Mafiascum.net

@Four- The posts around there too.

Glad to see you can look at why I townread Katsuki but can't look at why I'm scumreading aronis.

I didn't see any reasons why you're voting Aronis. You just cited some of his posts, and basically said "what is this?" and then voted. I'm asking for more elaboration or clarity.

On a more serious note, what can I do to convince you guys to vote for Ross? I'm really quite sure he's scum here.

PBPA of his ISO

187- SSK and Four Trouble are town. No elaboration, instead votes muffin without any reason behind it.

203- He lists all 3 main-ish wagons as the most likely to be scum. There's no real sign of trying to figure out anyones alignment.'

228- They've been voted most for a reason. They're just suspicious. He's changing his story and backtracking all over the place

280- Backtracks on 2 of his scumreads (at least), shares no other information, adds nothing to the game.

295- (Side note: Scum have daytalk? Looks like a scumslip imo). Defends himself without adding anything to discuss.

345- When Aronis flips scum I'm coming back to this because it looks like a chainsaw. The entirety of that post is to call Ross null.

353- This kinda looks town, I'll grant that.

391- This looks like a scumclaim imo. He's trying to blend in and do nothing to help so after we lynch his sorry ass we'll have nothing to go on. What's the town motivation for blending in?

602- Votes Selkies when he's said Selkies is suspicious all game, after he unvotes like 300 posts before.

He's hardcore lurking and trying to sit in the background and push popular wagons in an attempt to blend in and survive.

Welcome to the cool kids club, notsci.

Also who the fuck is kaboom

In post 629, notscience wrote:PBPA of his ISO

187- SSK and Four Trouble are town. No elaboration, instead votes muffin without any reason behind it.

203- He lists all 3 main-ish wagons as the most likely to be scum. There's no real sign of trying to figure out anyones alignment.'

228- They've been voted most for a reason. They're just suspicious. He's changing his story and backtracking all over the place

280- Backtracks on 2 of his scumreads (at least), shares no other information, adds nothing to the game.

295- (Side note: Scum have daytalk? Looks like a scumslip imo). Defends himself without adding anything to discuss.

345- When Aronis flips scum I'm coming back to this because it looks like a chainsaw. The entirety of that post is to call Ross null.

353- This kinda looks town, I'll grant that.

391- This looks like a scumclaim imo. He's trying to blend in and do nothing to help so after we lynch his sorry ass we'll have nothing to go on. What's the town motivation for blending in?

602- Votes Selkies when he's said Selkies is suspicious all game, after he unvotes like 300 posts before.

He's hardcore lurking and trying to sit in the background and push popular wagons in an attempt to blend in and survive.

The narrative you tell doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't see what's inherently scummy about trying to "blend in and survive." I think weak players often put more energy as town into surviving instead of finding the scum.

187 and 203 are things both alignments do, all the time.

228 - How is he changing his story? The post looked genuine to me, something town would say.

280 - There is nothing scummy about changing your opinion. He explains the logic behind his reads, and it looks more like town given his level of competence (clearly not very high).

295 - We know scum have daytalk cause of the rules. It isn't a scumslip. He further explains his change in opinion, which in retrospect was a very natural and fluid change in opinion.

345 - What do you mean this is a chainsaw defense? To me, this post was pretty town. I don't see scum responding to my request for thoughts on Ross.

353 - Why does this look town?

391 - The town motivation is surviving. He explains it in the post. It makes a lot of sense, given his level of competence.

602 - I don't see it persuasive in either direction. It's not a strong post, but his explanation doesn't really look contrived.

In post 291, RossWilliam wrote:In regards to Goodfather and Katsuki, I don't see it being scummy to criticize the infamous rule six. I see it as an individually minded town player being worried that even if he or she is actively hunting and aiding the town, he or she might still get randomly lynched because the rest of the town is lazy or indecisive. Although town shouldn't be worried about getting lynched, because the point of the game isn't to make it to the end, it's to find scum. This isn't Survivor.

