Mafiascum.net

In post 516, Elbirn wrote:

In post 511, Inferno390 wrote:@Elbirn: I never said you were scummy. I just said your ISO was off and I didn’t know why.

But then what does this even mean? If feeling like I'm "off" doesnt mean that you feel like I'm scummy then what even do you intend to convey mate?

There’s something tonally pinging about your posts but I can’t tell if it’s just your playstyle or something else.
You’re not necessarily scummy, just someone I need to take another look at so I can sort you.

In post 523, brassherald wrote: 464 and the fact that you are asking me which I think has substance instead of trying to point out actual substance or make a post of substance. Well, not winning you any town points, here.

Was trying to get a full understanding of your point first. I see 115, 144 and 147 as having some substance even if it was a bad read. I see 467 containing substance as it's a valid question even though it was already asked and answered. I think me asking you to clarify which post has substance has substance because it gets you to clarify your point.

Admittedly I haven't been posting a lot but the 22 pages in four days didn't help with that. Once I got behind it was harder and harder to catch up as the spam posting continued. I also think that just because my posts tend to be shorter doesn't mean that I'm posting fluff, in most of my posts I see me trying to advance the game or develop my reads even if just a tiny bit.

In post 524, HeWhoSwims wrote:Well you can try no

Why are dave and chickadee sscum? you seem to imply they are.

I pointed it out specifically to try and respond, and it's worked so far because I got brass to explain his read.

I wasn't really satisfied to dave's answer in 459 and his response to t_w's question in 471 is also unsatisfying. He doesn't explain why he would be satisfied with that answer, it's just a straight matter-of-fact yes which kind of pings me. It reads like he doesn't even want to clarify his point. Also 85 seems like safe fence-sitting fluff but that's been pointed out and it was so long ago.

I feel like chickadee has less content than me and I've been lurking pretty hard by this point so that's pretty sus but she could also just be in the same situation I've been in.

Elbirn -
MagnaofIllusion -
Ausuka -
brassherald -
the worst - HeWhoSwims
dramonic - Inferno390
HitAlt -
Skygazer - Raskolnikov, HitAlt, the worst, brassherald, Ausuka
Inferno390 -
Chickadee -
xyzzy -
HeWhoSwims -
Flubbernugget - MagnaofIllusion
Raskolnikov - xyzzy
davesaz -
Andrius - Elbirn, Profii
Profii -

- Chickadee, Flubbernugget, dramonic, Skygazer, davesaz, Andrius

I have a bit of time before the kick off

The Worst - you wanted to know some things from me, phone posting so can’t remeber the exact questions so if you want to know more just ask.


Anyway, see 309

I didn’t really do this on purpose, but it occurred to me I called an action bad (Rask no lynch vote) and a minor wagon started - you / Sky / Xyzzy / flubber posturing around it.

So it occurred to me that maybe scum would use my calling Rask bad as an oppurtunity to get on a Rask wagon because I had provided a reason for them.

So I was waiting to see how these players moved off that wagon to see who looked most scummy.

- the worst, I don’t think I’ve played your scum game so I’m not sure but your moving around wagons is something I’ve seen you do as town
- xyzzy, I’m not a great fan of that post with all the post links as it didn’t really go anywhere
- sky- I didn’t like that unvote but I appreciate not everyone has loads of time - I certainly avoid games any bigger than this because I am not sharp enough to keep up properly so I’d like to say to sky please provide 3 scum reads and why
flubber, seems more bothered that he is mixed up in his than really scum hunting, it’s he most off for me and I’m pretty sure scum is in these 4 players


VOTE: Flubber

I’m just going to re read sky a bit as this wagon has appeared - I’ve been heavily focussed on the Rask thing so far

In post 396, HitAlt wrote:@ausuka, how would you rate/describe your own scum game?
In your own words, don't need to go in depth, but would appreciate more than "I suck" or "I'm good".

Sorry, just remembered this. I would describe myself as a pretty bad scum player. I consistently fail to get myself widely townread and usually get vigged or lynched because I guess I'm just bad at genuinely faking a town thought process. However I think I'm more charismatic as scum than town maybe because I sometimes get mislynch bait lynched instead of myself even when I'm really scummy.

In post 528, Skygazer wrote:I feel like chickadee has less content than me and I've been lurking pretty hard by this point so that's pretty sus but she could also just be in the same situation I've been in.

I disagree.

I've given some reads, and interacted with flubber a bit. I would say I have a good bit more content that you. I just tend to be a fairly low poster.

@Flubber - you asked why I am town reading Ausuka. I just pulled a few things.

I like that Ausuka was producingcontent early on and forming reads. And more importantly, I like the actual content they were producing.

In post 127, Ausuka wrote:

In post 78, profii wrote:

In post 73, Raskolnikov wrote:VOTE: No Lynch

Well this is worse than giving us yourself as scum, Elbirn. Wanna wagon your scum buddy here?

Why is this scummy to you?

