Mafiascum.net

When you scroll up to catch up and see your vote change was further justified lmao

I was working and during work i thought about this game and what i saw redtea post when waking up this morning and I townread them more now when crossreferencing with the games I read of them. Not heaven ascending type of confidence but enough to keep em outta hell

In post 575, Dannflor wrote:what do you find strange about it? I admit I had trouble navigating the phrasing at first but I think it makes pretty clear sense to me now

Last night when i saw the posts I briefly thought a dann/redtea/nsg team was viable based on thinking that there was beatlejuice going on to save redtea but on reflection of the above i dont think so. If redtea IS scum I think though the 2 have higher chances of being scum based on that event

Didnt mean to quote that

Oh lmao i said last night its unlikely bc i was thinking "no way redtea talks this sloppy with nsg/dann to help them in the PT" but in reality that doesnt make sense unless they're drafting posts in retrospect.

I'll do some holistic analysis later on the 3 if enchant flips town.

I can't go to hell, i am atheist.

In post 630, Enchant wrote:I can't go to hell, i am atheist.

God bless America.

In post 627, Ich Troje wrote:

In post 575, Dannflor wrote:what do you find strange about it? I admit I had trouble navigating the phrasing at first but I think it makes pretty clear sense to me now

Last night when i saw the posts I briefly thought a dann/redtea/nsg team was viable based on thinking that there was beatlejuice going on to save redtea but on reflection of the above i dont think so. If redtea IS scum I think though the 2 have higher chances of being scum based on that event

hahaha, that is a completely backwards and paranoiac take less likely than even individually a scumslip happening.

In post 604, Enchant wrote:I will not be surprised to be first elim here, especially considering if i am actually right and T3 is mafia, who for some reason protecting me (OMGUS exist and my case is reasonable i think), while his teammates attack me for some another reasons to protect him not directly. Atleast it looks like that for me.

It would be likely possible for flow+T3 team. Who is third is impossible for me to deduce. Sorry for that.

This post has a curious blend of self-awareness and lack thereof.

1: "will not be surprised to be first elim"
- At the time they made the statement, they had only one vote on them. Now they have three votes, so even if it isn't prophetic, it certainly points in the right direction. But it's one of those statements that tends to attract votes, I think - and thus can end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. So maybe not as much self-awareness as I thought.

2: "OMGUS exist and my case is reasonable i think" - their case on T3 consists of post 283 which breaks down into meta (that cannot be explained) and that no one had gone after T3 yet.
- This isn't much of a case against T3. Assume Town|T3; why wouldn't scum go after T3? To pocket him. Because he's barking up the wrong tree. Because there's already a scum-friendly wagon or two. Because he amuses them. Because they think he'll dig himself a deep hole and be a perfect elimination for a later phase. Because he's a tough sell to exalt during a Heaven phase, making it more likely that a scum gets exalted instead.

It's definitely not a strong case. Granted, it's D1, so I wouldn't say it's completely unreasonable, but it's an easy case to poke full of holes, and it's a curious case to fixate on.

The post does at least express an opinion on flow trap, which is technically a response to my question even if not addressed directly to me. I'd like more, though - lots of other players in the game.

Usually when I've played with Enchant I've been a super low poster as town and very proactive as scum.

In post 632, northsidegal wrote:

In post 627, Ich Troje wrote:Last night when i saw the posts I briefly thought a dann/redtea/nsg team was viable based on thinking that there was beatlejuice going on to save redtea but on reflection of the above i dont think so. If redtea IS scum I think though the 2 have higher chances of being scum based on that event

hahaha, that is a completely backwards and paranoiac take

way, way

less likely than even individually a scumslip happening.

Does your statement apply to both of the takes, or just the first?

they both seem roughly the same to me? was referring specifically to the second sentence, though.

I'd say there's a difference between "this is a viable team, because of reason X" and "if A flips scum, B and C are more likely to be scum" - in degree, if nothing else. Especially if reason X is questionable.

Why is "if redtea flips scum, Dannflor / northsidegal are more likely to be scum" so completely backwards and paranoiac?

In post 637, Farren wrote:I'd say there's a difference between "this is a viable team, because of reason X" and "if A flips scum, B and C are more likely to be scum" - in degree, if nothing else. Especially if reason X is questionable.

Why is "if redtea flips scum, Dannflor / northsidegal are more likely to be scum" so completely backwards and paranoiac?

it's backwards because for it to be the case multiple events which individually are already incredibly unlikely must all happen together, which makes them multiplicatively less likely to happen together. the first is the assumption that redtea actually scumslipped, which as i advise people often, you should basically just never assume without seriously hard evidence. actual scumslips happen far less often in proportion to the amount of incidents where people think they do. the second assumption is that, after scumslipping with a post meant for the scum PT which miraculously doesn't link to it or really refer or respond to anyone else except the post he was responding to, redtea felt the need to cover his tracks by saying it was meant for a notes PT. i briefly thought that this could be the case yesterday, but on reflection i just don't think it's all that likely – the post was already innocuous enough and could've just been left alone and probably nobody would've taken notice, and if they did he could say that it was meant for his notes PT.

the third and i think least likely assumption is that me and dann then staged that small discussion to sort of "poison the well". two things in response to this thought – first, had redtea actually scumslipped and were i partners with him, i probably would have just lolhammered him rather than trying to keep him alive. i think that given a theoretical team of red/me/dann, that would give us a far easier path to victory than attempting the opposite. second, in my experience scum just don't tend to plan things out like this. scum plans obviously exist, but i think that in general people tend to overestimate the degree to which scum plan things out. i think that most scum plans tend to be sort of vague things: "i'll bus you", "let's hard defend each other", "let's try to push X". planning out a conversation to downplay a scumslip doesn't really fall within my model (or, i honestly think, any reasonable model) of how scum actually play.

I'll read some enchant games if they're linked

koba what did you find towny about what red posted

In post 642, Esooa wrote:VOTE: t3

Unpopular opinion.

[esooa, ich troje]
[farren, red tea?]
[nsg, t3] - null/mixed
[flow trap]
[enchant]

this is about where I am after a reread

In post 630, Enchant wrote:I can't go to hell, i am atheist.

That just means you don't believe it can happen :3

In post 645, Dannflor wrote:[esooa, ich troje]
[farren, red tea?]
[nsg, t3] - null/mixed
[flow trap]
[enchant]

this is about where I am after a reread

I wanna ask about all these lol

what about myself and ich

I can't go to heaven I'm an atheist

In post 648, Esooa wrote:I can't go to heaven I'm an atheist

That just means you don't believe it can happen :3