Mafiascum.net

I try and I mostly succeed, but I am human.

In post 498, copper223 wrote:

In post 496, Accountant wrote:Because I habitually exaggerate my reads if I have a weak read on a controversial player. It helps stir discussion, make people take sides, force lots of back and forthing that creates great VCA, etc. It's like copper's reaction test, only it's not a lie and it actually works.

I should buy a face-palm machine for every post I read from you, in these instances I am always paranoid that I am underestimating the other player and this is just scum laying it on so thick it's incredible but sadly experience has shown me that it's more likely to be just townies.

when did your read change from scum to town? you thougth I was scum earlier.

It's pretty clear in my ISO, the more your posts looked like crazy ramblings the less I believed this was a fake tunnel from scum and it culminated with you advocating a policy lynch on me.

It's hard for scum to fake the emotional involvement in a read necessary to pull that line off organically, and in your case you can see the frustration building up and making you less and less objective.

Scum often fake crazy ramblings/emotional tunnelling to hide. Obviously, that's not what I'm doing, but you have no way of knowing that if you're town. What made you come to the conclusion that I was town tunnelling rather than scum fake tunnelling?

Why are you asking me the same question again?

Because the gradual way in which your frustration increased and distorted your posting is not something you can easily replicate as scum, if you planned to hard tunnel me from the start to fake lack of reads you were likely going to overdo the tone at the start and stick with it no matter what I posted because it would not affect you much, instead it's pretty clear that it did.

Is this kind of tunnel something that you commonly do as scum then?

In post 497, copper223 wrote: Voting is just expressing an intent, you did basically the same thing when you positioned yourself to be able to vote Jae because GL's case seemed valid to you as far as reading your motives (if you are scum) goes.

The fact you just prepared it without actually jumping and waited for his response is actually more fitting for the scum D1 profile I am building on you; gather enough town-cred by giving the appearance of propriety in a few obvious (to you) instances where town is being dumb and then push a wagon you think you could get behind as town as well.

I already explained why I don't think that's what you'd do as scum, add to that that when I read your scum game you made sure to stay on the SE/IC's good side early on.

That was because I was new to Mafiascum and didn't want to get demolished by an experienced player. Why would I replace in to this game as scum and not scumread anyone? What are the motivations for that? If you've read my last game, you'll have seen that I had multiple scumreads as scum.

I think it's not such a bad case to make at the start of D1 if you haven't played with Jae (that's why I was originally skeptical about GL, decent scum often makes cases on townies that seem solid but if you know those are more likely foibles of that particular player and they also should know it's possible they are intentionally throwing scum at them) but contrary to your case where you just replaced in and would want to establish your credentials first, I see very little reason for scum GL to turn around and start questioning Accountant over me while still taking time to figure out who I am scum with in case he is wrong.

I agree, I think GL is more likely to be town.

You also know that greeting is something scum may do because your buddy yuriko greeted you in your scum-game as well, so why is this a problem for you?

To be honest I don't remember that, but I'll believe you if you say that's what happened.

In post 505, Dragonfire wrote:That was because I was new to Mafiascum and didn't want to get demolished by an experienced player. Why would I replace in to this game as scum and not scumread anyone? What are the motivations for that? If you've read my last game, you'll have seen that I had multiple scumreads as scum.

Not at the very start of the game, but it's true that after a while you gave a list of reads with some scum-leans.

The motivation is wanting everyone to like you and establish yourself as town, once that's done you can proceed to find the right place to vote.

It's not that unusual for scum to do for a while, if you don't really hard push anyone you may fly under the radar and not ruffle any feathers.

It may also explain that GM comment about scum not being necessarily opportunistic.

In post 506, copper223 wrote:

In post 505, Dragonfire wrote:That was because I was new to Mafiascum and didn't want to get demolished by an experienced player. Why would I replace in to this game as scum and not scumread anyone? What are the motivations for that? If you've read my last game, you'll have seen that I had multiple scumreads as scum.

Not at the very start of the game, but it's true that after a while you gave a list of reads with some scum-leans.

The motivation is wanting everyone to like you and establish yourself as town, once that's done you can proceed to find the right place to vote.

It's not that unusual for scum to do for a while, if you don't really hard push anyone you may fly under the radar and not ruffle any feathers.

I'm terrible at flying under the radar and not ruffling feathers. Whatever my alignment, I guarantee you half the town ends up scumreading me at one point.

Anyway I feel like this game is a ghost town. We've got four silent players, two of which are not even in the game at all and are in the process of being replaced. How can we be sure that scum are even being active at all, and we're not all town arguing among ourselves while the scum are absent?

