Mafiascum.net

In post 971, catboi wrote:

In post 969, Lukewarm wrote:@Meuh, on the other hand, this is a post from catboi that stood out to me.

In post 629, catboi wrote:If T3 or marci express a willingness to vote me I'll claim.

Like it is hard to see this, and not think it is a soft pr claim.

It further irks me because at the time that he made this post, he only had 2 votes on him. So he was no where near being voted off, so it was not a "if someone is about to hammer me, I will claim my role as VT"

I thought at the time there were multiple people scumreading me and that it was possible I'd end up as the default wagon since there wasn't someone else people were really pushing.

I'm stubborn about claiming though, you can see it in the other game, where I got run up on day 1:

In post 263, catboi wrote:

Yeah, I absolutely am not claiming unless there's intent to hammer, that'd be a bad idea. I'll vote Lone if necessary for self-preservation.

I don't think I really softclaim as either alignment, but

if I was going to hint at a PR as mafia I probably would just claim it rather than claiming VT.

In that game you said "I absolutely am not claiming unless there's intent to hammer" but then in this game, you said "If T3 or marci express a willingness to vote me I'll claim." while only having 2 votes on you. And that seems like two different approaches to take if you were VT in both games


You made what could be taken as a soft claim in post 629, and then not long after Not_Mafia claimed doc in post 649. So I could see scum!you soft claiming, but changing direction once Not_Mafia claimed their role.

Reading through a duel iso between you and Not_Mafia makes it look like he thought the same thing. Since he knew he was the jailkeeper, and Marci had not been CC'ed, then you hinting at being a PR would have been a major red flag from his PoV.

At first blush I took it as a soft claim. I think that multiple other players did too. If I am remembering correctly, both T3 and Marci commented on it, and like I showed in the spoilers, not_mafia voted not long after it.

@Meuh, see? I could see either as scum. And I am really looking for the one thing to tip the decision one way or the other.

aaaAAAAAH so much posting when I'm sleeping I'm overwhelmed
Will try to catch up throughout today, should be able to start contributing this afternoon or this evening

In post 975, Lukewarm wrote:I am not sure how that out-of-thread quote is supposed to clear you here?
In that game you said "I absolutely am not claiming unless there's intent to hammer" but then in this game, you said "If T3 or marci express a willingness to vote me I'll claim." while only having 2 votes on you. And that seems like two different approaches to take if you were VT in both games

And I am not sure that it would necessarially make sense for scum!you to follow thorugh with the claim, given the gamestate.
You made what could be taken as a soft claim in post 629, and then not long after Not_Mafia claimed doc in post 649. So I could see scum!you soft claiming, but changing direction once Not_Mafia claimed their role.

Reading through a duel iso between you and Not_Mafia makes it look like he thought the same thing. Since he knew he was the jailkeeper, and Marci had not been CC'ed, then you hinting at being a PR would have been a major red flag from his PoV.
Spoiler:

In post 975, Lukewarm wrote:At first blush I took it as a soft claim. I thin k that multiple other players did t oo. If I am remembering correctly, both T3 and Marci commented on it, and like I showed in the spoilers, not_mafia voted not long after it.

628, Not_Mafia wrote:Did catboi just slip we're in Tracker/Doc/RolecopIn post 629, catboi wrote:If T3 or marci express a willingness to vote me I'll claim.I think Lukewarm is playing like obvscum, beyond that I don't have strong reads to leaveIn post 630, catboi wrote:In post 628, Not_Mafia wrote:Did catboi just slip we're in Tracker/Doc/RolecopI made a guess.In post 631, Not_Mafia wrote:Based on what?In post 632, catboi wrote:In post 631, Not_Mafia wrote:Based on what?based on T3 trying to draw out jailkeeper claims and me straight-up forgetting that jailkeeper+tracker could be a thingIn post 634, Not_Mafia wrote:T3 vote catboiAt first blush I took it as a soft claim. I think that multiple other players did too. If I am remembering correctly, both T3 and Marci commented on it, and like I showed in the spoilers, not_mafia voted not long after it.

1. It's actually not clearing whatsoever! Because I can't demonstrate that I act that way as scum! But I brought it up because I actually thought it was similar to this game. If you don't see it, thats ok, but for me the experience similar, but my perception is obviously biased.

The main difference is the circumstances around the wagon on me - in that game, it was day 1 and a lot of the players were weirdly tunnely, I wanted to avoid claiming unless forced to. I wasn't sure that there would be another player who would vote me in that game, for one thing, and for another, I know that Day 1 VT claims very often voted out. (I eventually claimed out of frustration anyway). But In almost any game as town I try be as ambiguous about my role as possible because making your role obvious for the mafia is bad.

In this game, at the time, people were scattered and divided, and and I thought it was possible the wagon on me would stick simply because there wasn't an option elsewhere. So I made that post. It wasn't intended to give the impression I was a PR this time, but my attitude is largely the same - I also didn't want to give away the fact that I was VT too early, because there's no pro-town benefit to that.

