Mafiascum.net

If you believe a post is in violation of the game rules, PM the moderator about it.

In post 862, Servant Berserker wrote:I’ve already brought up that I’m immune to investigations and think that’s weird in conjunction with the claims on the table.

I forgot about this. But yes, knowing that you have this and you're confirmed town makes it more difficult for me to believe in the legitimacy of Avenger's claim.

In post 857, Servant Beast wrote:I don't really get the implications toward me and Saber either. Are you saying that I'm scum with Saber and was trying to push his wagon through? That seems unlikely scum rarely have the guts for that.

I would find it difficult believing scum would be as adamant as you were to move a wagon from town (Berserker) onto another town (Saber). So I feel like if you were scum, then Saber would probably be scum as well. However, I don't really think it works the other way around. I don't think Saber being scum would necessarily imply you being scum, if that makes any sense. And I also believe Saber could be scum even if you weren't.

In post 858, Servant Alter Ego wrote:

In post 855, Servant Rider wrote:although, obviously, if he were scum and the Miller weren't, he wouldn't be able to continue his cop claim

I don't understand this reasoning.

Assume a scenario where Avenger is town and Assassin is scum.

Avenger claiming Miller would imply the existence of a slot that can directly investigate for alignment (not necessarily, but it would be a reasonable assumption). Assassin, having already claimed a cop ability, would then be at risk of either being counter-claimed by another player or having their ability overlapping with another player(s).

I'm not currently leaning towards this actually being the case here.

In post 874, Servant Alter Ego wrote:

In post 872, Servant Shielder wrote:I'm curious why you townlean beast

I think it would have been a bold play for scum to claim when they did.

I don't think that's a good reason to townlean them. Scum make bold moves like that. Especially when they lower suspicion. I can't remember for sure but I think I was getting a couple townreads after my first post so I was a good choice to make that claim on, and also I wasn't very active and that would make me arguing or bringing up suspicion less likely

It was after your first post that no one townread if I’m remembering correctly. Not your first catchup.

I'm pretty sure Beast claimed (or indicated as such) just a little bit before you posted.

I still don't believe the claim. Mainly because if I knew you were town, I would probably have been interested in waiting to see if you'd be interested in the Master upgrade, and then immediately proceed to find a way to campaign for you. However, Beast's play doesn't seem to show any indication of wanting to see your stance regarding the Master upgrade at all and instead mostly revolves around getting Saber elected and discrediting other potential candidates and their supporters.

Yeah, I agree with that Rider. I didn't want it anyway but from Beast's point of view they should have at least waited and checked. Beast also discredited our now conftown and pushed for someone else to get the master which doesn't look so good

Do you think beast and saber could be scum together?

I think it's possible. I was thinking a candidate could have been scum and it would make sense that one of the other scum wanted to push for them to get the master. So that's a very possible combination if I'm right about that general theory

yeah, and just to weigh in on the claim reveal issue - I do feel like.. you weren’t at risk of elimination, why reveal until absolutely necessary (ie to save you from elimination)?

Please hold.

In post 599, Cabd wrote:

Please refrain from making mention of knowledge of (or guessing at), even if possibly in error, players identities in any game related location. The sole exception to this is a private notes PT, if you request one.

This is the first and ONLY warning I will give for trying to narrow down identities using any sort of information, including gender tags.

In post 599, Cabd wrote:Please refrain from making mention of knowledge of (or guessing at), even if possibly in error, players identities in any game related location.

In post 834, Servant Ruler wrote:As one of the only servants whose identities I feel fairly confident on, he is one of the few I can back my already-existing pure of heart read on with meta.

Well, that's an interesting way to punish a player.

As I was midway through writing a post prior to the lock, I need to review it to make sure it does not run afoul of the rule after the clarification in the rule.

In post 836, Servant Beast wrote:I do need reasons for your scum reads when you have the time Ruler.

is not a read I see as evil so much as I don't see anything making me think they are pure of heart, when we have so many slots which I see as pure of heart.

, their play here could be of either alignment, but based on both the process of elimination I have and their given content, I overall lean towards being them as corrupt. The early read of Foreigner as town is out of place regardless of 's alignment as by that point all there was to see is 59, 64, 70, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173, 176, 178, 180, 182, 183, 192, 196, and 198. (I will give thoughts on the nature of these posts later, naturally.) What in those posts would lead to the conclusion of being good?

212 feels like it is attempting to pursue a player that believes can realistically be eliminated but who, if were pure of heart, they would know to be good. At that time, it was not unanimous that was pure of heart; it was still possible to sway individuals to the opposite viewpoint and doing so would have been incredibly pro-corrupt.

