Mafiascum.net

Was there supposed to be a vote count with that?

That's how mods reserve pagetop slots to make it easier to find them. They update it to a vote count (VC) later. Sometimes within minutes or hours. Depends on the mod, really.

I'm here, I'm keeping up on things but I've been busy lately also. I'm consciously trying to observe more and drive a little less this game than I have in previous ones while I shake the rust off.

In post 50, Vivax wrote:

In post 42, Crescent wrote:

In post 39, Vivax wrote:

In post 36, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 29, Vivax wrote:Gettin scum feels from George Bayleys series of posts as entrance.
Leaving it at that.

May I enquire what gives you the scummy vibes? Also why not vote for George?

He deliberately split the posts (or in other words, spammed), that looks to me like he tried too hard to appear casual during his joke entrance.
I'm not willing to vote just for that early in the game. We've got time, and instant majority lynch.

I technically did the same thing. I often think of something extra to say after I've already posted something and end up double or triple posting (which I've already done this game, and is part of why my post count was easily #1 in MN2272) One of the fluff posts was baited by a fluff post of mine.

It feels like both a lazy reason and a reason that should include me given I played right into it.

I don't think you did the same thing at all. You replied to a question, then in the next post added something you remembered afterwards. That's not the same as trying hard to appear casual. If anything your intention was to be or appear cooperative.

That said, I think that you are too eager to draw parallels here and assume that Bayley doesn't deserve a finger of suspicion, so if that's Alexcellents reason to call you mafia (which I don't know but if I had one, that'd be it), I think that's a decent reason.

Tbf I was mostly joking when I called her mafia -- but I did/do find it odd to give someone a pass as being probably town there with the limited amount of info out there.
At the same time I'm not getting overly strong scummy vibes from that read at this point.

In post 58, clidd wrote:There is one player in particular that I'd consider voting for but the reason is so moonlogic that the chance of the read being right would be as accurate as voting randomly, so not helpful at all.

Why not vote anyway? Surely your vote has more worth on someone - even if the reasoning is weak - than just nursing it.

In post 75, Umlaut wrote:Not voting (7): geraintm, GoldfishFromTheMoon, Vivax, Elsa Jay, Eiralox, Crescent, Corwinoid

Scum is in here somewhere

In post 59, Elsa Jay wrote:We can always do the age old "vote out whoever posts last" thing. That's worked out before.

I have mixed feelings on this

In post 62, clidd wrote:

I don't like political eliminations, but I've experienced incredibly difficult games due to absent players.

It'd be a hemorrhagic pleasure not have to deal with that again, although I still prefer to play the traditional way and eliminate scum if viable.

Bad vibes from this post

In post 63, Crescent wrote: I consider it a really bad sign that a 2 day old game is already talking about inactive hunting. This doesn't feel like a discussion that has a place this early in a day.

I like this

In post 74, Elsa Jay wrote:Normally strong personalities bust heads first instead and lead to the players taking sides. Generally though it's not 100 percent best for just getting lurkers because even now you listed 4 people and in a 13p game there's 3 scum. So a town lurker already.

But yeah it's still my main plan for now to try and find scum among the low posters first. Or at least force activity. But if you see one of the middle posters not doing anything let me know too.

5 days to solve a game. This'll be fun.

When do you intend to enact this plan of finding scum?

UNVOTE: Not_Mafia
VOTE: Elsa Jay

I mean. When we get those lurkers to post, hopefully. If you wanna fight we can do that. I'm about to fall asleep though so it'll be later.

In post 81, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 75, Umlaut wrote:Not voting (7): geraintm, GoldfishFromTheMoon, Vivax, Elsa Jay, Eiralox, Crescent, Corwinoid

Scum is in here somewhere

It'd be unlikely if there wasn't scum in 7 random people.

In post 83, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 74, Elsa Jay wrote:Normally strong personalities bust heads first instead and lead to the players taking sides. Generally though it's not 100 percent best for just getting lurkers because even now you listed 4 people and in a 13p game there's 3 scum. So a town lurker already.

But yeah it's still my main plan for now to try and find scum among the low posters first. Or at least force activity. But if you see one of the middle posters not doing anything let me know too.

5 days to solve a game. This'll be fun.

When do you intend to enact this plan of finding scum?

UNVOTE: Not_Mafia
VOTE: Elsa Jay

This is a very awkward progression. Why are you voting Elsa for trying to curb the low activity?

VOTE: Alexcellent

In post 85, GeorgeBailey wrote:It'd be unlikely if there wasn't scum in 7 random people.

ok nvm i'm bad at math but it's still a weird thing to say

In post 81, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 75, Umlaut wrote:Not voting (7): geraintm, GoldfishFromTheMoon, Vivax, Elsa Jay, Eiralox, Crescent, Corwinoid

Scum is in here somewhere

Also kinda a stupid thing to do in accusing people who didn't wanna RVS and call them scum. Unnecessary shade there.

VOTE: Alex

Riddle that vote, friend.

