Mafiascum.net

baby indian rhino

Lynching

With 7 votes in play, it takes 4 to lynch.

Chemist1422

(2): Micc, Mr Oobsy

Leucosticte

(1): Farren

Not Voting

(4): skitter30, Chemist1422, Jamelia, Leucosticte

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-09-11 08:15:00).

[/area]

In post 602, Chemist1422 wrote:I think all of the poking at stuff Farren did was really towny and that they’ve been genuinely solving a lot

Like what?

What's the exact definition of mechanically cleared, by the way? Would an example be, "this a game with only one scum in it; x flipped as the tracker, and before he died, he said y didn't go anywhere the night that z was killed; since we know x was town, and therefore wouldn't lie, that means mechanically y is cleared"? But x could still lie strategically, even though that's usually not regarded as pro-town, so is anyone ever really mechanically cleared, in the sense that we KNOW they're town?

Like maybe someone could be mechanically cleared from a certain player's perspective (because he has the necessary intel), but not from everyone's perspective?

In post 110, Jamelia wrote:

I don’t necessarily think Chemist’s post was scummy, and with the bandwagon of people (way more than the majority) thinking so, I guess I’m more inclined to think he is town sided?

I keep re-reading it waiting to be like oh yeah, that was super scummy. But it wasn’t to me

In post 590, Jamelia wrote:

In post 588, Farren wrote:Let's start seeing some action, people. Votes. Questions. Opinions and responses. Something. Anything. We don't need a hammer yet, but we do need to at least start looking for nails.

Apathetic towns lose games.

Well, from the beginning I’ve always been weary of Chemist. I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts.

I obviously sense some sort of scumminess from Oobsy, since they’re voting for me. But I need to investigate a little more.

I have been reading pretty much every day.

this is a bad look and kinda summarizes Jamelia's progression on me, which I have an issue with reading their ISO

they go back and forth a lot on their read on me and it feels like they're trying to push a scum agenda

VOTE: Jamelia

In post 627, Leucosticte wrote:What's the exact definition of mechanically cleared, by the way? Would an example be, "this a game with only one scum in it; x flipped as the tracker, and before he died, he said y didn't go anywhere the night that z was killed; since we know x was town, and therefore wouldn't lie, that means mechanically y is cleared"? But x could still lie strategically, even though that's usually not regarded as pro-town, so is anyone ever really mechanically cleared, in the sense that we KNOW they're town?

Like maybe someone could be mechanically cleared from a certain player's perspective (because he has the necessary intel), but not from everyone's perspective?

Maybe cleared was the wrong word to use but I'm never considering skitter or Oobsy for the lynch today because everyone's checked in without CCing Oobsy and skitter being scum would require them to make a play that's worse for them, which is possible but unlikely enough that it doesn't need to be considered as a possiblity yet.

In post 628, Chemist1422 wrote:

In post 110, Jamelia wrote:

I don’t necessarily think Chemist’s post was scummy, and with the bandwagon of people (way more than the majority) thinking so, I guess I’m more inclined to think he is town sided?

I keep re-reading it waiting to be like oh yeah, that was super scummy. But it wasn’t to me

In post 590, Jamelia wrote:

In post 588, Farren wrote:Let's start seeing some action, people. Votes. Questions. Opinions and responses. Something. Anything. We don't need a hammer yet, but we do need to at least start looking for nails.

Apathetic towns lose games.

Well, from the beginning I’ve always been weary of Chemist. I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts.

I obviously sense some sort of scumminess from Oobsy, since they’re voting for me. But I need to investigate a little more.

I have been reading pretty much every day.

this is a bad look and kinda summarizes Jamelia's progression on me, which I have an issue with reading their ISO

they go back and forth a lot on their read on me and it feels like they're trying to push a scum agenda

VOTE: Jamelia

I’ve never changed my stance on you. I said from the beginning that I felt like your initial vote wasn’t scummy (the RVS debate). However, I’ve always said that your reasoning and defense afterwards was scummy. ISO amy posts again and you’ll see that.

In post 630, Jamelia wrote:

In post 628, Chemist1422 wrote:

In post 110, Jamelia wrote:

I don’t necessarily think Chemist’s post was scummy, and with the bandwagon of people (way more than the majority) thinking so, I guess I’m more inclined to think he is town sided?

I keep re-reading it waiting to be like oh yeah, that was super scummy. But it wasn’t to me

In post 590, Jamelia wrote:

In post 588, Farren wrote:Let's start seeing some action, people. Votes. Questions. Opinions and responses. Something. Anything. We don't need a hammer yet, but we do need to at least start looking for nails.

Apathetic towns lose games.

