Mafiascum.net

Your contention seems to be either I should have left you alone or had to properly launch a conviction push on you, which seems a bit strange, and isn't really my style anyway as such.

In post 648, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 645, butterchurn wrote:

In post 623, catboi wrote:- I'm not really vibing with the wagon on monkeyman - to me it feels like he's getting voted for having weird or irrational opinions, not necessarily scum-motivated ones. The stuff he says might seem bizarre but I feel like he actually believes what he's saying. The pressure on him feels opportunistic in nature.

I can't speak for everyone who is voting him, but I don't think that's an accurate assessment of my scumread on him, at least. It's certainly not about his opinions. I think the way he responds to questioning is slimy. He has consistently made statements that appear confident, but when asked about where the basis of each statement is coming from, he has at times weakly defended it, or clearly made up a reason to justify it, or dodged the question, until finally usually coming back to say that the original statement was a joke or that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Saying that about an RVS vote is fine. But about reads made on page 20 of a game? And even if that is the case, why take the extra step of trying to justify it initially? The approach just feels scummy to me, like he cares more about his own appearances than about whatever it is he's saying.

I did feel a little hesitant, since he is the highest postcount player so far (mostly due to the pressure on him) and so maybe there's just more things to pick on, and maybe he would have been more likely to quiet down and let things blow over if he were scum.

I could see some of the votes like tictac sticking around from RVS being opportunistic. But that could always come from the opposite scum faction. I still like the chances of it being scum.

This is making me rethink a bit. Feel like Monkey has some suspect posts and a lot of stuff I don't really agree with, but not sure their approach so far is particularly conductive to someone who's mafia.

VOTE: Klick

Happier with my vote here for now.

hey malc, can you please explain a bit more what you meant by "not sure their approach so far is particularly conductive to someone who's mafia"?

also the reasons for the klick vote are those from 419 or was there anything else that made you decide to change your vote to there?

In post 824, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 822, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Yes, we have an idea right there. It's Malcolm.

Just read back and your main contention with me seems to be that I didn't go anywhere after initially shading you but I don't think that's a big issue here - I was pointing out that despite making a lot of posts you had a lot of filler content all the same, not as if I voted for you. Although your sudden suspicion of me afterwards, as you admit a proper conviction read, feels a little bit weird to me, and a bit of a desperate reason to be going after someone.

Do i seem desperate to you?

I’m pushing you in an very memey manner.
For you to describe it as desperate feels very false and discredity.

In post 826, Menalque wrote:

In post 648, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 645, butterchurn wrote:

In post 623, catboi wrote:- I'm not really vibing with the wagon on monkeyman - to me it feels like he's getting voted for having weird or irrational opinions, not necessarily scum-motivated ones. The stuff he says might seem bizarre but I feel like he actually believes what he's saying. The pressure on him feels opportunistic in nature.

I can't speak for everyone who is voting him, but I don't think that's an accurate assessment of my scumread on him, at least. It's certainly not about his opinions. I think the way he responds to questioning is slimy. He has consistently made statements that appear confident, but when asked about where the basis of each statement is coming from, he has at times weakly defended it, or clearly made up a reason to justify it, or dodged the question, until finally usually coming back to say that the original statement was a joke or that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Saying that about an RVS vote is fine. But about reads made on page 20 of a game? And even if that is the case, why take the extra step of trying to justify it initially? The approach just feels scummy to me, like he cares more about his own appearances than about whatever it is he's saying.

I did feel a little hesitant, since he is the highest postcount player so far (mostly due to the pressure on him) and so maybe there's just more things to pick on, and maybe he would have been more likely to quiet down and let things blow over if he were scum.

I could see some of the votes like tictac sticking around from RVS being opportunistic. But that could always come from the opposite scum faction. I still like the chances of it being scum.

This is making me rethink a bit. Feel like Monkey has some suspect posts and a lot of stuff I don't really agree with, but not sure their approach so far is particularly conductive to someone who's mafia.

VOTE: Klick

Happier with my vote here for now.

hey malc, can you please explain a bit more what you meant by "not sure their approach so far is particularly conductive to someone who's mafia"?

also the reasons for the klick vote are those from 419 or was there anything else that made you decide to change your vote to there?

Generally I feel like Monkey is posting a lot in a way that's making themselves get noticed a lot more than would be ideal for mafia. Generally mafia want to blend in and avoid being noticed too much unless they're trying to sway town.

Reasoning for Klick was in 419 yes, although I'd mentioned suspecting them once or twice before that too.

In post 693, NorwegianboyEE wrote:VOTE: MalcolmTucker
One of my first somewhat convinced votes as they shaded me but then it seemed like they didn't go anywhere with it.

In post 828, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I’m pushing you in an very memey manner.
For you to describe it as desperate feels very false and discredity.

You described it as a "somewhat convinced" vote, and said that was one of your first. Where am I supposed to deduce that as being memey?

In post 829, MalcolmTucker wrote:1 Generally mafia want to blend in and avoid being noticed too much unless they're trying to sway town.

