Mafiascum.net

In post 417, fireisredsir wrote:the tone did sound like a joke but i didn't really get it, so it just seemed like a weird thing to say. is this that silly boomer humor?

as a more serious response, at the time Wu and Monkey were my top scumreads, and it's who I wanted dead and I can only tunnel one at a time. Mine was said in mostly jet but Ari's was a serious request. Also was not a fan of your deflect.

In post 422, Aristeia wrote:why would i not push for the people i think are scummy to be wagoned rather than "let things form organicly"?

you'd do it regardless of your alignment. I just think picking 2 wagons to consolidate on with 9 days left on the clock is...idk maybe it's TSTBS but it's kinda dumb.

wait no i rember

In post 446, skitter30 wrote:I'm saying that it looked like a snap-reaction to a vote on him that he has no good reasoning for, yes

this is like, again, ignoring the basics of how i play scum and how much i plan things through and how much i value having an explainable thought process about my posts and votes and etc

so like the idea that i would snap vote someone because lol haha omgus and not have a reason read why i'm voting them and then go back later on to try to retcon it is like bonkers, and i don't believe skitter like, actually believes that's how i play lol

In post 447, Datisi wrote:

In post 441, skitter30 wrote:

In post 351, Datisi wrote:if i didn't know who monkey was, i'd scumread the shit out of that slot -

but unless he has massively fallen out of shape, i'm just puzzled at his play here

Can u elaborate plz?

i played a game where scum!monkey was really good

so i didn't think this is scum!him shitting the game when i'm aware he knows how to play scum

but (1) that game was like 2 years ago, (2) nero gave me a counterexample (that i did not read through tbf, but i'm assuming he wouldn't lie about it) so lol

Ok thanks, just acknowledging that i see rhis response, i dont have much to say abt it

In post 451, Datisi wrote:wait no i rember

In post 446, skitter30 wrote:I'm saying that it looked like a snap-reaction to a vote on him that he has no good reasoning for, yes

this is like, again, ignoring the basics of how i play scum and how much i plan things through and how much i value having an explainable thought process about my posts and votes and etc

so like the idea that i would snap vote someone because lol haha omgus and not have a reason read why i'm voting them and then go back later on to try to retcon it is like bonkers, and i don't believe skitter like, actually believes that's how i play lol

If this is a thing i'm supposed to know about your scumgame, i dont

Buuuut i am reminded of how i got annoyed at you in said open for scumreading me for what i felt was nonsense when i thought you really should have known better and i kept repeating that what you were accusing me of was not how *i* play scum

And am seeing some parallels to your reaction here

In post 442, Save The Dragons wrote:

In post 434, tenebrousluminary wrote:Could you at least explain why you want to extinguish my beautiful light, Sir Knight?

It is difficult to assess the motivations of votes against me, as Mx. Oboro says I must, if no motivation is provided.

i want pressure on you mostly, it's a gut read and i want to see how you respond

Here is my response:

I expected more gallantry from your appearance, Sir! Must I don a princess costume to win your favor?

Other than that, you'll just have to wait and see.

I'm not sure if i expressed that well

But i guess i am saying i am willing to accede that i can see a universe where town-you gets annoyed at me for scumreading you when you think i ought to know better ...

In post 449, skitter30 wrote:

In post 445, Datisi wrote:there's a person who jumps into the game, says one throwaway line on why i'm scummy and votes me, and the latter is more likely to be scum trying to fit in and attack a popular target, but also make it seem like there was Original Thought Process behind their attack"

Because i think you were overestimating how much of a target you were at the time, and how likely scum are to be trying to 'fit in' there by voting you, and i dont know why that universe was more likely than them being town and just not liking one of your posts

And yeah i think you getting this annoyed is more indicative of scum-you, see: recent open wherein you became conciliatory (i.e. vs testy) when you got scumread

and again, why are you assuming that this is supposed to be like, lockscum pack it up boys case

ajkndjbfdkjf

like, how i imagine town enters the game where they have a scumread on a person that is currently being pressured. they will either (a) quietly vote the person to add pressure and say minimal stuff about them, or (b) add a decent amount of content (page-appropriate ofc) onto their push. the fact that he did something *in between* is markers of a scum mindset imo - it shows that he doesn't want to take too much responsibility for pushing me if i happen to flip (so he can't do (b)), but also doesn't wanna seem like scum who's braindead sheeping someone (so he can't do (a))

like OBVIOUSLY this isn't super strong but it's a start. and i see no reason why not to vote there and explore that start. like do you think i'm not aware that reasoning is not very strong??

and after googling both conciliatory and testy... you sure? i'm pretty sure i started voting you there pretty early on after you did some nonsense push on me

In post 215, Cape90 wrote:

In post 207, DeasVail wrote:Why is that worth discussing? If Frogsterking is town should we not then be discussing other things?

I would assume you are the type of player who wants opinions on scumreads versus building a town circle. I understand this correctly?

Not especially. I was puzzled more because I did not think calling Frogsterking town was a particularly controversial statement.

In post 453, skitter30 wrote:If this is a thing i'm supposed to know about your scumgame, i dont

i'm pretty sure i mentioned this fact at least a few times, the most recent being in that 1v1 with andres, i thought i also mentioned it during schadd's pyp?

Anyway, main reads so far. Wu seems incredibly suspicious so far to me and I'm surprised it took until p11 of the game for Nero to pick up on this. Basically all of their early posts were either jokes or non-comments which allowed them to appear active without getting too involved in the game and actually taking stances either way. If they come back mafia, worth looking at other players early on who had theories but didn't pick up on that.

I didn't necessarily suspect Tenebros on the basis of their early posts but found some of their later defences incredibly weak attempts to divert attention away from them without addressing accusations at-hand.

