Mafiascum.net

In post 33, Zyla wrote:I'll be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the fact that I was responding to the person I was voting, I just used a random picker and got Wayward's name

Random is a lame reason to vote for someone IMO. It doesn't really encourage any discussion or have inspire any fear of being lynched. Even the first post of the thread had a reason to vote for someone! So that's my reason to VOTE: Zyla

In post 49, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 45, Zyla wrote:

In post 43, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 41, Zyla wrote:

In post 38, The Bulge wrote:tbh I probably would have ignored 9 if it weren't for the "...yet" bit lol

their reaction to my vote is extremely newbscum too. and their whole attitude since then almost gives off an air of "oh yea? well you can't

prove

I'm scum" and it reeks.

I didn't think much of the pre-game meta homework but I'd buy that it was fed from a more experienced. scumpartner.

Honestly, while that is a possibility, there's also the fact that that are 2 possible role-sets that include masons, so it could be a townpartner as well

Why would a town Mason give that info to their Mason buddy who then telegraphs that discussion? Wouldn't they be more likely to discuss it in their thingy rather than having Wayward talk about it in thread?

Genuine question. Masons are weird.

Mostly I'm suggesting the possibility that the other Mason might have suggested that they read up on games that the other players played in, and they just happened to share the fact that they read up

Fair enough I suppose. I don't think it's possible to really gleam much from it thinking about more in depth.

Do you have any feelings about anyone so far?

tbh, it might just be that I'm out of practice, but I'm never really confident on reads day 1. You and Luke definitely seem to be pro-town so far, but everyone else is mostly null so far

In post 50, Xlos wrote:

In post 33, Zyla wrote:I'll be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the fact that I was responding to the person I was voting, I just used a random picker and got Wayward's name

Random is a lame reason to vote for someone IMO. It doesn't really encourage any discussion or have inspire any fear of being lynched. Even the first post of the thread had a reason to vote for someone! So that's my reason to VOTE: Zyla

To be fair, it's day one, and we don't have any leads, so it's kind of just playing the game

In post 51, Zyla wrote:

In post 49, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 45, Zyla wrote:

In post 43, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 41, Zyla wrote:

In post 38, The Bulge wrote:tbh I probably would have ignored 9 if it weren't for the "...yet" bit lol

their reaction to my vote is extremely newbscum too. and their whole attitude since then almost gives off an air of "oh yea? well you can't

prove

I'm scum" and it reeks.

I didn't think much of the pre-game meta homework but I'd buy that it was fed from a more experienced. scumpartner.

Honestly, while that is a possibility, there's also the fact that that are 2 possible role-sets that include masons, so it could be a townpartner as well

Why would a town Mason give that info to their Mason buddy who then telegraphs that discussion? Wouldn't they be more likely to discuss it in their thingy rather than having Wayward talk about it in thread?

Genuine question. Masons are weird.

Mostly I'm suggesting the possibility that the other Mason might have suggested that they read up on games that the other players played in, and they just happened to share the fact that they read up

Fair enough I suppose. I don't think it's possible to really gleam much from it thinking about more in depth.

Do you have any feelings about anyone so far?

tbh, it might just be that I'm out of practice, but I'm never really confident on reads day 1. You and Luke definitely seem to be pro-town so far, but everyone else is mostly null so far

That's fair. Day 1 is always a clusterfuck (at least in the irl mafia I've played). Maybe we can help get the ball rolling together? Why do you think me and Luke are pro-town? What do you make of the latter's points on T3, if anything?

In post 52, Zyla wrote:

In post 50, Xlos wrote:

In post 33, Zyla wrote:I'll be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the fact that I was responding to the person I was voting, I just used a random picker and got Wayward's name

Random is a lame reason to vote for someone IMO. It doesn't really encourage any discussion or have inspire any fear of being lynched. Even the first post of the thread had a reason to vote for someone! So that's my reason to VOTE: Zyla

To be fair, it's day one, and we don't have any leads, so it's kind of just playing the game

We don't have any leads, and that's why we've gotta make em'

In post 37, T3 wrote:Bulge, what particularly stuck out to you about that? What stuck out to me was mostly that it was a brand newbie supposedly having read a bunch of games. This reads to me as if almost fake helpful and as if it was fed by a scumpartner.