In post 429, copper223 wrote:

In post 426, Accountant wrote:"absolutely" is not used to literally mean "absolute"ly. It can be used as an expression meaning "very". check with other players if you don't believe me

I believe that's how you intended it, it still shows you are (pretending to be) very or as you would put it absolutely close-minded about the back and forth.

Why is this a problem? You pretended to have an absolute close-minded position on GL+DDD=scum. I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you take a hardline stance, then back off it with "reaction test", and then get at someone else for taking a hardline stance.

In post 433, GuiltyLion wrote:I think there's an implicit assumption somewhere (being pushed mainly by GM but the idea has also been sheeped by Accountant and DDD) that a "reaction test" has to have some kind of intentional expectation of how scum/town will react when it's given, but I think copper is saying his version of a "reaction test" is just to say shit and see what happens, which is plausible as town behavior. I don't think there's much in the case against him aside from the "reaction test" point and I don't think the "reaction test" point is a strong one.

By the standard you're arguing here everything is a reaction test, I voted them as a reaction test, I made that case as a reaction test, I made that argument as a reaction test, I ignored that person as a reaction test. But the problem is if everything is a reaction test then nothing is, you've robbed the words of any meaning.

In post 444, Accountant wrote:It's semantics because you know damn well what she meant and you're trying to spin it a certain way by misinterpreting words. I thought maybe you're just not a native speaker but you apparently are so that can't be it.

Truth.

In post 467, Dragonfire wrote:

In post 466, copper223 wrote:

In post 465, Dragonfire wrote:I guess, although if you read my scum-game on here you'll know that pushing wagons is what I do as scum, but then again it's all WiFOM... Who would you say my teammate is if I am scum?

Nah I am not GM, the sample pool is really small if it's just one game but I'll check it out and if your play as scum is radically different I'll consider it as a somewhat valid point, although the fact you know about it makes you possibly able to adapt so as you mentioned there is a WIFOM element involved.

I would strongly suspect GM if you flip scum, she coached Asty a lot at the start of the game, he said he felt like he was disappointing his master at one point and that he is a terrible liar, so if he was scum he probably left tells around.

GM also left you out of the players she might or might not vote today while putting you in her scum-reads and that may be a slip on her part. Also the fact she spent some time telling DDD that the amished tell was debunked while still scum-reading you is somewhat curious.

Didn't she say that she would like to lynch me or you today? Another odd point about GM is that she hasn't given me a concrete reason for scumreading me, so I can't defend myself or argue for why I'm town.

Why does she have an obligation to help someone she's scum reading by providing them reasons to be argued and refuted?

In post 509, Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Why is this a problem? You pretended to have an absolute close-minded position on GL+DDD=scum. I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you take a hardline stance, then back off it with "reaction test", and then get at someone else for taking a hardline stance.

What I am trying to establish there is if Accountant is being genuinely close minded or if he is faking it, because that changes his likely alignment and that's why it's relevant.

In post 428, copper223 wrote:

In post 427, goodmorning wrote:A. But you didn't feel like modifying your test when you saw that he wasn't new?
B. So you were reaction testing for one specific pair? You know the probability of one specific pair being Scum (from the perspective of a single Town player) is 6.25%, right? Not very efficacious.
C. Someone voting you when you happen to be voting them isn't necessarily OMGUS.
D. Scum can't have confbias; they have definite knowledge.
E. DDD is many things, but definitely not a VI.
F. I don't understand anything about 3.
G. And what do you think about our reactions?

A. I went ahead anyway because as I said I did not like the conclusions in GL's initial post, the 2 other scum-reads (I am making an effort to leave WIFOM out here) he gave were both in my town pool.
B. No, the idea of the test was based on the slot I did not like replacing out in a way I found possibly questionable (so the most likely scum-slot in the game at the time which makes it a very efficient choice), what came after can be called a reaction test only in the sense that I posted as if I had found a giant scum-slip to begin with and continued along those lines while finding both of these players scummy by themselves, and much more likely so if one of them happened to be scum (because of the associatives between them).
C. That's true but again irrelevant to my point, which is whether DDD being OMGUSy is something that he does more as town.
D. What is this in reference to?
E. You thought Jmo won the other lylo so I am not going to take your opinion about other players at face value.
F. Is 3 the part about Jae? You will get a bunch of WIFOM if you want more about that; the point there is that Jae would likely know that something strange is going on and I'd expect different behaviors from them as scum or town but the fact they openly mentioned not reading the thread makes all deductions in this area problematic.
G. I am still trying to work all the 3 of you out, since this has become an echo chamber of a few people going back and forth it's not leading anywhere, Dragon came in with a new perspective and I want to see if that's mainstream which would lead to a certain interpretation or niche which would make another more probable.

