Mafiascum.net

Don't be so rude.

↑ Kaboose wrote:@Grib, that's a bold strategy. Le'ts see if it pays off. What did you think of him voting you and then admitting he hadn't finished his reading yet?

Voting someone before you've finished reading the thread is a nulltell (unless they "unknowingly" hop on a major wagon and put it in hammering range or something like that).

But I found these

↑ NJAC wrote:I'll be happy if we lynch scumGrib today. However I'm only on page 7 so don't take this too serious, I have to see how the universal townread on him develops.

↑ NJAC wrote:

↑ Grib wrote:Hey, NJAC, are you scum?

Nope. But you already know that, right?

to be bad.

↑ NJAC wrote:Do you think that because most people think he's town, I should townread him too?

I'll give him this one, though. It's a fair point. But I'm town, so he should get with the program and look elsewhere for scum.

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:Don't be so rude.

I'm not the one murdering innocent townies.

They haven't murdered anyone yet.
Maybe they'll be friendly mafia and not make any nightkills and then we'll just be the monsters for lynching people.

I miss Riddleton.
He's such a familiar face to me on these forums and he left me alone with all of these strangers. </3

I'm pretty annoyed that Math hasn't even checked in here while checking in elsewhere. Was already pretty frustrating that he left in the middle of being the main topic of conversation. q.q

I recommend we lynch awesomeusername.

I ISO'd you, and this is the totality of what I found in support of your desire for an awesome lynch:

↑ Whatisswag wrote:By my so-called "scum team analysis", I think awesomeusername is scum. And obviously since there are masons I would not say out who are the others.

VOTE: awesomeusername

There my vote stays for the rest of the day.

@lone ranger, that I will need to check.

Nebulous associative suspicions.

No thank you.

Are you content with ignoring these observations?

↑ Green Crayons wrote:C. elle: I'll admit that I didn't personally have a put-into-words suspicion about elle when reading her posts; it was all a general feeling of "this doesn't sound right." (Contrast this with my suspicions about dave, where Grib and Kaboose simply vocalized my already-formed suspicions.) Of the players who vocalized particular suspicions about elle, I think that (1) Cheetory's "playing it safe" suspicion (originally stated in Post 246), and (2) Kaboose's problem with elle's inquiry to dave about elle's play (Post 323 and Post 339) are the most persuasive.

Regarding this second suspicion, I don't think this is an isolated incident. I noticed that she had previously asked Corpses about her play in a similar manner (Post 118 and Post 235). Well, maybe not a similar manner, but it certainly seems to come from the same mindset: "let me figure out what this player thinks about me and try to turn it to town."

↑ Green Crayons wrote:A. elle: elle got real defensive, real quick - and used misrepresentation the process (see Post 370 and Post 375 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's suspicions on Fairies; see Post 378 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's vote count/deadline conversation). elle also immediate attacks her attacker on an unexceptional issue - town reads - in Post 371 and Post 374, which gets dragged out for several more posts.

I'm not. Please respond.

You've pursued plenty of lines of questioning, but your posts don't really convey your read of all the players. Care to share?

↑ elleheathen wrote:

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:What do you make of people connecting you and LR?

I think the only one that makes any sense is GC's: That if I were to flip scum, you should be looking at LR as my partner, given my MO of bussing.

The association with Kaboose is kind of laughable.

But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves - and clear a lot of people in the process.

So, by your argument, because you are going to flip town, Ranger is going to look less suspicious and be cleared?

↑ Green Crayons wrote:

@elle:

↑ elleheathen wrote:

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:What do you make of people connecting you and LR?

I think the only one that makes any sense is GC's: That if I were to flip scum, you should be looking at LR as my partner, given my MO of bussing.

The association with Kaboose is kind of laughable.

But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves - and clear a lot of people in the process.

So, by your argument, because you are going to flip town, Ranger is going to look less suspicious and be cleared?

Ha! Nice observation.

Boop.
:
Grib
Lone Ranger
Kaboose
Swag
:
Green Crayons
ILF
NJAC
Dave
Riddle
:
Corpses
awesome
elle
:
Cheetory6

It's in order too.