In the queue I made it clear that I wasn't "a brand newbie", and was reading games. I urge everyone to give it a look.

Of all my accusers, this looks the worst.

VOTE: t3

In post 53, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 51, Zyla wrote:

In post 49, MixLixWix wrote:Do you have any feelings about anyone so far?

tbh, it might just be that I'm out of practice, but I'm never really confident on reads day 1. You and Luke definitely seem to be pro-town so far, but everyone else is mostly null so far

That's fair. Day 1 is always a clusterfuck (at least in the irl mafia I've played). Maybe we can help get the ball rolling together? Why do you think me and Luke are pro-town? What do you make of the latter's points on T3, if anything?

You and Luke have been doing a lot more in-depth looking at who's posting what type of thing and why that seems more town or scum than the other people; that's definitely good town behavior, although you could easily be faking it.
As for the T3 stuff, I honestly don't know. As far as I can tell, t3 doesn't really have a list of games they participated in, and I don't have enough information to tell whether Luke picked a random bunch of games, random games that happen to show t3 in a negative light, or what

In post 56, Zyla wrote:As for the T3 stuff, I honestly don't know. As far as I can tell, t3 doesn't really have a list of games they participated in, and I don't have enough information to tell whether Luke picked a random bunch of games, random games that happen to show t3 in a negative light, or what

This sounds like you're scum reading Luke? It doesn't fit with the first half of the post.

Alright, I have collected two weak pieces of evidence for the Zyla/Wayward Son scumteam.
First is the obvious

In post 23, Zyla wrote:

In post 22, Wayward Son wrote: Not that I can prove it but I've never RVSed a scum buddy.

That definitely varies from person to person though, I knew a couple of people irl who would always vote for their scum partner day 1

Granted, they weren't very

good

at the game, but that's just because they were predictable, so it's better to switch it up
VOTE: Wayward Son

Second is the claim here

In post 41, Zyla wrote:

In post 38, The Bulge wrote:tbh I probably would have ignored 9 if it weren't for the "...yet" bit lol

their reaction to my vote is extremely newbscum too. and their whole attitude since then almost gives off an air of "oh yea? well you can't

prove

I'm scum" and it reeks.

I didn't think much of the pre-game meta homework but I'd buy that it was fed from a more experienced. scumpartner.

Honestly, while that is a possibility, there's also the fact that that are 2 possible role-sets that include masons, so it could be a townpartner as well

which is defending Wayward Son by bringing up an unlikely possibility (since he is the one reacting to the post of The Bulge).

Altogether not too convincing, but I'm going to keep my vote where it is.

In post 57, Wayward Son wrote:

In post 56, Zyla wrote:As for the T3 stuff, I honestly don't know. As far as I can tell, t3 doesn't really have a list of games they participated in, and I don't have enough information to tell whether Luke picked a random bunch of games, random games that happen to show t3 in a negative light, or what

This sounds like you're scum reading Luke? It doesn't fit with the first half of the post.

I mostly just mean that I'm not sure if that's enough to say that t3's scum, since there's a chance that the games picked weren't quite accurate

In post 59, Zyla wrote:

In post 57, Wayward Son wrote:

In post 56, Zyla wrote:As for the T3 stuff, I honestly don't know. As far as I can tell, t3 doesn't really have a list of games they participated in, and I don't have enough information to tell whether Luke picked a random bunch of games, random games that happen to show t3 in a negative light, or what

This sounds like you're scum reading Luke? It doesn't fit with the first half of the post.

I mostly just mean that I'm not sure if that's enough to say that t3's scum, since there's a chance that the games picked weren't quite accurate

You are welcome to look at their meta for yourself if you don't want to trust me on it.

If you click their name, it will take you to their profile. From there, hit "view their topics" and it will take you to a list of all of the threads that T3 has been a part of. You might have to sort through a bit because you can see things like sign-up queues and dead threads.

