Mafiascum.net

In post 599, catboi wrote:

In post 598, StrangeMatter wrote:And correct me if I'm wrong, since multiple people have said this, didn't Igor say that he lied, so then it's not a contradiction?

As for what you've said catboi, I'd have preferred not to talk much about PRs lest we help mafia (I've personally as scum used things like this to catch PRs before), and made reads. Of course that's not where the game went, and I don't think I can even move it away anymore so here we are, and I thought I might as well join in and get reads that way.

I mean, well, I'm not talking about PRs anymore but it was sort of unavoidable given that I was forced to claim. But I am trying to make reads now, as are most people. Do you have thoughts right now? I assume you not wanting me at E-1 means you think I'm town, although that might be presumptive on my part.

Not exactly. I still think how you framed it early on feels like a common scum defense (as is town), I was more worried about the potential that you'd self hammer as scum, and I'm hyper paranoid of people hammering for dumb reasons.

Well, I could have selfhammered if I was going to, but as a rule I basically almost never selfvote as either alignment, unless I'm mechanically guiltied as scum. So you shouldn't take that as alignment-indicative.

What about my framing do you think is "a common scum defense"?

In post 601, catboi wrote:Well, I could have selfhammered if I was going to, but as a rule I basically almost never selfvote as either alignment, unless I'm mechanically guiltied as scum. So you shouldn't take that as alignment-indicative.

What about my framing do you think is "a common scum defense"?

When I looked at it I felt like it went very much along the lines of this. When you have believe or know you've been inspected as scum, you lie and say they are lying themselves and push them. Of course there is the time where scum also fakes an inspect on someone (though I think this is pretty rare), and Town does a similar thing to push back against it.

Of course that's without Town lying, and they don't know the alignment of the person who inspected them.

In post 552, catboi wrote:...val. VAAAAAL.


Mind explaining THIS:

Spoiler:

In post 251, Val89 wrote:

In post 204, Leaven wrote:- He's dumping this game again as VT for an even future scum game (worse than last time because of how last time went)
- This is that future game where he's scum (cashing in on the last game to take this town down)

Frankly, I agree in princible that claiming VT as early as this is an objectivley poor play as town; James obviously disagrees, but that's where I am at.

I don't see why claiming VT is good for scum though - In other words, I'm not sure; whether it's this game or a future one, how claiming VT helps a scum!James take down town. Nobody else is following his example, and a scum!James know he aint a town PR by definition.

Would you explain why you think an early VT claim as scum helps scum (I know why an early VT claim

as town

helps scum), if you think I've missed something?

In post 256, Val89 wrote:

In post 253, Leaven wrote:Given you agree this was "objectively poor for town", then unless you can point to activity that is more objectively bad for town, my vote lands here.

That's fine. My point was that, although it's objectively anti-town, it looks to me to be just as anti-scum, too. My question to you was 'what advantage does scum gain by an scum making an early VT claim', and since your answer has been focus on about how we should be discouraging anti-town behavior and you don't want to move your vote until you see something else anti-town, I'll take it that you can't see the advantage for scum either.

CLSR has it right - I think it's anti-scum, in that it both attracts attention to the slot; and it basically locks at least one scum out of fake claiming a PR; and I would argue that is true whether it's double goon or not.

Yes, it's anti-town. Yes, that behavior should be discouraged, and has been. I think it's just as anti-scum though, and therefore I think we should be viewing anyone using this as the main or only justifaction for a wagon on James with a little bit of suspicion.

In here you have a previous game where you expressed belief that someone claiming VT early, while anti-town, is also lacking in scum motivation. And yet, in THIS game that was your justification for pushing Greeting as scum, talking about how claiming VT "isn't hekpful". How do you square these beliefs?

I would like to point out that originally I did not claim VT. It was something that Val89 implied from my post, tried to force it upon me and ultimately I felt like I was forced to openly claim it.

I explain that last part horribly actually. Town doesn't lie there and doesn't know the alignment of the person who inspected them. This usually rarely comes up though.

In post 602, StrangeMatter wrote:

In post 601, catboi wrote:Well, I could have selfhammered if I was going to, but as a rule I basically almost never selfvote as either alignment, unless I'm mechanically guiltied as scum. So you shouldn't take that as alignment-indicative.

What about my framing do you think is "a common scum defense"?

When I looked at it I felt like it went very much along the lines of this. When you have believe or know you've been inspected as scum, you lie and say they are lying themselves and push them. Of course there is the time where scum also fakes an inspect on someone (though I think this is pretty rare), and Town does a similar thing to push back against it.

But, the thing is, as scum I would know his guilty is a bluff, so I wouldn't have had to push back on it ,right? Further, why is me being scum the default assumption here, when as town I don't know whether the guilty is a test or scum trying to get me eliminated by faking a check? What do you think town does differently in response to a fake guilty?


