Mafiascum.net

Nah
I stand by my thought that Klick’s posting looking as scummy as it does is probably town-indicative for him
And idg what’s wrong with Meg’s posting either

In post 750, Gamma Emerald wrote:Nah
I stand by my thought that Klick’s posting looking as scummy as it does is probably town-indicative for him
And idg what’s wrong with Meg’s posting either

Meg is reacting to the thread. Isn't pro-active. I'll ISO Klick and see if that read still holds for me.

not being pro active isn't a scumtell

In post 207, Klick wrote:

In post 198, Pan Smierc wrote:

In post 185, Klick wrote:You really like the word 'lazy'
You also didn't answer my question

I didn't answer your question because i dont disagree with you on that front. I just think its a very unholistic way to approach teh game to be like "ZOMG ANNOYING GIMMICK GET IT OUT FIRST"

In most instances I'd basically agree with you. But with Why's gimmick we are getting essentially a guarantee of a contentless slot, and that's the point where it's no longer 'annoying' but instead 'not playing the game'

There is also a fair amount of bias against the gimmick on my part for making the game less fun, and I don't feel particularly bad about valuing that over the most optimal method of scumhunting. That's Why's problem, not mine.

I always read the gimmick as being possible to play in a legit way. Sure, they limit themselves to asking "Why?" but it's still useful if used right. It's totally possible to generate content by asking Why.

And yeah, let's put you bias above playing the game you signed up for. Who cares about Scum hunting anyways? (I guess this is why Klick replaced out )

In post 208, Klick wrote:Ben dover and T3 are the townreads I'd put money on atm

Bad take. What has either done that is that Townie?

In post 294, Klick wrote:I agree that they're bad if they're town
But what's the goal if they're scum? What are they trying to achieve?

This quote aged really poorly.

In post 295, Klick wrote:I guess 'keep players like Why in for an easy win'
It's not that implausible I guess. I don't feel particularly strongly about Pat-town anymore but they don't really feel like scum either

Again, saying the opposite of what Occam's Razor says. It's takes like this that I don't have a reason to TR them.

In post 353, Klick wrote:VOTE: Egix

You haven't towned

Egix has been Townie as crap.

In post 398, Klick wrote:VOTE: cookie
Sure

Another bad take. And no reasoning attatched.

In post 752, T3 wrote:not being pro active isn't a scumtell

No, it's not. But it is Scummy.

In post 754, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 752, T3 wrote:not being pro active isn't a scumtell

No, it's not. But it is Scummy.

>_>

it's like you have a big black box of tells in your head that you attempt to use but then get the opposite read

In post 747, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 744, DArby wrote:

In post 611, LicketyQuickety wrote:I think we just Elim StD here and if they flip Town then we flip Pan next.

VOTE: StD

In post 612, Save The Dragons wrote:i think that's really shortsighted

Seconded. Bad take by LQ.

How is it short-sighted if I'm looking into the future?

Because it’s assuming it’s TvS, which I’m not convinced of.

Also it ignores the rest of the game and the nuances of these slots interacting with other slots.

In post 756, DArby wrote:

In post 747, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 744, DArby wrote:

In post 611, LicketyQuickety wrote:I think we just Elim StD here and if they flip Town then we flip Pan next.

VOTE: StD

In post 612, Save The Dragons wrote:i think that's really shortsighted

Seconded. Bad take by LQ.

How is it short-sighted if I'm looking into the future?

Because it’s assuming it’s TvS, which I’m not convinced of.

Not asking you to sheep me. I have my read on the situation. You don't have to agree.

But in good faith, I'll ask you who you think is Scum at this point.

You can say Klicks logic is bad. But bad logic =/= scum.

That's not what matters at this point, what would be meaningful at this point would be to find why what they said correlates to a scum agenda.

Sane goes for most replacements

lq being this wrong, this fast, is probably towny

In post 755, T3 wrote:

In post 754, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 752, T3 wrote:not being pro active isn't a scumtell

No, it's not. But it is Scummy.

>_>

it's like you have a big black box of tells in your head that you attempt to use but then get the opposite read

No, it's like, if people don't want to play, then they are either lazy or Scum. Town wants to solve the game. Scum doesn't want the game solved. It's that easy.

In post 759, MegAzumarill wrote:You can say Klicks logic is bad. But bad logic =/= scum.

That's not what matters at this point, what would be meaningful at this point would be to find why what they said correlates to a scum agenda.

Sane goes for most replacements

You're right. Bad logic =/= Scum.

But does good logic = Town?

Or how about you give me a reason to TR Klick based on bad logic?

In post 760, T3 wrote:lq being this wrong, this fast, is probably towny

Naw. You don't like my reasons, fine. That doesn't mean my reads are bad.

