Mafiascum.net

In post 598, nancy wrote:

In post 596, IcemanCh wrote:@Nancy thanks for the info about meta. I'll try to back out of my meta reads and use more information from just this game.

My read on FF so far is probably tainted TBH because I've played the last two games with him. The first one he came in as SUPER aggressive but, he came in when there was a ton of toxic play and pretty much when in throwing swings at who he thought was scum. He ended up as town but, I had a scum read on him. The second game I played with him was much more like this game.

Anyways, I'll try to reform my thoughts around FF and come up with a new read in isolation to this game.

Hey it's super cool that you're so receptive, and I'm really glad you read the whole thing. I kinda feel like it was a bit much to read and I probably should have just posted the four dot points and left the examples out.

Anyway it's great that you're trying to be aware of his playstyle, I think this fits pretty neatly under what I mentioned as a good way to use meta. Like, you have an understanding of how he /can/ play as town, in a way that you found scummy, so now you know that that specific behavior from him isn't necessarily scummy. Doesn't mean that he's mafia for not playing that way or that he's town if he plays in the same way, just means you have a better feel for what level to read him on.

What was his alignment in the second game?

In post 595, IcemanCh wrote:If you don't have a list of likely scum/town behaviors then how else do you scum hunt?

In post 601, IcemanCh wrote:He's been town in all the games I've played. So I guess I'm missing what his scum play looks like.

In post 46, Flicker wrote:

In post 37, Formerfish wrote:It's scummy because they are making it seem like they don't want to vote because we may be out of rvs already, not very likely when we are barely on page 2. They answer their own question by mentioning that nothing scummy has really come up, which would mean that most likely we are still in rvs.

So if they were concerned about being out of rvs as a reason to have not voted, their own reasoning is negated by their own observation of the game, and should have felt comfortable voting freely.

For some reason they didn't.

*She/her, thanks.

It's possible to be out of RVS on page 2, just as it's possible for scummy things to happen during RVS, so I think your logic here is wrong. From my perspective, it seemed like there might be enough substantive talk, especially based on/around nancy's questions, that we might be out of RVS, but I wasn't positive because I'm still pretty new and I'm not 100% sure when RVS ends (other than everybody agreeing that it's over). So, I could either risk making a random vote and getting scrutinized for that, or I could be wrong about the RVS status and risk being scrutinized for not voting at all. I went with "don't vote, explain why, and assume people will understand," but that failed, and here we are.

Speaking of vote scrutiny...

In post 44, TrinityNZ wrote:UNVOTE: maggie

VOTE: FormerFish

Not a fan of drug references

My understanding of RVS is that it only involves one random vote, and then the next vote should be serious. So, why this second non-serious vote?

In post 40, Messiah Complex wrote:Mostly because they are newer and have 1 post in so far. I don't like the post and it's something I would like to engage her on, but until she gets back in here and posts more I can't do that.

1 post that's not quite good does not a scumbag make.

In post 242, Eragon wrote:im not saying its super wolfy, im just saying it seems opportunistic and we should keep an eye out.


im not saying its super wolfy, im just saying it seems opportunistic and we should keep an eye out.

In post 232, Eragon wrote:

In post 227, Eragon wrote:

In post 226, nancy wrote:

In post 220, Eragon wrote:not the fact that its 2 random people, the fact that its 2 people with zero thread presence and that are noobs(if im not mistaken)

if thats not hella opportunistic idk what is

I guess, but like, he has some shape of a townread on everyone else, no?

so its just PoE then...

PoE D1???

adding onto this,

If it truly is PoE, im truly amazed that ANYONE can have 7 solid enough townreads that they think that the 2 scum are the only people they dont townred

In post 190, Eragon wrote:I know its weak but I like the fact that he is putting his opinion out there on someone(flicker) who seems like mis-lynch bait and/or noob town(sorry flicker) without trying to strong-arm the Lynch.
If I were scum id likely be trying to strong-arm a flicker mis-lynch based on some posts

In post 414, OkaPoka wrote:

In post 399, TrinityNZ wrote:

In post 384, OkaPoka wrote:

In post 375, Quick wrote:

In post 367, OkaPoka wrote:yeah this is def a stunt i'd pulled only to be forced to reread the game later
question is will quick actually reread the game

@quick how much do you stick to your morals

Not very well, unfortunately, because I have zero self-disipline.

well does that mean you will go back on your word saying you wont catch up if you become a viable lynch?

In post 376, nancy wrote:

In post 372, OkaPoka wrote:uh trinity's recent post don't seem to disprove my theory tho

Lmao this is certainly a wording

trinity's recent postings do not seem to disprove my theory that trinity is not being proactive and trying to actively engage with others*

Nancy, in this posts oka said I’m not being proactive and I’m not trying to engage with others. I don’t think this is true.

you think you are being real proactive in engaging with others?
alright i guess ill do a bigish post
9 answering nancy's rqs questions
10 making a jokey comment
11 rvs vote
44 another rvs vote that put ff at l2 which will be clarified later
62 trinity responds to nancy about rvs stuff
63 "I liked it"
64 more rvs things
67 maybe proactive? just seems to be a side comment
69 clarifying 67 - prompted by nancy
71 clarifying 67 - prompted by nancy
100 prompted by nancy
101 want clarification from nancy on reads
117 explaining why she has no scumreads, promises to do more investigating later
118 thanking nancy for explaining
119 clarifying when prompted by nancy
121 answering my questions
264 explaining why she doesn't believe l-2 to be a big deal
288 catching up post
293 i made a post! trinity says im scummy for thinking she is scummy and im looking for excuses to vote her but i mean yeah that's mafia, asks why ff would hate me for voting me, i clarify later, i guess it's proactive? but she is also just engaging a person who is voting her so it's more reactive.
294 double post
297 time zones
299 reads, does something semi-proactive which is making her rvs vote her permanent your sus vote. decent post i like it
301 fluff
302 fluff
307 fluff
308 answering questions
382 showing solidarity for someone who might vote ff
387 "proactive" question after i claim that she hasn't been proactive
391 clarifying her question
393 meh
395 clarifying her position when prompted by nancy
399 clarifying her position when prompted by nancy

has very few moments of proactive town moments, most of her posts are either fluff or reacting to other questions which is i guess is kinda normal. but the only real proactive/unique thing she has done is mark Formerfish as possible scum, but she has yet to really follow up on that and engage with formerfish. maybe if she builds a more solid case against ff and responds to some of the points ff makes in response to nancy's case and takes a more active stance in challenging FF ill move off this but for now I see this as scum who is sitting back and not wanting to heavily engage with people so the spotlight isn't on her.