A little while back I did a quick readback of awesome's ISO in his last town game and my first thought was "awesome is playing a much more analytical game now than he did in this game", mostly with regard to the focus of most of his posts. I decided to do a more focused readthrough after I made my readslist this morning, as I felt I was kind of sitting on that read without thinking about it hard enough. In that game, he asks a lot of questions with very little analysis and here he's giving a lot of analysis and about the same number of questions. Initially I got kind of a scummy vibe because I thought he'd been asking less questions in this game [mostly because his questions blend into his large posts], but I was wrong. I could see an angle of him giving more analysis than usual because he's worried about only occasionally posting, but it's not as substantive as I'd originally hoped. >.>

Link is here if anyone else wanted to take a peak: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p6102284

I'm honestly not sure how to engage awesome on this matter in a way that won't be easily dismissed in the fickleness of metatalk, but I still feel like the difference between here and there is that here it doesn't feel like he's legitimately trying to sort people where in that game it does.

Long story short, I think awesome is kind of sketch, but there's nothing I specifically can point to as particularly scummy in terms of his actions this game beyond the analysis he's done so far just kind of feels like he's trying to appear useful to counterbalance his lack of activity.

Cheetory6 wrote:if anyone else wanted to take a

peak

:

Fuck.

Wait, gross.
Elle, why would you discard your pregame thoughts on dave in your readslist? You were willing to bet your lynch on it 1v1 and you forgot about it in your readslist? That really makes me feel like that was just bullshit.

↑ Green Crayons wrote:

@elle:

Are you content with ignoring these observations?

↑ Green Crayons wrote:C. elle: I'll admit that I didn't personally have a put-into-words suspicion about elle when reading her posts; it was all a general feeling of "this doesn't sound right." (Contrast this with my suspicions about dave, where Grib and Kaboose simply vocalized my already-formed suspicions.) Of the players who vocalized particular suspicions about elle, I think that (1) Cheetory's "playing it safe" suspicion (originally stated in Post 246), and (2) Kaboose's problem with elle's inquiry to dave about elle's play (Post 323 and Post 339) are the most persuasive.

Regarding this second suspicion, I don't think this is an isolated incident. I noticed that she had previously asked Corpses about her play in a similar manner (Post 118 and Post 235). Well, maybe not a similar manner, but it certainly seems to come from the same mindset: "let me figure out what this player thinks about me and try to turn it to town."

↑ Green Crayons wrote:A. elle: elle got real defensive, real quick - and used misrepresentation the process (see Post 370 and Post 375 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's suspicions on Fairies; see Post 378 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's vote count/deadline conversation). elle also immediate attacks her attacker on an unexceptional issue - town reads - in Post 371 and Post 374, which gets dragged out for several more posts.

I'm not. Please respond.

I read it - I'm just not sure what there is to respond to, but I'll try? First up:

↑ Green Crayons wrote:

Regarding the dave/swag/elle conversation.

A.

dave:

the biggest thing that bothered me is his reasons justifying his swag vote. Grib hit all the right points in Post 312, and Kaboose summarizes my concern about dave's "disarming the opposition" tactic of preemptively declaring his vote a not-OMGUS in Post 323. The swag push looks manufactured, and the not-OMGUS declaration looks defensive.

B.

swag:

I don't like his push on dave, as the basis of the suspicion (dave was only asking meaningless questions) was too premature for the state of the game. Ultimately, though, his thought process and reasoning looks like it comes from town, even if it appears scattered at times.

C.

elle:

I'll admit that I didn't personally have a put-into-words suspicion about elle when reading her posts; it was all a general feeling of "this doesn't sound right." (Contrast this with my suspicions about dave, where Grib and Kaboose simply vocalized my already-formed suspicions.) Of the players who vocalized particular suspicions about elle, I think that (1) Cheetory's "playing it safe" suspicion (originally stated in Post 246), and (2) Kaboose's problem with elle's inquiry to dave about elle's play (Post 323 and Post 339) are the most persuasive.

Regarding this second suspicion, I don't think this is an isolated incident. I noticed that she had previously asked Corpses about her play in a similar manner (Post 118 and Post 235). Well, maybe not a similar manner, but it certainly seems to come from the same mindset: "let me figure out what this player thinks about me and try to turn it to town."

CONCLUSION

: swag still looks town, even if a bit all over the place. dave and elle look more suspicious. Kaboose looks more town.

For one, I OMGUS as either alignment. For two, when I play obvtown, I explain everything even though people want to call me out for it because apparently, being clear is the same as being scum in some eyes. So I'm not about to call davesaz out for something I actually do as town.

I didn't like the push on dave either - hence why I broke it.

