Mafiascum.net

Just R2R. I have Dany as Null.

In post 497, Quick wrote:Oh, I forgot to include Nauci into my analysis. It looks like she is exactly tied with you for Scummy behavior. (Yes, I have actually done math for this game.)

Then why switch your vote off her?

In post 501, ready2rock wrote:

In post 497, Quick wrote:Oh, I forgot to include Nauci into my analysis. It looks like she is exactly tied with you for Scummy behavior. (Yes, I have actually done math for this game.)

Then why switch your vote off her?

Because I didn't add her to the list is the only reason. I have all my data for it, I just forgot to add her to a list. So I was going off of everything without here included. Then I looked at my list and I made a read from there. I hadn't actually seen you interact much (as you only had 5 posts at the time of my calculation) so I wanted to see what more you brought to the table before voting there. At this point, I could very well go back to nauci, but honestly, after putting my vote on NPOM I just want to let it ride at this point and see who/if anyone follows me there. If there is a ton of resistance to the NPOM wagon then I will likely keep my vote there or go to one of my other SRs (you/Nauci). But it does appear that nothing is ruling out NPOM encouraging Nauci to Pocket me at this point, which I am pretty sure I can totally see NPOM coaching Nauci to do that in Scum chat.

In post 462, NoPowerOverMe wrote:Anyone could be faking anything. It's called gut feeling.

In post 56, NoPowerOverMe wrote:Giving townreads is generally protown in my opinion as it opens yourself up to criticism

I just wanted to say that pretty much anything you say ITT can be subject to criticism. Okay, hypocrisy noted just because you loved my TR on you that turned out to be totally WRONG.

In post 489, Quick wrote:

In post 484, Nauci wrote:@Umlaut: Does scum have daytalk?

DENIED.

That is WAY too many to "show you are Town" so...

VOTE: Nauci

If you looked through my game history you'll see me ask that question at least 30% of the games I was in, especially after confusion about that led me to fuck up in one of my first games ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I genuinely tried to find it in the OP on the first day but must have skipped over that line to Game Mechanics

I feel like I've been stating what I know about Quick from previous experience with him and I don't exactly know why that's pocketing because not a whole lot of what I said was positive... But hey if you feel complimented by just the accuracy of a description then suit yourself?

Meow.

Just woke up, nothing jumps out at me except -- DUDE, NPOM, u gotta get an avatar man, i can't decide if u're making scum posts or if i'm just having a hard time because i can't imagine a face behind all ur words.

if u don't get an avatar and u are town u will be contributing to ur own mislunch

Doesn't even have to be an avatar with a face, Quick has some sort of tree thing but whenever i read his posts in my peripheral vision his avatar looks kind of like sans undertale

@Nauci: I gotta ask now, why did you include the mod set up post in 221? It was unrelated to the content of your post and wasn’t prompted by one of the previous posts and didn’t appear to be a response to a question. Furthermore, um, the top of that post you quote does in fact say private threads have day talk. It’s right at the top and not buried later down in that post.

OK some questions for VP

1) You said early on in the thread that you didn't like puppy talking about blair's inactivity. Did that actually affect your read one way or the other, since you had your vote on them at the time? And thoughts on puppy now?

2) Since you asked for the case on Blair (336) and since then a lot of discussion has happened between her and quick. Thoughts on Blair now?

3) Do you still think there's value in pressuring votato more at this stage?

@Quick - maybe it's a little late for this but please just answer questions when Blair or other people ask them if they're about your reads or why you did something, it's really difficult to read you if you tell people to read your or other people's isos rather than just explaining why you thought something at a given time. Like if I'm trying to figure out why you think Blair would do something is scum for example it's a lot easier to try figure out your alignment from a description of what you were thinking at the time than you telling me to go read through your iso or look at a specfic post Blair made without any extra context.

@Blair - Has your opinion on votato changed much in the last 5 pages or so? I'm not ULTRA-CONFIDENT but I like his recent posts.

@ready - What makes you think Blair vs Quick is TvT? I know Puppy mentioned a reason for it earlier but do you agree with what he said or do you have your own for it?

In post 510, Gammagooey wrote:@Quick - maybe it's a little late for this but please just answer questions when Blair or other people ask them if they're about your reads or why you did something, it's really difficult to read you if you tell people to read your or other people's isos rather than just explaining why you thought something at a given time. Like if I'm trying to figure out why you think Blair would do something is scum for example it's a lot easier to try figure out your alignment from a description of what you were thinking at the time than you telling me to go read through your iso or look at a specfic post Blair made without any extra context.

@Blair - Has your opinion on votato changed much in the last 5 pages or so? I'm not ULTRA-CONFIDENT but I like his recent posts.

@ready - What makes you think Blair vs Quick is TvT? I know Puppy mentioned a reason for it earlier but do you agree with what he said or do you have your own for it?

I would but I mentally don't even know what to tell people so they can understand...

5 pages over night....y'all are crazy and this better be good.

In post 510, Gammagooey wrote: @ready - What makes you think Blair vs Quick is TvT? I know Puppy mentioned a reason for it earlier but do you agree with what he said or do you have your own for it?

