Mafiascum.net

In post 721, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 717, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 714, VP Baltar wrote:Few reasons. I didn't think Tanner should be straight calling a location since he is a good player and if he was scum, I wasn't going to hand it to him like that. Also served as a bit of a reaction test to see how Tanner responded. Him being amenable to a slightly different version was protown

So you thought scum!tanner might be making a suggestion that was 1 scum, 2 town to help achieve a 1-1-1 split?

I don't know that I was thinking about it that hard. More just like, if Tanner is scum, they have a reason for that suggestion, so let me make a suggested change to the plan and see how he reacts. I also meant what I said early in the game that I can actually read Tanner reasonably well, so I didn't see harm for myself in being in the same game with him.

But I am trying to figure out why Tanner suggesting you+imaginality+implo was bad, but you+imaginality+tanner was fine. Could that not have been tanner literally just swapping himself with his scum buddy, and achieving the same split?

Thinking back, I don't know that he was actually the one who suggested him being there, so maybe that is a moot point? And also, you have already said you were not thinking about it that hard... hmmmm

I wish you had better answers lol

i've just realized a very convoluted way we could potentially clear a slot by flips without actually flipping anyone. i'm trying to think it through, will report back in a few.

In post 679, Toogeloo wrote:

In post 676, Aristeia wrote:I want Pavo/Tooges/Vpb to try harder if they are town.

Your my scum read in the Keep. Does that help?

PEdit: I'm thinking numberQ at the moment with how heavily they keeps shading me.

I keep thinking about this post.

Why?

Because she is the one at the wall who has shaded you the most? lol

I'm still sick, and all I want to do is sleep when I'm not working.

@numberQ, have you thought I was scum since before Day 1 ended? The impression I was getting from you was you were setting me up as scum once the teams were scheduled by Baltar. I very rarely ever saw you talk about the possibility Darby might have been scum prior to the swap, and I don't think you've entertained implosion other than as wifom discussion from the swap.

@everyone, if I continue to feel like crap tomorrow, I'm probably going to need to request a replacement in fairness for people expecting a bit more WIM attitude from my slot.

In post 728, Toogeloo wrote:I'm still sick, and all I want to do is sleep when I'm not working.

ok, here's my thoughts. when you have 1 scum in 2 people, we can preflip some ideas as +scum without actually flipping anyone. what i mean is, if we find an idea that both of baltar and imaginality supported, we can assume that it's a pro-scum idea, because at least one scum was in favour of it. and i just realized that there is a funny coincidence here:

In post 268, VP Baltar wrote:VP Baltar, DArby, imaginality

Maybe flip Tanner and DArby

In post 314, imaginality wrote:@Tanner: you not wanting to go with numberQ and DArby makes me slightly suspicious that VP and I are both town and you're scum trying to get in with us so there's one scum among us. You saying DArby should be with VP and me if you're not doesn't do much to dissuade me from that concern.

That said, I kind of like the idea of you going to Gate with us because I think if you are town and get IC'ed you'd be a useful voice. And I think the same of VP and me, whereas DArby if town seems less useful if IC'ed.
For the same reason if VP and I are at the Wall I'd rather DArby is with us than you.

now, an exercise for the reader: if both of baltar and imaginality wanted either me or darby at the same location, and it's confirmed that i am town and that there is 1 scum in baltar/imaginality... what alignment does that make the darby slot?

come on i feel like i just dropped something interesting, where the fuck did everyone go

I don't get it :<

You're saying because Imag/VPB both wanted Darby in [location] with them, that means Darby should be the same alignment as you?

As in scum don't want to stack 2 scum in a spot, so if 2 people [1scum] want a player in a spot with them, that player is by default a town player?

In post 725, Lukewarm wrote:But I am trying to figure out why Tanner suggesting you+imaginality+implo was bad, but you+imaginality+tanner was fine. Could that not have been tanner literally just swapping himself with his scum buddy, and achieving the same split?

Because I was the one suggesting Tanner join us? I'm not really following what you're saying I guess.

The point of me suggesting that change is that it was an unforeseen deviation from what Tanner proposed while still incorporating part of it. Unless you're saying Tanner predicted I would make that suggestion?