Reasoning for Klick was in 419 yes, although 2 I'd mentioned suspecting them once or twice before that too.

(1) why do you think this?

(2) you hadn't, actually

In post 811, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 790, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I don't like being on the same wagon as Tucker now that I think about it.

VOTE: MalcomTucker

Out of interest, what changed your mind re voting for me? A while back you seemed pretty comfortable with how I was playing, even when I was voting for you. Strikes me as a bit of an opportunistic vote here.

You seem to think anyone voting for you is opportunistic. I explained my reasoning and you can take me at my word, there is no hidden motive.

In post 832, MonkeyMan576 wrote:

In post 811, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 790, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I don't like being on the same wagon as Tucker now that I think about it.

VOTE: MalcomTucker

Out of interest, what changed your mind re voting for me? A while back you seemed pretty comfortable with how I was playing, even when I was voting for you. Strikes me as a bit of an opportunistic vote here.

You seem to think anyone voting for you is opportunistic.

I explained my reasoning and you can take me at my word, there is no hidden motive.

That isn't true at all.

In post 830, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 693, NorwegianboyEE wrote:VOTE: MalcolmTucker
One of my first somewhat convinced votes as they shaded me but then it seemed like they didn't go anywhere with it.

In post 828, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I’m pushing you in an very memey manner.
For you to describe it as desperate feels very false and discredity.

You described it as a "somewhat convinced" vote, and said that was one of your first. Where am I supposed to deduce that as being memey?

I can both be convinced about my vote and push it as an memey manner.

In post 831, Menalque wrote:

In post 829, MalcolmTucker wrote:1 Generally mafia want to blend in and avoid being noticed too much unless they're trying to sway town.

Reasoning for Klick was in 419 yes, although 2 I'd mentioned suspecting them once or twice before that too.

(1) why do you think this?

(2) you hadn't, actually

Re 1 - It's obviously not universal and sometimes mafia just make mistakes and end up blundering, but it's a pretty common feature of the game for scum players to want to blend in simply because it can help them avoid suspicion. The goal of the game for everyone in the day phases as an individual is to avoid being voted out, blending in as town is what allows mafia to do that. When evaluating how a player approaches the game, if they've come under pressure, one thing I'll look at is whether their play from thereon in is how I'd expect mafia to play in similar circumstances. I don't think Monkey has particularly tried to do anything major to dissuade the heat on them.

Re 2 - apologies, I'm getting mixed up post numbers wise there and was confusing it with my vote. You're correct that 419 was first time I talked about suspecting Klick. Mentioned this once or twice after before eventually changing my vote.

In post 834, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 830, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 693, NorwegianboyEE wrote:VOTE: MalcolmTucker
One of my first somewhat convinced votes as they shaded me but then it seemed like they didn't go anywhere with it.

In post 828, NorwegianboyEE wrote:I’m pushing you in an very memey manner.
For you to describe it as desperate feels very false and discredity.

You described it as a "somewhat convinced" vote, and said that was one of your first. Where am I supposed to deduce that as being memey?

I can both be convinced about my vote and push it as an memey manner.

I personally didn't see anything within your posts to indicate that it was anything other than a standard post. The "meme" aspect here just seems to be a bit of a cover for what you admit is a genuine and sincere read. Or, to put it better, why should I be at all concerned or interested in the memeyness of the push when it's still a push from you all the same? Either you suspect a player as mafia or you don't. You clearly suspect you, on what I'd argue is a pretty flimsy basis.

*You clearly suspect me, lost the inability to type.

You’re sorta misrepping here Malcolm.
I’m not covering anything. In fact i’m quite open about my motivations.
I think you could be scum so i’m encouraging votes on you both as the possibility to flip scum and to get information from the game, and also you.
Maybe you’d towntell? Maybe not.
Is the reasoning flimsy? I’d say it’s good enough for day 1.
Do you have an super strong scumread or do you think i should be reading you differently?

In post 838, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

You’re sorta misrepping here Malcolm.

I’m not covering anything. In fact i’m quite open about my motivations.
I think you could be scum so i’m encouraging votes on you both as the possibility to flip scum and to get information from the game, and also you.
Maybe you’d towntell? Maybe not.
Is the reasoning flimsy? I’d say it’s good enough for day 1.
Do you have an super strong scumread or do you think i should be reading you differently?

In what way? You say your push on me was memey. How was I particularly supposed to know that over text?

In post 809, catboi wrote:

In post 747, Menalque wrote:

In post 715, catboi wrote:Malcolm looks like he's genuinely solving

uh

where?

