Mafiascum.net

In post 47, votato wrote:spam is generally unhelpful to town. post whenever you feel you have something to contribute, but dont force yourself to say things.

@looter why would you lynch arthur?

I disagree with this entirely for a lot of reasons

1) What you consider useful, and what other consider useful are entirely separate. So to some degree, depending on what you are aiming to do "anything could be considered spam"
2) How people react to certain things, especially spam are really indicative of intent. If someone tries to push a lynch on someone that is inactive or spamming, i can possibly be a scum tell because it's an easy lynch. It can also be valid.

But I think flooding is a bad thing, and people should post their thoughts regardless of whether they think its useful or not

So a few quick little reads:
@Mikul - leaning scum? - I'm not sure about flooding, but imo scum tend to do it a lot so town can't keep up. Yoy say flooding is a bad thing, although you're doing that yourself. Metareading isn't always reliable, but it can be useful. I did a quick metaread of your last game - as scum you were pretty confident and overjustifying things. Kinda similar to how you're behaving right now.
@Looter - neutral - Well he wants to lynch me and I'm still waiting for a reply. Also voted Mikul earlier based on metareading? Not really strong enough to lynch someone on.
Everyone else needs to post more.

And I'll pull my vote from Anthony UNVOTE: Anthony
Best if we get out of RVS quickly.

VOTE: Town looter You've stated you want to lynch me without reason, and also voted Mikul pretty early in the game over metareading. Also you've stated you'll be lurking the whole game. Loads of anti-town plays that scum would do.

In post 51, ArthurConyl wrote:So a few quick little reads:
@Mikul - leaning scum? - I'm not sure about flooding, but imo scum tend to do it a lot so town can't keep up. Yoy say flooding is a bad thing, although you're doing that yourself. Metareading isn't always reliable, but it can be useful. I did a quick metaread of your last game - as scum you were pretty confident and overjustifying things. Kinda similar to how you're behaving right now.
@Looter - neutral - Well he wants to lynch me and I'm still waiting for a reply. Also voted Mikul earlier based on metareading? Not really strong enough to lynch someone on.
Everyone else needs to post more.

That was typed from my phone and was covered with errors, sorry. Back to my computer now.

That was meant to say flooding "isn't" a bad thing. I think any post can be good depending on what someone can draw from it, and I objectively would take flooding over a game like last game in the last 2 day phases. Inactivity and a lack of posting is typically what can kill town faster than anything, and if people aren't willing to be active then they should consider that before signing up. Not saying that game will be like this, I'll take herald at his word and go along with "it's a weekend" so it will be active later

also that vote was not a hard read, it's a reaction test. Most things I tend to do are reaction tests, especially in dp1 when there is nothing to go off of because no one is participating. But I would much prefer not to just sit here and hope people are active and I'm sure as hell not going to go along with "oh they can't keep up with 60 posts, so stop posting".

I have no hard scum read, there isn't enough information to assess at the moment

herald has said he will be active in the week.

we have not heard from half the other people

votato has largely just tried to be a coach (which I do find weird). I did glance over his other games to see if he has did this before. As i said I don't read much into meta analysis, but I did figure if he was actively trying to be a mentor in these games that would be a pattern he would do in most of his other games. He has not did that as town in the games that I have seen. So it could possibly could be a way to build cred, but I really don't want to read into that hard. This is my internal bias from reading through the other players games just to acquaint myself with them.

town looter, in the one game that I played with him was always inactive. He was town. So i actually believe he is just generally busy. He has been way more active in this one so far than the last one. Could be scummy, but also could be that he is trying to be active because him being inactive is what cost them the game last game


So to clarify further, so this doesn't contradict what I said earlier. I don't like reading to much into "meta analysis" and that is all I have to go by at the moment. While I think trying to get a hard vote on someone based on what they did in past games is stupid, what they did in past games can also be 1 in several factors that could contribute to a vote. If you have reason to think someone is scummy, and you are dead set they behave this way in other games. That meta analysis should be something to add on top of why you scum read them currently, but not the only reason you scum read them.

I'm new to this version of mafia, but generally I find spam-posters worth voting out on the first Day, if we have nothing else to go on. At best, they're just cluttering the thread. At worst, it's scum that's using wackiness to make themselves appear benign. I'm hoping Mikul will post a little less spammy over this cycle - if he keeps this up, I think we should go for him.

In post 49, ArthurConyl wrote:@Mikul Alright, I do agree this game is a little too quiet. Spam away I guess.
@looter Same question as votato, why would you lynch me?

Partly a reaction test, partly because your posts could be newbie-cum-scum - your posts have a feeling of anxiety in them, you seem to want to make sure you fit in and say the right thing. My question of Brassherald was semi-serious as I am still fairly inexperienced and wanted to see if your two posts were worth caring about.

Underlined the bits I think come across as anxious:

In post 31, ArthurConyl wrote:Tbh Mikul has about 60% of the posts so far, slow it down please. Can't keep up!
VOTE: Mikul

I know this is a dodgy tactic but I promise to unvote

if you slow down...

In post 32, ArthurConyl wrote:Wait, I can't do that, we're still in the RVS.

Literally just realised that's the third vote on Mikul. Better UNVOTE: Mikul

VOTE: Anthony, because there can only be one A-man...

Mikul's last two posts go against my initial read. It's (lol, great pronoun) thinking stacks up.

UNVOTE:

I am reading Mikul slightly town, everyone else null with maybe the odd weirdness here or there that could be indicative of scum. Top weirdness candidates are Arthur and Mutesa.

Er UNVOTE: Mikul

In post 53, ArthurConyl wrote:VOTE: Town looter You've stated you want to lynch me without reason, and also voted Mikul pretty early in the game over metareading.

