Mafiascum.net

so there's 0-1 scum in wisdom/mafmen/klick?

So mafmen and klick should be in final four, most likely along with infinity and cookie unless something dramatic happens

works for me

So I skipped most of the rest of the thread from where I was when I last responded because it was more fun to read Wisdom/Pooky/MafMen deep-dive my intentions for thinking Tammy looked a bit scummy lol.

between us we're read the whole game!

In post 472, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:expending political capital to shade someone who's town is not exactly a winning strategy for a scumside player.

your goal is to get someone to trust you

not make sure nobody can trust anyone (cuz that's like literally impossible)

Scum doesn't just want to get trusted - they want to be trusted more than town
So scum!Tammy would be concerned about town'Wisdom getting soft-confirmed because that takes away from her potential pairings, since all the townies that might have wanted to pair with her would instead be appealing to Wisdom

I don't feel like this is stupid? But it seems that everyone has a consensus about this and I've not played the setup before admittedly

In post 531, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:like is there even a person in the game that Klick can realistically believe would leave with Tammy rn or in the near future?

Your implication is that my motive for expressing a SL on Tammy was to avoid anyone leaving with her
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion

I find myself agreeing with MafMen through most of this argument, while also finding him most likely to be scum out of him/Wisdom/Pooky

In post 581, Klick wrote:

In post 531, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:like is there even a person in the game that Klick can realistically believe would leave with Tammy rn or in the near future?

Your implication is that my motive for expressing a SL on Tammy was to avoid anyone leaving with her
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion

what is your motive?

I think Tammy's >rand scum and wanted to express that because it was one of the few notable things I had to say up to that point

Right now I basically just intend to telegraph reads that feel significant enough to me while I get my head around the setup. I don't feel nearly as urgent as I usually do in Mafia games due to how the setup works, which I'm greatly appreciating since I seem to have less time than most of the playerlist so far

Tammy's >rand scum just because she questioned I was confirmed?

You can do much better than that

ok but what is the motive behind your expression of the tammy read? what is your goal?

y cant it be something as simple as
"i see scummy, i point out scummy"

3d chess or no d chess

In post 587, MafMen wrote:y cant it be something as simple as
"i see scummy, i point out scummy"

because the motivation helps read into whether he's doing it because he's genuinely worried she is scum pulling the wool over our eyes or if he's doing it because he thinks it will get him townread because he's going through the motions.

fair enough

I dont think Klick-scum is going to tell you that his motivation was to get townread so it's kind of pointless asking him, but okay

In post 591, Wisdom wrote:I dont think Klick-scum is going to tell you that his motivation was to get townread so it's kind of pointless asking him, but okay

Sure but he still has to make up a believable motive if he wants to say my motive attribution is wrong?

In post 581, Klick wrote:

In post 531, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:like is there even a person in the game that Klick can realistically believe would leave with Tammy rn or in the near future?

Your implication is that my motive for expressing a SL on Tammy was to avoid anyone leaving with her
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion

Like I don't like this response because it's responding to my comment without specificity(It's essentially saying I can't look inside his head, which is true),

I would've liked it much better if the response had said something along the lines of:

"Actually my motive is __________ for expressing SL on Tammy"

and then I can look at _____ and his posting and try to see if that thought process actually makes sense for going through his head.

Hence why I ask him, well ok if you are saying that's not your motive then uh what was your motive?

His response:

In post 584, Klick wrote:I think Tammy's >rand scum and wanted to express that because it was one of the few notable things I had to say up to that point

Right now I basically just intend to telegraph reads that feel significant enough to me while I get my head around the setup. I don't feel nearly as urgent as I usually do in Mafia games due to how the setup works, which I'm greatly appreciating since I seem to have less time than most of the playerlist so far

Feels incredibly soft and something that he made up to respond in a way that doesn't feel quite real to me. It feels somewhat manufactured and explanatory/defensive.

I would've liked it much better if he simply said I shaded Tammy because __________.

I said I thought Tammy looked scummy because I thought Tammy looked scummy

In post 585, Wisdom wrote:Tammy's >rand scum just because she questioned I was confirmed?

You can do much better than that

I've seen scum of various skill levels scramble to avoid an early consensus townread in the past
Theres a time that sticks out in my memory where Menalque did this as scum and I thought it was weird but didn't press it, and then he was scum and I was annoyed

In other circumstances sure, arguing against clears could be scum telling

Here it just makes Tammy town

I'm really struggling to see why.

In post 343, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:

In post 336, Tammy wrote:No, I think that's entirely fair. Could be a newbie awkwardness, could just be writing style in general, could be not having much to comment on, but I don't see the towniness off the bat that you guys see.

I think when people use a reason to townread someone that's so convoluted/weird/notgreat that it's unlikely to be "faked" then it's probably just true.

scum tend to want their reasoning to be like "good"

ok but that doesn't really apply here, i agree with tammy that it's a pretty basic thing to say. it's null on its own i think

@mafmen i'll let you know if there's a reason for the read but nothing yet

In post 396, Klick wrote:mmmmmm

what was this