Well, from the beginning I’ve always been weary of Chemist. I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts.

I obviously sense some sort of scumminess from Oobsy, since they’re voting for me. But I need to investigate a little more.

I have been reading pretty much every day.

this is a bad look and kinda summarizes Jamelia's progression on me, which I have an issue with reading their ISO

they go back and forth a lot on their read on me and it feels like they're trying to push a scum agenda

VOTE: Jamelia

I’ve never changed my stance on you. I said from the beginning that I felt like your initial vote wasn’t scummy (the RVS debate). However, I’ve always said that your reasoning and defense afterwards was scummy. ISO amy posts again and you’ll see that.

In the post I quoted, you can clearly see that you said you thought I was more likely town.

In post 631, Chemist1422 wrote:

In post 630, Jamelia wrote:

In post 628, Chemist1422 wrote:

In post 110, Jamelia wrote:

I don’t necessarily think Chemist’s post was scummy, and with the bandwagon of people (way more than the majority) thinking so, I guess I’m more inclined to think he is town sided?

I keep re-reading it waiting to be like oh yeah, that was super scummy. But it wasn’t to me

In post 590, Jamelia wrote:

In post 588, Farren wrote:Let's start seeing some action, people. Votes. Questions. Opinions and responses. Something. Anything. We don't need a hammer yet, but we do need to at least start looking for nails.

Apathetic towns lose games.

Well, from the beginning I’ve always been weary of Chemist. I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts.

I obviously sense some sort of scumminess from Oobsy, since they’re voting for me. But I need to investigate a little more.

I have been reading pretty much every day.

this is a bad look and kinda summarizes Jamelia's progression on me, which I have an issue with reading their ISO

they go back and forth a lot on their read on me and it feels like they're trying to push a scum agenda

VOTE: Jamelia

I’ve never changed my stance on you. I said from the beginning that I felt like your initial vote wasn’t scummy (the RVS debate). However, I’ve always said that your reasoning and defense afterwards was scummy. ISO amy posts again and you’ll see that.

In the post I quoted, you can clearly see that you said you thought I was more likely town.

That was Post 110, after a lengthy discussion on whether or not your initial post was RVS or scummy. I said that with people jumping on your “bandwagon” of votes, it would be more likely that you were town-sided. Anyone can ISO any posts and see that since then, I have stood firm on your reasonings and your posts to be scummy. I voted with Norweigian for you to be voted out, and I have said for a while that I thought you should be voted.

If anyone BESIDES chemist wants to refute what I’m saying, please find more proof.

In post 116, Jamelia wrote:

In post 115, skitter30 wrote:

In post 69, Jamelia wrote:

In post 62, Farren wrote:

In post 54, Jamelia wrote:Hi! I’m sorry for my inactivity. I didn’t check if we had started last night and woke up this morning and ran to the forum haha.

I’ve never played mafia on this board before (or in this community) but I’m looking forward to it!

Got any thoughts on the game so far?

I’ll be completely honest I don’t understand the automatic accusations? I don’t think anyone has done anything too scummy but obviously I am still new to the MS meta.

This is a partner-y sort of post if chemist is scun

Hmm. Next time should I just agree with what everyone else is saying? If the goal is to find out who mafia is, and we have more than the majority of the game jumping on the bandwagon, odds are Chemist shouldn’t be scum right? Like I obviously can be wrong here but if we’re going on the logic of “well other people did it then so will I”, then a lot of people have seem scummy so far.

Which I mention on this post, 6 posts later.

I am open to that but I still want to lynch first.

In post 627, Leucosticte wrote:What's the exact definition of mechanically cleared, by the way? Would an example be, "this a game with only one scum in it; x flipped as the tracker, and before he died, he said y didn't go anywhere the night that z was killed; since we know x was town, and therefore wouldn't lie, that means mechanically y is cleared"? But x could still lie strategically, even though that's usually not regarded as pro-town, so is anyone ever really mechanically cleared, in the sense that we KNOW they're town?

Like maybe someone could be mechanically cleared from a certain player's perspective (because he has the necessary intel), but not from everyone's perspective?

Mod-verified information that can't be falsified through in-game means is the only means of 100% clearing a player. But there are some things that can get so close to clearing a player that for all intents and purposes might as well be treated as such.

Best example I can think of - final 3. Players A,B,C. C's scum, A and B are town. C votes for A. If B were scum, he could vote for A as soon as he saw it and clinch a scum victory. He sees the vote, posts something to show he saw the vote - but does not vote. B's mechanically cleared. Yeah, technically, B could be dumb as a rock and not realize the opportunity. Technically, B could be an utter jerk and deliberately want to drag the game out meaninglessly. But A should still treat B as if he was mechanically clear despite those two technical possibilities.

