Mafiascum.net

thewysecat wrote:If a scum does try some fake scumhunting it will lack righteousness. It will smell feeble. You will struggle to see how or why this vapour is vote-worthy relative to alternative issues present in the thread. Knowing this some scum players might try and fake passion for their vote to disguise the deficit in intellectual integrity underpinning it.

Then you are looking for a disproportionate level of zeal and/or confidence

. A scum in this mode is not necessarily harder to spot, but can be harder to lynch since they can impress weaker-minded townies. They can shamelessly segue from one terrible vote underpinned by garbage to another and not miss a beat. Scum also tend to gravitate to this mode the closer they are to the win.

Use the meta-data you have on your suspects to help. If you have played in a game with someone before you will have a sense if their voting is beneath their usual quality control threshold as a townie.

Or compare it to other times they have or have not voted within this game for remarkably similar behaviour.

If this game day they consider something vote-worthy but on a previous game day did not (or vice versa) then something could be up. Use their own established standard for voting as the benchmark for their current voting choices.

In post 927, mhsmith0 wrote:Another one...

Use the meta-data you have on your suspects to help. If you have played in a game with someone before you will have a sense if their voting is beneath their usual quality control threshold as a townie.

Or compare it to other times they have or have not voted within this game for remarkably similar behaviour.

If this game day they consider something vote-worthy but on a previous game day did not (or vice versa) then something could be up. Use their own established standard for voting as the benchmark for their current voting choices.

Iv's "ranger v m&m is t/w" (inside a large post putting his thoughts into thread) gets a 100% scum read from ranger. Btd6's much lazier "ranger v smith is t/w" doesn't seem to register as notable (unless I missed it). The reason for this is ____?

mhsmith0 wrote:Shamelessly quoting someone smarter than me...

thewysecat wrote:If a scum does try some fake scumhunting it will lack righteousness. It will smell feeble. You will struggle to see how or why this vapour is vote-worthy relative to alternative issues present in the thread. Knowing this some scum players might try and fake passion for their vote to disguise the deficit in intellectual integrity underpinning it.

Then you are looking for a disproportionate level of zeal and/or confidence

. A scum in this mode is not necessarily harder to spot, but can be harder to lynch since they can impress weaker-minded townies. They can shamelessly segue from one terrible vote underpinned by garbage to another and not miss a beat. Scum also tend to gravitate to this mode the closer they are to the win.

"Disproportionate confidence" - sound familiar? Confidence completely out of whack with the quality of the case and cited evidence?

Ps full quote at http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 10#p759434, is great reading

DrippingGoofball wrote:Hi guys
Who is scum

In post 928, DrippingGoofball wrote:Hi guys

Who is scum

In post 930, innocentvillager wrote:Dripping, any thoughts on what you've read so far?

In post 932, Ranger wrote:

DrippingGoofball wrote:Hi guys
Who is scum

Well to be frank.
If we knew that, we wouldn't exactly have needed you in the game in the first place.
I've tried. I can't get a solid grip. The closest I've got is mhsmith, and even that's just a guess.

In post 49, Music and Mail wrote:

In post 47, Kappy wrote:This makes no sense! If he flips scum, you're conftown? No, why would town know he was scum? It would be a coin flip, and no townie wants to take that chance. If he flips scum, the hammerer would be scum.
VOTE: innocentvillager until I understand this logic.

Is not making sense scummy?

-- Mail

In post 54, innocentvillager wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 52, BTD6_maker wrote:Now that you've said that, if scum do actually bus, they are taking a huge disadvantage now but are much less likely to face a lynch in the future because everyone thinks scum would never hammer. Hammering scum may still give towncred but you should always consider a lynch on them if necessary in the future.

Well, sure, but it would regardless be hella nice if scum hammered their scumbuddy right now. I'd rather get a scum down on D1 and have the remaining scum be slightly cleared versus having to take down two scum independently.

KickAssAndGiggle wrote:

In post 51, innocentvillager wrote:Wow I realized there were a lot of redundancies in that post, but I hope the meaning extra comes across and you guys can agree with me that Kappy is basically a clear (or provide a good reason why not). Hurray for some progress.

I read it as Kappy making up a reason to move his vote to you. It neither clears him nor condemns him.

I mean your logic would work, IF someone took your post seriously. As I don't and will never believe he, or anyone, did, or that you intended anyone to, it breaks your logic.

@Everyone

if you had to pick one person as scum from the last two pages who would it be?

One of innocentvillager/BTD6_maker. But not together

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this post. If you're referring to my 44, yeah it obviously wasn't "serious" per se, but it still had some actual strategic basis behind it, as I explained in 50. I think one can still disagree with the logic behind a post about strategy, even if the tone is obviously joking. So, please elaborate on how it somehow "breaks my logic". Regardless of the tone of my post 44, you would still agree with me if Kappy's confusion was genuine, since it is entirely town POV focused without even the slightest consideration for scum POV. But it seems like you're convinced it was fake, because my post was obviously a joke and had zero strategic meaning behind it, so therefore the confusion was fake.

But what I don't get is how if you read that as "Kappy making up a reason to vote me" that you can still say it doesn't clear nor condemn him. If you really think he's making up a bullshit reason, how doesn't that condemn him?

VOTE: KickAssAndGiggle

until I understand this discrepancy

BTD6, I haven't seen you give any reads yet or true thoughts on the game despite the fact that you have the second highest number of posts (granted, we are kind of barely out of RVS). I think we're at the point where we can talk about more than just occasionally butting in about hypothetical theory stuff. Who is scum, what do you think of the discussion on Kappy's post, etc.?