Mafiascum.net

In post 580, Klick wrote:

In post 472, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:expending political capital to shade someone who's town is not exactly a winning strategy for a scumside player.

your goal is to get someone to trust you

not make sure nobody can trust anyone (cuz that's like literally impossible)

Scum doesn't just want to get trusted - they want to be trusted more than town
So scum!Tammy would be concerned about town'Wisdom getting soft-confirmed because that takes away from her potential pairings, since all the townies that might have wanted to pair with her would instead be appealing to Wisdom

I don't feel like this is stupid?

But it seems that everyone has a consensus about this and I've not played the setup before admittedly

In post 484, Enchant wrote:Can you do it like in Fallout 4

In post 511, the worst wrote:Tammy does feel like a fairly natural place for scum to start to pick things apart

In post 515, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:actually that's wholly inaccurate since we were talking about Tammy's approach to Wisdom and I just brainfarted.

I don't think Tammy was scum-reading Wisdom

She simply did not like him being "soft-cleared" for reasons she expressed doubt in.

That's not the same as discrediting/scumreading someone.

In post 532, MafMen wrote:jesus you keep putting me in a spot that forces me to whiteknight klick

In post 626, Tammy wrote:

In post 467, Klick wrote:On average, yeah? I think she's more likely to dislike the softclear as scum. Especially since she laid out the strongest argument for the softclear being accurate IMO.

Part of this could definitely be a playstyle clash between how I view the game and how she does. But I think she's more likely scum than average out of it.

What argument did I lay out for the soft clear being accurate?

In post 218, Tammy wrote:

In post 211, MafMen wrote:you guys are definitely being too hard on wisdom here
an 'easy pass'? cmon

*shrug*

Now do I think Wisdom, who I think could figure out how to get town reads without voting or death tunneling, would come out with something hokey like "how do I get town reads without voting?" as scum. Maybe not, even joking.

But I don't trust that interpretation of mine either.

But I respect his scum game too much to just write him off for not trusting when he could have. He could have either not trusted the rule would be in effect and didn't want to risk it or thought that doing it was too risky.

In post 651, Tammy wrote:

In post 484, Enchant wrote:Can you do it like in Fallout 4

I'm replaying Fallout 4 in VR right now and it's really fun and kinda creepy.

In post 606, Wisdom wrote:Yup that would work really well if I was scum and just missed the vote

In post 617, cool cookie wrote:

In post 580, Klick wrote:

In post 472, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:expending political capital to shade someone who's town is not exactly a winning strategy for a scumside player.

your goal is to get someone to trust you

not make sure nobody can trust anyone (cuz that's like literally impossible)

Scum doesn't just want to get trusted - they want to be trusted more than town
So scum!Tammy would be concerned about town'Wisdom getting soft-confirmed because that takes away from her potential pairings, since all the townies that might have wanted to pair with her would instead be appealing to Wisdom

I don't feel like this is stupid? But it seems that everyone has a consensus about this and I've not played the setup before admittedly

agree with Klick here. I can see scum wanting to shade 1 player to make them feel forced into accepting any trust they can find. maybe wouldn't work with experienced players but I think that is a motive for throwing shade on the right player (whilst wanting to suck up to the majority too). so I think slight tendency towards players who are bucking the consensus and standing out. i havent read everything back but was liking mafmen for town apart from 1 post which referred to my "previous games", when I only have 1, which didn't really make sense. Pooky-Tammy is probably a lock unless they are both scum which would be awkward. i will keep catching up when i can.

In post 658, Tammy wrote:

In post 606, Wisdom wrote:Yup that would work really well if I was scum and just missed the vote

It would also work really well if the worst was scum and did that to try to get you confirmed.

I don't believe this, but people not accounting for various possibilities is weird.

In post 638, Tammy wrote:

In post 459, Klick wrote:I lean towards Tammy's argument against Wisdom-town being scum-motivated
And I didn't love the contrast between her answering my self-meta question with 'idunno', followed shortly by talking about how she'd already be proud if she were scum here

?

They're not even the same thing though. I mean they're in the same ballpark, but this is like telling me that because I like the tanginess of an orange I have to like the tartness of a lemon ballpark. But they're two different things.

You asked me a counterfactual. How would I approach the game as scum. I'm not scum, so I didn't consider how I'd approach it. I gave you what generic things I did in the past when scum as what I might do. But I don't know. I took a long break from mafia and haven't played solo scum in four years, and the only time I did draw scum was last year in a hydra which is really different. I haven't had to consider how I would approach a game as scum in a long ass time, so I just do not know.

I do, however, believe that when I do finally draw scum it will be atrocious. I'm kind of terrified of what that will look like and how terribly I'll let down my team. Maybe it won't go as badly as I'm expecting it to, but me not knowing how I would approach a game as scum doesn't nullify me being able to look at how I am playing and thinking if I were scum here I'd be pretty happy at how it's turning out. Literally, if I am this active in a game when I draw scum, no matter what people think of my alignment, that will be a super win for me in my book.

In post 657, Enchant wrote:I am thinking about two candidates which i plan to trust soon. Before that, i wish ask everyone. Who you would suggest for town deserved trust? Don't tell "No one" or something like that, just one or two names with explaination why they are considered townie for you. After that i reveal planned candidates (i think that's blatant choice from my perspective so you can as well quess) and maybe think about my life choices.

In post 651, Tammy wrote:

In post 484, Enchant wrote:Can you do it like in Fallout 4

I'm replaying Fallout 4 in VR right now and it's really fun and kinda creepy.

Yeah, i would be scared of sarcasm too.

In post 614, Prism wrote:Against my better judgement I caught up on the game.

