Mafiascum.net

morph wrote:We've talked about sharing what we advertised on N0.

Go forward with that?

voided wrote:ignoring posts where Faraday is trolling/insulting/whatever-ing Tammy, I have liked their thought process

garuda wrote:

In post 93, zMuffinMan wrote:voided is scum

I had the opposite reaction, actually.

In post 442, Zdenek wrote:I have both the investigation immunity and the hitman abilities, bitches.

In post 443, Zdenek wrote:

In post 44, Lost Butterfly wrote:Also, I think everyone should claim if they advertised or what they advertised on. Not the actual amount.

medium

In post 447, Zdenek wrote:Voided's town read on Lost Butterfly on account of baldeagle's attacks makes no sense. It's probably a contrived justification for a read.

In post 523, zMuffinMan wrote:

morph wrote:

UNVOTE

why?

who are you currently thinking about voting?

In post 457, Voidedmafia wrote:Slumberparty had both townies and not-townies involved in transferring, so I think it's pretty much the same. Gather up a good chunk of townies, and have another (not necessarily the same size) chunk of non-townies transfer to them without specifying who. Said townies should probably also not claim just how much they got through transfers unless it's necessary to figure out if scum won an ability during an auction or if.

I may have to reread through the rules again, but I don't think there was something put in place to prevent us from having specific people buy specific things, and I also believe that it would be necessary to at least have cash claims from anyone who's not town (perhaps even from everyone, but like I outlined above it may not be a good idea for the group of townies to say just how much they got so scum don't know how many people transferred to who). I'm not a setup expert, but I think it's possible to have non-townies A.) have a set amount of cash after they claim how much they have be set aside for transfers, then B.) Have another set amount of cash they will use each night to advertise certain PRs. Next, each of these non-townies will be designated to buy certain items with the money they should have from the transfers; no specific amounts, but they should at least give some kind of minimum number ("I have at least $300" "I have at least $500", etc.) to work with. This kind of plan may not necessarily be in place for tonight as no one should really have over $150 unless they did absolutely nothing with their money, but it should work from D2 or D3 onward.

There might be a problem in how transferees can catch scum who give lower amounts than they're supposed to, but idk if that's a good tradeoff for limiting scum's ability to use that wiretap ability.

In post 457, Voidedmafia wrote:

In post 449, 1baldeagle1 wrote:In Voided's 384, please explain why LB is town.

384; ignoring posts where Faraday is trolling/insulting/whatever-ing Tammy, I have liked their thought process;

I really did not like you case on them (and the continued push on them), which is gave me a growing townread on them. The fact that you're still trying to push them helps it, too.

In post 525, zMuffinMan wrote:which thought process/es?

In post 531, uʍop ǝpısdn wrote:this seems too convoluted to be useful, really

In post 478, Lord Mhork wrote:Also look at where the suspicion was when the deadline thing was popped. If I were scum, why on earth would I suddenly put a deadline hounding down especially with Lost Butterfly hounding me like he's got a guilty. The alternative is that the other scum team is trying to get me lynched, but since this is semi-multiball that implies that they want Lost Butterfly/BBMolla to get me strung up today. If they thought I were a possible scum ally, why would they do that? More likely they see an easy mislynch opportunity because Butterfly is tunneling me into oblivion.

In post 479, Harakiri wrote:

In post 470, Garuda wrote:This was awkward. Why didn't you just vote for yourself in your first post?

The first post was made by me, and the other post was made by Nati.

Also Operation sheep Nacho go!

Unvote
Vote: Mhork

In post 488, Lost Butterfly wrote:VOTE: BBmolla

In post 504, Lost Butterfly wrote:My read is pending on how he answers a few things, but what I don't like is that he dropped it really quickly and hopped onto Mhork. I know he was calling Mhork a member of the other scumteam, but the way the vote change went down read as though Faraday sweet-talked him onto the wagon. Even if he did really suspect Mhork, I'd have expected more resistance to being charmed by his other top scumread.

Also, I'm not sure what reaction he was expecting from me as either alignment (he should know I don't fold easily to stuff like that as scum). And, if anything, my frame of mind when I wrote the post he called nervous was completely relaxed; I knew everything would be cleared up once I claimed, and I'm used to drawing early wagons that dissipate quickly because of my wacky early-D1 scumhunting style.

Also also, his last two posts struck me as fluffy, and not in a bumbling spontaneous BBmolla town way ("Omigod, there was a traitor who's immune to cops...in a completely different set-up! Never mind that there's no indication any of the Marketplace games had a traitor. This is a useful contribution to the strategy discussion.")

In post 533, 1baldeagle1 wrote:God damnit.

In post 115, 1baldeagle1 wrote:Oh no! The evil quote tags have attacked!

In post 522, Harakiri wrote:Hi LostButterfly!

Read context clues better to figure out how to read this hydra's head!

Here's a secret: only one of us two is actively playing Pokemon right now.

In post 521, Lord Mhork wrote:To lost butterfly, I enjoyed the post from pyro regarding the fact you would go for the whole hundred of you were actually purchasing to keep it out of scum hands. That inconsistency made sense to me.

In post 534, Voidedmafia wrote:It's kinda what we did last game, though, just with some extra contingencies for new scum powers.