Although, T3 almost confirmed by meta analysis on them in post 46. When he looked at how I described his town games vs his scum games, his response was "that's fair" not "you cherry picked those games, that is not always how I play"

In post 60, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 59, Zyla wrote:

In post 57, Wayward Son wrote:

In post 56, Zyla wrote:As for the T3 stuff, I honestly don't know. As far as I can tell, t3 doesn't really have a list of games they participated in, and I don't have enough information to tell whether Luke picked a random bunch of games, random games that happen to show t3 in a negative light, or what

This sounds like you're scum reading Luke? It doesn't fit with the first half of the post.

I mostly just mean that I'm not sure if that's enough to say that t3's scum, since there's a chance that the games picked weren't quite accurate

You are welcome to look at their meta for yourself if you don't want to trust me on it.

If you click their name, it will take you to their profile. From there, hit "view their topics" and it will take you to a list of all of the threads that T3 has been a part of. You might have to sort through a bit because you can see things like sign-up queues and dead threads.

Although, T3 almost confirmed by meta analysis on them in post 46. When he looked at how I described his town games vs his scum games, his response was "that's fair" not "you cherry picked those games, that is not always how I play"

Ah, gotcha, I'm so used to that button being "topics this user started" that I didn't bother to click on it, my bad

In post 60, Lukewarm wrote:Although, T3 almost confirmed by meta analysis on them in post 46. When he looked at how I described his town games vs his scum games, his response was "that's fair" not "you cherry picked those games, that is not always how I play"

Which is why his full response has me really confused. Saying "your meta analysis on me is fair, but you should also think that Wayward Son is scum" is wild. Like the more I think about it the stranger it is tbh. He never says I am wrong in my analysis. He never even says he is not scum. He agrees with my analysis, but then says "your theory only works if I'm scum with Wayward."

Which is a strange connection for a town player to draw between themselves and someone they are scum reading. If he thinks Wayward Son could be scum, then he should know that that is setting himself up to be miselimed Day 2 if Wayward Son does get flipped scum today.

But on the otherhand, if T3 IS scum, then he may know for a fact that Wayward Son is town, and therefore he knows that it is safe to tie his alignment to theirs.

It is a common scum tactic to try and pair either themselves or their partners with a town player. That way, if they town player flips first, it can soft clears the scum player, or on the other hand, if the scum player flips first, it can net the scum team a miselim the next day, helping their partner still secure a victory.

We seem to be coming out of RVS, so UNVOTE: Wayward Son

And reading from his other games (and re-reading his "rebuttal") I'm starting to see what y'all mean
VOTE: T3

An aside, I am very much not used to being the number 1 poster in a game

In general, more posts from each player is better for town*, even if you are not confident in your reads, even if your reads end up being wrong. Putting it out there lets everyone else see what kinds of things catch your eye, look at how you are thinking about the game, and generally makes it easier for us all to sort you. Plus, it will give people things that they can discuss with you, and maybe you will point out something other people over looked.

Also, the more town players post, the more scum players have to post in order to blend in, making it more likely for them to slip up somewhere.

So please, feel free to respond to any post that gives you pause. Or just put thoughts out there on any player / conversation.

In post 55, Wayward Son wrote:

In post 37, T3 wrote:Bulge, what particularly stuck out to you about that? What stuck out to me was mostly that it was a brand newbie supposedly having read a bunch of games. This reads to me as if almost fake helpful and as if it was fed by a scumpartner.

In the queue I made it clear that I wasn't "a brand newbie", and was reading games. I urge everyone to give it a look.

Of all my accusers, this looks the worst.

VOTE: t3

Could you expand upon why this is the worse offender from your accusers/why that behavior is scummy? Do you agree with Lukewarm's meta case?

Without additional info, I don't love this vote in the conjunction of the T3's wagon.

In post 58, Xlos wrote:Alright, I have collected two weak pieces of evidence for the Zyla/Wayward Son scumteam.
First is the obvious

In post 23, Zyla wrote:

In post 22, Wayward Son wrote: Not that I can prove it but I've never RVSed a scum buddy.

