Mafiascum.net

In post 830, petapan wrote:like, a lot of the names and their placement on the list are fine but the posts that are supposedly evidence toward these things strike me as not really telling, and are often short fairly non-AI posts (because those were the easiset to read?).

Those are MY towntells and MY scumtells. Maybe you should learn from them!

In post 838, Infinity 324 wrote:Force her to make a fakeclaim that locks her in to bad actions, or confirms her as scum.

I wish there were more players with that attitude instead of asking for those infuriating "intents to hammer."

In post 873, Infinity 324 wrote:Am I BoP’ing you too much? I feel like it’s such a level 0 thing that people get scumread for all the time but is just NAI. Like we’re clearly assuming she’s town for the sake of argument there, otherwise there’s no risk in limming Lilith.

i don't know. maybe? i'm definitely guilty of reading too much into things sometimes.

the crux of it is, it caught my eye, so i threw it to the wall to see if it would stick.

In post 858, Hoopla wrote:a couple people picked up that this looked like a scumslip:

In post 840, Infinity 324 wrote:Actually town doesn’t have a tracker right? Honestly I feel like skitter is confident enough that we maybe just lim lilith here. But I think we should talk about it more.

PEdit: you didn’t need to put it to L-1 though?

turns out that was just a typo?

but!

when i was reading the latest posts

this

actually caught my eye as a perspective slip:

In post 833, Infinity 324 wrote:I mean scum already knows she’s a powerful PR

does this imply he knows lilith is town? or am i out to lunch here? someone help me.

I don't disagree but it's pretty weak.

In post 877, DrippingGoofball wrote:I wish there were more players with that attitude instead of asking for those infuriating "intents to hammer."

Is getting a claim not what intent to hammer is designed to accomplish?

In post 861, lilith2013 wrote:I think DGB and infinity are scummy as hell, their votes are opportunistic

LOL

I hardly had any votes

Um, what? votes is plural because you and infinity both voted me? what?

In post 880, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 877, DrippingGoofball wrote:I wish there were more players with that attitude instead of asking for those infuriating "intents to hammer."

Is getting a claim not what intent to hammer is designed to accomplish?

I hate that.

You catch so many scum running them up and then they scramble to fakeclaim. Asking for "intent to hammer" just buys time for scum.

Rush-claiming is never an issue for a townie. See my sig.

no response to the opportunism though?

VOTE: dgb

In post 882, lilith2013 wrote:Um, what? votes is plural because you and infinity both voted me? what?

I random-voted Uncrowned on the first page...

Then I voted YOU.

You say my votes are opportunistic?

What a pattern LOL

One real vote.

@hoopla I learned the hard way that “scumslips” are usually not scumslips

lilith, you're so scum.

It's borderline comedy and I love you for it.

I can’t believe this is an argument

Your ONE vote on me and infinity’s ONE vote on me are BOTH opportunistic

I never miss an opportunity to vote for scum.

In post 883, DrippingGoofball wrote:You catch so many scum running them up and then they scramble to fakeclaim. Asking for "intent to hammer" just buys time for scum.

Oh, I see, the idea is that people have to decide when to claim on their own because if they wait too long they'll get hammered?

That really only works if people are okay with hammering without a claim, though, which isn't the case, otherwise people will feel no fear of actually getting hammered before they can claim.

Regardless, it's irrelevant. If enough people want a claim, they can force one, and if not enough people want a claim, then they can't.

In post 889, DrippingGoofball wrote:I never miss an opportunity to vote for scum.

Do you miss opportunities to explain your votes?

In post 890, Something_Smart wrote:That really only works if people are okay with hammering without a claim,

Scum always ends up claiming, so hammering without a claim doesn't really happen.

If the player stretches it, hesitates, gets stubborn, then you know the player is scum. I'd be OK with a no-claim hammer, personally, but it's viewed with great suspicion so rarely done. Usually delayed claims are fake anyway.

Delayed from what? From the point at which they're asked to claim?

In post 891, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 889, DrippingGoofball wrote:I never miss an opportunity to vote for scum.

Do you miss opportunities to explain your votes?

I read the whole game and she's the scummiest player?

In post 893, Something_Smart wrote:Delayed from what? From the point at which they're asked to claim?

Yes.

Often townies under pressure will spontanesouly claim, too.

In post 894, DrippingGoofball wrote:I read the whole game and she's the scummiest player?

Yes obviously. What's your reasoning for saying that?

In post 883, DrippingGoofball wrote:

In post 880, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 877, DrippingGoofball wrote:I wish there were more players with that attitude instead of asking for those infuriating "intents to hammer."

Is getting a claim not what intent to hammer is designed to accomplish?

I hate that.

You catch so many scum running them up and then they scramble to fakeclaim. Asking for "intent to hammer" just buys time for scum.

Rush-claiming is never an issue for a townie. See my sig.

Allowing people to refuse to claim unless they see intent is what you're talking about, and I agree meta has moved way too far toward thinking premature claims are scummy and expecting people to try to hold out.

I don't see why it's hard to understand what lilith said. 888 was the obvious interpretation. DGB's reaction is excessive.

In post 896, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 894, DrippingGoofball wrote:I read the whole game and she's the scummiest player?

Yes obviously. What's your reasoning for saying that?

No scumhunting, she's just diddling around, making excuses.

Why, you think she's town? Convince me.