In regards to Selkies, pointing out who might be an easy lynch isn't good for the town. Even if you are town, you're giving information to uncreative scum about who would be a good target to pile on, and if enough people declare so-and-so to be an easy lynch, people are going to start seeing scum in them just because people are lazy

Re the first paragraph, The actual argument put forward by katsuki was that rule 6 would punish scum disproportionately.

Re the second paragraph, I think calling out an "easy lynch" has precisely the opposite effect. IME scum worry about being perceived as going after easy lynches even in cases where there's some justification. And even when they don't worry about it, town players who tend to defend easy lynches or scumhunt in easy-lynch bandwagons wind up finding scum. I'll be happy to provide some recent examples of this, including a micro game where a hydra that Cabd and I were in turned out to be correct about one of the players who jumped on a day 1 "easy lynch".

I'm not calling this scummy. I'm not even sure it's outdated site meta. It may just be different approaches to mafia theory. There were certainly town players who were also voting the "easy lynch".

In post 347, RossWilliam wrote:I called rule six infamous because "OOOOOH it's unusual!" and "OOOOOOH it's italicized" and also because it's apparently a scumtell if people agree with it or if they don't. It was something out the ordinary that caused some perhaps too strong opinions

Aronis, you pretty much just echoed Selkies, you just changed some words around, it reminds me of my shoddy elementary school plagiarism attempts. Be honest, did you read Selkies post before you posted or were you just having the same ideas? Selkies posts a lot, and seems to have experiance and speaks with confidence. I could see inexperianced scum thinking that they were a good person to jump in line behind and echo, because chances are they won't be the only one influenced by Selkies, and they can be active without making waves.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the FourTroubles. Who think "hmmm, I have to be scumhunting, let's see, let me pick someone at random and vote for them. Do I have a reason? Nope. Uh.....,no, um, I don't have time to post a reason....maybe can everyone else post their thoughts on Ross and then I can pick the best theory and pretend I came up with it in the first place?"

FourTrouble, are you scum or just insecure in your scumhunting abilities?

Between the playing monkeying and experianced player, and the player throwing names out at random hoping someone will latch on to them, I think we'll find scum

Reading this in ISO I had a wtf moment about his post to Aronis, because I wouldn't say that we've been an influential player so far. Not given that we've collected 5 votes on day 1. But, at the time the post was made, we were at 2 votes and not the leading bandwagon, so from that perspective,, this isn't a bad post.

The observation about FourTroubles seems really disconnected from reality, though. FourTroubles IMO has been one of the more content-rich posters in the game though not a high volume poster. I don't get the push on them at all.

In post 432, RossWilliam wrote:

In post 411, zMuffinMan wrote:bert is scum

he hasn't done anything completely antitown, he hasn't self-voted and he hasn't asked to be lynched

Is this a joke or something from meta? Because I don't understand.

FourTrouble. Thanks for finally explaining your vote, but I think your preoccupied with how I play. Some people throw votes and pressure around and use that to find scum, I tend to think out loud and see what people respond to and see how they interact with eachother. You can call it cautious or unagressive, but in my opinion you're more likely to find scum in someone who is trying too hard or being ingenuine. There's no room for townies to be deceptive. And if I was going after easy lynches, I'd be campaigning hard against some who would have a hard time defending himself, this game has a couple. My vote isn't on anyone yet and it'll stay that way until I have more to go on. I'm interested in King Kenny and Kaboooom because I don't have anything on them right now, and I want to compare them to the people who are currently topping my scum list

I don't have any issue with a player holding their vote for a while at times. I'm noting this to see where he goes regarding his two scum reads (Aronis and FourTrouble and the players he wants more data for.

In post 513, RossWilliam wrote:Can there be jesters in this game, or is that not in normal? Either way, I think Katsuki would be a waste of a lynch.

FourTroubles, how many times are you going to mention how skilled you are (

but only on other sites

?) Do you think if you say it loudly enough and repeat yourself enough people will eventually start to believe you?

I don't know where he got this. It's a pretty straight-up discredit of someone who's pushing him.