In post 733, Aristeia wrote:You're saying because Imag/VPB both wanted Darby in [location] with them, that means Darby should be the same alignment as you?

In post 734, Aristeia wrote:As in scum don't want to stack 2 scum in a spot, so if 2 people [1scum] want a player in a spot with them, that player is by default a town player?

yes, basically. imag/vpb both wanted to be in the same location, and wanted either me or darby with them. if we're going under the assumption that scum doesn't want to stack multiple scum in the same spot...

In post 206, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 204, Tanner wrote:hm. i just realized none of those three are assigned yet. we could shove them into the same location.

Looks like a potential town bloc to me. So sure. Where would you put us?

(Also, only two people are assigned, so making a point like that group is avoiding assignment sounds forced)

why were you at first fine with this suggestion?

In post 736, Tanner wrote:

In post 733, Aristeia wrote:You're saying because Imag/VPB both wanted Darby in [location] with them, that means Darby should be the same alignment as you?

In post 734, Aristeia wrote:As in scum don't want to stack 2 scum in a spot, so if 2 people [1scum] want a player in a spot with them, that player is by default a town player?

yes, basically. imag/vpb both wanted to be in the same location, and wanted either me or darby with them. if we're going under the assumption that scum doesn't want to stack multiple scum in the same spot...

I see the logic but I'm not comfortable betting the game on it currently :<

Luke just feels so much townier than Pavo

no, that's fair, i'm definitely not saying to vote pav just because of that.

i'm also wondering if something can be read into that, considering pav was one of the people that was swapped. not sure i actually got anything, though.

In post 728, Toogeloo wrote:I'm still sick, and all I want to do is sleep when I'm not working.

@numberQ, have you thought I was scum since before Day 1 ended? The impression I was getting from you was you were setting me up as scum once the teams were scheduled by Baltar. I very rarely ever saw you talk about the possibility Darby might have been scum prior to the swap, and I don't think you've entertained implosion other than as wifom discussion from the swap.

@everyone, if I continue to feel like crap tomorrow, I'm probably going to need to request a replacement in fairness for people expecting a bit more WIM attitude from my slot.

Personal health comes first. Don't stick around if it's physically paining you. (Also don't take this as breaking the replacement discussion site rule, I'm not urging you to rep out or anything, just saying to take care of yourself)

To answer your question - you pinged me a little bit D1, but it wasn't anything concrete. I very much SRed DArby D1, but there wasn't much to go on so my analysis of the slot was short. And I TR implo by play, and now that I've realized (and people have pointed out) flaws in my original swap analysis, there's not as strong a reason to SR him by mech.

In post 730, Tanner wrote:ok, here's my thoughts. when you have 1 scum in 2 people, we can preflip some ideas as +scum without actually flipping anyone. what i mean is, if we find an idea that both of baltar and imaginality supported, we can assume that it's a pro-scum idea, because at least one scum was in favour of it. and i just realized that there is a funny coincidence here:

In post 268, VP Baltar wrote:VP Baltar, DArby, imaginality

Maybe flip Tanner and DArby

In post 314, imaginality wrote:@Tanner: you not wanting to go with numberQ and DArby makes me slightly suspicious that VP and I are both town and you're scum trying to get in with us so there's one scum among us. You saying DArby should be with VP and me if you're not doesn't do much to dissuade me from that concern.

That said, I kind of like the idea of you going to Gate with us because I think if you are town and get IC'ed you'd be a useful voice. And I think the same of VP and me, whereas DArby if town seems less useful if IC'ed.
For the same reason if VP and I are at the Wall I'd rather DArby is with us than you.

now, an exercise for the reader: if both of baltar and imaginality wanted either me or darby at the same location, and it's confirmed that i am town and that there is 1 scum in baltar/imaginality... what alignment does that make the darby slot?

I thiiiink I see what you're saying? Though it assumes scum and town would never come to the same +town conclusion together. Talk is cheap and scum could say things against their wincon just to look more town.

Although tbh I'm not sure I totally follow the logic in the first place. I might just need to reread it a few times lol

Been thinking about this, and I have a couple thought pulling in different directions. Let me get back to my computer instead of trying to do this on my phone lol

Have you figured out my alignment yet Tanner?

will you be mad at me if i say no?