A. Do you often find that all townies agree on everything?
B. That really doesn't tally with what you said before.
C. But he's not being OMGUSy; therefore your entire point is irrelevant in and of itself.
D. I don't know, maybe the bit where you said "he's shown a strong amount of confbias" and then decided he's either "a VI or just Scum brazenly pushing"? Come on.
E. He fucking correctly tracked a Mafia and claimed it coherently AND in a way that somehow DIDN'T get him killed. Jmo won the fuck out of that LyLo.
F. This is, again, something new.
G. Our reactions to you initially pushing them have already happened, though.

[quote="In post 433, GuiltyLion"I think there's an implicit assumption somewhere (being pushed mainly by GM but the idea has also been sheeped by Accountant and DDD) that a "reaction test" has to have some kind of intentional expectation of how scum/town will react when it's given, but I think copper is saying his version of a "reaction test" is just to say shit and see what happens, which is plausible as town behavior.[/quote]
You don't have to have that expectation going into the test (though you probably should), but you definitely have to have it coming out.

In post 440, copper223 wrote:

In post 438, goodmorning wrote:Today is hardly long-term.

I'll respond to the rest in a bit.

That's a dodge.

If you left the today part out it could be interpreted as you being confident about me being scum so I'm the only one you are willing to vote at that point in time (although the question of why you don't mention Dragon is still open, were you ok with a Dragon lynch there?).

But by adding the today part in you're saying that anything else that Jae does today is unlikely to make you vote them and that's problematic because I see quite a few reasons for why you might not want to do so and are thinking along those lines as scum and very few as town.

You don't say!

If I left the today part out it would completely change the meaning of my post! (Obviously, since Dragon was on that scumlist and I didn't specify otherwise!)

I mean, we'll see. But generally I have a lot of mixed feelings about Jae and they don't make me want to put a vote there at all.

In post 445, copper223 wrote:her answer was not, copper stop misrepping me,

tbf my answer was "copper stop misrepping the English language" but ok

In post 448, copper223 wrote:

In post 446, Accountant wrote:dude you're starting a quibble over a single word. what on earth is our problem??

The way you post is relevant because it often shows the mindset you're coming from, the way GM phrased it makes me think she is planning ahead who to vote and that would be scummy.

On the contrary; planning votes ahead (which, ftr, I'm still not actually doing here, as I already said) locks you in a bit later. Flexibility is key to the scumgame imo. That and sleight-of-hand.

In post 511, goodmorning wrote:On the contrary; planning votes ahead (which, ftr, I'm still not actually doing here, as I already said) locks you in a bit later. Flexibility is key to the scumgame imo. That and sleight-of-hand.

You have no incentive as a town player to lock in your votes because with every post someone makes the situation may change dramatically, you are constantly looking for information in order to solve the game.

The above is an absurd mindset for a townie to have and your way to play around it is (hear hear) WIFOM how you would play as scum, ain't that scummy.

You don't say!

If I left the today part out it would completely change the meaning of my post! (Obviously, since Dragon was on that scumlist and I didn't specify otherwise!)

I mean, we'll see. But generally I have a lot of mixed feelings about Jae and they don't make me want to put a vote there at all.

Really? So why does it look like an ordered list (you mention DDD as unlikely 4th and put me in 1st place) but you are hesitant only about voting the 2nd and not the 3rd?

@Jae

In post 511, goodmorning wrote:I mean, we'll see. But generally I have a lot of mixed feelings about Jae and they don't make me want to put a vote there at all.

Does this make sense to you?

In post 462, Dragonfire wrote:Besides, we had to talk about something other than you and Accountant going at each other again and again for ages.

Why are you asking, anyway?

I swear, every time I decide to vote Dragon, he posts something like this and I change my mind.

In post 466, copper223 wrote:GM also left you out of the players she might or might not vote today while putting you in her scum-reads and that may be a slip on her part. Also the fact she spent some time telling DDD that the amished tell was debunked while still scum-reading you is somewhat curious.

I have not, to date, made a "players I may or may not vote" list. I have made a "players I have some level of scumread on and yet am probably not interested in voting today" list but as it's only one player I don't think it's relevant to this. (Also, is you misrepping me.) I think it's funny that you think a debunked tell is the only reason I could have had to scumread Dragon, given that I actually specified where the scumread was coming from.