In post 762, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 759, MegAzumarill wrote:You can say Klicks logic is bad. But bad logic =/= scum.

That's not what matters at this point, what would be meaningful at this point would be to find why what they said correlates to a scum agenda.

Sane goes for most replacements

You're right. Bad logic =/= Scum.

But does good logic = Town?

Or how about you give me a reason to TR Klick based on bad logic?

I'm not asking you to TR me based off of Klick's actions
I'm asking not to bring irrelevant info into your case because unless you can provide anything that is inherently scummy about klick's play, it isn't actual evidence and it's a waste of time to bring it up.

In post 764, MegAzumarill wrote:

In post 762, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 759, MegAzumarill wrote:You can say Klicks logic is bad. But bad logic =/= scum.

That's not what matters at this point, what would be meaningful at this point would be to find why what they said correlates to a scum agenda.

Sane goes for most replacements

You're right. Bad logic =/= Scum.

But does good logic = Town?

Or how about you give me a reason to TR Klick based on bad logic?

I'm not asking you to TR me based off of Klick's actions
I'm asking not to bring irrelevant info into your case because unless you can provide anything that is inherently scummy about klick's play, it isn't actual evidence and it's a waste of time to bring it up.

I'm part of a small remnant of players who thinks the game should still be won and lost by cases and scum hunting.

There are so many players today who get away with playing like crap because they are too lazy to make a case and explain themselves or ask probing questions. It's only because the game has devolved so badly that this is put up with.

Saying, "you should base your reads on motive rather than how logical a player is" is fine, except what other metric do you think we should use other than to gauge people based on their reasoning and whether it comes from a Town or Scum mindset. Please tell me how Klick was showing a Town mindset.

In post 761, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 755, T3 wrote:

In post 754, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 752, T3 wrote:not being pro active isn't a scumtell

No, it's not. But it is Scummy.

>_>

it's like you have a big black box of tells in your head that you attempt to use but then get the opposite read

No, it's like, if people don't want to play, then they are either lazy or Scum. Town wants to solve the game. Scum doesn't want the game solved. It's that easy.

by your definition the vast majority ofplayers are lazy

My point is we can only speculate on the previous player in this slot's reasonings unless explicitly stated.
I'm fine with logic used as a metric if you can actually still get answers to your problems with the logic or can convince them their logic is flawed.

Basically noone left in the game can speak for the logic of a subbed player so why bring it up unless it is inherently scummy.

In post 766, T3 wrote:

In post 761, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 755, T3 wrote:

In post 754, LicketyQuickety wrote:

In post 752, T3 wrote:not being pro active isn't a scumtell

No, it's not. But it is Scummy.

>_>

it's like you have a big black box of tells in your head that you attempt to use but then get the opposite read

No, it's like, if people don't want to play, then they are either lazy or Scum. Town wants to solve the game. Scum doesn't want the game solved. It's that easy.

by your definition the vast majority ofplayers are lazy

Correct.

In post 768, MegAzumarill wrote:Basically noone left in the game can speak for the logic of a subbed player so why bring it up unless it is inherently scummy.

Because there is no logic given. I have no reason to TR a player based on that.

Pan, though I think they are incredibly slimy, at least gives their reasons for things.

Of course, StD has given their reasons for things as well. But given StD is more reluctant to provide reasoning when StD comes from way back in the day, tells me StD is more likely to be Scum than Pan. However, given that both players are sure the other is Scum, that let's me know one of them is Scum.

That's what the TvS read is based on. You don't have to agree. I don't expect people would agree with me because they pretty much never do. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong and in fact, I can't be proven wrong as long as no one engages with what reasoning I have provided.

I just ISO'd DArby.

They are probably my highest TR atm. Their thoughts on Pan are too good. I can only see this as Scum if Darb is some sort of Mafia award-wining player for Scum play.

I also don't get how they don't like my TvS read of Pan/StD. It seems like they would like that read based on what they said of Pan. But iunno, maybe they are Scum with StD? That would be a hard pill to swallow.

Also, them saying they don't have much in terms of D1 makes me think it is very curious that they are voting for Pan here.

Their reasoning is solid and I am mind-melding with them on Pan.

DArby, what are your thoughts on StD?

In post 674, Save The Dragons wrote:why are you shading your scumpartner and voting town

Was this addressed to me? LOL.

I mean, why wouldn't I if I was Scum?

And it's not like I know you are Town.

There was some reasoning that you failed to explain to the game that I am seeing as Scum indicative of you. I can go back and look if you are interested.

Catching up

(3): Egix96, DArby, T3
(2): Not_Mafia, Gamma Emerald
(1): Pan Smierc
(1): LicketyQuickety
(1): MegAzumarill
(1): ben dover123
(1): Save The Dragons

(1): Enchant

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to eliminate.

Joint moderator ISO