Mafiascum.net

In post 867, Something_Smart wrote:Okay, that's reasonable. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't related to Titus's nonsense theory about Ircher's wagon distracting from me.

Yeah no, I don’t agree with it. But I don’t find Titus’ take unreasonable.

Tentative points to Luke for challenging The logic Titus was using to make that connection since it’s exactly what I would do if I wasn’t used to playing with Titus by now.

Idk how much Luke and Titus have played together though.

In post 873, RCEnigma wrote:

In post 259, Klick wrote:

In post 252, furtiveglance wrote:

In post 250, Klick wrote:

In post 130, petapan wrote:VOTE: RCE

I am sitting in the morning
At the diner on the corner

This feels like a sensible vote

I didn't like it, based on RC's posting at the time.

RCE felt like pretty decent potential scum at that point to me, but I think RCE is really easy to read most of the time anyway so I'll give him time

@Fire my scumread on Klick started here.

I don’t have many games with Klick at all so this stuck out as weird.

I’m not a ramp up kind of player I’m a what you see is what you get kind of player. I have a fair amount of games played with slots not named Klick but Mastina is probably the only slot that would say they can reliably read me (even though they scumread me as town very very often).

So the angle seemed fake, I let it slide and I’ve become their top scumread. Surprise surprise.

I’d say I’m more likely to townread Klick if Ircher flips scum though.

In post 839, Vivax wrote:

In post 838, Andresvmb wrote:I made an error typing out my thoughts which I quickly corrected. If you’re going to argue that’s a backtrack, that’s a horrific position to adopt.

Regardless, it's an interesting typo. You type way too much around that opinion for my taste, and the mistake is icing on the cake.

For what its worth, I feel like that kind of typo is actually more likely to come from town then from scum.

In post 859, RCEnigma wrote:

In post 853, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 851, RCEnigma wrote:Wit that said, Ircher is the type of scum that’s willing to take a bullet for a partner. So

I don’t think Titus’ argument that Irchers wagon sprung up to divert from someone else is merit-less

.

You think Ircher deliberately baited a wagon on himself? How?

No, I think Ircher meant to push attention somewhere else and it backfired. It wouldn’t make sense to just bait a wagon on himself.

This is not the argument that Titus made

In post 879, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 839, Vivax wrote:

In post 838, Andresvmb wrote:I made an error typing out my thoughts which I quickly corrected. If you’re going to argue that’s a backtrack, that’s a horrific position to adopt.

Regardless, it's an interesting typo. You type way too much around that opinion for my taste, and the mistake is icing on the cake.

For what its worth, I feel like that kind of typo is actually more likely to come from town then from scum.

Can't disagree, although it minimizes the issues to a single thing. I do get carried away when I find something worth digging into.

I'm thinking Ausuka, BBT, Ircher, Malakittens, Roden and Something_Smart have got a few mafia.

Just some more reads that I had guys, and I'd really like to impress upon you all that I have them. Reads, that is.

In post 719, fireisredsir wrote:m willing to throw my vote in the "will go to ircher if things move away and then struggle to return there" if that helps

but ok, that seems reasonable i think, and i at least understand your thought process more now

i don't get why you question me, gets answers, ignore them, and then shift your vote from me to titus after ydrasse unvotes me

it's like you want to engage but then when you actually receive answers, you just go to something else while still throwing shade, like keeping your options open?

"idk why people think uncrowned is town because ive looked at his scumplay, but it also looks like his townplay" or whatever. it's just constant hedging and has been a theme of your play this game. your actual solidified reads are few and far between and it seems like you're leaving doors open to keep your play flexible, something i'd attribute much more as +scum. maybe it's the low confidence thing you're talking about, but this seems awfully non-committal

In post 874, Ircher wrote:

In post 871, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 795, Ircher wrote:

In post 782, Titus wrote:I am very surprised by the FoSes on me that agree with my pushes on Ircher and SS. There has to be scum in there.

Why the 1v1 on us? If I were a gambler (which I'm not), I would wager that we're both in fact town.

In post 796, jjh927 wrote:Could you put into your own words why you think Titus is town, Ircher

In post 798, Ircher wrote:Considering I haven't expressed a town read (or a scum read) there, no.

whip lash

I feel like I need to clarify my 795 as it seems both you and jjh misinterpreted when reading it. The "us" there is referring to Smart and myself, not to Titus.

