Mafiascum.net

I too find that odd. In what seems to be the RVS, voting for someone who protected you doesn’t seem right. Probably not much to base a read off of though.

I do not think that Tbones vote is a serious one, most of what he has said seems in jest

Jeez I leave the site for an hour or so and come back to like 2 more pages at least everyone has posted now. I just gotta catch up now

In post 76, N0bleNoob wrote:I do not think that Tbones vote is a serious one, most of what he has said seems in jest

Agreed. T-Bone can’t really be called a lurker yet. I suggest that the people who voted for T-Bone should unvote.

In post 77, MiniMegabyte wrote:Jeez I leave the site for an hour or so and come back to like 2 more pages at least everyone has posted now. I just gotta catch up now

It happens. Lots of conversation...

It is good to see lots of talking and to be honest I’m agreeing with many of you I don’t see how anyone can be called a lurker at this post however if it was at day 3 or something similar I would understand then. I do apologise for my comment about the non posters at the time of my post 47

In post 69, shellyc wrote:They would be the third vote and according to guides the third voter is likely to be a mafia pushing a mislynch. I'd reread their posts and probably change my vote to them.

So you are conceding that tBone would be a mis-eliminate?

In post 69, shellyc wrote:They would be the third vote and according to guides the third voter is likely to be a mafia pushing a mislynch. I'd reread their posts and probably change my vote to them.

I don’t think I’m understanding this. The way I interpret this, you’re saying that if someone has three votes, the third person is likely to be mafia. This... doesn’t make sense to me. Please elaborate.

In post 82, GeniusGamer wrote:

In post 69, shellyc wrote:They would be the third vote and according to guides the third voter is likely to be a mafia pushing a mislynch. I'd reread their posts and probably change my vote to them.

I don’t think I’m understanding this. The way I interpret this, you’re saying that if someone has three votes, the third person is likely to be mafia. This... doesn’t make sense to me. Please elaborate.

I suspect it’s the interpretation.

In post 70, Redados wrote:I did not want to be on a wagon early in the day with no information. I stand by that. We "all know that". We have more information. I'm keeping a vote on T-Bone for now. I don't have any scumreads yet, so I'll keep a vote on the only person who hasn't posted. I have been informed by Porkens that 2 votes isn't close to day-ending and promotes discussion, so I don't feel too bad keeping a second vote on T-Bone.

TBone is a wagon yet you chose to keep your vote on him. What’s the difference?

In post 84, Porkens wrote:

In post 70, Redados wrote:I did not want to be on a wagon early in the day with no information. I stand by that. We "all know that". We have more information. I'm keeping a vote on T-Bone for now. I don't have any scumreads yet, so I'll keep a vote on the only person who hasn't posted. I have been informed by Porkens that 2 votes isn't close to day-ending and promotes discussion, so I don't feel too bad keeping a second vote on T-Bone.

TBone is a wagon yet you chose to keep your vote on him. What’s the difference?

The difference is probably that Redados has more information now. I don’t see how they could possibly have that much more, but that seems like the only non-hypocritical answer.

In post 85, GeniusGamer wrote:

In post 84, Porkens wrote:

In post 70, Redados wrote:I did not want to be on a wagon early in the day with no information. I stand by that. We "all know that". We have more information. I'm keeping a vote on T-Bone for now. I don't have any scumreads yet, so I'll keep a vote on the only person who hasn't posted. I have been informed by Porkens that 2 votes isn't close to day-ending and promotes discussion, so I don't feel too bad keeping a second vote on T-Bone.

TBone is a wagon yet you chose to keep your vote on him. What’s the difference?

The difference is probably that Redados has more information now. I don’t see how they could possibly have that much more, but that seems like the only non-hypocritical answer.

Why are you answering questions directed at other players?

I’m speculating. Is it wrong to attempt to figure out why a certain player would carry out a particular action?

In post 87, GeniusGamer wrote:I’m speculating. Is it wrong to attempt to figure out why a certain player would carry out a particular action?

Why not let him speak for himself without the benefit of your speculation?

In post 88, Porkens wrote:

In post 87, GeniusGamer wrote:I’m speculating. Is it wrong to attempt to figure out why a certain player would carry out a particular action?