That definitely varies from person to person though, I knew a couple of people irl who would always vote for their scum partner day 1

Granted, they weren't very

good

at the game, but that's just because they were predictable, so it's better to switch it up
VOTE: Wayward Son

Second is the claim here

In post 41, Zyla wrote:

In post 38, The Bulge wrote:tbh I probably would have ignored 9 if it weren't for the "...yet" bit lol

their reaction to my vote is extremely newbscum too. and their whole attitude since then almost gives off an air of "oh yea? well you can't

prove

I'm scum" and it reeks.

I didn't think much of the pre-game meta homework but I'd buy that it was fed from a more experienced. scumpartner.

Honestly, while that is a possibility, there's also the fact that that are 2 possible role-sets that include masons, so it could be a townpartner as well

which is defending Wayward Son by bringing up an unlikely possibility (since he is the one reacting to the post of The Bulge).

Altogether not too convincing, but I'm going to keep my vote where it is.

Why in your words is wayward son scummy though? You haven't brought up wayward independently in the thread prior to this which irks me.

In post 65, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 58, Xlos wrote:Alright, I have collected two weak pieces of evidence for the Zyla/Wayward Son scumteam.
First is the obvious

In post 23, Zyla wrote:

In post 22, Wayward Son wrote: Not that I can prove it but I've never RVSed a scum buddy.

That definitely varies from person to person though, I knew a couple of people irl who would always vote for their scum partner day 1

Granted, they weren't very

good

at the game, but that's just because they were predictable, so it's better to switch it up
VOTE: Wayward Son

Second is the claim here

In post 41, Zyla wrote:

In post 38, The Bulge wrote:tbh I probably would have ignored 9 if it weren't for the "...yet" bit lol

their reaction to my vote is extremely newbscum too. and their whole attitude since then almost gives off an air of "oh yea? well you can't

prove

I'm scum" and it reeks.

I didn't think much of the pre-game meta homework but I'd buy that it was fed from a more experienced. scumpartner.

Honestly, while that is a possibility, there's also the fact that that are 2 possible role-sets that include masons, so it could be a townpartner as well

which is defending Wayward Son by bringing up an unlikely possibility (since he is the one reacting to the post of The Bulge).

Altogether not too convincing, but I'm going to keep my vote where it is.

Why in your words is wayward son scummy though? You haven't brought up wayward independently in the thread prior to this which irks me.

Xlos's entire iso feels strange, especially when I saw that they have been on site since 2019 and did not appear to realize that RVS voting is a thing. But I checked, and this is actually their first game on site.

Which, for me, puts them into the same category as Wayward Son - the "I need to hear more from you so I can tell if your posts sound off because you are scum or just because you are new"

In post 55, Wayward Son wrote:

In post 37, T3 wrote:Bulge, what particularly stuck out to you about that? What stuck out to me was mostly that it was a brand newbie supposedly having read a bunch of games. This reads to me as if almost fake helpful and as if it was fed by a scumpartner.

In the queue I made it clear that I wasn't "a brand newbie", and was reading games. I urge everyone to give it a look.

Of all my accusers, this looks the worst.

VOTE: t3

Also, I followed up on this, and he really did say in the sign-up thread that he was reading through games before the sign-up list was even filled, much less role PMs going out.

In post 6163, Wayward Son wrote:I'm currently reading games from the beginning

So he had like 3+ days of reading time between posting that and the game starting.

Here is where I am at right now:

is the only player that really has given me town vibes. I liked 29 -> 30 due to the mindset it shows. Lukewarm proposes an alignment indicative point in 29, but drops it on his own reflection a post later. This makes me feel lukewarm is actually trying to logically understand Zyla post rather than being a mafia member looking to find holes in it. I feel mafia would of let 29 sink in and never introduced doubt in the shade attempt. His behavior since then has also been townie, and I although I don't care much for the meta case on T3, I do find him making good points with t3's actual posting such as in [p]62[/p]

are my suspects right now.