Don't like the initial vote on monkey but although underexplained 418 is a start, and 491 to 648 looks like he's trying to actually analyze and figure out monkeyman rather than blindly pushing him. That kind of progression can be faked but monkeyman is still a wagon, could easily keep pushing it, instead forcing himself to give other thoughts. The immediate evaluation of Norwee unprompted in 653 looked like he saw someone and decided to investigate, like he's pulling at threads to see what comes out. And again similar where he digs up a cassowary post in 658 when it's not being discussed by anyone, and it's interesting, thoughtful analysis picking at someone's post. Not necessarily on board with a hypocrisy case but the reasoning feels more detailed than you typically get from noob-scum

For a newer player it's fairly decent, hasn't felt like he's making pushes in a dishonest way, and is looking for things to analyze. Don't get the hate? I get he annoyed you by pushing you but I don't think it looked ill intentioned.

It appears that catboi has managed to gained access to my notes. (Although he failed to mention 553, which I also had down)

Which makes me feel better about catbois alignment this game.

In post 557, Menalque wrote:Sure

VOTE: malc

This was a really lazy vote from Menalque as well after I asked a pretty basic question.

In post 839, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 838, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

You’re sorta misrepping here Malcolm.

I’m not covering anything. In fact i’m quite open about my motivations.
I think you could be scum so i’m encouraging votes on you both as the possibility to flip scum and to get information from the game, and also you.
Maybe you’d towntell? Maybe not.
Is the reasoning flimsy? I’d say it’s good enough for day 1.
Do you have an super strong scumread or do you think i should be reading you differently?

In what way? You say your push on me was memey. How was I particularly supposed to know that over text?

:)

In post 814, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:

In post 670, Save The Dragons wrote:

In post 666, MegAzumarill wrote:

In post 661, Save The Dragons wrote:malcolm's posts feel fangless

Do you think this is scum or town indicative, I can see arguements for this meaning either

i think this is scum indicative

what do you think

I don't think "toothless" is a good reason to scumread Malcolm. I basically tunneled the guy for an entire Newbie game for writing the hedgiest posts and not having really strong opinions all game, and he ended up flipping town.

toothless and hedgy are different

In post 841, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 557, Menalque wrote:Sure

VOTE: malc

This was a really lazy vote from Menalque as well after I asked a pretty basic question.

what makes it a lazy vote, amigo?

In post 844, Menalque wrote:

In post 841, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 557, Menalque wrote:Sure

VOTE: malc

This was a really lazy vote from Menalque as well after I asked a pretty basic question.

what makes it a lazy vote, amigo?

I asked why you'd deflect instead of replying to points against you. Then you replied with a vote on me.

In post 794, Well Done wrote:On my skim through, I did not like butterchurn's reaction to the Klick wagon with posts 689/714. Seemed like an overreaction given Klick had recieved all of three votes / possibly partner indicative.

I like to look at things in more detail when I don't understand them. It had felt like a wagon had suddenly picked up on Klick, in a way that felt like a deliberate counterwagon to MonkeyMan, and so I wanted to investigate. I learned that my perception of it may have been stronger than it was in reality, but I think the investigation still provided useful information for me. For example, it made me townread MalcolmTucker more than I had previously.

In post 820, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Wouldn’t it be funny if Mastina’s huge explanation of their usage of an system they cannot really describe in full because of hod complex it is, is just an fancy way of saying: "gut check"

I believe that's exactly what it is. I too have a complex, fancy, and unexplainable system for catching scum. Everyone does.

In post 832, MonkeyMan576 wrote:

In post 811, MalcolmTucker wrote:

In post 790, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I don't like being on the same wagon as Tucker now that I think about it.

VOTE: MalcomTucker

Out of interest, what changed your mind re voting for me? A while back you seemed pretty comfortable with how I was playing, even when I was voting for you. Strikes me as a bit of an opportunistic vote here.

You seem to think anyone voting for you is opportunistic. I explained my reasoning and you can take me at my word, there is no hidden motive.

I agree with MalcolmTucker that this is untrue. I find your vote to be much more opportunistic than any of the others on him, and I think he was right to call yours out. Notice how he has not called out all of the votes on him.

------

I feel Menalque and NorwegianboyEE are both being somewhat obtuse in their arguments with MalcolmTucker on this page. NorwegianboyEE with saying that the push should be interpreted both as memey and as serious at the same time, and Menalque... actually, looking back, I may be reading too much into his posts. The line of questioning is fairly reasonable, it just felt a little bit like making Malcolm do busy work, but I could see it coming from town. This added pressure by both of them at first to me felt like it could be suspicious piling on to inflate the case, but on second thought I think I can believe that my viewing of it may be biased by my townread on Malcolm, and if NorwegianboyEE and Menalque are town who do suspect him, they may want to try to get scum to crack under the pressure. Either way, I think Malcom's responses are solid, and I'm somewhat impressed by the lack of frustration expressed.

------

Mastina, I would like for you to explain your reasoning behind your scumread on me.

My vote is not opportunistic. Less than 25% of all players are voting me at the moment, so there is no real pressure to speak of. If anything, given that I am more active than most, the fact that there aren't more people voting me and a lot of players think I am town says something. I like most of the points on MT so far and to me that seems the best place for a vote at the moment. If that changes I'll change my vote.

You can vote opportunistically with zero people voting for you, so that seems kinda irrelevant