Ah.

I did in fact read that as you asking titus why she was trying to 1v1 you, and that you would wager that you were both actually town.

In post 598, fireisredsir wrote:it kinda seems like her thoughts are surface level intended to sound reasonable tho? like she hasn't said anything super out there it's just that they don't feel like they quite click into a consistent mindset, like luke was saying

it's like you see opportunities to make comments but then not provided much follow up? like the titus vote in general doesn't feel super convincing

also, couldn't we apply this same logic to you? what makes your two slots different? up until your vote on her, you had very little to say about her so what changed? from what i'm aware of, her main string of posting had already occurred before your vote on me, and you didn't have a lot to say then

In post 803, Ircher wrote:I haven't read much from Titus. I see

she is voting me, so that's minus points

In post 815, Ircher wrote:

In post 812, Ircher wrote:

In post 806, jjh927 wrote:Okay, but if Titus voting you is "minus points" then do you expect that reasonable town players would not vote you here?

I think some would and some wouldn't.

Titus is earlier on the wagon when I had less content.

I left out the second part because I think it is implicit from the minus points comments.

Namely, no, I lean towards less likely to have a viable reason.

In post 816, Ircher wrote:

That would equally apply to mastina and Lukewarm for the record

(though I give mastina a D1-3 pass because she tends to be pretty obvious scum after a while, so it's better to wait.)

Ircher, how did you get from here to there?

In post 872, Ircher wrote: Lukewarm - Town
---
Titus - Scum
---
mastina - Town

In post 583, Vivax wrote:Lean/possible S: Mastina, Luke, Ircher, Klick

can you explain your read on luke for me?

Ignored sad goodnight

In post 618, jjh927 wrote:Oh yeah I should do this

VOTE: Malakittens

elaborate

35 - reads like pocketing attempt for a susceptible player

38 - Kinda agreed with it at the time for the whole self-consciousness in post

39 - Very fast ping on Ircher, no adaptation through vote

82 - Reminds me of myself in terminator when a townie wrongly concluded I was town. I snarled at em, more or less (it was Gamma)

85 - extension

Pinging Ircher that early could be read as hedging considering the slot seems to act in a rather headstrong way about the reason he's being wagoned so quickly

considering the slot seems to act in a rather headstrong way about the reason he's being wagoned so quickly

The slot = Luke
The reason = Mech TMI
he = Ircher

Lukewarm is a fun name though, should be more like between ice cold and searing hot, amirite?

Oh look, I am being talked about

In post 891, Vivax wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 35, Lukewarm wrote:I have not been having a lot of fun with Day 1 of large games. So I might try to coast this one out.

But I also might be bad at sticking to that lol.

But for now, and until I inevitably fail at holding back, Peta I declare you a double voter

VOTE: Klick

In post 38, mastina wrote:

In post 35, Lukewarm wrote:I have not been having a lot of fun with Day 1 of large games. So I might try to coast this one out.

But I also might be bad at sticking to that lol.

But for now, and until I inevitably fail at holding back, Peta I declare you a double voter

VOTE: Klick

Oh is this the mythical Lukewarm scumgame?

...'Cause it looks like a mythical Lukewarm scumgame.

In post 39, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 19, Ircher wrote:As long as we achieve 1,275 points out of 1,700 points each day, we will be fine. If mastina is setting hers to 0%, then we need to average 80 points per player to avoid the extra night kills.

Is this just you guessing that this game is a 17:4, or did I miss that info somewhere, or?

In post 82, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 55, Uncrowned wrote:

In post 37, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 17, mastina wrote:Hi y'all, I'm gonna be fully transparent with this:

I am setting my productivity to 0% today.

You may call that anti-town as much as you want; you can consider it suspicious as much as you want. Which is fair. The scum extra kill mechanism is ludicrously strong and I am fully aware of the risks.

But I have very strong reasons for doing so. I promise that by D4, you'll know why.
I won't go 0% more than once.

But for ~reasons~ I need to go 0% today. Let's just say I'll become a scumhunting GOD.

I kinda feel like you should have just done this, and not declared it tbh.

Are you basically claiming that you have a power worth the over all productivity taking a hit?

