Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:46 pm**

In post 1, chkflip wrote:Korina has been silenced! They may not speak in-game for (expired on 2019-11-10 22:00:00), or until a winner has been chosen for the pre-d1 election. Whichever is sooner.

Is this your doing wooper?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:47 pm**

PB, Pisskop, Miss Lynch, time to give me all your chips cause y’all just lost to EP’s Royal Flush

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:48 pm**

:shrug:
passive ability, I assumed it was something to do with Kor's role

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:48 pm**

gobble I'm town and you're not accomplishing anything but making me more mislynchable

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:49 pm**

More like EP's toilet flush btw

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:49 pm**

In post 9346, gobbledygook wrote:Wooper literally just scumclaimed.

so explain like Im 5?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:49 pm**

If you’re town there’s some real screwy shit happening at night

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:50 pm**

IN A ROLE MADNESS GAME WITH 40 PEOPLE?
NOOO SHITTTTT

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:50 pm**

In post 9352, Wooper wrote::shrug:
passive ability, I assumed it was something to do with Kor's role

mmmm

but if youre telling the truth than it seems possible that a N0 did happen to some degree.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:51 pm**

In post 9355, pisskop wrote:
In post 9346, gobbledygook wrote:Wooper literally just scumclaimed.
so explain like Im 5?

Just have to wait for BBmolla to confirm if roleblocked. If he was then Wooper didn’t scumclaim. If he wasn’t, Wooper is gonna get fish fried.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:51 pm**

In post 9342, EspressoPatronum wrote:Nvm, I'll do a normal response. My comments are in
this colour
. I'd appreciate a response from you.

@ML

Spoiler:
In post 9258, Miss Lane wrote:
In post 9239, EspressoPatronum wrote:Just to bring everyone back on track + to help those who missed the case on Wooper/Zor:

We have a fairly reliable 50/50 in Zora or Wooper.
Amrun PI'd FormerFish's body to identify his killer (the aasimar woman) and 5 random names.
Sure.
Through PoE, there's a strong chance that it's Zora or Wooper. Even without Amrun's list, there's ample reasons for lynching either.
I very strongly disagree with this, and you presenting it as such makes Wooper seem like a much more repulsive lynch, and you more interesting. It should be noted that your name is on that list.
1.
I've noted several times today that my name was on the list. The purpose of this post was a TL;DR to get people back on track. You're welcome to check my ISO to confirm.

Wooper is the better target for 3 reasons.

1) Wooper has been hard lurking. Some have mentioned this is a scumtell for Wooper.
You don't seem to believe that, I certainly don't.
What makes you think I don't believe my case on Wooper?
Other players have presented counters to this that include the fact that this isn't really a scum tell for Wooper, and this evidence is statistically unreliable being cherrypicked from select games and ignoring others. 2.
off the top of my head, the people I trust the most in this game have said that Wooper's lurking = scummy behaviour for Wooper. Perhaps you are giving different weight to different players.

2) Wooper's response to being pushed was to essentially give up. Wooper offered no real defence + refused to claim or flavour claim.
No, it wasn't. He defended himself, and he flavor claimed. This is untrue. 3.
Please quote me the elements of Wooper's response that you consider a 'real defence.'
I take your point about the flavour claim piece btw. Gobble highlighted that shortly after my post. I'll backtrack slightly and say that despite Wooper giving us some flavour, it isn't enough to help us with the case.

3) InsideJob's hid behind Zora and subsequently inno'd Zora. While Rauth's lie detector identified this statement as false, it's unclear when InsideJob was culted + how that impacted Rauth's results.
Exactly. The inno on Zora is shady and unreliable. 4.
Correct, but Rauth has addressed this. Given NAR, Rauth thinks the claim would have come back as false even if Inside Job was town at the time. By no means is this exonerating evidence. It makes things unclear, which is exactly what I said.

In light of the muddied waters, it seems better to test the 50/50 on Wooper, who is more scummy.
If you're saying Wooper's play is more scummy, I'd really like you to point to where, unless you intend on pointing back to the first two points of this argument, in which case I would point out that both of those two statements are either intentional manipulations of data or ignorant of legitimate facts contrary to the assertions in them. 5.
Can you expand on this please? Imo, it's perfectly legitimate to say that 'in light of muddied waters (ie. Point #3), it is better to vote for Wooper because he is more scummy (point #1). I'm not sure why you're saying I'm manipulating the facts

Zora is far scummier than Wooper, IMO, 6.
*highlight*
for reasons that I've already outlined. The only legitimate reason to lynch Wooper over Zora is that Zora's "inno" is relatively plausible, but I think both player's actions are contrary to the way things look to be framed mechanically speaking.

Is it mechanically likely that Wooper is scum based solely off of Amrun's list? Yes. Are there any other good reasons? Not particularly, 7.
not true. Remember that BB's flavour claim failed on Wooper. That's why asked about ascetic
unless you for some reason think that lurking is a good scum tell w/ 28 players remaining in the game, and even then that's a terrible argument to lynch someone, especially when there are so many actually scummy players. 8.
I have consistently been anti-lurker in this game and all my past games. Like it or hate it, that's how I see the game. Lurking is scummy.
Your post here feels very disingenuous and manipulative, ignorant of events that prove contrary to it, 8.
do you actually believe this? I'd like to think I'm paying very close attention to the game.
and it very much feels like you think Wooper is scum and are manipulating facts to fit your evidence.

