Mafiascum.net

given rampage's VT soft right there i think that actually makes him the optimal lynch over ircher (assuming ircher hasn't claimed somewhere before and i've just missed it)

VOTE: rampage

In post 619, northsidegal wrote:scioness, talk to me about your townread on ircher?

i honestly think both ircher and rampage could both be scum (individually, of course - i doubt partnered together), but if you're townreading ircher i could be convinced to vote rampage over him.

ircher reminds me of oxy a little. i read his 'ate' as genuine and i feel his reaction and actions are in spite of people in a daring/stubborn way.

In post 532, Scioness Sajj wrote:ircher's fine. i have had a townlean on him through whole catch up, it was somewhat swingy - only in the 'that's meh' way not 'that's scummy'. i feel like the misunderstanding with vulcan about the joke is genuine - i feel like the whole things was ircher trying to stir the pot and create a discussion more than him going for an easy mislynch(?), i mean he explained it later and that's how i read the situation 'when it was happening'. the period when he was less willing to cooperate... well, i don't put much weight into it since i think it can come from both alignments but it felt real. feels more likely to be frustrated town. i like how he elaborated on those posts i have quoted for him, i don't really agree with most of it but i understand where he is coming from.
as of right now, he has become more reactive (i remember him to be more proactive early d1) but that's something i'd be more interested in review d2.

and since those things have been mentioned, i don't really want to lynch here today because of 370. but i'm not sure how i feel about ircher not mentioning that i have been taking his side because i feel like i have been sorta buddying him?

Hey, go for it. My lunchbreak give direction

I hate autocorrect. My lynch*

Other than the fact that I appreciate it, is there really a need for me to mention that you are taking my side, esp. if I'm not scumreading you for it?

Pedit: Why are you apathetic to your lynch?

Pedit2: No Comment

In post 629, Ircher wrote:Other than the fact that I appreciate it, is there really a need for me to mention that you are taking my side, esp. if I'm not scumreading you for it?

i think her point was more that she's suspicious that you at the very least a little suspicious of her taking your side.

In post 629, Ircher wrote:Other than the fact that I appreciate it, is there really a need for me to mention that you are taking my side, esp. if I'm not scumreading you for it?

if you are not scum reading me for it then not.

i would scumread myself for it probably, i guess i have trust issues.

p.edit o, scary.

Oh, okay, well that's fair I guess.

I would much rather lynch Ircher today and then if he flips green have a look at rampage day 2. If you are willing to consider an Ircher vote, say so.

We should at least get votes off of the random people (it being so close to EOD) and form two competing wagons: Ircher & Rampage. Competing wagons have a better chance to yield information for town.

well, people that are not voting either of ircher or rampage are not present.

I'm pretty sure (though not definite) that Nacho would vote Rampage over me. I'm also pretty sure that Nancy (though again, not definite) would vote Rampage over me (based on their last reads list).

In post 634, Scioness Sajj wrote:well, people that are not voting either of ircher or rampage are not present.

That is a truth fact

Are you going to address any of my points or continue ignoring me?

Informal, slightly fast responses for dialog (compared to how I like to sit and write up my own analysis.

@Ircher: I genuinely dont know what to make of you anymore. You have double the postcount of anyone else, which is something I would ordinarily attribute to town. But you have explicitly conceded to changing "tactics" multiple times today, including a 200-post period (260ish-460ish) where you seemed to be deliberately obscurantist. That has changed again now, and to a style I like more generally, but dont know what to do about someone who is clearly playing a very tactical game. About specific posts since I last read/wrote:

I cant tell you how much I didnt like 447. But I really liked 476. Im not surprised by your move to Rampage; it feels like you, along with changing strategies, hard OMGUS anyone who votes you. On the Rampage case, I see your defense as being far too strong - his talk of flipfloping makes sense given how much youve move your vote, but you instead chose to focus on the semantic "wagon" wording of it. (I have accused you of the same flipping in terms of seeing what would stick, without the focus on your voting, so I was inclined to credit his case). That said, you show the same semantic-wording focus when explaining your case on ofrhz-me. Maybe you just focus on wording more than I do; I generally try to word things with care (not in this post), but dont assume the same from others. Indeed I assume most slots just come online and post to play, and view lax wordchoice as perhaps towny.

Same dichotomy with 543/544: Here your rampage defense seemed both sensible and right - I liked 543 But your 5447, defending your no-lynch vote just has too many questions to me. Is this an action you take for the purpose of saying scum would be very unlikely to do this? Given your tactically play and game knowledge, you know this vote is both attention-getting and anti-town. I cant come up with a town motivation to make it anyways, but I can see scum wanting to be able to make this argument. In other words, you say its unlikely scum - I agree. But I dont see it as likely town either. I see it as unlikely move either way, so really want to know why it was done, since for me the most likely (though still unlikely) motivation is scummy.


In 546, you still scum me,but say you cant remember the reasoning of my case. Its in 440, but Im definitely going to have to do some reflecting overnight. I will either recase or revote Monday by noon.

Im going to do the Rampage post next (should be much shorter). Based on the skim to prepare this, though, I can say he is where I would likely move after I try to puzzle you out more.