Yet seems solidly townie so far, if not would be a very bold strategy for mafia playing their first game on the site. Also appears to have a sort of absolute confidence in their reads which can often be townie, mafia maybe more likely to hedge their bets and avoid going too heavily in on someone who could later be confirmed town.

In post 456, Datisi wrote:like OBVIOUSLY this isn't super strong but it's a start. and i see no reason why not to vote there and explore that start. like do you think i'm not aware that reasoning is not very strong??

You called him 'probably not town' for his vote on you, which to me seems like you had a p strong read on him ...

And also even if you believe in super clean trajectories, i'm not sure like scum-you would have had such a strong thought process behind your p3 vote that you probably did not expect would elicit much scrutiny or such a response ...

Also TR'ing Frogster, their early question seemed so bizarre a theory for a mafia player to have, not sure why you'd draw attention to yourself with that. Also TR'ing Datisi at the moment, their frustrations re early accusations seemed fairly genuine to me at a point where players were keen to just get any theories or suspicions off the ground to get the game going.

In post 460, skitter30 wrote:

In post 456, Datisi wrote:like OBVIOUSLY this isn't super strong but it's a start. and i see no reason why not to vote there and explore that start. like do you think i'm not aware that reasoning is not very strong??

You called him 'probably not town' for his vote on you, which to me seems like you had a p strong read on him ...

And also even if you believe in super clean trajectories, i'm not sure like scum-you would have had such a strong thought process behind your p3 vote that you probably did not expect would elicit much scrutiny or such a response ...

because god forbid i project more confidence than i really have in order to get the game going?

i'm not sure what you're saying here - you don't think scum-me would have such a strong thought process, so do you think i'm town then? (i'm assuming not, i just like, don't get that sentence at all...) and like, i'm pretty sure scum!me would have been aware that i would get questioned after making an unexplained vote while being under a lot of suspicion?

In post 443, skitter30 wrote:

In post 375, Aristeia wrote:I think we should consolidate on one of HEM/Tenebro to push pressure and advance game state rather than splitting

so which one would you like to do today dear?

Vastly prefer monkey

In post 381, Aristeia wrote:I'm leaning towards you/skitter being town/town but I'm not confident enough in my abilities to be anywhere near 100% on that read atp

Why's dats town

Also fwiw i think 375 is +town for ari
Not necessarily the focus on wagoning hem/tene in particular, but the mindset r.e. consolidating

It feels like he's playing without cheat codes.

I guess I am a tiny bit biased here but I think he's not as carefree as scum tho I haven't actually played with scum him this is just based on what he's said about his scum game previously.

Ari am i being tunneled >.>

it's not even 24 hours into the game I think you're doing fine! : )

In post 459, MalcolmTucker wrote: I didn't necessarily suspect Tenebros on the basis of their early posts but found some of their later defences incredibly weak attempts to divert attention away from them without addressing accusations at-hand.

If you wish to call my defenses weak, you should cite what specifically was weak.

I don't understand how I can be making "defences" while also "not addressing accusations at hand." What accusations at hand would you like me to address? If you feel there are unanswered questions, you can ask them yourself, and if you really want to figure me out, I think you will do so.

In post 461, MalcolmTucker wrote:Also TR'ing Frogster, their early question seemed so bizarre a theory for a mafia player to have, not sure why you'd draw attention to yourself with that. Also TR'ing Datisi at the moment, their frustrations re early accusations seemed fairly genuine to me at a point where players were keen to just get any theories or suspicions off the ground to get the game going.

Why is Frogster drawing attention to himself different from me drawing attention to myself? I don't disagree that it could be seen that way, but I want to hear your explanation.

In post 463, Aristeia wrote: I guess I am a tiny bit biased here but I think he's not as carefree as scum tho I haven't actually played with scum him this is just based on what he's said about his scum game previously.

You think Datisi is carefree this game? I think he seems quite upset about a small amount of pressure.

In post 365, Scorpious wrote:

In post 350, fua wrote:Frogster reads too much like newb town for me to bother suspecting him D1. I can see the reasoning but I don’t think scum would make/allow their teammate to make that level of blunder when it comes to handling Yeet. Townreading Wu for activity isn’t out of the question for a newbie either.

Activity is NAI imo.

Yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying for a while. I was referencing the fact that Frogster TRing him for that was AI.

I expect scum him to be less defensive actually.

i understand the irony of yelling "i'm not upset!!" at being accused of being upset but like

this is not how i look like when i am upset >_>

like its easy for scum him to deflect or take an easier line of defense here - the way he‘s defending himself feels like townie fustration to me.

dats tell me you're town again? : )

In post 471, Aristeia wrote:dats tell me you're town again? : )

i'm town, and i will do all that i can to protect this town and you : >

yay

In post 459, MalcolmTucker wrote:Anyway, main reads so far. Wu seems incredibly suspicious so far to me and I'm surprised it took until p11 of the game for Nero to pick up on this. Basically all of their early posts were either jokes or non-comments which allowed them to appear active without getting too involved in the game and actually taking stances either way. If they come back mafia, worth looking at other players early on who had theories but didn't pick up on that.

I didn't necessarily suspect Tenebros on the basis of their early posts but found some of their later defences incredibly weak attempts to divert attention away from them without addressing accusations at-hand.

Yet seems solidly townie so far, if not would be a very bold strategy for mafia playing their first game on the site. Also appears to have a sort of absolute confidence in their reads which can often be townie, mafia maybe more likely to hedge their bets and avoid going too heavily in on someone who could later be confirmed town.

JSYK, Tenebro is likely an alt, meaning this isn’t their first game here.