For Zyla, I do get the vibe from her that she is struggling but not necessarily from a town member framework. A lot of her posts don't say a lot either because its theory (wayward's hypnotical scum rvs scum point) or because the doubt she expresses with her reads on me and Lukewarm (where she indicates we are doing pro-town things, but gives herself a way out of if is she is scum). While I understand being paranoid about day 1, and rightfully so, she feels *extra* paranoid which makes me feel the perspective she is seeing the thread isn't town.

T3 I agree with a lot of what Lukewarm says and want to see how they go about responding to all the pressure.

Wayward is lastly a question card that I can't glean into. I bounce back and forth on their posting. What is holding me up with wayward is that they have an unusual tone about them which makes it hard to analyze their posts. It's hard to describe, but it is impacting my read as I don't know how much to chalk that tone up to as alignment indicative

That's where I am at right now. Going to mull things over as I eat and then come back

Very much like post 68.

Mix is both putting a lot of their own thoughts into the thread, and has repeatedly tried to draw content out from other players (25 / 28 / 31 / 42 / 53).

I am a bit wary that you appear to have discounted so many of the people that have not posted very much yet tho. Like, Egix, The Bulge, and [the Opposite slot] are all still sitting in null for me.

In post 65, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 55, Wayward Son wrote:

In post 37, T3 wrote:

In post 58, Xlos wrote:Alright, I have collected two weak pieces of evidence for the Zyla/Wayward Son scumteam.
Altogether not too convincing, but I'm going to keep my vote where it is.

Why in your words is wayward son scummy though? You haven't brought up wayward independently in the thread prior to this which irks me.

I don't think he's particularly scummy, I'm just observing some scummy interactions. It doesn't mean much since there are so many pairs of people so you can multiply the convincingness of the case against either of them by 1/8. But I'd rather make a weak point then no point at all.

In post 66, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 65, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 58, Xlos wrote:

Xlos's entire iso feels strange, especially when I saw that they have been on site since 2019 and did not appear to realize that RVS voting is a thing. But I checked, and this is actually their first game on site.

Which, for me, puts them into the same category as Wayward Son - the "I need to hear more from you so I can tell if your posts sound off because you are scum or just because you are new"

I knew what RVS is so you can bring your suspicion back with regards to that. That post in particular stood out cause Zyla was talking about switching up voting a scumbuddy. But as I see it, each phase builds off the last, with more and more evidence to support the votes. Right now I still feel like I'm still essentially in RVS since there's so little information to go on, but as time passes on the votes will become more real. I guess I can give my reads for right now, since I'm going to sleep soon.

So far I think the best observation is Lukewarm's observation on T3's post. It's not particularly convincing but it stands out among the crowd of meaninglessness. If T3 is scum, then I'll be convinced that Lukewarm is town.
Next in the list is MixLixWix, especially in the last few hours, his discussion starting skills have been really good. Though I hesitate to say how much town lean this gives him since the mafia can also be active, I think it is helping the thread move along so in any case it is pro-town and pro-fun behavior.
Everyone else is null, I need to look more.
And then most suspicious is T3 due to that observation by Lukewarm. I'll put my vote on him if needed, but for now I'm going to try poking more at the nulls.

In post 38, The Bulge wrote:tbh I probably would have ignored 9 if it weren't for the "...yet" bit lol

their reaction to my vote is extremely newbscum too. and their whole attitude since then almost gives off an air of "oh yea? well you can't

prove

I'm scum" and it reeks.

I didn't think much of the pre-game meta homework but I'd buy that it was fed from a more experienced. scumpartner.

Could you clarify why their attitude gives off that air? I don't really see it.

I forgot to VOTE: The Bulge

In post 42, MixLixWix wrote:

In post 39, The Bulge wrote:I really like mixlixwix's dissection of zyla's vote. her post stood out to me as well.

What's your take on Lukewarm's posts about Zyla?

his thought process looks natural and I agree pretty spot-on with what he's saying

two of the games you linked in 44 are ongoing. please do not link to or discuss ongoing games in any capacity. this is an extremely essential rule of the site.