Mafiascum.net

#521 is kinda a response to #520 without me actually reading it

would the kneejerk thingy be indicative of town to you or what

and does 521 sort of address that point if so

Day and a half is more than enough to CFD onto someone
I've done it in 3 hours

In post 432, skitter30 wrote:@zenith i hope you feel better!!!

@ddl: those are actually p good posts
also i'd feel bad lynching someone that sick who couldn't respond well so

VOTE: george

Thanks, I hope it ends soon. Been taking a bunch of bc powders and sleeping a lot. That seems like probably a bad reason not to lynch someone, but considering the situation I probably shouldn't complain. Feel free to push as hard as you want D2.

In post 442, tictac wrote:yea CFD always such a good idea /s

What is CFD?



Anyways, we are getting pretty close to deadline so..
UNVOTE:
He's pretty good at creating an obfuscating mess to hide behind when pushed, which I'd like to avoid, but my #1 scum read at this point is suspicious.

I'll vote after I catch up on the thread, and also list everyone I'd be willing to lynch if I have to compromise, so we can go from there and hopefully avoid a no-lynch.

In post 527, Zenith wrote:What is CFD?

Chinese Fire Drill

aka- we forget all of our existing wagons, everyone picks a random person and we collectively lynch them for "no reason" other than "deadline"
it wins games trust me

They hated Jesus because he told the truth

If I have to die so this game gets solved correctly then fine I guess.

Sus
Take a breather/break
come back in ~8 hours when you're refreshed.

The pity party will still be here, along with the scum!points you're racking up with me

In post 439, january wrote:well this vote is very split lol

does either person voting me have any reason behind the vote or are they both still votes for pressure even though we're at a point where we should be actually voting to lynch

@Vorkuta
@Zenith

#333

In post 505, Suspicious wrote:You've caught me, this is my blazing scumtell. Gosh darn, I though I had ya.

In post 506, january wrote:wow! are you claiming mafia too!

hi there partner

Wth?

All caught up.
VOTE: Suspicious

I have mixed feelings on Jan and Jam. Need to do a proper analysis on them but right now I just don't have it in me to do full analysis. Would be willing to lynch either of them if needed to avoid a no-lynch, but would rather wait until I can better sort them D2. Would prefer to lynch my #1 suspect Suspicious.

At least there is a good bit of content to work with, so hopefully some flips will help to sort through all of the activity so far.

In post 527, Zenith wrote:my #1 scum read at this point is suspicious.

Aight, but why? The constant Q/A that was going on?

If so, what about it makes him scum?

In post 535, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 527, Zenith wrote:my #1 scum read at this point is suspicious.

Aight, but why? The constant Q/A that was going on?

If so, what about it makes him scum?

My previous reasons + lack of other scum reads + his recent activity hasn't done him any favors. I took a step back for a while to cool off and because our back and forth wasn't going anywhere, but my feelings haven't changed.

Sorry guys. My IP address was blocked and I just got home but I'm tired. I'll try to wake up early tomorrow and say something intelligent

Zenith wrote:#333

I might be completely misunderstanding your post but i don't see how 333 explains why you fos me (or why you're voting me since i guess they can be different)

In post 333, Zenith wrote:Lynching inactive players or null reads is a pretty bad idea, and should be a last resort, done only to prevent a no-lynch if there are no scum reads. Even then, lynching someone for inactivity isn't much better than having a day end in no-lynch. Is much preferable for inactive players to get replaced rather than lynched.

i agree with this?? i was saying that I thought Bailey was voting ceejay just because they were inactive, and i said that that was a bad idea

In post 333, Zenith wrote:I can't speak for everyone, but voting a null read can be used as a probe to get a better read. Voting an inactive player can be used as a way to attempt changing their behavior, to promote activity and contribution. It should be obvious, but voting isn't always about seriously trying to lynch someone.

is this you explaining your vote on me or saying that Bailey's vote was to make ceejay participate more

soo is your vote real or not i don't think i understand

since i know everyone really really cares about my reads (this is sarcastic)

but anyways
i meant to consolidate all of this a lot earlier but it's finally done

TOWN:
- hard town as i explained earlier, the effort to lynch jamelia seems impossible or very hard to fake as scum, wp if you're scum

townyish:
- fancy towntold a bit, dolittle hasn't really but eh
- like you for your interactions with me, at least you're willing to share why you voted me (as opposed to anyone else voting me atm)
- only on this level because everyone else is scummier but i'm a bit paranoid (maybe intimidated is the better word) by your meta of being supertowny as scum

scummyish:
- avoided my "why did you vote me" question so hard lol and i would like to get a real response before deciding where exactly to put you
- i kind of defended them at the beginning of the day but they fell off pretty fast