It's partially out of my reads of them being town before they started their back and forth, then when they started their discussion with each other the way they were pushing each other felt genuine on both ends

In post 510, Gammagooey wrote:@Blair - Has your opinion on votato changed much in the last 5 pages or so? I'm not ULTRA-CONFIDENT but I like his recent posts.

He hasn't said very much in the past five pages, in fairness.

Nothing he said made much difference to me, except when he moved from pushing Atarashi (while making it clear he is still scumreading him) to push VP in 398. Atarashi hasn't said a word in a long time now, so it makes sense to me to apply pressure elsewhere - and I liked that he chose to do so while explicitly stating he was not abandoning his concerns with Atarashi.

Scum Votato could have quietly tunneled away on an inactive slot. Maybe he was anticipated getting called out for exactly that, but it felt more likely natural than not to me.

EBWOP: *anticipating

In post 512, VP Baltar wrote:5 pages over night....y'all are crazy and this better be good.

Go on.

I would like to hear what you have to say because I have you as pretty solidly Null atm.

votato wrote:VP also completely ignored all the questions asked of him. interesting.

Pardon? I've tried to answer all questions directed my way. I'm sure there are things that have been missed along the way though due to the river of content, so feel free to point them out.

going through your ISO, I see this in post 244:

votato wrote:puppy and VP, what are your reads? what do you think of atarashi? you're both asking questions without actually offering up any thoughts of your own.

this was at the time with your name calling match with puppy, which i found quite silly and passed through relatively quickly since I was also working at that time. I've given reads at this point, so that answers that question. I do find your effort to slide in a completely unfounded remark like I'm not "offering up any thoughts of your own" complete cum BS. I'm 100% out in front here pushing your wagon to get people to weigh in, and it's not exactly like it's the most popular position to go after a likely scum who people think is too wreckless to not be town.

As far as I can see, I've directly addressed every other question you've put to me. This again fits with the pattern I identified when I first had a weird twinge about you and voted: You mischaracterize because you are fake scum hunting.

In post 384, CantHateAPuppy wrote:Hi again VP!

it's ur responsibilit to not get NK'd, not mine!

It's your responsibility to be good town. A mild reading between the lines of my words, which you accurately did, revealed where my head was at about possible busing. My point was there wasn't a benefit to the town making that more explicit there than it needed to be.

In post 387, Nauci wrote:
Quick: Blair is saying you were lying because you, on 3 separate occasions, claimed you purposely post enigmatically/mysteriously, and then in the 4th post claimed that you were NOT trying to be cryptic, which totally contradicts the previous 3 posts

Blair: I think that Quick both meant what he said the first 3 times, and what he said with that last bit, because A: the part about him NOT trying to be cryptic was referring to a very specific subset of his posts, and B: he sometimes owns the fact that he's unintentionally cryptic because he doesn't explain his theories well enough, but sometimes he also says that this happens because he's intentionally being mysterious. It's the sort of thing that has gotten him mislynched many a time. I think that if you're going to scum read him, you have to go a bit deeper than surface contradictions.

Major town points on Nauci here for me. I had been eyeing her carefully, but only town would defuse this pointless fight that well. Not looking great for you iDany.

In post 388, Nauci wrote:

In post 376, VP Baltar wrote:Atarashi are more likely town than scum

What led you to determine this before he has come back today and responded to the scum reads on him?

Atarashi won me over with his initial flurry. Obviously I could be wrong and I want to hear more from him. But I got solid town vibes from what i have seen.

In post 393, mavsfan41 wrote:

In post 336, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 331, Quick wrote:Okay, Effort for donkey just means he is Town. That is all I am saying.

I'll bite. Give me the case on Blair.

In 376, VP Baltar says he’s pretty sure Quick and Blair are town. I don’t think town!VP Baltar asks his TR Quick about their case on TR Blair. Town!VP Baltar would only asks this if he’s scum reading at least one of Quick/Blair.

His town read post came after a Blair vs Quick so it’s possible he read that as TvT since, but that means he was scum reading Blair since he was town reading Quick in 317.

He never makes a push on Blair prior to this or expresses any sort of scum read on Blair. I think the above is disingenuous and he looking for town to eat itself here.

Vote: VP Baltar

Two things here. First, the fighting between them later definitely enforced my sense of TvT. Second, the point of me asking that question was to try to get Quick to articulate his case, which at that point felt very flimsy and undefined (at one point his reasoning to Puppy was that Blair seemed "off" because Puppy said she was good). I had hoped that by asking Quick to explain, he would be forced to acknowledge the case was weak and he might move on to a more productive path. I'll admit i did not have thorough follow through, in part because Quick's playstyle is a little exhausting for me to read.

In post 398, votato wrote:

In post 393, mavsfan41 wrote:

In post 336, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 331, Quick wrote:Okay, Effort for donkey just means he is Town. That is all I am saying.

I'll bite. Give me the case on Blair.