Not_Mafia had been tunneling me since day 1 because I incorrectly scumread him, his turn to voting me after that post does not mean he felt I was softclaiming.

I don't mean to seem disrespectful but the crux of your case for me possibly being scum is you a post I made be a softclaim, and that's incredibly stupid. It's attributing malign motive to a post anyone could have made that is ultimately incredibly insignificant in the oveerall scope of the game. This is an incredibly terrible way to scumhunt. If you were interrogating me over my bad read of VFP, I'd get it. But this is an incredibly frustrating accusation to defend against because it's based entirely on something you've made up in your head about a single post.

Your argument amounts to: I think catboi softclaimed in a post to get a wagon off him, so he could be scum. That's absolutely terrible reasoning. What about my overall play? What about VFP pushing me harder than anyone else after the jailkeeper claim? To potentially base your evaluation of me is...just ludicrous.

In post 978, catboi wrote:I don't mean to seem disrespectful but the crux of your case for me possibly being scum is you imagining a post I made could be a softclaim, and that's incredibly stupid.

When did I ever say that was the only, or even primary, reason I was scum reading you? Like I had a scum read on you as early as my catch-up post. This was just a new thing I spotted.

I realize I have not made a full case on you on Day 4, but I have limited time to put into this game each day, and most of that time has been been focused on the new possibility - Marci.

I have plenty of posts prior to the start of day about reasons why I scum read you (572, 583, 684, 681, 827)

When that's the thing you're bringing up to discuss in ELO, and not mentioning the other things, I assume it's the main part of your read. It's not a good point. Do you think I should be back reading you to find other reasons you suspect me when you're not talking about them today?

Also I can't possibly know whether you still hold your old reasons for scumreading me or whether they've evolved with the game

re: 684 - even if I didn't articulate a reason, I had said on day 1 I felt like pear was genuinely trying to solve the game and that didn't change on day 2. I couldn't actually articulate iit in a strong way because the read was mostly based on ~feelings~ rather than anything concrete


and my god, do you possibly think I respond to a partner that way? that I "disingenuously" defend the town my teammate is pushing on, that we tried to nightkill? Look at the context!

In post 980, catboi wrote:When that's the thing you're bringing up to discuss in ELO, and not mentioning the other things, I assume it's the main part of your read. It's not a good point. Do you think I should be back reading you to find other reasons you suspect me when you're not talking about them today?

I see now. It appears the issue is that I am not tailoring my posts in a way for you to start defending yourself, and you think that I should be/you want to start

Quite simply, I'm not to that point yet. Most of my time I have been able to dedicate to the game so far in Day 4 has been spent on investigating the accusation against March. My game plan was to investigate that, let the thread fill up with you+marci presenting your cases against each other, hopefully getting some input from Meuh, and then making a full case on my day off (tomorrow) when I had more time to properly sit down and make it.

And I don't have any intention to restructure my entire schedule to make a case post just to suit the timeline you have for how I should be playing the game.

In post 983, Lukewarm wrote:I see now. It appears the issue is that I am not tailoring my posts in a way for you to start defending yourself, and you think that I should be/you want to start

I am not saying that. I am simply responding to the information you have put out. I would appreciate it if you would fully articulate these things at some point, rather than remaining closed off, but I'm not asking you to "tailor" your posts for me. I just did not understand what you were doing and assumed the things you were talking about were the main part of what you were thinking about the game. Please stop taking personal offense at this. I am going to critique your reasoning. That's what happens in these games. Reacting emotionally to disagreement is only going to hurt your decision-making.

lol. You thought that was an emotional reaction? That was like the most detached response I think I could make.

It appeared like you expected me to be to the point of making my case against you. I wasn't to that point. I explained that I was not to that point, and gave you an estimate of when I would be.



From my PoV the conversation went like this

Luke 969: I pointed out a weird thing I noticed when looking back
catboi 978: You responded to that, basically saying I made a really bad case against you.
luke 979: I told you that that was not my case against you. That was just a new piece I was trying to fit into the puzzle, and I tried to assure you I had more things to go off of given the fact that I have suspected you for a while (still not trying to make a full case)
catboi 980 - 982: you start responding to that by trying to defend against my old posts
luke 983: I realized that you were reading/responding to my posts as if they were my cases against you. - Which made me think you expected me to already be doing that. So I made it clear that I was not there yet, I explained where my time was actually being spent, and let you know when to expect my case post.

It does feel like you are constantly reacting to my posts in ways that I am not intending for them to be taken... (took 969 as my case against you. took 979 as my case against you. took 983 as an emotional response. )
Not sure how to fix that.

I think I'll keep my thoughts to myself until I am actually ready to make a case tomorrow.

