Mafiascum.net

In post 53, theslimer3 wrote:

In post 52, AaronFrost wrote:

In post 51, clidd wrote:

In post 48, dsjstr wrote:To my understanding for D1 if a wolf hammers then they die even if they are hammering a wolf, I meant that if someone hammers D1 and they don't die they have to be town. Am I understanding the rule correctly?

" Reminder for day 1, if a Townsmember is lynched and the last vote on them were of the Werewolf Faction (Traitor or Werewolf Goon), then they will commit suicide as well. Day 2 follows all conventions of the game. "

My interpretation was that if anyone is hammered by a wolf then the wolf who hammered dies along with the player hammered, so if one of the traitors hammer the other traitor then both of them die. I think.

@Mod - is this correct?

If a wolf were to hammer another wolf day 1, then they wouldn’t die. It’s only for an innocent getting lynched by a wolf that would result in them dying along side them. Only for day one of course.

Hum. I would like to hear from and about their reads, now that we have updated information.

In post 72, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 66, Hectic wrote:What gives you that impression?

The fact that you latched on to one thing i did and then fawned over how it's TOTALLY scum indicative and pretty much kept that read (and your vote) for the rest of the day so far.
Where are the posts where you have been actively trying to figure out the meaning behind my post? After reading my first post you pretty much went: "YEP, you're scum now.", then called it a day and went to go grab lunch.
Where's the solving? Where's the questioning? Where's the logic?

Actually, you gave him a reason to vote. You cannot simply demand that he change a safe read and replace it with an inaccurate one, considering that there was no event, apart from your first post, which serves as a clue to possibly determine the alignment. The most viable option, if you aren't scum (unlikely, but possible), would be to interact with the other players, looking for more than one point of view. Something im looking to do now.

@

In your opinion, hypothetically speaking, how should a traitor signal if he knew his partner, but did not know who the werewolf is ?

In post 70, Hectic wrote:The fun thing is that people can't refuse to hammer if we decide on someone, since we just lynch that person instead and have the hammerer be the person we originally planned to lynch.

You seem to have significant experience in this type of play. Have you ever played a similar setup ? What would be the best town decision considering that we are in lylo and scum can bluff by hammering partner ?

So like I saw what Norwegian said as a joke. I don't think anyone was really going to try and hammer during RVS in lylo so I just went along with it. There are some good points that if the werewolves wanted to communicate they would do so by voting, but is that something they would know to do? Having experience in quick games (around 30 mins), someone who silent votes is a typical sign of a mafia member. In this case I am talking about Doctor Drew, so would he be trying to signal Hectic is what I'm thinking.

In post 55, Espeonage wrote:Problem is we have brought attention to it so now we are all gonna be chilling until end of day where we are forced in to action.

If we hadn't called attention to that, we would have played the first day with incorrect information. Imagine a scenario which a player realizes this detail, talks to the mod through PV, gets confirmation, but do not reveal it to the public. What do you think would happen ? -

Clidd do you normally meta dive on new players when you play mafia games?

What is ''meta dive'' ?

Also in what way did my post "signal to other traitor"? I have no idea where that read came from. Makes no sense to me.

In post 82, clidd wrote:What is ''meta dive'' ?

You quoted a post i made in the dead thread of a game that was months ago.

This one:

In post 38, clidd wrote:Also, i would like to discuss this paragraph that I found in Mini Normal 2098, post 41, referring to NorwegianboyEE:

It’s cool, i’m a bit of a kamikaze town so i don’t really spend too much time attempting to clear myself as i do trying to attack others i perceive as scum. When i’m scum it’s ironically the opposite, where i do all i can to avoid being seen as suspicious and trying to stay on the good side of the town.

(viewtopic.php?f=94&t=80889)

Clidd is honestly giving me deja vu of a person i played with in a newbie recently.
He was scum btw.

In post 85, NorwegianboyEE wrote:This one:

In post 38, clidd wrote:Also, i would like to discuss this paragraph that I found in Mini Normal 2098, post 41, referring to NorwegianboyEE:

It’s cool, i’m a bit of a kamikaze town so i don’t really spend too much time attempting to clear myself as i do trying to attack others i perceive as scum. When i’m scum it’s ironically the opposite, where i do all i can to avoid being seen as suspicious and trying to stay on the good side of the town.

(viewtopic.php?f=94&t=80889)

In that sense, yes. I believe that human behavior maintains a pattern over time, so it is safer to determine what kind of game you will demonstrate from what you have accomplished in past games.

In post 83, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Also in what way did my post "signal to other traitor"? I have no idea where that read came from. Makes no sense to me.

It would depend if your partner managed to interpret the exclamation as a divergence of attention, precisely to attract votes and prevent them from having to enter the situation of the "mechanical hammer of death ''. So you intentionally attract votes to allow your allies to escape this condition (which was proven to be wrong later).

In post 86, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Clidd is honestly giving me deja vu of a person i played with in a newbie recently.
He was scum btw.