In post 609, RossWilliam wrote:

In post 594, Selkies wrote:

In post 522, RossWilliam wrote:

In post 515, Selkies wrote:

In post 514, orcinus_theoriginal wrote:wow shots fired

why is katsuki a waste of a lynch

Katsuki is either a jester, or he's blatantly over this game, which tells me town. Scum don't check out of a game on day 1

Not implying anything here--are you familiar with the term policy lynch

I know what a policy lynch is, I don't necessary agree with them on the basis that even if a player is a pain in the ass to have alive, lynches should be directed at scum and not nuisances, even if said nuisances are just left to rattle around and make noise forever.

I liked this, probably because I have a long-standing opposition to policy lynches, though I've started to come around in some specific instances. Orcinus has a somewhat unique policy lynch approach. I'm not sure if that's what he had in mind when he asked Ross this question. Orcinus saves policy votes for players he knows that he can't read. Being an annoying git doesn't rate a lynch in his opinion.

In post 611, RossWilliam wrote:I don't consider anyone a policy lynch.

I said earlier that Katsuki is either a jester or checked-out town, but after hearing about scum using prod dodging to get ahead, that's on the table now too, I wasn't considering it before

This points up that he actually had Katsuki off the table as a lynch option prior to this post. Limiting his options on a player who has some suspicion on them is a ballsy move if he's scum.

@FourTrouble I'm going to reread your case for scum-Ross. You're obviously seeing something in these posts that I'm missing. This iso isn't town as fuck, but I don't see it as super-scummy either.

Selkies you guys realized I'm town yet

In post 414, FourTrouble wrote:Well, since a few people seem really interested in why Ross is scum, here's a bunch of good reasons to vote him:

In post 291, RossWilliam wrote:In regards to Goodfather and Katsuki, I don't see it being scummy to criticize the infamous rule six. I see it as an individually minded town player being worried that even if he or she is actively hunting and aiding the town, he or she might still get randomly lynched because the rest of the town is lazy or indecisive. Although town shouldn't be worried about getting lynched, because the point of the game isn't to make it to the end, it's to find scum. This isn't Survivor.

In regards to Selkies, pointing out who might be an easy lynch isn't good for the town. Even if you are town, you're giving information to uncreative scum about who would be a good target to pile on, and if enough people declare so-and-so to be an easy lynch, people are going to start seeing scum in them just because people are lazy

The post doesn't contribute anything useful and is basically safe stuff to say. The first paragraph is just saying there is nothing scummy about rule 6, a position that had already been argued and was mostly irrelevant to the game at this point. The analysis of Selkies is just a mundane theoretical point, again not really telling us anything in terms of who the scum are. Ross even frames it in terms of "not good for the town" rather than saying Selkies is scummy. It's too safe and shows a lack of scunhunting.

To put it another way, it feels like Ross is trying to find theoretical positions to disagree/agree with, a lens more likely to come from scum, rather than attempting to genuinely figure out who the scum are. Scum tend to read the game looking for these sorts of theoretical points to comment on because they are safe and don't really expose your motivations. If you look back over the game, the reason Selkies is town is precisely because he has moments where it shows that he's genuinely trying to figure out who the scum are. Ross doesn't have any of that here, while making what appears to be a substantive post, and that's a major red flag, my opinion. There are also some minor points about this post that I really don't like -- the phrase "This isn't Survivor," for example, just feels really fake. It feels like Ross is overstating the point, something scum are prone to do.

This isn't what I got out of Ross' post, but you do make some good points.

However, I remember getting really wound up in players calling me 'anti-town' instead of 'scummy' in the Paradox Prime game, and I thought it was horrifically and obviously scummy. Both the players I went after for it turned out to be town. :/

One of them is playing this game.

In post 301, RossWilliam wrote:

In post 297, Selkies wrote:

In post 291, RossWilliam wrote:In regards to Selkies, pointing out who might be an easy lynch isn't good for the town. Even if you are town, you're giving information to uncreative scum about who would be a good target to pile on, and if enough people declare so-and-so to be an easy lynch, people are going to start seeing scum in them just because people are lazy

I'm not the head who made the observation out loud, but in many games players are familiar enough with each other to know who are likely lynchbait, who are bus-candidates if they are scum, etc. One of the places I look for scum is on the "easy lynch" wagons.

