Mafiascum.net

In post 5598, Dwlee99 wrote:For your top scum read you just about never mention me lol

In post 5597, The Pied Piper wrote:

In post 5584, Mirhawk wrote:I don't think its out of line to demand they actually state what direction they're going with this. Because it looks to me like they're posting a lot of reasons to scumread a whole bunch of people, but aren't apparently pushing any of them themselves. Rather they're waiting to see what everyone's reaction to this is.

Except... We don't know what direction we are going. That's the point. What piece of this reasoning is so unreasonable or irrational to you?

In post 5593, The Pied Piper wrote:but the entire point of rereading is starting from a fresh slate and trying to see things that you haven't before.

In post 5595, The Pied Piper wrote:An interactions case is not a cornerstone of a full case on someone; it is another way to approach the game and find points to focus on, which is what we're doing now.

In post 5593, The Pied Piper wrote: I think that this is an unreasonable thing to ask for thanks to the whole "we are working on a reread" thing and the whole "we just posted a bunch of analysis" thing. You pointed out that Plotinus is pointing out a bunch of work on ISO maps and that you'd expect that reading can give you opinions, but the entire point of rereading is starting from a fresh slate and trying to see things that you haven't before. This was a specific type of analysis. Plot pointed out that some of it led in unexpected places and that they wanted to actually read people's ISOs before they saw how they felt about it, which seems completely reasonable to me; why isn't it to you?

Your "oh, they're just trying to see where people are going" accusation is also strange, considering the game state. The same people who have been pushing us for the past couple of days are pushing us today. Everyone else is pushing you. Do you have a huge expectation that someone is going to come out and decide to push someone else? From the main focus group in {Cerb, dram}, I'm more inclined to see dramonic as scum, but I'd appreciate clarity on Cerb. Both players are players I don't particularly expect to be able to read well except in exceptional circumstances (horrid scum play on Dram's part, great town play on Cerb's) and so these are the types of players that I focus on when scum reads are going to shit.

I don't buy the case on Cakez because it's based on an unsubstantiated coasting claim that can't really be backed up except by small stretches of inactivity here and there; it's a horrible and easy case to make, and "oh he's coasting" is why people who have played games that shouldn't get them mislynched suddenly get mislynched because they run into a busy stretch. And yes, I still think that it is very very likely the vig and would rather not make that any more obvious than it already is, although I'm sure you're in the "he's obviously wrong and thus he's scum camp!" since you believe that role speculation has something to do with our alignment.

Itlepip is a player that's also fallen off the map easily but also looked pretty good early game; I understand your frustration with him tunneling you, but I don't really think that it's alignment relevant in the way that you think it is.

In post 5605, Mirhawk wrote:Also I have NEVER said that role speculation has anything to do with your alignment. You're flat making that up. I challenge you to find the place where I said it.

In post 5595, The Pied Piper wrote:I think that you don't understand what we are doing here or I think that your scumread on us is strong enough where you don't actually care what we're doing. And I understand the place that you're at because I've been there plenty of times before and I understand there's not really a whole lot I can say that can shake you out of it, but I don't think you care about what we're writing.

The analysis portion provided in the latest series of posts were interactions that stood out to Plot and why they stood out to Plot. An interactions case is not a cornerstone of a full case on someone; it is another way to approach the game and find points to focus on, which is what we're doing now. Scum and town have interactions that suck, but bad interactions shouldn't guide a case on someone unless they are horrendously, horrendously obvious.

In post 5596, The Pied Piper wrote: No. Dwlee is my top scumread. The interactions map and things gotten from the interactions map do not represent all of our reads as a whole and the entirety of our thoughts on the game as a whole, which seems to be where the confusion is stemming from.

In post 5597, The Pied Piper wrote: Except... We don't know what direction we are going. That's the point. What piece of this reasoning is so unreasonable or irrational to you?

In post 5599, itlepip wrote:I think Dwlee is acting too incompetent to be scum but enough to maybe look at a policy/vig at some point.

In post 5557, The Pied Piper wrote:I'd probably post it in something like pastebin.com, but I need to ask if it's allowed or not; many mods don't allow outside links to game related content. I can copy paste the code into the reply box and hit preview and see it and from there I can follow the links in a new tab, and it can even be saved as a draft and all that, it just can't be posted without getting a mysql error. I ran into the same error when trying to post the final mod scenes for a game I just finished modding; it was irritating.

I could also take a screenshot of the preview screen but it is better if the links are clickable, to be able to look for patterns on your own and then follow a link or two to see where they go.

@Mod: may I put a bunch of post tags in a site like pastebin.com similar to the one in 3114 and link to it?

In post 5577, pistachi0n wrote:Ar you considering interactions initiated by the other people whose alignments we don't know, or things they said about our confirmed scum flips independent of interactions?

In post 5601, Flubbernugget wrote:I think I just realized how terrifying a 1v1 between mastin2 and Plotinus would be

In post 5614, Rob14 wrote:

I'd prefer if you didn't since I have no way to police the fact that you didn't edit the pastebin at a later time.

In post 5617, itlepip wrote:no. Good try though.

In post 5607, Mirhawk wrote:And while we're on the topic, what in the blue hell was up with whatever you were doing right before the deadline yesterday?

I was L-1 with less than a day till the deadline when suddenly you start this up.

Piper: "Mirhawks town!"

Piper: "Look at all mirhawks reads, they're terrible. Tons of suspicious bad holes in them everywhere"

Piper: "Mirhawks town!"

In post 5609, Mirhawk wrote:I get what you're doing, I just don't see the point if you're not aiming to use it to find scum.

If you don't intend to build cases on it then it feels like a lot of effort for.. what exactly? A vague idea which members of town scum could be hiding in? I mean, I already have one and it only took about half an hour and a spreadsheet.

In post 5609, Mirhawk wrote:I find associatives a vague and frustrating way to look for scum in general. I'm always terrified of leaving them when I'm scum, and I have a ton of difficulty finding them when I'm town. And that's before things happen to muddy the water like scum purposely screwing with associatives.

In post 5622, dramonic wrote:zzzzz

In post 5620, The Pied Piper wrote:

In post 5609, Mirhawk wrote:I get what you're doing, I just don't see the point if you're not aiming to use it to find scum.

If you don't intend to build cases on it then it feels like a lot of effort for.. what exactly? A vague idea which members of town scum could be hiding in? I mean, I already have one and it only took about half an hour and a spreadsheet.

If the point of this argument to say that we wouldn't put this much effort in for obvious and immediate gain, then I suggest you read Plotinus's games or allow me to shore you Plotinus town posts.

If that is not the point of the argument, then what are you doing here other than being an ass?