In post 485, Accountant wrote:Jae is town. GM, do you agree?

I certainly do now, good gracious.

In post 487, JaeReed wrote: GM legit said that she probably wouldn't be voting me today. That implies something to me as far as her read on me that I dislike.

If you think I'm implying what I think you think I'm implying, you're not wrong. But I do it as all alignments, because it's really beneficial.

--

I think everyone with over 100 posts should TONE IT THE FUCK DOWN. We haven't heard anything from MM yet and prolonging the thread isn't going to make that happen any sooner.

--

p-edit: In practice, the situation doesn't usually change dramatically with any single post. Also, sometimes your reads are strong enough that any new evidence would have no effect. And, one more time, I'M STILL NOT LOCKING THEM IN HERE.

ALSO TUNNELING EXISTS.

I can't.

It's not an ordered list.

I really really just cannot.

Like, I am so far away from "can" that I'm on this tunnel until one of us is dead. That's it.

(ftr, I've locked in my vote.)

THIS IS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE

Copper why are you so determined to interpret what everyone says in a wrong manner

I'll check to see if scum GM goes to these lengths in newbies as scum when I am home.

In post 510, copper223 wrote:

In post 509, Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Why is this a problem? You pretended to have an absolute close-minded position on GL+DDD=scum. I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you take a hardline stance, then back off it with "reaction test", and then get at someone else for taking a hardline stance.

What I am trying to establish there is if Accountant is being genuinely close minded or if he is faking it, because that changes his likely alignment and that's why it's relevant.

Yeah, I don't see that, I just see a lot of sport-arguing.

In post 520, Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Yeah, I don't see that, I just see a lot of sport-arguing.

I see a lot of argument-sheeping from you.

In post 509, Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:

In post 429, copper223 wrote:

In post 426, Accountant wrote:"absolutely" is not used to literally mean "absolute"ly. It can be used as an expression meaning "very". check with other players if you don't believe me

I believe that's how you intended it, it still shows you are (pretending to be) very or as you would put it absolutely close-minded about the back and forth.

Why is this a problem? You pretended to have an absolute close-minded position on GL+DDD=scum. I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you take a hardline stance, then back off it with "reaction test", and then get at someone else for taking a hardline stance.

But there you're assuming that he was lying about it being a reaction test. If he's lying then, hypocritical or not, it makes him scum, as a townie wouldn't lie about something like that. So there's no point in calling him hypocritical in this case.

By the standard you're arguing here everything is a reaction test, I voted them as a reaction test, I made that case as a reaction test, I made that argument as a reaction test, I ignored that person as a reaction test. But the problem is if everything is a reaction test then nothing is, you've robbed the words of any meaning.

I think the purpose of a reaction test is to do something (whether it is post, claim or vote) with the sole purpose of seeing how people react and analysing the reactions. If it's done seriously, then it's not a reaction test. The intentions have to be to get reactions and only that.

Why does she have an obligation to help someone she's scum reading by providing them reasons to be argued and refuted?

Because if she's town, she doesn't want to mislynch a townie, so she would want to give them a chance to defend themselves and make a case for why they're town. A townie who refuses to discuss their scumreads or even consider that they're town is either deathtunneling or a bad player.

In post 514, goodmorning wrote:

In post 462, Dragonfire wrote:Besides, we had to talk about something other than you and Accountant going at each other again and again for ages.

Why are you asking, anyway?

I swear, every time I decide to vote Dragon, he posts something like this and I change my mind.

For the record, why did what I posted make you change your mind? Looking at the post, nothing really jumps out at me.

If you think I'm implying what I think you think I'm implying, you're not wrong. But I do it as all alignments, because it's really beneficial.

I think I might know what you're implying, but I'm not going to say.

I think everyone with over 100 posts should TONE IT THE FUCK DOWN. We haven't heard anything from MM yet and prolonging the thread isn't going to make that happen any sooner.

I agree, we need to let MM and Stapler's replacement actually read the thread and come to their own conclusions. Tons of convoluted arguing is only going to hinder that.

VC 1.08

Accountant (1):

MaidMarian

Dragonfire (2):

ironstove, copper223

JaeReed (1):

GuiltyLion

copper223 (3):

goodmorning, Debonair Danny DiPietro, Accountant

Not Voting:

Dragonfire, JaeReed

With

9

votes,

5

votes to lynch.

The deadline is in (expired on 2016-09-02 15:38:07).

Sorry for delayed VC. My weekend was a literal hell.
ironstove replaces StaplerTowel.