Why do you think scum would be found on the easy lynch wagon? When I think of people who would be targetted for easy lynches, I think of new players who have no idea what they're doing but are trying to keep up with people posting text walls, so they rack their brains and end up with bs, which gets them targetted pretty easily. Not that new players can't be scum, but I think new player scum tend to be quiet and stay under the radar and try to get as little attention as possible.

Which is why I think we need to pay attention to Aronis, and also to Mafiassk for saying we should leave him alone just because he's new,

because if Aronis is scum

, that's exactly what we should do if we want to let him keep slipping and scumming along

The first paragraph here, again, is just disagreeing with a theoretical point -- are scum on easy lynches? -- rather than trying to figure out Selkies' alignment. I just don't see why Ross is putting this much effort discussing this point when it has literally no bearing on Selkies' alignment.

The second point -- pay attention to Aronis/SSK -- is basically saying, "let's go after easy lynches," because they COULD be scum. I'm bolding the key phrase here that really bugs me. When someone is reading the game in terms of what is possible, like X "could" be scum, then that person is not really hunting for scum. They're just looking for people they "could" get lynched. Town don't read the game that way. They read the game in terms of probabilities, things like X is "probably" scum because of Y reason.

You do make a good point that he's arguing theory with someone he's not scumreading rather than going after the players he said were in his scumpile.

In post 323, RossWilliam wrote:Selkies, if we're laboring under different ideas, could you just explain to me simply what you mean?

And Bert, I haven't played mafia in a few years, so anything out of the norm is probably just me resharpening my rusty tools. That's also the reason why everyone seems to know each other already except for me.

I didn't like this post either. The question directed at Selkies doesn't really make much sense to me. And the "haven't played mafia in a few years" thing and "everyone seems to know each other except me" bit just doesn't sit well with me.

There have been a couple of games I've played at MS where I felt like I was the only "stranger" in the game, and a lot of what the players said to/about each other pertained to meta that I didn't understand. I asked questions about the games that were brought up, and skimmed a couple of them, but I couldn't really overcome being or at least feeling like the odd player out. That kind of experience is part of playing on a site like this one. I dunno. I don't think I brought up how I felt in those games. I tend to have a "soldier on" mentality in games.

So, yeah, I get feeling that way. But, it's something you just deal with and move on.

In post 635, notscience wrote:Selkies you guys realized I'm town yet

Getting there.

Anyone else notice how IK has parked his vote on a PL all day

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Will post something substantive tomorrow.

Cabd after we lynch scum-aronis can we lynch the everliving fuck out of IdiotKing

I don't think I like you.

Notscience,

My first post was more of a guess then anything, it was early in the game and I didn't have any strong reads on anyone, so I just sorta threw it out there.

The second post was simply stating the people I thought were most likely scum. I understand where that can seem scummy as i didn't have any definite reason for my votes.

The third was a failed attempt to throw suspicion off me.

Four and five, were explanations of why I had removed my vote.

Six was simply stating my opinion on Ross.

Seven was out of frustration.

Eight was stating my strategy, I don't have a strong method of scumhunting, so I'm trying to go under the radar, until I get a good read on someone.

Nine, I was just throwing my vote out there, with decent reasoning.

selkies wrote:I thought that you were intentionally tweaking something that I had picked up about our recent games where you were scum. And you figured out what I was talking about, since you mentioned it in your wall.

so when you mentioned a model of scum-me you were referring entirely to me thinking you're scum?

also it looks like the things you "liked" are things you know i do as scum as well, so i don't really get why that would make you unsure about me

In post 642, Aronis wrote:ight was stating my strategy, I don't have a strong method of scumhunting, so I'm trying to go under the radar, until I get a good read on someone.

Town doesn't need a strategy.

It's times like this we might have to embrace our inner kuribos.

In post 645, notscience wrote:It's times like this we might have to embrace our inner kuribos.

Well, Now exactly 1 of the 4 people on the selkies wagon not named "katsuki" has expressed a case. Do the other three have nothing of their own to add?

i'm more like 5 people

In post 647, zMuffinMan wrote:i'm more like 5 people

Good for you, have a pokepuff.

Cabd what are you thinking of kaboom