In post 737, Tanner wrote:

In post 206, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 204, Tanner wrote:hm. i just realized none of those three are assigned yet. we could shove them into the same location.

Looks like a potential town bloc to me. So sure. Where would you put us?

(Also, only two people are assigned, so making a point like that group is avoiding assignment sounds forced)

why were you at first fine with this suggestion?

Ah got you. I was already town reading implosion after the scum PT thing, and I couldn't really say I had a scum read on imaginality at that point, so like I said in the post, seemed like a potential town bloc, which would mean we were maybe closer to forcing scum together.

I would guess I had also not yet had the idea of flipping you with imaginality and me as a way to guarantee you weren't duping me.

In post 744, VP Baltar wrote:I would guess I had also not yet had the idea of flipping you with imaginality and me as a way to guarantee you weren't duping me.

okay, so. it occurred to you that i might be mafia, and that i'm trying to brute force the three of you because you're 2-1 and because i just love powerwolfing so much. so you instead decided to include me with you and imaginality, because... you thought imaginality is more likely to be scum than implo? like, as far as i remember, you were townreading both of them at that point. wouldn't including me with two of you, if i'm scum, help me achieve the 1-1-1 split from your pov? like, what was the danger of me here?

In post 743, Tanner wrote:will you be mad at me if i say no?

I could never get mad at you <3

In post 430, Prism wrote:

Guardian Assignment Tracker 1.7 [FINAL]

Location	Guardians
Gate (3)	VP Baltar (418), imaginality (424), Tanner (429)
Keep (3)	Lukewarm (28), Aristeia (36), implosion (428)
Wall (3)	Toogeloo (422), numberQ (423), DArby (Autoassigned with 429)
Unassigned (0)

0 Guardians remain unassigned. Day 1 is over.

No win condition has been achieved.

I do want to think about the order people went in for a bit..


Luke[K] -> Ari[K] -> VPB[G] -> Tooge[W] -> NQ[W] -> Imag[G] -> Implo[K] -> Tanner[G] -> Pavo[W]

In post 745, Tanner wrote:

In post 744, VP Baltar wrote:I would guess I had also not yet had the idea of flipping you with imaginality and me as a way to guarantee you weren't duping me.

okay, so. it occurred to you that i might be mafia, and that i'm trying to brute force the three of you because you're 2-1 and because i just love powerwolfing so much. so you instead decided to include me with you and imaginality, because... you thought imaginality is more likely to be scum than implo? like, as far as i remember, you were townreading both of them at that point. wouldn't including me with two of you, if i'm scum, help me achieve the 1-1-1 split from your pov? like, what was the danger of me here?

That's a lot of thinking and assumptions.

I don't think I said I town read imaginality, did I? My memory feels like he was a bit middle of the pack to me, but I was fine being in a bloc with him because who knows on a D1 where you can't really scumhunt.

I do think you're a power wolf in general and think a TON about mafia, whether you agree or not, so in my simpleton brain where I know I'm going to suck at gaming the mech and we are likely to end up at 1-1-1 anyhow from what I saw in the other iteration of this setup, I felt the best thing I could do was turn your proposal slightly to include you. That way if you were outsmarting me with some big plan, you'd be subjected to whatever you had planned for me.

Since you went along with it easily, I figured that was probably town points because it seems unlikely you could have predicted I would do that.

In post 747, Aristeia wrote:

In post 430, Prism wrote:

Guardian Assignment Tracker 1.7 [FINAL]

Location	Guardians
Gate (3)	VP Baltar (418), imaginality (424), Tanner (429)
Keep (3)	Lukewarm (28), Aristeia (36), implosion (428)
Wall (3)	Toogeloo (422), numberQ (423), DArby (Autoassigned with 429)
Unassigned (0)

0 Guardians remain unassigned. Day 1 is over.

No win condition has been achieved.

I do want to think about the order people went in for a bit..


Luke[K] -> Ari[K] -> VPB[G] -> Tooge[W] -> NQ[W] -> Imag[G] -> Implo[K] -> Tanner[G] -> Pavo[W]

What does this mean?