1. That's not the part I disagree with.

"ample reasons for lynching either"

is.
2. You were asked who said this, and you couldn't remember. This seems pretty dishonest to me.
3. No. I won't quote those points to you, because you've just recently been arguing with him. The fact that you would try to deny it right now while you're in the middle of a discussion with him is appalling.
4. It's what you said, but you presented it as evidence against Wooper. You wrapped a dried turd in christmas wrapping paper and called it a pet rock, and I think you and I both know that a majority of mafia players often don't look close enough to know the difference, especially in a fourty person mafia game. Maybe it wasn't intentionally presented that way, but it sure felt like it.
5. If points 1 and 2 were legitimate, your second statement on point 3 would be legitimate.
6. I don't understand the point of this.
7. I have no clue what you're talking about here.
8. Nice! I am also anti-lurker in almost every game except for a 40-player game of mafia. Funnily enough, I think town does better when there's a narrowed down list of players to pick from as scum. If we had a lot of scummy players at the beginning of the game the game would be a lot more difficult. I very much support players waiting until they're significantly more useful in a 40 player mafia game, and we can get into the numbers of why this is actually beneficial for town later, not now, though.
8. Yes. I think if you believe what you've said about the arguments for Wooper and Zoraster, you've missed some vital points.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:52 pm**

if BBM hadn't been blocked he would have been silenced, so... not sure about screwy shit... maybe ye olde 3d chesse super secret illumianti

mafia roleblocker

? :0 0: :0

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:52 pm**

In post 9357, Wooper wrote:IN A ROLE MADNESS GAME WITH 40 PEOPLE?
NOOO SHITTTTT

This doesn't feel like how worsty should feel

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:52 pm**

In post 9359, gobbledygook wrote:
In post 9355, pisskop wrote:
In post 9346, gobbledygook wrote:Wooper literally just scumclaimed.
so explain like Im 5?
Just have to wait for BBmolla to confirm if roleblocked. If he was then Wooper didn’t scumclaim. If he wasn’t, Wooper is gonna get fish fried.

is there a reason BBM would know if he was roleblocked? he just asked if I was ascetic

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:53 pm**

He’s a flavor cop so presumably if he doesn’t get a flavor result... he knows he’s blocked... like any investigative...

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:54 pm**

In post 9362, chennisden wrote:
In post 9357, Wooper wrote:IN A ROLE MADNESS GAME WITH 40 PEOPLE?
NOOO SHITTTTT
This doesn't feel like how worsty should feel

my dude get off your high horse you don't know me from a bar of soap

I've just had these clowns flaming me for not flavourgaming and not wanting to sift thru 400 pages of absolute drivel

this is exactly how worstie feels

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:54 pm**

In post 9364, gobbledygook wrote:He’s a flavor cop so presumably if he doesn’t get a flavor result... he knows he’s blocked... like any investigative...

....which is what you receive it you target an ascetic.....?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:54 pm**

In post 5, Wooper wrote:
In post 1, chkflip wrote:coldheartedking was pelted to death with arrows! They were Jane Doe: Ascension-Aligned Cult Recruit
anyone have a read on who chk would n0?

In post 74, Wooper wrote:
In post 5, Wooper wrote:
In post 1, chkflip wrote:coldheartedking was pelted to death with arrows! They were Jane Doe: Ascension-Aligned Cult Recruit
anyone have a read on who chk would n0?
): ):

Why didnt you ever mention korina's silence?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:55 pm**

I am sorry for the flame. It was not very gentleman Turkey-like.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:55 pm**

In post 9351, gobbledygook wrote:PB, Pisskop, Miss Lynch, time to give me all your chips cause y’all just lost to EP’s Royal Flush

So, first things first:

If a player rolls a random number generator and throws out a list of names that are scum and just happens to get them all right, no one loses to that player's impressive play. If another player makes a remarkably good argument that a certain target is scum, and that target later flips town and was just playing very very poorly, the player does not lose to other people with better play.

The play supports itself. If it is not good in a void, it is not good. Calling someone scum and then being right about it for the wrong reasons isn't laudable, it's just lucky.

Second:

How did Wooper claim scum?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:55 pm**

In post 9366, Wooper wrote:
In post 9364, gobbledygook wrote:He’s a flavor cop so presumably if he doesn’t get a flavor result... he knows he’s blocked... like any investigative...
....which is what you receive it you target an ascetic.....?

Yes? What’s your point?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:56 pm**

The same reason I softed cop and never alluded to my role in the slightest: because crumbing anything to do with a passive reactive role doesn't strike me as wise

gobbledygook wrote:
In post 9366, Wooper wrote:
In post 9364, gobbledygook wrote:He’s a flavor cop so presumably if he doesn’t get a flavor result... he knows he’s blocked... like any investigative...
....which is what you receive it you target an ascetic.....?
Yes? What’s your point?

He's already confirmed he got no result by asking me if I'm ascetic :{

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:57 pm**

Hmmmm. Good point.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:57 pm**

In post 9362, chennisden wrote:
In post 9357, Wooper wrote:IN A ROLE MADNESS GAME WITH 40 PEOPLE?
NOOO SHITTTTT
This doesn't feel like how worsty should feel

I think you don't understand how anyone on this page feels after arguing for the past hour.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:59 pm**

It's actually been an hour. My fucking god.

Mafiascum.net

Mainstream Mafia II: D&D Edition [FIN]