Mafiascum.net

Gamma was already on the wagon. It wasn't a L-1.

Ohhh I missed that somehow
Hm

Ok Aaron lemme just clarify this: are your SRs on Alo and tictac/Chemist connected to each other? As in, if one flipped town, would it change your read on the other?

In post 598, SirCakez wrote:

AaronFrost wrote:

In post 589, SirCakez wrote:

In post 588, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 555, SirCakez wrote:

In post 541, Morning Tweet wrote:I realized something about the tictac wagon-- I think regardless of tictac's alignment, there's probably scum on it. Okay maybe that's not a super hard deduction to make but bear with me here

I agree with this

VOTE: aaron actually
I'm less certain Chemist is scum here and Aaron is not making me feel good about this wagon

I'm confused by this? Why are you voting off wagon if you agree with MT that the tictac wagon is sketchy?

Because your postulating around is was sketch regardless of who is on wagon. There were surely scum on it but I don't have to go after them riht now.

I like MT's wagon analysis. I think it makes Gamma more likely scum.

Where did I say or imply that there were scum on the tictac wagon? I haven't actually looked at the wagon comp tbh, mostly because I find Alora pretty scummy and that's my focus right now. I'll have a look at MT's analysis though.

I thought asking why I voted off wagon if I find the tictac wagon sketchy was implying scum on the wagon. Did I misinterpret?

That post is lining up lynches cuz it sets up Alo next. I'm not the only who's noticed it

You misinterpreted, you're the one who said you agreed that the tictac wagon is sketchy yet you voted off wagon. I never said anything about scum on the wagon.

Ok so if I'm scum lining up lynches, then that'd imply that one of them is my partner if I'm saying that tictac/Aloratom are possibly svs, which means you'd have to accept that I'd bus my partner Day 1, which I'd do here because?

And if I'm lining up Alo to be lynched tomorrow, why am I pushing him over Chemist today?

PEDIT: only the tictac/chemist read is since I have no real read on them other than the weird interaction. So alo's flip will affect my read there, but I find alo scummy regardless of chemist's alignment (so chemist flip would not effect my alo read). Does that make sense?

Lining up lynches is one of those buzzword things that I never understand why it's even a topic of conversation.
Any given player has some number of scumreads and would want those people lynched.
Logically there are numerous places where "if A is town then B is likely scum".
I don't see how / why suspecting that type of thing is part of anyone's scumhunting toolbox.

Now if it were "Regardless of A's alignment B is probably scum -- let's lynch A" where it starts off being logically inconsistent, then sure. Although there are times when lynching A is the only thing you can do, like when A is l-1, a couple hours till deadline.

I think I might have just completely misunderstood Aaron here
UNVOTE:
That said I still dislike the preflip associatives but it might not be scum indicative
And Aaron if you were scum lining up lynches in the traditional conception then it's be assumed chemist and Alo were both town

In post 558, Wake1 wrote:"Guys, GUYS, I don't know why A-Tom is being voted."

Why the scare quotes?

In post 606, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 558, Wake1 wrote:"Guys, GUYS, I don't know why A-Tom is being voted."

Why the scare quotes?

People keep repeating I'm scummy. Therefore, it must be true. Wake is still throwing a tantrum, Hectic says I'm too transparent in my thought process and others say I'm awkward in my approach. All of this equates to scum!Aloratom. I believe the quotes are not scare quotes; they're quotes indicating disbelief.

In post 593, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 574, SirCakez wrote:

In post 571, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 555, SirCakez wrote:

In post 541, Morning Tweet wrote:I realized something about the tictac wagon-- I think regardless of tictac's alignment, there's probably scum on it. Okay maybe that's not a super hard deduction to make but bear with me here

I agree with this

VOTE: aaron actually
I'm less certain Chemist is scum here and Aaron is not making me feel good about this wagon

Cake your here. Why does chemist feel less scummy to you?

He seems just lost and confused. Also that would be a weird choice of fakeclaim imo.
I feel scum would be freaking out more

The claim may not necessarily be fake, he could just be a scum 1-shot jailkeeper. I think I want to leave that claim alone for today though.

Also I disagree with that last sentence, I think more often than not scum try to maintain their composure when under pressure.

My take is a 1-Shot PR is a good option for a safe scum fakeclaim. I have tried it myself, though I fucked up the execution with too many bells and whistles. I don’t see anything indicating Chemist is fakeclaiming but I don’t think his claim is in itself a point for his survival.

There is resistance to get the chemist wagon over the line (aka tictac)
I'm happy voting there

Slightly concerned HoldenGolden said voting me makes sense, didnt really provide a reason to do so, but most concerningly, seemed to just give up on that thought after 1 post.

In post 606, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 558, Wake1 wrote:"Guys, GUYS, I don't know why A-Tom is being voted."

Why the scare quotes?

They're not scare quotes I'm mocking you.

I suppose I'd go back to chemist if I had to for deadline. It would be a good info lynch if nothing else.

In post 610, Wake1 wrote:

In post 606, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 558, Wake1 wrote:"Guys, GUYS, I don't know why A-Tom is being voted."