In post 539, Lost Butterfly wrote:Um...

Have...you guys...been talking about the game...

...

at all

?

*twitch*

I don't suppose you could ask Head Who's Not Playing Pokemon (Sakura?) to respond to my last post and explain the progression of her reads, please? Also, are the self-vote and the post about morph, Muffin, and Zdenek the only one you (Nati?) have made? Why do you want to focus on those three players in particular?

In post 453, Lost Butterfly wrote:Also, Zdenek is town (both

because of the claims

and how he seems more gleeful and spontaneous than his more robotic scum meta).

In post 347, Lost Butterfly wrote:So something Faraday has done before was claim miller just to see if a real miller would counterclaim him, and then retract it. We decided to run with something similar here.

In this game, it has less utility (since we know what roles in the game, and anyone could counter us), but we thought that if we claimed to have won something antitown, we could possibly get someone to look really town by their reaction (or possibly give away knowing outside information).

For a while, I was debating between claiming Hitman and Investigation Immune. At first, we wanted Hitman, because we thought a scum investigation immune player would be more likely to counterclaim us. (Before we got our role PMs,

we'd considered a scum strategy would be to bid on investigation immunity, claim it to look town, and then transfer it to a teammate and give him cop protection

). Hitman is more likely something scum wouldn't claim--particularly since WE look scummy if a NK goes through that shouldn't have.

But then I thought about it, and realized we should choose Inv. Immune for the opposite reason. Town will almost certainly claim either Hitman or Scum. But

scum is much more likely to claim Investigation Immune

than Hitman

for town cred

. So if

we

claim Investigation Immune (and scum has it), they go, "Score! They're probably on the other Mafia Faction and signalling to us!" Or capitalize on the confusion and say nothing. So the object was also to reduce the chance of

scum

claiming inv. immune (and then passing it on). (Actually, now I just realized that it might have been better to let them claim it and be held accountable. OOPS.)

HOWEVER, my major mistake in the plan: not accounting for the fact that scum are confirmed to have cop right now. I'd thought of this before seeing the auction results, and didn't take into account the fact that the investigation immune role is no longer even a

threat

to town when the scum have cop.

So...long story short: I should have claimed Hitman.

Part of why I liked the people who were attacking us for being fake was that they were

right

. My claim did read as phony, because it was. (Honestly, I just threw in the part about $80 on a whim, although I think it's a terrible argument that you'd have to risk ALL your money on something on D1.) Of course...another explanation is that the people who thought I was lying

knew

it, if their buddy had the role. But then why wouldn't they leave me alone, given that each faction wants the other to survive?

Bottom line: if it's a scum role, then I feel like the people attacking me for my claim were at most on the faction that doesn't have it.

In post 490, morph the cat wrote:
Cabd isn't around, but he and I discussed prohawk earlier.

We feel like he's kinda avoiding the thread atm. And we didn't like that his major contribution to the game last night was a pretty much gratuitous injection of morph-fery meta wifom.

In post 538, uʍop ǝpısdn wrote:

In post 533, 1baldeagle1 wrote:God damnit.

In post 115, 1baldeagle1 wrote:Oh no! The evil quote tags have attacked!

In post 541, Harakiri wrote:Zdenek isn't in the game

In post 542, ProHawk wrote:I don't in the slightest get how you feel Zdnek is town for something you hypothesized scum would do to look town

harakiri wrote:The $3 doublevote also points towards town to me, just don't think coordinated scum would do that this early.

In post 544, ProHawk wrote:No, no I am pretty sure I commented on it. Meta shouldn't trump anything. Its the lowest of low.

In post 535, uʍop ǝpısdn wrote:Probably vote Nacho again soon.

In post 537, uʍop ǝpısdn wrote:

In post 488, Lost Butterfly wrote:VOTE: BBmolla

I hope there's an explanation for this coming up.

In post 504, Lost Butterfly wrote:My read is pending on how he answers a few things, but what I don't like is that he dropped it really quickly and hopped onto Mhork. I know he was calling Mhork a member of the other scumteam, but the way the vote change went down read as though Faraday sweet-talked him onto the wagon. Even if he did really suspect Mhork, I'd have expected more resistance to being charmed by his other top scumread.

Also, I'm not sure what reaction he was expecting from me as either alignment (he should know I don't fold easily to stuff like that as scum). And, if anything, my frame of mind when I wrote the post he called nervous was completely relaxed; I knew everything would be cleared up once I claimed, and I'm used to drawing early wagons that dissipate quickly because of my wacky early-D1 scumhunting style.

Also also, his last two posts struck me as fluffy, and not in a bumbling spontaneous BBmolla town way ("Omigod, there was a traitor who's immune to cops...in a completely different set-up! Never mind that there's no indication any of the Marketplace games had a traitor. This is a useful contribution to the strategy discussion.")

...hmmm

I don't think that's really worth a vote at the moment?

In post 543, Voidedmafia wrote:

In post 538, uʍop ǝpısdn wrote:

In post 533, 1baldeagle1 wrote:God damnit.

In post 115, 1baldeagle1 wrote:Oh no! The evil quote tags have attacked!

Is there a reason you're suddenly ascribing to the FaraMina style of quoting posts but not explaining why?

lb wrote:What are your thoughts on Mhork?