Here: I could spin hypotheticals where Mr Oobsy is not the actual Tracker. But all of them require the actual remaining PR to have deliberately failed to counterclaim despite opportunity to do so, since we know with 100%, mod-proven certainty that one PR is still alive.

Technically, that could happen. But it's a pretty out-there possibility, and spending time thinking about it is probably going to be wasted time, other than the learning and growth aspect.

In your hypothetical - yeah, a PR giving false info could happen. I have seen it happen a couple times, for mixed reasons, with mixed results. Given an uncountered PR with a role known for sure to be in the game, I assume PRs are telling the truth unless I know they aren't - but I won't speedhammer anyone on a hit, just in case they're not. In most cases of a PR lying, the lie is temporary and will be cleared up once it's served its purposes.

In post 628, Chemist1422 wrote:they go back and forth a lot on their read on me and it feels like they're trying to push a scum agenda

VOTE: Jamelia

The first part of this accusation is false.

Here's Jamelia's progression:


I can certainly see one change in reads here - from 116 to 126. But that's it. To me, that looks like discarding weaker evidence (actions of others, null actions by Chemist) in favor of stronger evidence. That sounds like Town to me, not scum.

I see nothing scummy about this progression. Changing a read once does not qualify as going back and forth a lot.

Second part of the accusation: from Chemist's POV, trying to get a townie lynched would certainly qualify as a scum agenda, but "town making mistakes" should be just as plausible as "scum pushing mislynches" from a town POV. By itself, insufficient.

UNVOTE: Leucosticte
VOTE: Chemist1422

Sorry about the number use. It's a habit I have to use the full username when voting.

Only thing that caught my eye when looking for evidence for or against a Leucosticte / Chemist team was the whole voting business during D1. I don't see that as disqualifying, nor do I see anything else.

I would like to hammer on Chemist. Is there anything I should be thinking about before I do so? Specifically from chemist themself. Am I missing something here that should change my mind.

Step 1: post in big bold letters, Intent to Hammer. Do not vote at this time.
Step 2: State a reasonable deadline for everyone to react, especially Chemist himself and anyone else voting for him.
Step 3: Engage with others while you wait.
Step 4: If Chemist is still at L-1 when your deadline passes - or when everyone's said their piece - and you still want to hammer, cast your vote.

If anyone unvotes Chemist during that time, act as you see fit.

If people want to unvote so we can discuss this further, please do.

I want to give a lot of time in between now and then just so Chemist can push for someone else (whether it be me or whoever they think is scummy), and hopefully we can get some new evidence to help us.

Bleh i'm going to be the closest thing to conftown tomorrow, presumably

I think chemist is probably scum
I'm not sold that he's going to flip scum tho, at least in part because i scumread ... several people voting him and/or giving intent

In post 627, Leucosticte wrote:What's the exact definition of mechanically cleared, by the way? Would an example be, "this a game with only one scum in it; x flipped as the tracker, and before he died, he said y didn't go anywhere the night that z was killed; since we know x was town, and therefore wouldn't lie, that means mechanically y is cleared"? But x could still lie strategically, even though that's usually not regarded as pro-town, so is anyone ever really mechanically cleared, in the sense that we KNOW they're town?

Like maybe someone could be mechanically cleared from a certain player's perspective (because he has the necessary intel), but not from everyone's perspective?

If i understand that scenario right, yes, we would normally consider that mechanically clear

Or someone claiming pr (uncounterclaimed) in setup where we know there has to be a pr

Or a cop saying: i have a clear on player a and the cop then dying; player a would be considered mechanically clear

In post 628, Chemist1422 wrote:this is a bad look and kinda summarizes Jamelia's progression on me, which I have an issue with reading their ISO

they go back and forth a lot on their read on me and it feels like they're trying to push a scum agenda

VOTE: Jamelia

Well this doesnt feel partner-y, at least

In post 640, Jamelia wrote:I would like to hammer on Chemist. Is there anything I should be thinking about before I do so? Specifically from chemist themself. Am I missing something here that should change my mind.

So posts like these make me kinda wary that this is going to flip scum

In post 647, skitter30 wrote:

In post 640, Jamelia wrote:I would like to hammer on Chemist. Is there anything I should be thinking about before I do so? Specifically from chemist themself. Am I missing something here that should change my mind.

So posts like these make me kinda wary that this is going to flip scum

Why do “posts like these” make you feel that way

Feels like you're asking permission to hammer, and like you want to be talked our of it almost?

Idk the underlying train of thought is weird