Mafiascum.net

coalition

PookyTheMagicalBear [5]:

Deimos27, SleeperSoul, DonCorleone, PookyTheMagicalBear, Klick

Clover Ebi [5]:

Clover Ebi, DkKoba, Deimos27, Klick, SleeperSoul

DkKoba [4]:

Wug, Klick, DkKoba, Clover Ebi

Deimos27 [4]:

PookyTheMagicalBear, Klick, DonCorleone, SleeperSoul

Alduskkel [4]:

Alduskkel, Klick, SleeperSoul, DkKoba

SleeperSoul [3]:

Deimos27, SleeperSoul, Klick

Klick [3]:

Klick, SleeperSoul, Clover Ebi

Wug [1]:

Wug

DonCorleone [0]:

lynch

SleeperSoul (1):

Deimos27

Wug (1):

DonCorleone

PookyTheMagicalBear (1):

Alduskkel

not voting (6):

Klick, Clover Ebi, SleeperSoul, PookyTheMagicalBear, Wug, DkKoba

flavour

mod notes

• Play nice.

In post 237, Tuxedo Mask wrote:

In post 233, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:

In post 192, Tuxedo Mask wrote:They are also being way less confrontational.

are you high or something?

I'm less confrontational because we're in the look for good guys phase, not the look for bad guys phase.

You can still make a town block by aggressively scum hunting. You just use POE.

Why does this matter? It's like you're explaining Pooky's own scum viewpoint to Pooky because you don't think he sees it

Klick what do you think of 242

In post 242, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:

In post 237, Tuxedo Mask wrote:You can still make a town block by aggressively scum hunting. You just use POE.

that's such an ass-backwards way of building a good town block.


Attacking people to try to make them slip doesn't really work when you're not in the lynching phase of the game. if anything it's a distraction.

I buy it as Pooky's thought process. I also agree with it in theory - you don't accomplish anything by aggressively pushing to everyone 'this guy is SCUM! I'm gonna... not townbloc them!' unless everyone is talking about townreading them. If anything, I think it's a bit weird that Tux is nitpicking beyond Pooky's initial response.

Not sure if that's the kind of thought you were looking for on it?

I was expecting an adverse reaction, since that was mine while re-reading. I'll post what I have drafted on the topic now.

When it comes to this passage I accidentally quoted earlier, I think Pooky's 233 is excellent in that it accounts for why he's in a cooperative framing rather than a confrontational one. But now that I see it again 242 is horrendous logic and starts to come off as contrived. Attacking people and provoking scumslips is perfectly functional as a strategy in coalition, and such a blatant dismissal gives me the same sense of feigned indignation I earlier observed in Clover.

Deimos, I see in the VC that you're voting me but also putting me in your coalition. What gives?

pedit: dang you're good. These are good points.... you're making me paranoid of pooky too though I still town read him pretty strong

I suppose if you put a lot of importance on voting for pressure as part of your scumhunting I can buy this opinion. Still an ugly overreaction.

HEAL: DonCorleone

Phone is dying but I'm up to page 12

HURT: all
HEAL: Deimos
HEAL: Koba
HEAL: Klick/Tux
HEAL: Wug/votato
HEAL: Sleeper
My top two scumreads now are Aldus and Clover. I doubt I'm wrong about both, but the lack of resistance from these slots to the initial coalition makes me think they're maybe not compatible as a team and I need to dodge a deepwolf in the remaining 7 players.

"deepwolf in the remaining 7" is quite the oxymoron but you understand what I mean

I will say that Koba's style kind of reminds me of a way more oblivious and stubborn version of myself.... so that sort of comes accross as town. But I'm having trouble reading them. They just seem super ticked off in general. NAI

Being super ticked off is Koba meta. Also their self-esteem is certainly of sufficient magnitude for them to start reworking the whole coalition from the ground up.

I've come to my senses and no longer buy Pooky's case because I think it's clear that Koba had doubts about multiple players in the coalition (at least myself in addition to Pooky) and it's hence logical he'd try to replace more than just one spot.

In fact, if the coalition was all town, it would've probably been scummier of him to try and replace only slot, since it requires less work to push through and guarantees only one scum (himself) on the coalition.

In post 788, Deimos27 wrote:I've come to my senses and no longer buy Pooky's case because I think it's clear that Koba had doubts about multiple players in the coalition (at least myself in addition to Pooky) and it's hence logical he'd try to replace more than just one spot.

It's illogical to have suspicions about 3 players on the coalition and want 3 players switched out.

What slot did Klick replace into again?

In post 766, Deimos27 wrote:And the low motivation repeated disappearances and brief catch-up is so typical from players that don't like scum (I do it myself!)

But this is a baseless assumption and none of this statement is true? I mean sure, the catch up is brief but that doesn't mean I have low motivation. I don't know if I like scum yet I haven't rolled it!

In post 707, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 423, Deimos27 wrote:Clover's 107 pings me big time.