I mean, I could have asked if you thought part about 'playing it safe' actually still applied, but really it would just be WIFOM as Cheetory pointing it out could have made me switch tactic as of my play that definitely was not 'safe' came after the fact.

And as for , what's there to say? I address the point in 323 in my 332 and I address what I think of 339 in my 343. As for 118 and 235, I address them personally to you in 162 and 236, respectively.

The answers are already there and were already there prior to your post. To me, it's basically saying that despite the last fact, you're just not believing my explanations and you find me suspicious of it regardless.


And second:

↑ Green Crayons wrote:

Regarding the elle/Ranger conversation.

A.

elle:

elle got real defensive, real quick - and used misrepresentation the process (see Post 370 and Post 375 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's suspicions on Fairies; see Post 378 w/r/t a misrep of Ranger's vote count/deadline conversation). elle also immediate attacks her attacker on an unexceptional issue - town reads - in Post 371 and Post 374, which gets dragged out for several more posts.

B.

Ranger:

my biggest apprehension with Ranger is that the elle v. Ranger interaction looks really forced. This stems from different aspects of their conversation.

- How focused Ranger is on elle. Take Post 375 as an example. There are some legitimate points here - the misrep, the posturing - but there's extra stuff too that looks like a tunnel. For example, the "noted" comment. A suspicion like that would be more at home after a long back-and-forth between two players, when they have been at each other for a while and have convinced themselves of the other's guilt so that every little thing screams scum. So it looks really weird - possibly manufactured - when Ranger finds everything elle is doing is scummy even from the get go of their interaction.

(Huh, I just revisited Post 406 and I see swag had a similar reaction. More town points for swag.)

- The immediate buildup of wall-like posts. It really is an explosion of activity between these two players.

- Some of the twists and turns in their conversation looks like arguing for argument's sake. For example, Ranger's evolving suspicion of elle's L-4 comment just gives me a weird feeling (Post 375, Post 391, Post 398).

CONCLUSION:

elle looks more suspicious. Ranger looks more suspicious if elle flips scum - I usually dislike doing this associative tells before a flip, but this one just hit me upon read through, so I'm willing to trust (and voice) my initial apprehension with Ranger's posting.

I think the playout of elle vs ranger is already pretty clear in thread - I think it's also pretty clear that I don't think her not wanting to provide her townreads while saying she has them only to ultimately not have them is not an 'unexceptional issue'.

Not really in the habit of defending my scumreads here... but I don't think tunneling = scum, the 'noted' comment came from , and I found her pretty 'scummy from the get go' as well so I'm not sure why you're only calling LR out for this. I figured it was because you think I'm going to flip scum and you're pointing this out for later association.

Which as I've said, is about the only association going on that would make sense for my style of play - but it's also irrelevant to me as I'm not going to flip scum.

↑ Green Crayons wrote:

@elle:

↑ elleheathen wrote:

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:What do you make of people connecting you and LR?

I think the only one that makes any sense is GC's: That if I were to flip scum, you should be looking at LR as my partner, given my MO of bussing.

The association with Kaboose is kind of laughable.

But since I'm going to flip town, I'm pretty sure all the other associations will speak for themselves - and clear a lot of people in the process.

So, by your argument, because you are going to flip town, Ranger is going to look less suspicious and be cleared?

Less suspicious, no.
Cleared of the association, yes.

/prod dodge

Sorry, I'm all tied up at the moment. Content tomorrow, I promise.

↑ Cheetory6 wrote:Wait, gross.
Elle, why would you discard your pregame thoughts on dave in your readslist? You were willing to bet your lynch on it 1v1 and you forgot about it in your readslist? That really makes me feel like that was just bullshit.

My 'pregame thoughts' are not exclusively on dave but on:



And they have not been discarded.

They're not included in my readslist because while I think they're the most unlikely to be scums, it does not mean I will not read them.

This is what is said about it:

↑ elleheathen wrote:

↑ Grib wrote:

↑ elleheathen wrote:It's right on 1/4, why not the others.

But yes, I get what you're saying and I even partially agree that it may be largely flawed due to the holidays. It's why I've amended that they're not in my vote pool for

today

unless I'm

reaaaally

sure they're scum.

And how sure is really sure? On Day 1, how sure is too sure? Point me to quotes or points that helped you form your reads, something concrete.

Reaaaally sure for me usually means I'd be willing to bet my lynch on it - ie, 1v1.