Conversely, people probably should not declare intent to go to 100% productivity, because that is paramount to claiming either a VT or a PR with a bad ability.

damn mega townie analysis from you on something that's already been done congrats you're at the top of my TRs

This feels like a horrible reason to town read me tbh.

Thanks. I hate it.

In post 85, Lukewarm wrote:Ah. my bad lol

Probably just because I do see people town read people for dumb things like that on the regular.

35 - reads like pocketing attempt for a susceptible player

For point of reference, Peta is the only person on this player list that I talk to outside of mafia games.. I also expected him to understand why I would consider coasting in his shadow day 1, since the last completed Large game that I was in was so unbearable Day 1 that both Peta and myself repped out before Day 1 ended (and then proceeded to talk to one another about how terrible the game was, and how all large games should have a day 1 post cap). It also helps that he is someone who I would actually trust his reads.

o be fair, those are all reasons why he would be the person I talked to out the gate as either alignment.

38 - Kinda agreed with it at the time for the whole self-consciousness in post

39 - Very fast ping on Ircher, no adaptation through vote

I did not vote Ircher there for two reasons.

Firstly, I had just said that I was giving my vote to Peta lol

Secondly, I wanted to see if he would talk about his thoughts there before I revealed that I was thinking it was TMI, and I held to that until the moment that Furtive quoted me, explained why I was asking, and voted him for it. Imo, talking to get more information from someone is better then just voting them and putting them on the defensive. (see 357)

That is also why, when Peta voted Ircher, and I followed him in 81, I tried hard to play off my Ircher vote as a joke vote.

82 - Reminds me of myself in terminator when a townie wrongly concluded I was town. I snarled at em, more or less (it was Gamma)

85 - extension

Pinging Ircher that early could be read as hedging considering

the slot

Luke seems to act in a rather headstrong way about the reason (mech TMI)

he's

Ircher being wagoned so quickly

I am not really sure what you mean by that last sentence tbh.

What do you mean by "act in a rather headstrong way"?

In post 893, Lukewarm wrote:Oh look, I am being talked about

In post 891, Vivax wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 35, Lukewarm wrote:I have not been having a lot of fun with Day 1 of large games. So I might try to coast this one out.

But I also might be bad at sticking to that lol.

But for now, and until I inevitably fail at holding back, Peta I declare you a double voter

VOTE: Klick

In post 38, mastina wrote:

In post 35, Lukewarm wrote:I have not been having a lot of fun with Day 1 of large games. So I might try to coast this one out.

But I also might be bad at sticking to that lol.

But for now, and until I inevitably fail at holding back, Peta I declare you a double voter

VOTE: Klick

Oh is this the mythical Lukewarm scumgame?

...'Cause it looks like a mythical Lukewarm scumgame.

In post 39, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 19, Ircher wrote:As long as we achieve 1,275 points out of 1,700 points each day, we will be fine. If mastina is setting hers to 0%, then we need to average 80 points per player to avoid the extra night kills.

Is this just you guessing that this game is a 17:4, or did I miss that info somewhere, or?

In post 82, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 55, Uncrowned wrote:

In post 37, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 17, mastina wrote:Hi y'all, I'm gonna be fully transparent with this:

I am setting my productivity to 0% today.

You may call that anti-town as much as you want; you can consider it suspicious as much as you want. Which is fair. The scum extra kill mechanism is ludicrously strong and I am fully aware of the risks.

But I have very strong reasons for doing so. I promise that by D4, you'll know why.
I won't go 0% more than once.

But for ~reasons~ I need to go 0% today. Let's just say I'll become a scumhunting GOD.

I kinda feel like you should have just done this, and not declared it tbh.

Are you basically claiming that you have a power worth the over all productivity taking a hit?

Conversely, people probably should not declare intent to go to 100% productivity, because that is paramount to claiming either a VT or a PR with a bad ability.

damn mega townie analysis from you on something that's already been done congrats you're at the top of my TRs

This feels like a horrible reason to town read me tbh.

Thanks. I hate it.

In post 85, Lukewarm wrote:Ah. my bad lol

Probably just because I do see people town read people for dumb things like that on the regular.