Why not let him speak for himself without the benefit of your speculation?

Because I’m already aware of the reasons why he would do this.

In post 89, GeniusGamer wrote:

In post 88, Porkens wrote:

In post 87, GeniusGamer wrote:I’m speculating. Is it wrong to attempt to figure out why a certain player would carry out a particular action?

Why not let him speak for himself without the benefit of your speculation?

Because I’m already aware of the reasons why he would do this.

So you have gone from “speculating” to “I am aware of his reasons.” How so you know his reasons?

*do

In post 74, Micc wrote:i just spent an entire post defending your not being here for the last five hours and you vote me

i feel betrayed

Pls don't pocket me. Because it will work. But then I will shame you for it.

In post 89, GeniusGamer wrote:

In post 88, Porkens wrote:

In post 87, GeniusGamer wrote:I’m speculating. Is it wrong to attempt to figure out why a certain player would carry out a particular action?

Why not let him speak for himself without the benefit of your speculation?

Because I’m already aware of the reasons why he would do this.

uhhhh...why would you know the motivations of another player?

Seems like the logical conclusion to that would be "I know their motivations because we're scum together".

Where have I gone wrong?

I think that we have all agreed that we are out of the early period of random voting, everyone that votes from this point forward is voting for that person for a reason. Redados has said in the past that he did not like making a train so early in the game but now later on there is more information to process and breakdown to give a vote on. Porkens, even though Genius has speculated about why Redados has acted the way he has, it is just speculation, you are assuming that Genius is answering for Redados instead of just speculating about it.
The question is still open for Redados to answer.

In post 92, T-Bone wrote:

In post 74, Micc wrote:i just spent an entire post defending your not being here for the last five hours and you vote me

i feel betrayed

Pls don't pocket me. Because it will work. But then I will shame you for it.

Actually now that I think about it. Why did you feel the need to defend me? Surely I could have done it myself when I got here were it necessary?

In post 90, Porkens wrote:

In post 89, GeniusGamer wrote:

In post 88, Porkens wrote:

In post 87, GeniusGamer wrote:I’m speculating. Is it wrong to attempt to figure out why a certain player would carry out a particular action?

Why not let him speak for himself without the benefit of your speculation?

Because I’m already aware of the reasons why he would do this.

So you have gone from “speculating” to “I am aware of his reasons.” How so you know his reasons?

I speculated about their reasons. Why would they do this as town? Why would they do this as scum? After speculating, I became a aware of the reasons. If someone doesn’t want a wagon thanks to lack of information, and they later join one, the reasons are clear. Maybe they, you know, . Maybe the first person was their scum buddy and they were trying to throw people off the trail but didn’t want a wagon. Asking questions is not the only way to get information.

Tbone said. "uhhhh...why would you know the motivations of another player?

Seems like the logical conclusion to that would be "I know their motivations because we're scum together".

Where have I gone wrong?"
It is a logical conclusion, but you can assume the motivation of another by putting the pieces of the puzzle together. It does not mean that they are scum. The whole point of the game is to try to figure out the motivations of every player here is it not? Because figuring out the motivations of the player by their actions will lead you to whether they are scum or not.

To answer GeniusGamer in post 82, it's the other interpretation.
Though he's talking now and im unvoting. UNVOTE: T-Bone
The true motivations of other players are unknown if you are town...
You can assume but not be sure, unless you are scum. Still early on and we can only mainly speculate. Every action will lead to more speculation.

In post 97, N0bleNoob wrote:

Tbone said. "uhhhh...why would you know the motivations of another player?

Seems like the logical conclusion to that would be "I know their motivations because we're scum together".

Where have I gone wrong?"

It is a logical conclusion, but you can assume the motivation of another by putting the pieces of the puzzle together. It does not mean that they are scum. The whole point of the game is to try to figure out the motivations of every player here is it not? Because figuring out the motivations of the player by their actions will lead you to whether they are scum or not.

Well here's why I questioned it. It's all about the way in which we talk about these things. When you are mafia, you know everyone's alignments. He didn't say "I am trying to figure out his motivations" he said (paraphrasing) "I know his motivations". At this stage in the game only two players KNOW anything.