Mafiascum.net

In post 48, Masquerader Olive wrote:

(If you noticed what I did there, yes it was intentional: do you think an intruder is especially unlikely to express difficulty understanding how to divide your post into separate quotes and respond to all of them within the same reply? Do you believe that is a good reason for you to trust me? I encourage you to distrust both olive and myself for implying you should think so.)

lolwut

In post 50, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 48, Masquerader Olive wrote:

(If you noticed what I did there, yes it was intentional: do you think an intruder is especially unlikely to express difficulty understanding how to divide your post into separate quotes and respond to all of them within the same reply? Do you believe that is a good reason for you to trust me? I encourage you to distrust both olive and myself for implying you should think so.)

lolwut

I'm sorry that you had to be aligned as an intruder against me in one of your first social deduction games, olive. This is another tell indicating olive is an intruder which is accepted on principle in any developed social deduction game (https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?ti ... 8.2B1.0.29). Players will usually only behave like olive when they are very inexperienced intruders.

If we were aligned together olive I would do my best to help you handle this situation. Unfortunately --or fortunately -- it goes against my win condition to not attempt to induce you into as many mistakes as possible.

At this point in time I am vehemently against olive or yellow pairing with any player except each other, and I'm especially against either of them pairing with either red or blue.

In post 49, Masquerader Purple wrote:

In post 40, Masquerader Yellow wrote:

In post 32, Masquerader Purple wrote:Are you still confused about why you should not trust olive, red?

Yeah this line looks agenda driven.

I find your implication here ugly on both an aesthetic and a practical level, yellow, and especially unlikely to progress toward winning the game. I believe categorizing lines as those that are agenda driven and those that are not to be an unhelpful way to view the game, as most of the content written in this game will have some agenda behind it in some way shape or form, even if it's purely for self-amusement. Your statement is also an oxymoron in that I asked a question: it's assumed I have an agenda of inducing red to reveal information about himself. (is this pronoun acceptable to you, red, or do you prefer they or she or something else?)

1) Do you know what I mean when I say your statement is an oxymoron, yellow?

The most critical issue I have with yellow's post isn't that it's aesthetically myopic and impractical on a number of levels, it's that it directly interferes with masqué's ability to win the game. Discrediting players who are obvious majority is an accepted tell in any developed social deduction game as it's necessary for the minority to do this in order to win the game (https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?ti ... 8.2B1.0.29).

The fact that yellow is disregarding everything I've written to focus on the syntax of a single line and claim that it makes me less credible indicates a lack of strategic and social awareness about the game we are playing. Regardless of yellow's alignment it goes against their own win condition by damaging their credibility. They are furthering the agenda of the minority for superficial reasons in plain sight for all to see: why would we take yellow seriously, and what does yellow have to gain from doing that? The answer is that yellow does not know what they are doing (unless they are playing dumb, which is always a possibility) and unless they can demonstrate more strategic and social awareness they are a liability if they are a masqué.

In post 41, Masquerader Yellow wrote:The usual phrasing would be "Äre you still confused

about why I do not trust olive, red?"

Not why red should not trust them.

I believe this information is valuable purely because it comes from you.

In post 42, Masquerader Yellow wrote:

In post 34, Masquerader Red wrote:Well, I'm certainly less confused as to why you don't trust them.

This is the proper response.

Yes it was a proper and witty response. Fortunately, the rest of red's reply suggested they are thinking about the game and able to communicate their ideas effectively, something which you have not displayed thus far, yellow. You would have given yourself a chance to appreciate that if you were not skim reading our posts, yellow.

In post 43, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 41, Masquerader Yellow wrote:The usual phrasing would be "Äre you still confused

about why I do not trust olive, red?"

Not why red should not trust them.

Yeah, good point. I could see that as a possible perspective slip.

I do not believe that olive actually thinks yellow made a good point or that the way I worded my question actually appears to them as a perspective slip. You're in luck yellow: olive appears to be a wealth of information about the identity of the intruders. I believe that olive's reply indicates they know yellow is a masqué and would prefer to see us fight each other.

If you don't believe me, watch for olive's response (I know you posted "lolwut" a few minutes ago, olive, and are likely reading this soon after it's posted:)

Olive, why did you think yellow made a good point, and how is the way I worded my question a perspective slip?

In post 44, Masquerader Yellow wrote:It's early but I like blue red and olive

and dislike purple and green so far.

I don't know if these are reads or if you're just stating your opinion in stream-of-consciousness. Do you believe players who you like are more common to be intruders or less likely? I'm not sure if there is any meaningful correlation as the intruders are often focused only on getting you to like them and can refrain from telling you when they dislike something you write.

If these are reads, I do agree with the majority of your reads except I don't believe you have any meaningful reason to trust olive (telling you what you want to hear isn't a meaningful reason to trust someone, yellow, it means they might be an intruder and you should be reading them with more scrutiny, not less) and obviously I believe the idea that you would distrust me based on my play so far to be comedic. I believe this list indicates yellow to be a strong contender to be eliminated first in order to improve masqués chances of winning the game.

2) Yellow, why did olive write that you made a good point and why do they believe my question to red indicates a perspective slip?

In post 45, Masquerader Yellow wrote:These pfps are jarring btw

Yellow, I believe that you are likely to be a masqué, however, I have a suspicion that you are not reading any posts which contain multiple lines of text with the necessary level of scrutiny, and you are motivated in part to "dislike" me because you can't be bothered to read my posts, and are therefore an ideal candidate to be eliminated first (rather than myself who is able to read and write competently enough to play this game.) If you would like to prove me wrong, then demonstrate you can read:

find the two bolded underlined questions I asked you and reply to them.