MAFIA:
- feel bad for putting so much pressure on you, but you kinda crumbled and if you're town the responses to the pressure were still way too weak
- literally impossible to communicate with and your vote on me was definitely an ego lynch if you're town, pls work on reading better. also your "case against jan" is just... not there... i can't believe town can be this dumb or scum can be this scummy

and yes this is in order towny to scummy even within categories so for example i fos bailey more than i do zenith and etc

In post 539, january wrote:[Suspicious's] "case against jan" is just... not there...

more on this:
if 443 is supposed to be your justification of your vote i'm not sure i see anywhere in that post that you actually fos me

you're just generally disagreeing with everything i say

but that doesn't make me particularly scummy? i can just be a town who has bad reads to you - you don't seem to townread tictac, who quite literally had the same read as me on jamelia

i'm really not sure where i did anything that is AI to you - if you point it out then lets discuss, but you haven't signaled that you found anything I said particularly alignment telling yet (you just disagree w/ it) so im not sure where your case against me is

don't seem to scumread tictac** mybad

Lynching

With 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to lynch.

january

(2): Vorkuta, Suspicious

Suspicious

(2): skitter30, Zenith

GeorgeBailey

(1): DrDolittle

Jamelia

(1): tictac

skitter30

(1): GeorgeBailey

Not Voting

(2): january, Jamelia

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-10-27 08:30:00).

I have added the current deadline to the first post on page 1, since the different countdowns on the different pages can be confusing.[/area]

@Jan

Yes.

Ok. I have slept and eaten and hopefully more coherent now.
Let's try this once more.

In post 351, tictac wrote: this is the biggest point for me.

In post 519, GeorgeBailey wrote:What if he stayed on Zenith?

He did in fact stay on zenith until I called him out for being out of character.

Would that earn him any town points?

I was in fact waiting to see if he would unvote. Yes, unvoting before I called him out on not doing so would have netted townpoints. Doing it after I called him out does not net any.

Why are you only holding Jam accountable for this?

Originally:
because of my read of him as a person, that I posessed from before the game started, having watched him play before. This was a convincing reason yet does not translate directly for me having a convincing argument, because you'd have to trust me or actually do some homework.
Then Jam said:

In post 216, Jamelia wrote:As for not seeing something is on L-1.

I didn’t. I worked all last night and I didn’t realize we were on a L-1 on Zenith. That’s my bad.

UNVOTE: until I actually sit down and read everything analytically.

And, lo. You guys don't have to trust me or do any homework, to know that for Jam to not unvote an early L-1 is out of character for him.

In post 237, tictac wrote:

In post 216, Jamelia wrote:As for not seeing something is on L-1.

I didn’t. I worked all last night and I didn’t realize we were on a L-1 on Zenith. That’s my bad.

Spoiler: online times

In post 175, Plotinus wrote:With 9 votes in play, it takes 5 to lynch.

Zenith (4): Jamelia, tictac, ceejayvinoya, Suspicious

Last visited:19 Oct 2019, 14:52
Last visited:19 Oct 2019, 18:04

In post 185, Jamelia wrote:I’m working late tonight but when I get home I’ll post some general thoughts.

u checked the thread at least 3 times after Plots votecount showing the L-1.
I don't believe u were unaware.

And this is to refute Jams claim that he didn't see the L-1.

Seemed like a "Woah wait, I want a little more information first" unvote.

He unvoted after CJ did and after I called him out for not unvoting, so.


As for the current situation:
I have an overwhelming pref for lynching Jam obviously.
If I can't get that, lynching in [zen,vork,bailey] would not make me sad.
If I can't get those [susp, skitt]
January and doLittle are entirely off the table for me. I might no-lynch out of spite if one of these ends up as the only option. Ya have been warned.

plz note that these don't straight-up reflect my reads, but do reflect what I think is the wise course of action here.

nothing? cool.
@drDolittle I'll check this again in 6h and sheep ya to most places if ya post by then.
after that I'll try not to play into late hours and sleep instead.
I should be awake again near deadline-close tho.

Ok we talked and this is getting out of hand.

Suspicious and I are masons. Feel free to be pissed off but lynch one of us and the other dies tonight, you lose both of your PR’s in 1 day.

In post 506, january wrote:wow! are you claiming mafia too!

hi there partner

slip

In post 548, Jamelia wrote:slip