Really me having to defend against this confirmation biased reasoning is the #1 lesson in why faking guilties is trash: . There's absolutely no way I can win here and it's incredibly tilting to deal with.

Re: Greeting. At this point I think it's entirely possible that my townread on him has stemmed from confirmation bias on a couple things I was reading too strongly in to early. That said, I also do want to gut townread the self-hammer thing still; if someone threatens that and is brought to E-1 then they have to either go through with it (which ofc scum has not much reason to do) or back out of it (which looks very bad). The act of saying "well just bring me to e-1 so i can selfhammer then" has not much utility for scum to say. I think that kind of second-level "doing something explicitly negative utility for the town cred" play happens not that often.

StrangeMatter: am I right in reading that you haven't really indicated active suspicion on anyone other than possibly catboi (and even then I'm uncertain) at this point? You've given a lot of questions and commentary but I don't feel like I have a good sense of where you stand on things.

implosion we arent really going to risk testing greeting on that though are we?

In post 598, StrangeMatter wrote:And correct me if I'm wrong, since multiple people have said this, didn't Igor say that he lied, so then it's not a contradiction?

Of course, you can make three different statements and then say that you lied, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that at least one of the statements is true.

In post 607, implosion wrote:The act of saying "well just bring me to e-1 so i can selfhammer then" has not much utility for scum to say. I think that kind of second-level "doing something explicitly negative utility for the town cred" play happens not that often.

I agree with this generally, it can be manipulated by a certain archetype of player but I don't particularly have reason to think that Greeting is that sort of player yet. The continued tunnel on igorsprite is also one that's just sort of negative utility for scum to actually be pursuing at this point.

In post 609, Greeting wrote:

In post 598, StrangeMatter wrote:And correct me if I'm wrong, since multiple people have said this, didn't Igor say that he lied, so then it's not a contradiction?

Of course, you can make three different statements and then say that you lied, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that at least one of the statements is true.

so in this fantasy world where igor HAS to be fakeclaiming tracker, why is there no cc's? or are you just going to parrot what catboi said about it being the goon setup? even though i guarantee that wasnt why you suspected igors claim before

In post 608, MafMen wrote:implosion we arent really going to risk testing greeting on that though are we?

The point is more that if Greeting is scum, probably he thought there was a significant chance that we *would* back when he made the comment.

In post 609, Greeting wrote:

In post 598, StrangeMatter wrote:And correct me if I'm wrong, since multiple people have said this, didn't Igor say that he lied, so then it's not a contradiction?

Of course, you can make three different statements and then say that you lied, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that at least one of the statements is true.

so are you saying that the jailkeeper didn't target me?

yeah in all honesty i wouldnt be surprised if scum!greeting pushes igor here so they can spend their nk on better prospects
ill brb in a couple hours or so im gonna read through the game again like i promised

implosion wrote:

In post 608, MafMen wrote:implosion we arent really going to risk testing greeting on that though are we?

The point is more that if Greeting is scum, probably he thought there was a significant chance that we *would* back when he made the comment.

no? it could very clearly be a bluff as greeting was slowly gaining traction, theres no world we actually test whether or not greeting is lying scum or town willing to throw the game

In post 614, MafMen wrote:yeah in all honesty i wouldnt be surprised if scum!greeting pushes igor here so they can spend their nk on better prospects

true, it's good for the mafia elim me through vote because i think that they don't want to risk another nk on me

In post 611, MafMen wrote:

In post 609, Greeting wrote:

In post 598, StrangeMatter wrote:And correct me if I'm wrong, since multiple people have said this, didn't Igor say that he lied, so then it's not a contradiction?

Of course, you can make three different statements and then say that you lied, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that at least one of the statements is true.

so in this fantasy world where igor HAS to be fakeclaiming tracker, why is there no cc's? or are you just going to parrot what catboi said about it being the goon setup? even though i guarantee that wasnt why you suspected igors claim before

I didn’t even notice that catboi said anything about there being a Goon setup. To be fair, I took a step back, because due to a very surprising coincidence the exact thing that Val89 was town about happened - we have a fake claim.

I’ll choose a narcissistic way to respond as to why there was no counterclaim: because I repeatedly warned the other PR not to do it and it seems like they might actually know what they’re doing.