If you are viewing a frame attempt, it will not pay for the effort invested. More questions ?

Yes. Give me a second.

In post 79, dsjstr wrote:So like I saw what Norwegian said as a joke. I don't think anyone was really going to try and hammer during RVS in lylo so I just went along with it. There are some good points that if the werewolves wanted to communicate they would do so by voting, but is that something they would know to do? Having experience in quick games (around 30 mins), someone who silent votes is a typical sign of a mafia member.

In this case I am talking about Doctor Drew, so would he be trying to signal Hectic is what I'm thinking.

I think this kind of misunderstanding might be town-indicative. Traitors don't know each other, and the main wolf and the traitors already know each other. So there's nothing for them to indicate to each other by doing that.

In post 78, clidd wrote:

In post 70, Hectic wrote:The fun thing is that people can't refuse to hammer if we decide on someone, since we just lynch that person instead and have the hammerer be the person we originally planned to lynch.

You seem to have significant experience in this type of play. Have you ever played a similar setup ? What would be the best town decision considering that we are in lylo and scum can bluff by hammering partner ?

Nope, I've just been giving it some thought. I think we should either:
-Have the second scummiest person hammer the scummiest person (by consensus agreement).
-Have the scummiest person who is being lynched decide the person who hammers them (this way if they're town, it means the hammerer is chosen without outside scum influence).

In post 82, clidd wrote:What is ''meta dive'' ?

In post 88, clidd wrote:

In post 83, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Also in what way did my post "signal to other traitor"? I have no idea where that read came from. Makes no sense to me.

It would depend if your partner managed to interpret the exclamation as a divergence of attention, precisely to attract votes and prevent them from having to enter the situation of the "mechanical hammer of death ''. So you intentionally attract votes to allow your allies to escape this condition (which was proven to be wrong later).

That's a stretch. Silly reasoning at it's finest.
You seem to be very convinced of me being scum already, as evidenced by the language you are using. Even though you brought up something i said more than 3 months ago as a quote to "discuss", you still are evidently leaning on my alignment as being one side over the other as can be gathered from excerpts of your previous posts. (Shown further below)
Your playstyle thus far has materialized itself drastically from what was shown earlier with your introduction and has now become solely the gathering of information on another slot and then using it as your basis for the town to get on your side and see me as a evident scum player to lynch. Instead of considering other sides of the issue, such as considering Hectic's play or any of the other players, you have quite clearly locked me out as a scummy player by page 4 and have since been trying to convince other players of my play being an issue. I'm wondering if during the time between these two spots of acting, you were reading the general vibe of the town as in favor of lynching me and therefore changed your read from an unsure and questioning tone in post 38 (considering multiple alternatives, open to discussion)

In post 38, clidd wrote:With that thought in mind, i understood the first post 4 as a message with three possible interpretations: 1- Random joke, 2- Instinctive statement, 3- Divergence of attention, where his partners receive a window to ''safe'' vote, drastically reducing the possibility of them falling under the ''mechanical death hammer'', which appears to be more likely, compared to other possibilities. This basically implies that are 2/3 potential scums in Dsjstr, Hectic and Espeonage, in theory. But would everyone outside the wagon share the same indecision ? Is it plausible ?

to becoming slightly more hostile by post 76. (Claiming it is very unlikely for me to not be scum. Belittling of target by emotive language. Suggesting what town!me: "would, or wouldn't do" and using it to draw a conclusion.)

In post 76, clidd wrote:The most viable option, if you aren't scum (unlikely, but possible), would be to interact with the other players, looking for more than one point of view. Something im looking to do now.

Also of interest is post 88

In post 88, clidd wrote:It would depend if your partner managed to interpret the exclamation as a divergence of attention, precisely to attract votes and prevent them from having to enter the situation of the "mechanical hammer of death ''. So you intentionally attract votes to allow your allies to escape this condition (which was proven to be wrong later).

^Usage of words such as "Your partner" (Implicates intrinsic scum partnership, no room for negotiation.) "Allow your allies to escape this condition" (Same conclusion drawn out from very little actual development of read progression)

In post 89, clidd wrote:If you are viewing a frame attempt, it will not pay for the effort invested.

^Hostile tone. Combative. Shutting down of argument.

Your general tone reads to me as someone who is trying very hard to be townread and seem like a beneficial player that wouldn't be considered for the lynch. This preoccupation indicates a scum mindset rather than a town one.
VOTE: Clidd

Clidd, I did find it strange about how confident you were on Norwee!scum this early, or that's the impression I got from your tone. Can you summarise your scumread of him?

Also, Norwee, link me the player he reminds you of from the Newbie game you're referencing.

In post 97, Hectic wrote:Also, Norwee, link me the player he reminds you of from the Newbie game you're referencing.

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p11514149

VOTE: AaronFrost


You don't scare me.
Which of Norwee/Clidd would you have hammer the other, or do you think it's TvT?