35 - reads like pocketing attempt for a susceptible player

For point of reference, Peta is the only person on this player list that I talk to outside of mafia games.. I also expected him to understand why I would consider coasting in his shadow day 1, since the last completed Large game that I was in was so unbearable Day 1 that both Peta and myself repped out before Day 1 ended (and then proceeded to talk to one another about how terrible the game was, and how all large games should have a day 1 post cap). It also helps that he is someone who I would actually trust his reads.

o be fair, those are all reasons why he would be the person I talked to out the gate as either alignment.

38 - Kinda agreed with it at the time for the whole self-consciousness in post

39 - Very fast ping on Ircher, no adaptation through vote

I did not vote Ircher there for two reasons.

Firstly, I had just said that I was giving my vote to Peta lol

Secondly, I wanted to see if he would talk about his thoughts there before I revealed that I was thinking it was TMI, and I held to that until the moment that Furtive quoted me, explained why I was asking, and voted him for it. Imo, talking to get more information from someone is better then just voting them and putting them on the defensive. (see 357)

That is also why, when Peta voted Ircher, and I followed him in 81, I tried hard to play off my Ircher vote as a joke vote.

82 - Reminds me of myself in terminator when a townie wrongly concluded I was town. I snarled at em, more or less (it was Gamma)

85 - extension

Pinging Ircher that early could be read as hedging considering

the slot

Luke seems to act in a rather headstrong way about the reason (mech TMI)

he's

Ircher being wagoned so quickly

I am not really sure what you mean by that last sentence tbh.

What do you mean by "act in a rather headstrong way"?

1) Okay? Guess I'll take it

2) What makes you think Peta wasn't following you?

3) Felt like you and fire in unison did the whole mechanics mumbojumbo on Ircher which I pointed out seemed a bit...Expansive on the productivity bit.

In post 894, Vivax wrote:2) What makes you think Peta wasn't following you?

Because his vote post looked exactly like his first RVS vote

So I did not have any reason to think that he was being more serious there. And I also did not want to ask, given my hanging question for Ircher.

3) Felt like you and fire in unison did the whole mechanics mumbojumbo on Ircher which I pointed out seemed a bit...Expansive on the productivity bit.

You are linking three unrelated conversations into one. On that page, I was:

1) Responding to Ircher, and asking him a question about the possible TMI.

2) Responding to Mastina, and explaing to the thread why claiming your productivity level is bad.

3) Responding to Roden's post 42, and explaining where he got the mechanic wrong.

Like, nothing I said in response to Mastina or Roden had any bearing on the stuff that happened with Ircher.

And you earlier said that this conversation seemed like role fishing, which feels silly given My point was "talking about productivity is bad, don't do it."

Secondly, I wanted to see if he would talk about his thoughts there before I revealed that I was thinking it was TMI, and I held to that until the moment that Furtive quoted me, explained why I was asking, and voted him for it. Imo, talking to get more information from someone is better then just voting them and putting them on the defensive. (see 357)

That is also why, when Peta voted Ircher, and I followed him in 81,

I tried hard to play off my Ircher vote as a joke vote.

:fry:

So I did not have any reason to think that he was being more serious there. And I also did not want to ask, given my hanging question for Ircher.

So you pointed out Ircher's mistake first? I think. But you only voted when Peta had to make you vote. Then it was a joke vote, but...

But you're still voting Ircher are you not? Occasionally popping in to question people who townread you.

In post 691, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 616, jjh927 wrote:Town:
Lukewarm
Klick

Is this sorted?

If yes, why am I at the top?

Alas, these posts are kinda draining

In post 880, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 859, RCEnigma wrote:

In post 853, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 851, RCEnigma wrote:Wit that said, Ircher is the type of scum that’s willing to take a bullet for a partner. So

I don’t think Titus’ argument that Irchers wagon sprung up to divert from someone else is merit-less

.

You think Ircher deliberately baited a wagon on himself? How?

No, I think Ircher meant to push attention somewhere else and it backfired. It wouldn’t make sense to just bait a wagon on himself.

This is not the argument that Titus made

No conclusions from this?
Something feels wrong somewhere?

In post 870, mastina wrote:

In post 842, PenguinPower wrote:

In post 835, Klick wrote:If you vote Ircher now maybe we could end it by 35

happy to given his recent contribution but mastina seemed like she's doing her catch up thing.

I'm good; vote away!

cool

so like here's you t-10

I'd say Luke displays some characteristics you'd associate with a martyr mindset, but according to some, feeling of guilt being scum-indicative is somewhat of an unbased rumour