Mafiascum.net

I wasn't bussing R2R it was a genuine scum read. I am willing to consider switching back to them, he is still scummy, just not AS scummy.

I think I've pinpointed the main issue I have with NPOM, which is that he's boiling down the game into very simplistic terms. Lurking is scummy. Hesitation is town. People on wagons are scummy.

What I find scummy about that is that it's easy and convenient to then take that and fit people into nice little boxes, and even have your read go wildly back and forth, without really having to justify it all that much, and to meld those broad generalizations into whatever read suits you at that point in the game

@VP Thoughts on NPOM and his case/wagon? (want this answered before I reapply my vote)

Should Atarashi get a prod, or am I misreading prod timers?

In post 702, ready2rock wrote:

@Mod

Should Atarashi get a prod, or am I misreading prod timers?

It's day 1. We don't have that much to go on behavior wise. I don't like to make assumptions about alignment based on behavior too much this early because good players can fake it. However day 1 scum lurking is a thing.

And besides it's better to make reads based on activity than it is to do what Quick is doing and say things like "So it REALLY looks like NPOM is just going after low hanging fruit by voting R2R, but maybe, just maybe, R2R set that shit up on purpose" and speculating that I'm bussing when there is no evidence of that.

Also saying that my Blair read had no progression when it clearly did.

what are the odds that its {NPOM, Nauci, R2R}?

Nauci @ R2R I would say 5-10%.

It all depends on how good of a player NPOM is representing themselves to be. It seems to me they are representing themselves to be a pretty damn good player so that would mean he is just Scum here. If his level of play is high, then he should know he should have given a reason for TRing Blair. If on the other hand he is not representing himself as a good player, then it makes sense that he just made a derp. but I don't buy that for a second.

I still like my votato case, but we have some time and I want to try something else on for a moment

VOTE: ready2rock

In post 710, CantHateAPuppy wrote:I still like my votato case, but we have some time and I want to try something else on for a moment

VOTE: ready2rock

oh really? why now? and why is this the thing you want to try?

I never represented myself to be good. I'd say I am average in getting reads and below average in case bulding.

In post 712, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I never represented myself to be good. I'd say I am average in getting reads and below average in case bulding.

This is BS given you delayed giving your reason until here:

In post 427, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I think some three of the most non active people voting baltar shows that he is town

What is bs.

In post 711, votato wrote:

In post 710, CantHateAPuppy wrote:I still like my votato case, but we have some time and I want to try something else on for a moment

VOTE: ready2rock

oh really? why now? and why is this the thing you want to try?

i want to see what happens when r2r has to face a little more pressure

In post 715, CantHateAPuppy wrote:

In post 711, votato wrote:

In post 710, CantHateAPuppy wrote:I still like my votato case, but we have some time and I want to try something else on for a moment

VOTE: ready2rock

oh really? why now? and why is this the thing you want to try?

i want to see what happens when r2r has to face a little more pressure

This only works if Puppy is Town and he knows he's Town.

In post 714, NoPowerOverMe wrote:What is bs.

Scum claim.

If this lynch goes through before Peter posts, then cop on them.

In post 679, CantHateAPuppy wrote:

In post 610, Nauci wrote:Hey Puppy & Blair, how do you feel about VP B's contributions today? Primarily 517.

517 made me feel better about VP, though i think him and i just don't think the same way. Like, he implies that some earlier argument we had was about bussing, i thought he was low key softing, and i don't really understand this thing about r2r messing up a vote or something like that.

feel like my VP read was kinda null before, maybe it's a little more town now, i'm fine with that at this stage of game

btw why ask me and blair? Not sure how I feel about u tbh, you're the player i want to do an iso on most right now, help convince me that's a waste of time and you're obvtown

Because you 2 are my top town reads so I wanted to see if you felt the same way as I did about those posts, which is that they moved VP B from null to TR for me

In post 681, CantHateAPuppy wrote:i don't get this, why does scum need a motivation for switching wagons? maybe scum likes one wagon better than another for aesthetic reasons or just wants to change tactics. actually, your question doesn't make sense, because you assume scum knows the first wagon to be town, and then shifts to the lurker... but wouldn't scum also know the alignment of the lurker?

Basically, I'm saying if moving without justification is the error here, then what is the motivation to move or if it's an unforced error. I think of the game trying to figure things out from everyone else's perspectives and what their motivations would be for either alignment, and I couldn't figure it out at the time.

However, I have had a bunch for a bit that they town read and agree with the players that they view as threatening in attempts to buddy, which is still not at all riled out. (I didn't mention this before because this is the kind of behavior which would change if called out before a pattern is clearly established.)

In post 683, votato wrote:

In post 667, Nauci wrote:VOTE: ready2rock

In post 671, Nauci wrote:VOTE: votato

In post 672, NoPowerOverMe wrote:VOTE: Votato

That's a really bad sequence. What changed there nauci? You thought the counterwagon for your buddy was r2r but then you realized it was me so you changed?

And the reason i asked not to hammer is the same reason r2r unvoted. I've seen way to many lolhammers recently. I'm OK with hammering this wagon. I'm not ok with waking up to find that there was a hammer without an opportunity for the defendant to respond

Reaction test before I went to bed sitting on the player I believed to be scum but that wouldn't be hammered before I woke up

In post 721, Nauci wrote:

In post 683, votato wrote:

In post 667, Nauci wrote:VOTE: ready2rock

In post 671, Nauci wrote:VOTE: votato

In post 672, NoPowerOverMe wrote:VOTE: Votato

That's a really bad sequence. What changed there nauci? You thought the counterwagon for your buddy was r2r but then you realized it was me so you changed?

And the reason i asked not to hammer is the same reason r2r unvoted. I've seen way to many lolhammers recently. I'm OK with hammering this wagon. I'm not ok with waking up to find that there was a hammer without an opportunity for the defendant to respond

Reaction test before I went to bed sitting on the player I believed to be scum but that wouldn't be hammered before I woke up

What did you get out of your reaction test?

In post 684, mavsfan41 wrote:@Puppy: Quoting the mod in that post seemed pretty irrelevant in terms of what Nauci’s content was for that post as I’ve mentioned in 508. Which means I figured Nauci just quoted it to emphasize the mod rules or something to that extent. When she later comes back and asks about day talk despite quoting that post, I was even more confused and wanted to know why of pure curiosity in understanding Nauci’s 221 more. So I guess a “whoopsie me” or a “why I included that random post in that situation was this...” were what I was expecting the answer to be.

Okay but you're, once again, ignoring that my post right after it was saying it was an accident as a result of mobile posting so there was an immediate explanation which had nothing to do with emphasizing the rules

If you skipped reading that post and are now assigning a false narrative to me in your headcannon, you're not making an accurate read now are you?

In post 722, Quick wrote:What did you get out of your reaction test?

I thought the things NPOM did as a result of my empty votes were rather telling, so