now. He seemed a bit pushy on the Pug case, which makes me think he might be trying to lead the town. I need to look up Mayhem's other games to fully commit to this point, since without taking playstyle into account it's an unreliable tell at best.

See this...this really pisses me off. It's like you're accusing me of something but I can't defend myself because I don't know what it is so I end up with a black mark against me which I've no way to remove.

If you want to know why I think you're town you could always ask me, instead of trying to read my mind.

And yes, I am trying to lead the town. I think Pug is scum. I trust me and my own judgement a hell of a lot more than I trust any of you.

Hermit wrote: I have private thoughts on Mayhem about why he thinks I'm town, and I am keeping them "private" because, while plausible and perhaps even correct, it is all mere speculation and the logic tends to break down on serious scrutiny.

More explaining please?

[quote"Alabaska"]
I am saving NabNab for tomorrow
[/quote]

WTF does this mean.

As in I will put forth a case as to why I think he is scum tomorrow after we lynch his buddy Pug today.

TheHermit wrote: I would like to try to explore Nabakov a bit before the day ends.

Please do. But seeing as you haven't asked me any questions, we'll have to do this in reverse.

TheHermit wrote: (a reasonable interpretation of "It is the town's responsibility to kill Alabaska" is "If you're not voting for Alabaska you are not town").

Sometimes two townies can have differing views on a subject, and this is something that has to be accounted for. A townie can be not voting a scum for perfectly legitimate reasons; this is unfortunate, but it's the truth. So no, it's not a reasonable interpertation. At all. Where the hell is this conception of my playing up a false dichotomy coming from?

TheHermit wrote: If Alabaska is town I would think the scum would be ecstatic about his wagon. It uses up one of the town's lynches and possibly a vig action when town viggs are very finite, provides no immediate information, and gives them the chance to get a two-for-one by nightkilling whoever shaft.ed hides behind. This makes you trying to strong-arm support of the wagon very suspicious.

And this comes back to my use of the word "responsibility" (which you so roundly misinterperted). Responsibility is a heavy thing, and it's something this town shirks every time they say "but killing Alabaska would tie up a lot of actions." If we decide as a town that Alabaska is likely to be scum (and I'd be willing to have discussion any day), but we aren't willing to do what it takes to kill him when the town is at full strength, what does that say about our liklihood of killing him in the future? We all have to face up to the distinct possiblity that the situation may be worse than we thought. We have to face up to the possibility that we might have to risk more than we thought to win this. I know I'm gambling by asking you to gamble, but I think that shows more about my confidence than about my allignment.

If anybody has any questions, my door is always open.

NabakovNabakov wrote:If anybody has any questions, my door is always open.

Why are you voting me now?