In post 47, Masquerader Purple wrote:That being said, while I believe you may be a skilled writer and sincere in your attempts to discover the intruders, I do not like your argument in the quote above. It reads to me like a version of refuge in audacity (https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?ti ... n_Audacity) which is a mistake to adopt by principle; and I disagree that it's even relevant to olive.

In post 47, Masquerader Purple wrote:they are so uninterested in playing the game due to immediately perceiving us all as bumbling masqués that the most stimulating experience for them thus far (after meeting their intruder companion, which they will be careful to not imply) was logging into their account.

In post 47, Masquerader Purple wrote:While I do not believe olive expressing difficulty logging into their account is either bold or audacious or something especially unlikely an intruder would think of doing, I find teal's formal request to be paired with a moderator to be quite audacious, and is something I would be too timid to even think of doing myself regardless of alignment! Do you believe that teal is more likely to be sincere due to an intruder being unlikely to request pairing with a moderator?

In post 47, Masquerader Purple wrote:(If you noticed what I did there, yes it was intentional: do you think an intruder is especially unlikely to express difficulty understanding how to divide your post into separate quotes and respond to all of them within the same reply? Do you believe that is a good reason for you to trust me? I encourage you to distrust both olive and myself for implying you should think so.)

(is this pronoun acceptable to you, red, or do you prefer they or she or something else?)

In post 55, Masquerader Teal wrote:I track people by avatars so having them all be the same but colorswapped is going to be difficult for me.

Holy hell what is even going on in purple's posts

I don't think I like calling green mafia for posting just to post while being sick, I think that's an easy trap to fall for but doesn't actually tell you anything AI

In post 58, Masquerader Red wrote:

In post 55, Masquerader Teal wrote:I track people by avatars so having them all be the same but colorswapped is going to be difficult for me.

Holy hell what is even going on in purple's posts

I don't think I like calling green mafia for posting just to post while being sick, I think that's an easy trap to fall for but doesn't actually tell you anything AI

This post is awfully lacking in real stances. Do you have any real opinion on Purple, or on the people (Yellow, myself, and Blue) who expressed that sentiment toward Green?

In post 59, Masquerader Red wrote:I'm not writing them off as TVT, I just think they are writing each other off as scum prematurely.

In post 55, Masquerader Teal wrote:I track people by avatars so having them all be the same but colorswapped is going to be difficult for me.

Holy hell what is even going on in purple's posts

I don't think I like calling green mafia for posting just to post while being sick, I think that's an easy trap to fall for but doesn't actually tell you anything AI

In post 60, Masquerader Teal wrote:No, I don't because the game just started and just because it's 6 days long doesn't mean it doesn't take me like 6 days to figure out where my head's at. I'm not going to lie and pretend like I know what I'm doing already when half the field has barely posted.

In post 59, Masquerader Red wrote:And another p-edit.

I'm not writing them off as TVT, I just think

they

are writing each other off as scum prematurely. Having read Purple more closely than when I started that post I think they're at least somewhat viably scum but I don't think they've done anything actively suspicious; I do think them casting themself as obvious town and those discrediting them as detractors is a bit.... gauche.

In post 62, Masquerader Olive wrote:

In post 55, Masquerader Teal wrote:I track people by avatars so having them all be the same but colorswapped is going to be difficult for me.

Holy hell what is even going on in purple's posts

I don't think I like calling green mafia for posting just to post while being sick, I think that's an easy trap to fall for but doesn't actually tell you anything AI

I agree, we need to see more from Green, like if they actually do follow up. Any thoughts so far to who you think could be a possible intruder?

In post 63, Masquerader Red wrote:

In post 60, Masquerader Teal wrote:No, I don't because the game just started and just because it's 6 days long doesn't mean it doesn't take me like 6 days to figure out where my head's at. I'm not going to lie and pretend like I know what I'm doing already when half the field has barely posted.

While that's partially fair, you've still given barely an inkling of suspicion toward anyone's alignment, good or bad. If your intent is to catch up and do so then by all means go ahead; for what it's worth, your participation can chop that fraction of the field that has barely posted down to a third.

In post 70, Masquerader Purple wrote:I've only skimmed but I "like" magenta's and teal's posting. I will have to think about what this means with regards to their alignment.

FYI Magenta, I'm playing a character based on the idea of purple prose and the color purple being associated with moodiness and royalty, if that helps you parse my posts at all.

Hello green, why do you find teal suspect?

In post 27, Masquerader Yellow wrote:

In post 21, Masquerader Green wrote:feeling unwell, will evaluate things later, but wanted to check in and indicate I'm present

This person looks like mafia.

In post 33, Masquerader Blue wrote:

In post 30, Masquerader Red wrote: Are there any of your previous incarnation's opinions that you do particularly endorse or disagree with?

I disagree with their reading of Magenta as suspicious simply because of one comment about roleplay. I don't find that suspicious. Although it is a little suspicious that Magenta didn't respond to Red's initial question, which would have been in keeping with their enjoyment of roleplaying. And it was a good point about Teal interacting with the backup mod.

I also like Yellow calling out Green. I don't know about Yellow's acting confused about what Intruder does though. Seems a bit like a move scum would do to give off town vibes.

In post 71, Masquerader Green wrote:Purple at the top of this page seems to be very assertively smug, don't really like that from them.