In post 130, Ausuka wrote:VOTE: Skygazer

I feel like the description of raskol's NL vote as "LAMIST" is probably the scummiest thing in the thread so far.

With this next quote, I just cant see any scum motivation in it. It's an effort on Ausuka's part to stop the toxic behaivor, and scum benefits more from sitting back.

In post 286, Ausuka wrote:As said previously {inferno, gustavo, profii} likely contains 0 scum and scum have probably been watching town implode so far. Let's try to put some focus on the real scum please instead of this. Is anyone willing to defend flubber?

I'm caught up. Taking a break and then I'll attempt to turn my catchup wall o' disgusting into actual readable stuff.

See, I would argue 286 at the point that what if one of those players IS scum? Then it would make sense for scum!Ausuka to try and draw attention away from that situation to reduce the chance of a buddy incriminating themselves.
I don’t, however, think that that post alone is enough to call Ausuka scum. If Gustavo or Profii end up actually being scum, I’m gonna come back and look at this. But for now, it’s more of a null post than anything.

Chick, mediating arguments is NAI because scum doesn't have to reason about alignment to be able to do it.

I respect he's not the most active guy but I really want Dave to get back to me.

I will hopefully have a reads list by Friday.

Also, profii, of everyone that "wagoned" rask,why did you vote me?

In post 536, Flubbernugget wrote:Chick, mediating arguments is NAI because scum doesn't have to reason about alignment to be able to do it.

Why would scum not just do so in a PT though.

I tend to see mediating arguments coming from town 9 times out of 10.

sorry if I did something wrong. I was just trying to redirect the focus of the thread.

In post 542, Ausuka wrote:sorry if I did something wrong. I was just trying to redirect the focus of the thread.

Stop arguing with the mod!

In post 510, Flubbernugget wrote:

In post 496, davesaz wrote:

In post 490, Flubbernugget wrote:The majority of the votes in this game have had words around them but are effectively naked votes

That's a nice observation but what does it mean to you?

It means this game is likely a town loss.

Why does it matter what it means to me?

Why can I say something like that and have the town take a minimal note of it and continue to play as they were?

Why are you challenging me on this instead of taking action on how unacceptable it is?

I kinda thought you might have specific votes in mind.
Sometimes a relatively naked vote does have reasoning if you bother to pay attention to context. Other times it's just naked.
I'm asking you about it because you pointing it out and doing nothing yourself about it sets up all kinds of people to be the 2nd/3rd to push, like scum often prefer.
You asking why I'm not doing anything about it is helpful, because it does show you're having a similar thought process at least on this point.
Why I haven't yet done anything is a function of available time, which you seem to have already guessed, plus wanting to see how you responded to the question.

In post 544, profii wrote:

In post 542, Ausuka wrote:sorry if I did something wrong. I was just trying to redirect the focus of the thread.

Stop arguing with the mod!

I'm not trying to argue D:

Scum reads (mostly WIP towards the top)

Ausuka - as stated before, sketchiest of my sketch wagon

Elbrin - has exactly one post that isn't fluff or related to the early flame war

-----

Davesaz - I totally get being more observant than talkative, but every time he posts, nothing really changes. There's lots of questions in his iso, but a lot of it boils down to minute clarifications that don't really read into motivations. A lot of his commentary is "I agree with this point or that point" but it's again looking through the forest ignorant of the trees.

I also really don't like my recent interaction with him. Dave is a really analytical guy. He can very much piece things together through solid logic. However, the only way to do that is with a solid foundation. That starts D1 with a sample of good votes and detailed reasoning. The closest he's done to that so far is give my concern for the state of the game lip service. Dave concludes that my concern is valid with nothing more than a gripe that time is finite. Totally respectable, but if that's the case, then the town thing to do is at least start a discussion on how to push the game's voting habits towards in a more effective direction.

VOTE: davesaz

In post 540, Chickadee wrote:

In post 536, Flubbernugget wrote:Chick, mediating arguments is NAI because scum doesn't have to reason about alignment to be able to do it.

Why would scum not just do so in a PT though.

I tend to see mediating arguments coming from town 9 times out of 10.

1) I'm counting this post as a strike against you on the grounds of PT slipping

2) 9 out of 10 is bad odds when the majority of the game is town anyway.

In post 548, Flubbernugget wrote:

In post 540, Chickadee wrote:

In post 536, Flubbernugget wrote:Chick, mediating arguments is NAI because scum doesn't have to reason about alignment to be able to do it.

Why would scum not just do so in a PT though.

I tend to see mediating arguments coming from town 9 times out of 10.

1) I'm counting this post as a strike against you on the grounds of PT slipping

2) 9 out of 10 is bad odds when the majority of the game is town anyway.

Haha...ok

And I'm saying that in all the games I see arguments, it's very very rarely scum that encourages breaking up arguments. Not just this game. Arguments create good grounds for scum to hide and lurk, because they tend to make town demotivated as well. So it's easy to blend in.