Why the scare quotes?

They're not scare quotes I'm mocking you.

Yeah exactly
What the fuck is the point of mocking me?

I'm not Wake but...
Have you tried looking at iso's of the people voting Aloratom and seeing why they voted?

In post 511, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 500, Aloratom wrote:

In post 489, HoldenGolden wrote:This might sound like a stupid question, but what was your plan in the post you voted him? The way you worded it makes it so you are not opposing the lurking p lynch on tictac while justifying being off the wagon. I think you can understand why this bugs me.

I wasn't opposed to the tictac wagon as a pressuring device, but it looked at that point that there were enough pressure votes there.

I wasn't going to join it with that number of people on it, especially after they had been prodded when it initially looked like they were going to be active.

I had other concerns at that time.

This post reads overly cautious to me

tictac was at 3 or 4 votes, which is only about half the required amount to lynch so there's not much danger in adding more pressure there, which you should want to do if you're town. The bolded part especially screams to me "I don't want to get caught randomly hopping onto a lurker wagon"

This was the justification you gave for your vote on me, which you later tried to push as me defending the tictac wagon until you were called on it.

In post 596, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 589, SirCakez wrote:

In post 588, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 555, SirCakez wrote:

In post 541, Morning Tweet wrote:I realized something about the tictac wagon-- I think regardless of tictac's alignment, there's probably scum on it. Okay maybe that's not a super hard deduction to make but bear with me here

I agree with this

VOTE: aaron actually
I'm less certain Chemist is scum here and Aaron is not making me feel good about this wagon

I'm confused by this? Why are you voting off wagon if you agree with MT that the tictac wagon is sketchy?

Because your postulating around is was sketch regardless of who is on wagon. There were surely scum on it but I don't have to go after them riht now.

I like MT's wagon analysis. I think it makes Gamma more likely scum.

Where did I say or imply that there were scum on the tictac wagon? I haven't actually looked at the wagon comp tbh, mostly because I find Alora pretty scummy and that's my focus right now. I'll have a look at MT's analysis though.

And now you find me pretty scummy.

Prior to that, if I recall correctly, you were having a difficult time finding any scum reads at all. This seems like a convenient excuse to join a wagon on me started by the ridiculous reason that Wake took to initially vote me, which Dave essentially sheeped. Then you use this lame reasoning to vote me, giving Wake an excuse to re-vote me.

@Chemist -- Your vote on me is from RVS. Do you plan to leave it there?

In post 614, Aloratom wrote:which Dave essentially sheeped.

This is incorrect. I have independent and more substantial justification.

In post 605, SirCakez wrote:I think I might have just completely misunderstood Aaron here
UNVOTE:
That said I still dislike the preflip associatives but it might not be scum indicative
And Aaron if you were scum lining up lynches in the traditional conception then it's be assumed chemist and Alo were both town

I don't usually do preflip associations but sometimes you see interactions that are too awkward not to point out.

That would be true in the traditional sense but if I'm scum saying that alo/chem are svs that'd be moot if one of them flipped town.

In post 614, Aloratom wrote:~snip~

This was the justification you gave for your vote on me, which you later tried to push as me defending the tictac wagon until you were called on it.

~snip~

And now you find me pretty scummy.

Prior to that, if I recall correctly, you were having a difficult time finding any scum reads at all. This seems like a convenient excuse to join a wagon on me started by the ridiculous reason that Wake took to initially vote me, which Dave essentially sheeped. Then you use this lame reasoning to vote me, giving Wake an excuse to re-vote me.

I was having a difficult time finding scum reads, and now I have one. Is it that farfetch'd for me to have found one after I said a while ago that I had none? I gave plenty of reasons for scumreading you, as have others. You honestly sound like you're just attacking everyone who's voted for you yet you haven't explained your position on much of anything.

Re: 616
I could use some input on people's reads on Bob.

In post 617, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 605, SirCakez wrote:I think I might have just completely misunderstood Aaron here
UNVOTE:
That said I still dislike the preflip associatives but it might not be scum indicative
And Aaron if you were scum lining up lynches in the traditional conception then it's be assumed chemist and Alo were both town

I don't usually do preflip associations but sometimes you see interactions that are too awkward not to point out.

That would be true in the traditional sense but if I'm scum saying that alo/chem are svs that'd be moot if one of them flipped town.

^^^^^

If I recall correctly, Aaron said that if tictac flips scum then we should look at Alo. So like, not exactly lining up mislynches.

In post 619, davesaz wrote:Re: 616
I could use some input on people's reads on Bob.

I don't really have a read on him at the moment. I don't think I've seen him lurk like this before though, but I'm not sure if that's AI or not.

Is reading bob something that's actually feasible?

Check his wiki. The graph also correlates to his towniness.

More votes on Misty everyone. I don't see anything better than the metacase today.

In post 623, Hectic wrote:Check his wiki. The graph also correlates to his towniness.

More votes on Misty everyone. I don't see anything better than the metacase today.

Making a joke wiki page about someone isn't useful at all.