336 is out of place given that did campaign the way they did and I have good reason to believe it is not a truthful statement if my guess on their identity is correct.

339 is an attempt to have their cake while consuming it; the thoughts of " is lying" and " claimed miller out of fear of 's cop claim" are essentially mutually exclusive. Shading both slots is an attempt to deny both slots credit for being pure of heart. It would be more acceptable if the thought was "I think one is corrupt and one is pure of heart but cannot tell which is which", but the wording used did not give me the impression this is what meant.

There is an issue with 357 compared to 472;

Servant Saber wrote:Shielder - Can't remember him
Lancer - I waffle here. So gun to my head town but

would eliminate as a compromise

.
Rider - I know he's posting but I don't recall his content. Not sure if that's a me problem or a him problem as avatars are hard to tell apart.
Assassin - Gun to my head town.

I have reservations

about how he pursued being master.
Berserker - Moderate town. I don't know if it's jealousy

or something nefarious

over why he got more votes than me while facing much less questioning.
Ruler - Same as Rider.
Moon Cancer - His flip reads scummy right now but I'll give his explanation a second read later when I am not stuck waiting on work.
Beast - Weak town. It would be higher but

major buddying concerns

.

While there may be 9/13 servants listed as varying forms of townreads (the four not with townreads being , and myself), I have left in all of the servants listed as town where leaves obvious areas with ease in backtracking the read on them. That brings the number of unambiguously no-backtracking townreads down from the 9 previously mentioned down to an alarmingly low 5/13. Only are listed as unambiguously town with zero room for backtracking and even of those reads, only are strong.

Speaking of , when did move from being uncertain in post 212 to being strongly pure of heart? never detailed the shift in stance there.

740 struck me the wrong way. 747 also feels out of place for .

811 is also out of place, given 472; a stated townlean is voting a stated scumlean of 's; why does find the vote odd? If anything, given 472, should have been in voting , rather than questioning the vote. It appears to be posturing rather than genuine inquiry. Something made to appear productive and good, without connection to prior thoughts.

This is especially true if is in fact corrupt, as this sort of interaction would be the definition of "scum theatre", a play put on to appeal to the masses, entertain them, and mislead them.

I intended to create the case on here as well, but the thread was locked midway through me typing this case. I believe that this post now does not violate any rules but should I have missed anything and it does then I deserve the full wrath of Cabd and apologize. I have double- and triple-checked it and I did not see any references to identity so I believe it be okay.

In post 860, Servant Foreigner wrote:

In post 856, Servant Beast wrote:As for foreigner, I've just looked at their posts and I find it odd how evenly distributed their addresses to other players are, the general lack of nuance and a confidence that doesn't make sense to me.

If you are not confident then you won't get analyzable reactions. People are more AI when under pressure.

I'm not sold that this is the real reason.

Nice posts Ruler. Not being sarcastic.

Went to bed sorry. Please hold until the morning. Thanks.

In post 890, Servant Ruler wrote:336 is out of place given that Servant Saber did campaign the way they did and I have good reason to believe it is not a truthful statement

if my guess on their identity is correct.

Addressing this, "why didn't beast play "their shielder knowledge some otherway. " approach.

Shielder did give information on interest for master, they said they "weren't against" it. Given their activity and Berserker's position and my own, I found it pretty unlikely that I could push through a shield er position, I also feel I waited enough, Just because Shielder was largely absent doesn't mean I was planning to just lurk until they showed up. I had opinions and I pushed my opinions. I could very well have been wrong on Saber, but I don't know that. I was also content just letting shielder be under the radar. For mechanical reasons and also because it allowed me to see who pushed the lurker slot. I had no way of knowing that Shielder could look town or not because they hadn't posed yet. I was keeping track of the finger pointing in their direction however. I think only two players did, Alter and one other player. Ultimately they didn't do anything with it, so I didn't know what to make of it either.

But sure I could have played it more optimally I guess by...getting them elected? somehow. In retrospect I'm not even sure that would be a good idea because I already know they're town and the grail wouldn't help sort them in retrospect. I already explained why I just outed them as town, I was crumbing and I didn't want to hurt alter's feelings anymore if they were being legit so I just explained it. It wasn't a very optimal move from a win condition perspective, but I'm not really made of stone either. And no I don't blame Alter for me revealing that, it was just a poorly thought out way to crumb.

In other news, grass is green. More on this at 11.

Ruler is town.

Agree. Gunna avoid that mine field by not commenting on it beyond just slapping Ruler with a town read.

Yeah, I think I'm just...going to let that go now.