PEDIT: Written starting at post 614. Lot more to read now too....Good.

In post 637, Ircher wrote:Are you going to address any of my points or continue ignoring me?

Your only point is to pick apart the fact I said bandwagon. That was literally it. You are way too defensive and I see you as scum. So if I think you are scum and I know I am not, why would I listen to your long winded, single point that I am technically flawed in calling your votes bandwagons.

No, it also picks away at the fact that you said my voting was inconsistent-->It hasn't been. AND, it picks apart the fact that you said I was from one wagon to the next.

In post 638, teacher wrote:I cant tell you how much I didnt like 447. But I really liked 476. Im not surprised by your move to Rampage; it feels like you, along with changing strategies, hard OMGUS anyone who votes you. On the Rampage case, I see your defense as being far too strong - his talk of flipfloping makes sense given how much youve move your vote, but you instead chose to focus on the semantic "wagon" wording of it. (I have accused you of the same flipping in terms of seeing what would stick, without the focus on your voting, so I was inclined to credit his case). That said, you show the same semantic-wording focus when explaining your case on ofrhz-me. Maybe you just focus on wording more than I do; I generally try to word things with care (not in this post), but dont assume the same from others. Indeed I assume most slots just come online and post to play, and view lax wordchoice as perhaps towny.

It wasn't a focus simply on the semantics of "wagons"; it was a focus on how he claimed that I had been moving my vote everywhere, which wasn't the case.

In post 638, teacher wrote:so really want to know why it was done, since for me the most likely (though still unlikely) motivation is scummy.

Simple: Fun.

Plus, I knew everyone would harp on me when I did it, so I did it anyway.

In post 593, TheRampage wrote:Scioness, actually the biggest band wagon was Vulcan, who got to L-1. I feel like Vulcan is town and seems disinterested in what happens to him. I think Ircher is losing his mind more then Vulcan did at L-1. Only suck or a power role would lose it like that, and a power role would try to be less noticeable in my opinion.

I have noticed non power roles will defend themselves, but not overly because it is better they be lynched then a power role, take Vulcan.

I also feel like you are kind of low key protecting Ircher by trying to push on me, without actually openly protecting him. I say we lynch Ircher and if flips scum, we target you. If he is town, I will willingly sacrifice myself for the good of the town.

o you are right, only Nacho was voting ofrhz back then. glad you were here to correct me, sad you have ignored my questions (and nancy's too, i was curious about your answers).

i feel like the best you can do as either alignment is to fight back your lynch back or at least try to leave as much information as possible.
it bothers me that you are not in the slightest concerned with the idea that your are scum reading a pr.
it bothers me that you are so sure that this is tvs.
it bothers me that you think it is a good idea for you to get lynched in case ircher flips town because everybody knows how unlikely it is to happen.
i don't think i have been low key about taking ircher's side, but my scumread of your slot was here way before, would have pushed you sooner if you answered my posts.

^ when i look at this post i can see some hypocrisy

but oh well

i know better what i think

okay

A Rampage read. I will start first by saying I came into this with no bias at all -- they had been a null slot to me when I last checked in. While I appreciate the fact that Rampage joined the wagon I had been driving, it is also NAI, since I assume IF Ircher is town (which, as a matter of pure statistics, he probably is) then I expect at least one scum to be there. Basically, I had no preconceived notions going in.

Second, I will say that here, unlike Ircher, I actually re-ISOd this slot (creppy, Ventril, Rampage) for the entire day since the postcounts are so low. With that background....

Ventrill's 111 seemed, at best, empty posting for the sake of it as someone said earlier. Likewise 126's "contradiction" is bizarre, primarily because Draynth had in fact explained this vote. All of this has been said before, but I am repeating it because it is factoring into my read. Finally, the breaking of the rules about ongoing games did strike a semi-towny chord.

Rampage's entry and push against Vulcan seems towny, unless Vulcan is his partner (which seems relatively low odds; I doubt scum would want to be the two sequential slots on a wagon). That said, I dont like the jump from me to Ircher, whom he had been defending prior to the vote. I get my wagon had been falling apart, but Nancy's was still very much alive at that point, and Rampage had provided no read on her. It seemed like too much of a 180 on a slot, even with the reread explanation.

I also dont like the nonanswers to Scioness, nancy or me, though he may have viewed them as implicitly answered in his Ircher case.

Im happy this is the second wagon, and will be evaluating which one I am on overnight.

do i need to talk about something else?

have i missed something

Yeah, I think I'm fine with leaving the game state as-is and letting the remaining people to decide whether to lynch me or Rampage. Preferably the latter, but I think I've said all I wanted to say for the day (more or less).

In post 648, Ircher wrote:Yeah, I think I'm fine with leaving the game state as-is and letting the remaining people to decide whether to lynch me or Rampage. Preferably the latter, but I think I've said all I wanted to say for the day (more or less).

Any reaction to the Rampage read (or the you read that was not covered in PEDIT phase)?

Absent other requests, I will be reading 430-current now, but sleep on it and post before noon Eastern Monday.