I don't think MafMen essentially saying "but it might come from town, too" is as clever of a point as he thinks regarding Wisdom's reaction to Klick. I concur with Wisdom in that posts like 522 are a bit overly principled. If MafMen doesn't TR Klick and doesn't SR Wisdom I don't know why they didn't just wait to see what happens.

In post 660, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 658, Tammy wrote:

In post 606, Wisdom wrote:Yup that would work really well if I was scum and just missed the vote

It would also work really well if the worst was scum and did that to try to get you confirmed.

I don't believe this, but people not accounting for various possibilities is weird.

sigh

this makes no sense to me

you can account for various possibilities, but not making any judgment on which are the most likely makes zero sense to me

and if you do make a judgement, I think it's pretty clear that the most likely scenario is that wisdom is just town here

In post 657, Enchant wrote:I am thinking about two candidates which i plan to trust soon. Before that, i wish ask everyone. Who you would suggest for town deserved trust? Don't tell "No one" or something like that, just one or two names with explaination why they are considered townie for you. After that i reveal planned candidates (i think that's blatant choice from my perspective so you can as well quess) and maybe think about my life choices.

In post 651, Tammy wrote:

In post 484, Enchant wrote:Can you do it like in Fallout 4

I'm replaying Fallout 4 in VR right now and it's really fun and kinda creepy.

Yeah, i would be scared of sarcasm too.

In post 619, Prism wrote:I think what you're suggesting is a bit more advanced, being about inducing stress on a townsperson, than Klick's suggestion, which was about objecting to townreads rather than letting consensus happen on a player.

Do you think both Pooky/Tammy are town? It seems like you don't think that's the case, but I want to make sure. I don't agree that they're as destined to pair, either.

In post 654, Tammy wrote:Thank you m'lord.

In post 667, Tammy wrote:post 666 cookie is confirmed scum.

In post 659, Tammy wrote:

In post 617, cool cookie wrote:

In post 580, Klick wrote:

In post 472, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:expending political capital to shade someone who's town is not exactly a winning strategy for a scumside player.

your goal is to get someone to trust you

not make sure nobody can trust anyone (cuz that's like literally impossible)

Scum doesn't just want to get trusted - they want to be trusted more than town
So scum!Tammy would be concerned about town'Wisdom getting soft-confirmed because that takes away from her potential pairings, since all the townies that might have wanted to pair with her would instead be appealing to Wisdom

I don't feel like this is stupid? But it seems that everyone has a consensus about this and I've not played the setup before admittedly

agree with Klick here. I can see scum wanting to shade 1 player to make them feel forced into accepting any trust they can find. maybe wouldn't work with experienced players but I think that is a motive for throwing shade on the right player (whilst wanting to suck up to the majority too). so I think slight tendency towards players who are bucking the consensus and standing out. i havent read everything back but was liking mafmen for town apart from 1 post which referred to my "previous games", when I only have 1, which didn't really make sense. Pooky-Tammy is probably a lock unless they are both scum which would be awkward. i will keep catching up when i can.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but you don't seem to be agreeing with Klick there. Klick is saying I was trying to limit Wisdom's potential pairings to expand my own, but you're saying that scum might shade town to force them into accepting a trust?

What do you think the slight tendency towards players who are bucking the consensus and standing out is?

What is the lock between me and spooky?

In post 667, Tammy wrote:post 666 cookie is confirmed scum.

In post 639, Prism wrote:Also, sorry Infinity-I did not notice you shifted your pronoun to they. I will do my best to revise it moving forward.

In post 649, Tammy wrote:

In post 462, Klick wrote:

In post 218, Tammy wrote:

In post 211, MafMen wrote:you guys are definitely being too hard on wisdom here
an 'easy pass'? cmon

*shrug*

Now do I think Wisdom, who I think could figure out how to get town reads without voting or death tunneling, would come out with something hokey like "how do I get town reads without voting?" as scum. Maybe not, even joking. But I don't trust that interpretation of mine either.

See, I read this and struggle to see how the Wisdom paranoia outweighs what looks like a fairly solid argument?

PEdit: Wisdom being town and being soft-confirmed would be bad for scum!Tammy

I'm not paranoid of Wisdom though nor do I think it's a fairly solid argument. That's a small behavioral assessment that might not be right. I haven't played with Wisdom in like 5 years and I don't trust the reasoning on that type of read unless I have a really good understanding of someone and their behavior. And then even then it's flimsy. That's not a good reason for me to feel comfortable town reading someone. It might for you, and that's fine, but it's not for me.

The soft clears due to the trust thingy were poor and they were sketchy. I both do not want scum to be soft cleared for bad reasoning and don't trust people giving poor reasoning like that. I don't buy into the scum scrambling to keep someone from getting clear, and don't think I've ever done that as scum, but I do buy into scum clearing town for bad reasoning. So I'm going to question what looks like poor reasoning to get reads on people. I'll do this even if I think the person is town.

But I don't quite get your argument. You're saying that I'm trying to keep wisdom from getting clear because I'm scrambling scum who doesn't want him town read and I'm doing that by poking at a poor reason for him being town read and offering up instead a stronger reason for him to be townread? Wouldn't that completely defeat the purpose of me trying to keep people from town reading him?

Am I misunderstanding?

But, to be fair if I were scum, I would also be questioning that. Probably. Maybe. In theory definitely because I happen to think writing people off as town for reasoning like that is poor in general, so as scum I'd be able to push that avenue to look like I was scumhunting.

If this was something you were really concerned about though, why not extend it. I think I equally argued against other town reads. It feels like if this was a genuine avenue you'd point out the pattern with me questioning town reads to strengthen your argument but you stopped it with the wisdom thing.