In post 107, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 103, votato wrote:

In post 100, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 87, votato wrote:we arent gonna discuss day 2 because it could help scum to discuss it now.

How so?

explaining that would help scum. you trying to bait me into explaining it makes me think you're scum.[/quo*te]

blink

...Huh? I am just-huh?! You think talking about day 2 helps scum and because I asked for more detail why I'm scummy for it... am I getting that all right?

I don't read the tonality as genuine

at all

, given how large an overreaction this is. Like without weighing in on the validity of votato's point, I found his argumentation to be perfectly clear, so to respond with supposed indignant confusion comes off as badly faked emotional outcry.

I am not someone who can fake or probably would try to fake such an emotion. Is it really that hard to believe that I just didn't get why talking about day 2 is scummy? I'm curious.

It's not hard to believe that you would disagree about the scumminess of talking D2. It's hard to believe you wouldn't understand such a straightforward formulation of why someone else thinks so. And I put 0 weight in you saying that it isn't something you would do as scum. Scum never thinks they're playing like they do as scum.

talking about D2*

In post 704, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 702, DkKoba wrote:

In post 701, Clover Ebi wrote:This game started 2 days ago and there's 700 posts that is impressive to me. Oh boy, I got a lot to get back into. Now time to figure out the best way to do this without draining myself out.

I have that effect on games...
if you'd like a summary I can give you one tomorrow when I'm off of work.

That'd be nice. I feel the pressure to try and catch up on all the pages I missed because I know if I can just get my feet back into the ground I'll be in that coil because if I can do one thing on this site I guess it's be townread but uh yeah coming home from a long day of work and seeing all this is pretty draining. I could probably do a few pages for now though.

I dunno your 704 read as pretty low motivation to me. But hey, you said that you're good at being townread, so have at it.

In post 792, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 766, Deimos27 wrote:And the low motivation repeated disappearances and brief catch-up is so typical from players that don't like scum (I do it myself!)

But this is a baseless assumption and none of this statement is true? I mean sure, the catch up is brief but that doesn't mean I have low motivation. I don't know if I like scum yet I haven't rolled it!

That was in response to this

In post 793, Deimos27 wrote:

In post 707, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 423, Deimos27 wrote:Clover's 107 pings me big time.

In post 107, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 103, votato wrote:

In post 100, Clover Ebi wrote:

In post 87, votato wrote:we arent gonna discuss day 2 because it could help scum to discuss it now.

How so?

explaining that would help scum. you trying to bait me into explaining it makes me think you're scum.[/quo*te]

blink

...Huh? I am just-huh?! You think talking about day 2 helps scum and because I asked for more detail why I'm scummy for it... am I getting that all right?

I don't read the tonality as genuine

at all

, given how large an overreaction this is. Like without weighing in on the validity of votato's point, I found his argumentation to be perfectly clear, so to respond with supposed indignant confusion comes off as badly faked emotional outcry.

I am not someone who can fake or probably would try to fake such an emotion. Is it really that hard to believe that I just didn't get why talking about day 2 is scummy? I'm curious.

It's not hard to believe that you would disagree about the scumminess of talking D2. It's hard to believe you wouldn't understand such a straightforward formulation of why someone else thinks so. And I put 0 weight in you saying that it isn't something you would do as scum. Scum never thinks they're playing like they do as scum.

In theory, you're correct that I could do that as scum but as someone who has not flipped scum on this site before and due to my previous scum games else where. Faking emotion has never been a tactic I use. What I didn't understand is why Votato was trying to cut me off about discussing day 2. That just didn't make sense to me. Why do you think it's more likely I'm scum in that case than town?
pedit: That was more me being shocked at the number of pages we're at and being sleepy than anything else. I've been obvious town in my other 2 games on here so I hope I can show that here as well. I feel when I do flip scum one game it'll be extremely obvious. Well, maybe not but it makes worried to think about

In post 790, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:

In post 788, Deimos27 wrote:I've come to my senses and no longer buy Pooky's case because I think it's clear that Koba had doubts about multiple players in the coalition (at least myself in addition to Pooky) and it's hence logical he'd try to replace more than just one spot.

It's illogical to have suspicions about 3 players on the coalition and want 3 players switched out.

That isn't intrinsically illogical. It depends on the 3 players, and the reasoning for why they are being suspected.

In post 780, Deimos27 wrote:When it comes to this passage I accidentally quoted earlier, I think Pooky's 233 is excellent in that it accounts for why he's in a cooperative framing rather than a confrontational one. But now that I see it again 242 is horrendous logic and starts to come off as contrived. Attacking people and provoking scumslips is perfectly functional as a strategy in coalition, and such a blatant dismissal gives me the same sense of feigned indignation I earlier observed in Clover.

Attacking people and provoking scumslips is a good strategy in coalition if you see the leading coalition taking off without you and you're sure a certain player on that coalition is scum and shouldn't be included.


When you're putting together the leading coalition - that's a completely different frame of reference - you don't want to muddy the thread with fights over nonsense - you want people to be posting their unfiltered thoughts.