Also you've stated you'll be lurking the whole game.

Loads of anti-town plays that scum would do.

FoS: Town looter

Waaaaiiiit. Missed underlined in first skim.

Any reason you are paraphrasing what is fairly obviously a joke so critically?

I think you're misreading me being anxious in those first two, I honestly didn't want Mikul to flood and also honestly didn't see he had 2 votes on him. Guess that's me being a doofus. As for the last one, I probably missed the joke? Even if it was a joke, its still anti-town to lurk.

Before we get in this fight, let's remember that tone is hard to read on the internet. Because it's text. Which is why Mark Twain could report on a caveman being discovered in the mountains and people didn't get the joke.

In post 58, Town looter wrote:

In post 49, ArthurConyl wrote:@Mikul Alright, I do agree this game is a little too quiet. Spam away I guess.
@looter Same question as votato, why would you lynch me?

Partly a reaction test, partly because your posts could be newbie-cum-scum - your posts have a feeling of anxiety in them, you seem to want to make sure you fit in and say the right thing. My question of Brassherald was semi-serious as I am still fairly inexperienced and wanted to see if your two posts were worth caring about.

Underlined the bits I think come across as anxious:

In post 31, ArthurConyl wrote:Tbh Mikul has about 60% of the posts so far, slow it down please. Can't keep up!
VOTE: Mikul

I know this is a dodgy tactic but I promise to unvote

if you slow down...

In post 32, ArthurConyl wrote:Wait, I can't do that, we're still in the RVS.

Literally just realised that's the third vote on Mikul. Better UNVOTE: Mikul

VOTE: Anthony, because there can only be one A-man...

In post 61, Town looter wrote:

In post 53, ArthurConyl wrote:VOTE: Town looter You've stated you want to lynch me without reason, and also voted Mikul pretty early in the game over metareading.

Also you've stated you'll be lurking the whole game.

Loads of anti-town plays that scum would do.

FoS: Town looter

Waaaaiiiit. Missed underlined in first skim.

Any reason you are paraphrasing what is fairly obviously a joke so critically?

Did you learn anything from the reaction test? This is good reasoning otherwise. In particular the nervous unvote usually comes from scum and scum have a hard time picking up on jokes. VOTE: arthur

Fos brass for that defense

In post 56, mutesa1 wrote:I'm new to this version of mafia, but generally I find spam-posters worth voting out on the first Day, if we have nothing else to go on. At best, they're just cluttering the thread. At worst, it's scum that's using wackiness to make themselves appear benign. I'm hoping Mikul will post a little less spammy over this cycle - if he keeps this up, I think we should go for him.

Again I will certainly not posting and if you aren't capable.of keeping up with a mafia thread then feel free to try and Lynch me and I'll laugh as you take a loss.

I have 0 sympathy.for being lazy and poor play because of it. This is essentially both. If you can't read a thread don't sign up. If I was flooding to floor sure, I've already stated why I was flooding earlier. If you consider what I'm doing now flooding which is actively posting, then again you deserve to lose.

Can we all chill out a bit? Bickering about how much people should post is not gonna get us anywhere

In post 65, Mikul wrote:

In post 56, mutesa1 wrote:I'm new to this version of mafia, but generally I find spam-posters worth voting out on the first Day, if we have nothing else to go on. At best, they're just cluttering the thread. At worst, it's scum that's using wackiness to make themselves appear benign. I'm hoping Mikul will post a little less spammy over this cycle - if he keeps this up, I think we should go for him.

Again I will certainly not posting and if you aren't capable.of keeping up with a mafia thread then feel free to try and Lynch me and I'll laugh as you take a loss.

I have 0 sympathy.for being lazy and poor play because of it. This is essentially both. If you can't read a thread don't sign up. If I was flooding to floor sure, I've already stated why I was flooding earlier. If you consider what I'm doing now flooding which is actively posting, then again you deserve to lose.

Calm down and try again, because I have no fucking clue what half of this means.

@mikul:
Calm down, spamming is subjective. He might see it as spam while you don't. And I disagree with you calling that lazy, excessively flooding makes it hard even for active players to keep up. And flooding *is* a legit strat used by scum, so no need to get offended by mutesea.

@town looter:
All your "good reasoning" is me voting and unvoting Mikul. As for scum not picking up on jokes thats bullshit, I'll bet you're making that up. Cmon, give me at least two examples of that.
FOS'ing brass for noting a well known fact is unreasonable.
To clarify on the lurking, I thought it would be anti-town if you did that. I made a mistake missing the joke and I admit to it.
So really all you have to go on me is:
1) Me not picking up on a joke
2) Me unvoting because I realised I'd put Mikul on L-2. If he only had one vote on him, I would not have unvoted.

It means exactly what it said. Saying do not post because I'm to lazy to read is something I will not be doing. Period. Also I am being quite calm, I'm just stating what should be obvious. Someone who has posted one time in the past 48 hours is saying let's lynch someone because they post to much, is a poor reflection of effort.

Granted this is a "newbie' game so I will excuse it as that for now. I've stated my intent for the hyper fluffy posts at the start, but I do agree with votato in that discussing whether it's something to keep reflecting on at this point is a bad idea. I've got what I wanted out of it anyway.

In post 68, ArthurConyl wrote:@mikul:
Calm down, spamming is subjective. He might see it as spam while you don't. And I disagree with you calling that lazy, excessively flooding makes it hard even for active players to keep up. And flooding *is* a legit strat used by scum, so no need to

I agree, it can be scummy. It can also be an way for scum to get a mislynch on dp1 if someone were doing it.

.

.