So at the time of this question, Blair’s VC was 2, NPOM and Quick. NPOM voted Blair way back in 189. Quick voted Blair closer to this post in 270 while baiting “feel free to ask me for my reasoning” which makes me believe that VP Baltar is directing the above at Quick.

In 376, VP Baltar says he’s pretty sure Quick and Blair are town. I don’t think town!VP Baltar asks his TR Quick about their case on TR Blair. Town!VP Baltar would only asks this if he’s scum reading at least one of Quick/Blair.

His town read post came after a Blair vs Quick so it’s possible he read that as TvT since, but that means he was scum reading Blair since he was town reading Quick in 317.

He never makes a push on Blair prior to this or expresses any sort of scum read on Blair. I think the above is disingenuous and he looking for town to eat itself here.

Vote: VP Baltar

this is what i was talking about when i said i was waiting for juicy/tasty posts. atarashi is not off the hook, but VOTE: VP

I am jack's complete lack of surprise at this vote.

r2r wrote:-Among active people, I think my biggest suspicion is on VP, as he seems to be trying to jump on minor more obvious things people say

Oh really? elaborate on this please..because literally just above in this post, you literally sheep my reasoning for voting votato...which is that he mischaracterizes posts.

for reference:

r2r wrote: Also not a fan of 301 when he misinterprets what puppy is saying

And then there is this hilarious turn:

r2r wrote:OK so I can't read today and there's only 1 vote on VP, so let's make it 2

VOTE: VP Baltar

Which is "DINGALINGALING, here comes the scum counter wagon to votato because he can't quite shake the pressure."

mavs and votato had just voted me. In fact, here is WHAT YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID IN THE PREVIOUS POST:

r2r wrote:pedit: OK was about to vote and wanted to look for the last vote count first and

2 new votes on VP happened, brb gonna go count

Bold emphasis mine. So you knew there were two votes, and then you immediately cast a vote and tried to avoid any attention for hopping on that scummy as hell wagon by saying "oh I haven't read" and then intentionally misstated the vote count on me so people would believe you hadn't read.

Like, I didn't even fully catch up. That r2r goof is 100% scum.

Flash-reads on Quick, please! For verily and forsooth doth I have need of them!

tl;dr because I don't want to be wall posting. If you skimmed my post above, r2r is lying scum. Here is the case in one place.

In post 517, VP Baltar wrote:here is this hilarious turn:

r2r wrote:
OK so I can't read today and there's only 1 vote on VP, so let's make it 2

VOTE: VP Baltar


Which is "DINGALINGALING, here comes the scum counter wagon to votato because he can't quite shake the pressure."

mavs and votato had just voted me. In fact, here is WHAT YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID IN THE PREVIOUS POST:

r2r wrote:
pedit: OK was about to vote and wanted to look for the last vote count first and 2 new votes on VP happened, brb gonna go count

Bold emphasis mine. So you knew there were two votes, and then you immediately cast a vote and tried to avoid any attention for hopping on that scummy as hell wagon by saying "oh I haven't read" and then intentionally misstated the vote count on me so people would believe you hadn't read.

Unvote, Vote: ready2rock

In post 519, Blair wrote:

@EVERYONE

Flash-reads on Quick, please! For verily and forsooth doth I have need of them!

Blair, I think out of the two of you, you're actually making a case and I can see why you feel the way you do. I see your lynch all liars logic, and you are right it is a good guide to scum. I think there is a question of intent behind Quick's posts. I think the discrepancy you point out reads more like a player goofing and not paying attention to how dumb it looks.

If we are following the lynch all liars logic, don't you think the case on r2r is better?

Can you distill the case on R2R down to its simplest terms? Don't bother with links or quotes, I see you have already provided them, and I will refer back to them if I need them.

Give me the Reader's Digest, 1-3 sentence summary please.

In post 521, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 519, Blair wrote:

@EVERYONE

Flash-reads on Quick, please! For verily and forsooth doth I have need of them!

Blair, I think out of the two of you, you're actually making a case and I can see why you feel the way you do. I see your lynch all liars logic, and you are right it is a good guide to scum. I think there is a question of intent behind Quick's posts. I think the discrepancy you point out reads more like a player goofing and not paying attention to how dumb it looks.

If we are following the lynch all liars logic, don't you think the case on r2r is better?

Well, I guess I suck at this game for not just saying when I said, "shadow and secret are my worlds" which should be pretty damn obvious. Nauci picked up on that pretty squarely. Are jokes Scummy? Or rather, what Scum motive do I actually have to say that exactly? you can talk about generalities all you want but ultimately it's motive that counts and Blair NEVER believed I was lying.

For example, mine for Quick is:

I initially thought Quick was being intentionally enigmatic and dodging questions as a matter of playstyle, but then he explicitly denied that he was doing so. When I voted for him for this apparent contradiction, he then claimed I was only voting for him for townreading Votato - something I never said, and he later admitted he knew that was not what I meant (another lie)! Liars who wilfully mislead the thread are more often scum than not.

P-edit: You keep ignoring the other two examples I gave. The ones where people asked you questions and you dodged them with similar antics.