So I don't know where you would get:

↑ elleheathen wrote:

davesaz -

Null, Leaning Scum

is in any way what I'm calling 'reaaaaally sure'.

Elle could be town. Her latest posts felt townish.

How can it be two independent things? Like.. how can you have a scumread on someone and at the same time say "I would not lynch this person on policy of X reason"? I just really don't get it and it looks to me like you messed up and forgot that you said that. You said that it would take a lot for you to consider lynching dave or Kaboose today, and that 'a lot' was apparently just him not appearing to try and directly sort you and him putting you at L-2 for semi-weak reasons?

elle wrote:is in any way what I'm calling 'reaaaaally sure'.

I mean, I guess, but you literally said this a few posts later:

elle wrote:You can take that 'null' part out, now.

Are you seriously going to tell me that this isn't you implying that you're becoming reasonably okay with the idea of lynching him? Even if you aren't voting him, your next suspicion is Swag which you openly admit is more out of frustration than anything plus with the following:

elle wrote:swag isn't town for me, but he's moved more to the null side of things, probably because a lot of my frustration with him has died down.

Who would you compromise lynch on if not dave? Is LR literally the only person you'd want to lynch at the moment?

I've wanted to vote Elle to L-1, and I still don't think it's a bad idea, but her reads were pretty close to mine scum wise. Only difference is I'm town reading LR. Elle clearly isn't right now. Which makes me concerned too that maybe my read is wrong. That coupled with the fact that her wagon has 2 of my other scum reads on it is keeping me from voting.

Luckily we still have 10 days I think to figure something out.

Whatisswag, what is your reason for wanting Awesome lynched? Green Crayons pointed out that you've only brought him up 1 time, and I'm about to go double check that. I'd still like to know if you have a new reason or not for that?

I'm not seeing the GC love tbh. His arguments are rather shallow and not in a "why is this so hard for you to understand" way but in a "you are making arguments that look decent on the surface but have no real depth" way.

My biggest worry is that from the way GC posts and thinks about things, he comes as a discerning player and an in-depth thinker but isn't applying such thought to the arguments he makes. That feels contradictory so I'm not sure if I'm being clear.

To put it succintly, I feel he is playing below his skill level.

↑ Lone Ranger wrote:Elle could be town. Her latest posts felt townish.

I felt the same about you with your unvote - because I had a hard time seeing that coming from scum.

But then the association with Kaboose came and I was like 'Oh, that explains it' because it felt like you were lynch-lining us which made your unvote make sense to me again. But arguing that is basically just saying I wouldn't have associated myself that way with Kaboose if I were scum but all I have to prove that is two games of meta, and meta can be changed.

So, here: White Flag.

I'll try and forget what I think about your not wanting to give me your reads as scum if you can at least consider for a moment that I may be town.

Who do you think is scum?

↑ elleheathen wrote:

↑ Lone Ranger wrote:Elle could be town. Her latest posts felt townish.

I felt the same about you with your unvote - because I had a hard time seeing that coming from scum.

But then the association with Kaboose came and I was like 'Oh, that explains it' because it felt like you were lynch-lining us which made your unvote make sense to me again. But arguing that is basically just saying I wouldn't have associated myself that way with Kaboose if I were scum but all I have to prove that is two games of meta, and meta can be changed.

So, here: White Flag.

I'll try and forget what I think about your not wanting to give me your reads as scum if you can at least consider for a moment that I may be town.

Who do you think is scum?

I don't get why it would bug you when I associated you with Kaboose though. My plan as scum in that case would be hop off of the Elle mislynch wagon, tie Kaboose to Elle, bus the shit out of Kaboose, and after he flipped scum, mislynch you for being his partner. That wouldn't make sense as a scum strategy at all considering your mislynch was up for the taking without bussing Kaboose as well. If Kaboose were town, tying him to you would be pointless as his townflip means my arguments are invalidated and I'd have to concoct new ones. It would be a far better scum strategy to consider options for who is scum if you are town, see the lynch through and then attack those people.

Awesome could be scum if you are town. The hedging makes a ton of sense from someone that wants to see a lynch through but not want to get their hands dirty.

GreenCrayons's latest posts worry me as well. His take on our argument roughly echoes majority opinion in the thread although I'm not sure I can point out specifics. The whole "their argument looks scumVscum" "tunneling" "too focussed on each other" etc. There are no new insights. There is also a lack of assertiveness and his take seemed a bit hesitant and wishy-washy.