Responding to some of 588. If you consider giving reads without citing specific posts to be vague, then sure. I was asked to give an overview of everyone. Re: doubting my strong town reads, you said yourself that a large part of reading people is determining whether you think their actions are genuine or not, and from my pov I think that's been very apparent of Implosion and Val. (Both of their reactions to greeting yesterday made sense and Val's doesn't come from scum, implosion arguing with you today he was genuinely not sure what to do but believed your reactions to be scum indicative.) I understand why they're doing the things they're doing, generally, and it seems reasonable and in line with a town agenda. You seem really annoyed by the rest of us acting on reads we don't have positive proof for, but that's something we're unlikely to have in a mafia game. If you're the player who looks the least townie to people, that's a reason to vote you.

In post 584, catboi wrote:Now, all that being said: why do you find my wavering back and forth on my read of MafMen to be actually scummy? What's the scum motivation there, rather than me simply being town who's indecisive on their read?

See above, but also goes back to the "keeping your options open." We all change our minds sometimes, especially as we get new information, but scum can change their opinion of a player whenever they want based on what looks best and helps them the most, since they have alternate motivations. MafMen was a train that worked for a while, died down, and now he's back as an option, just like your read of him.

In post 614, MafMen wrote:yeah in all honesty i wouldnt be surprised if scum!greeting pushes igor here so they can spend their nk on better prospects

I don't, really: in that scenario I think greeting puts himself at a disadvantage where igorsprite is always going to be opposed to him even if he's left alive and people are ~always going to side with him over igorsprite.

In fact I'd say in a igor-town world scum would have more or less recognized he's the type of player who is incredibly easy to manipulate by staying on his good side and would be doing that exclusively.

And regarding catboi... I admit that I skimmed through the posts which built up their wagon but nothing really picked my interest. It was intense enough to make them mad, and that’s all I gathered from it. Perhaps there is some bias involved on my part, but catboi wouldn’t be my pick for an eliminating vote today.

I think greeting's arguement for scum!igor looks even worse than catboi's, who at least came up with a scenario wherein there's reasonable doubt. Is your read of Igor really just that his lies were a bad move and you think he seems untrustworthy, Greeting??

In post 616, Greeting wrote: I’ll choose a narcissistic way to respond as to why there was no counterclaim: because I repeatedly warned the other PR not to do it and it seems like they might actually know what they’re doing.

lol

@frogsfrogs stop saying what i'm thinking, that is uncomfortable ;_;

In post 617, frogsfrogs wrote:Responding to some of 588. If you consider giving reads without citing specific posts to be vague, then sure. I was asked to give an overview of everyone.

Okay, and I asked you to elaborate on your stances, so just do that, don't give me this sass.

In post 617, frogsfrogs wrote:Re: doubting my strong town reads, you said yourself that a large part of reading people is determining whether you think their actions are genuine or not, and from my pov I think that's been very apparent of Implosion and Val. (

Both of their reactions to greeting yesterday made sense

and Val's doesn't come from scum, implosion arguing with you today he was genuinely not sure what to do but believed your reactions to be scum indicative.) I understand why they're doing the things they're doing, generally, and it seems reasonable and in line with a town agenda.

But their reactions to Greeting were entirely the opposite. How do they both come across as "making sense" when they have completely different reactions? What do you understand about what they're doing? It can't be that hard to point to a single thing, right?

In post 617, frogsfrogs wrote:See above, but also goes back to the "keeping your options open." We all change our minds sometimes, especially as we get new information, but scum can change their opinion of a player whenever they want based on what looks best and helps them the most, since they have alternate motivations. MafMen was a train that worked for a while, died down, and now he's back as an option, just like your read of him.

Plus the chance that MafMen is your partner who you rvs-ed to distance from, he messed up, and now you're leaving room to bus him if needbe. :T

Is MafMen an option? No one's voting him. haven't voted him. I already said I thought his response was town-leaning. And, again, he's your second highest scumread, so how does that make any sense at all?

You're super dodging actually answering my questions here and only giving completely vague justification, this really isn't good enough at all. Why can you not answer very simple questions about your own reads?

Here, I'm going to repeat every question I asked that you blatantly dodged, until I get an answer:

- What about Greeting's posting is "weird", and why do you find that to be potentially scum-indicative?

- What questions of implosion's are "incisive"? What about "making his own thoughts clear" is a towntell exactly? Why don't scum want to make their thoughts clear?

- Why do you see val as a "viable train", when exactly three people have expressed suspicion of him, and you're scumleaning everyone doing it? Who do you think is going to make Val a potential elim here?

- Has it placed a target on him, though? He's not even come close to being an elimination. Wouldn't "being outspoken" and "placing a massive target on his back" equally describe me? What do you think he's done that's "placed correctly" and "good for town"?

In post 616, Greeting wrote:To be fair, I took a step back, because due to a very surprising coincidence the exact thing that Val89 was warning town about happened - we have a fake claim.

That's the conclusion you have come to, is it; that's Igors claim is fake?

If so, why was there no kill last night? You really think a scumteam with Igor on it has submit the kill??