In post 87, Elsa Jay wrote:

In post 81, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 75, Umlaut wrote:Not voting (7): geraintm, GoldfishFromTheMoon, Vivax, Elsa Jay, Eiralox, Crescent, Corwinoid

Scum is in here somewhere

Also kinda a stupid thing to do in accusing people who didn't wanna RVS and call them scum. Unnecessary shade there.

Huh?

In post 88, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 87, Elsa Jay wrote:

In post 81, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 75, Umlaut wrote:Not voting (7): geraintm, GoldfishFromTheMoon, Vivax, Elsa Jay, Eiralox, Crescent, Corwinoid

Scum is in here somewhere

Also kinda a stupid thing to do in accusing people who didn't wanna RVS and call them scum. Unnecessary shade there.

Huh?

Mathematically it makes sense that there are scum in there because of the sheer number of pieole, but what you said doesn't make sense because you are insinuating that there is a link between not voting in RVS and being scum which isn't true.

In post 85, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 81, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 75, Umlaut wrote:Not voting (7): geraintm, GoldfishFromTheMoon, Vivax, Elsa Jay, Eiralox, Crescent, Corwinoid

Scum is in here somewhere

It'd be unlikely if there wasn't scum in 7 random people.

In post 83, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 74, Elsa Jay wrote:Normally strong personalities bust heads first instead and lead to the players taking sides. Generally though it's not 100 percent best for just getting lurkers because even now you listed 4 people and in a 13p game there's 3 scum. So a town lurker already.

But yeah it's still my main plan for now to try and find scum among the low posters first. Or at least force activity. But if you see one of the middle posters not doing anything let me know too.

5 days to solve a game. This'll be fun.

When do you intend to enact this plan of finding scum?

UNVOTE: Not_Mafia
VOTE: Elsa Jay

This is a very awkward progression. Why are you voting Elsa for trying to curb the low activity?

VOTE: Alexcellent

Because she wants interaction but is doing little to create it (at least any that contributes to finding mafia). She isn't asking questions or applying any pressure. 57 reads as though she wants others to do it for her. She is just setting up a policy elimination for a few RL days from now rather than searching for scum, which makes me think either scum or lazy town.
Because 71 suggests there are already posts she apparently dislikes but she's still not actually applying pressure or doing anything other than bringing them up and moving on.
Curbing low activity would be great but there's something that doesn't feel overly genuine to me. I get that the day is going to be short and the lack of early activity does suck. But there's already content here that she is disregarding in favour of going after people who've yet to really say much (i.e. ). I'm in the camp of it being too soon to discuss eliminating lurkers when no one has even been prodded yet. If you want to say "let's eliminate a lurker if we can't agree on something" in a few days, then fine, but do something in the meantime that actually applies pressure.
Her vote on me stinks but at least it's better than her passively waiting for other people to play the game for her.

In post 74, Elsa Jay wrote:Normally strong personalities bust heads first instead and lead to the players taking sides. Generally though it's not 100 percent best for just getting lurkers because even now you listed 4 people and in a 13p game there's 3 scum. So a town lurker already.

But yeah it's still my main plan for now to try and find scum among the low posters first. Or at least force activity. But if you see one of the middle posters not doing anything let me know too.

5 days to solve a game. This'll be fun.

Would you say you have a strong personality?

In post 89, GoldfishFromTheMoon wrote:

In post 88, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 87, Elsa Jay wrote:

In post 81, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 75, Umlaut wrote:Not voting (7): geraintm, GoldfishFromTheMoon, Vivax, Elsa Jay, Eiralox, Crescent, Corwinoid

Scum is in here somewhere

Also kinda a stupid thing to do in accusing people who didn't wanna RVS and call them scum. Unnecessary shade there.

Huh?

Mathematically it makes sense that there are scum in there because of the sheer number of pieole, but what you said doesn't make sense because you are insinuating that there is a link between not voting in RVS and being scum which isn't true.

A better way to have worded my post would have been "I am uncomfortable with the amount of people sitting on their votes and doing nothing, and find it to be suspicious". But also that just might be me being pigheaded about people not playing the way I expect.

Actually to correct myself from few posts back, I missed that everyone's posted so no prods would be imminent

In post 84, Elsa Jay wrote:I mean. When we get those lurkers to post, hopefully. If you wanna fight we can do that. I'm about to fall asleep though so it'll be later.

Let's not call it a fight but a friendly debate.

But also, you don't find value in trying to sort the people who are actively posting in the meantime?

In post 58, clidd wrote: @Gibus
Why did you vote Crescent if you said that your vote was ''bad''?

as a dog person, I say we lynch all cat people

@Gibus, how do you feel about other non-cat people in this game? What is your view on the idea of eliminating a lurky player D1?
And can I interest you in another wagon? There's a new and small one on Elsa but I'm a dog person so you'll be welcome. There is also one on me which you can join and has more people but I unfortunately cannot confirm their favourite animals.

In post 96, Alexcellent wrote:What is your view on the idea of eliminating a lurky player D1?

dumb

And can I interest you in another wagon? There's a new and small one on Elsa but I'm a dog person -

man say no more
VOTE: Elsa

Sick

That interaction felt very weird.
Not nessasarily scummy, just weird