In post 985, Lukewarm wrote:lol. You thought that was an emotional reaction? That was like the most detached response I think I could make.

In post 983, Lukewarm wrote:And I don't have any intention to restructure my entire schedule to make a case post just to suit the timeline you have for how I should be playing the game.

Yes, it appeared you were addressing me in a condescending manner which seemed to come from being fed up with what I'm saying. Immediately accusing me of making unreasonable demands of you felt like a severe overreaction that comes from someone whose judgment is clouded by irrationality and bristles at the slightest bit of friction.

In post 985, Lukewarm wrote:It does feel like you are constantly reacting to my posts in ways that I am not intending for them to be taken

I mean, exact same

In post 958, catboi wrote:

In post 950, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 949, Meuh wrote:

In post 948, catboi wrote:No rush. Take your time.

I must admit while it's nice that my case is being considered the fact that the response from both meuh and lukewarm is essentially "yeah that makes sense" is a little unnerving >_>

My mentality coming into this day was that you were 95% scum, so my energy is shifted towards going over the alternate possibilities and their validity, and while ofc confbias is a thing, everything is lined up in a way where Marci could very well be fakeclaiming. I haven't really made my mind up on if I do think it is her, and there's no rush really, I was just making sure the theory stood strong enough to warrant being considered, and it does

Basically, same.

I came into today thinking we were going to have two clear players + me + catboi, and that meant it was 100% catboi from my pov. But his case on Marci makes enough sense that I am no longer at 100%. Suddenly I have a new problem to solve

Did town!catboi spend night 3 scouring for an alternative scum because he townread me (see post 869) and spotted this fakeclaim from marci
OR
Did scum!catboi spend night 3 scouring for the best person to shift suspicion to after he thought he would lose the 1v1 with me (see post 878) and he came up with a plan to blame marci?

I think if I were scum looking to 1v1 you, I could make arguments there, and it's easier to to fight that way and "win" an argument because scum and town will act similarly in this situation - both know their elimination will lose the game and that voting the other person wins it.

I also think I *can* make a very strong argument for me being town but don't want to just yet, because I do want to get a sense of if people are legitimately solving or not.

In post 959, catboi wrote:

In post 955, Lukewarm wrote:Meuh, which way are you leaning atm? Personally, I am struggling

Like, I read through Marci's iso, and I start leaning towards it being her, and then I read through catboi's iso and I start leaning towards it being him.

Can you explain your thinking? Vague statements like this are unhelpful.

Inb4 meaningless back and forth

Huh why was that first post quoted? I didn’t quote it??? Wtf Mafiascum

I disagree with this honestly, town was leaning towards you being scummier than Lukewarm, so avoiding that is something you could’ve done and even if the Marci idea were to not work, you can always fall back on a case against Lukewarm, I really don’t have a problem imagining Scum!Catboi pushing Marci here
(I’m on my phone so sprry if any of my formatting is bad or if I leave any spelling mistakes, this is kinda hard to navigate and I don’t feel like spending a bunch of time fixing my posts)

Yknow what this is painful to use I’ll be back later once I have a better device for this I hate it

In post 990, Meuh wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 958, catboi wrote:

In post 950, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 949, Meuh wrote:

In post 948, catboi wrote:No rush. Take your time.

I must admit while it's nice that my case is being considered the fact that the response from both meuh and lukewarm is essentially "yeah that makes sense" is a little unnerving >_>

My mentality coming into this day was that you were 95% scum, so my energy is shifted towards going over the alternate possibilities and their validity, and while ofc confbias is a thing, everything is lined up in a way where Marci could very well be fakeclaiming. I haven't really made my mind up on if I do think it is her, and there's no rush really, I was just making sure the theory stood strong enough to warrant being considered, and it does

Basically, same.

I came into today thinking we were going to have two clear players + me + catboi, and that meant it was 100% catboi from my pov. But his case on Marci makes enough sense that I am no longer at 100%. Suddenly I have a new problem to solve

Did town!catboi spend night 3 scouring for an alternative scum because he townread me (see post 869) and spotted this fakeclaim from marci
OR
Did scum!catboi spend night 3 scouring for the best person to shift suspicion to after he thought he would lose the 1v1 with me (see post 878) and he came up with a plan to blame marci?

I think if I were scum looking to 1v1 you, I could make arguments there, and it's easier to to fight that way and "win" an argument because scum and town will act similarly in this situation - both know their elimination will lose the game and that voting the other person wins it.

I also think I *can* make a very strong argument for me being town but don't want to just yet, because I do want to get a sense of if people are legitimately solving or not.

I disagree with this honestly, town was leaning towards you being scummier than Lukewarm, so avoiding that is something you could’ve done and even if the Marci idea were to not work, you can always fall back on a case against Lukewarm, I really don’t have a problem imagining Scum!Catboi pushing Marci here
(I’m on my phone so sprry if any of my formatting is bad or if I leave any spelling mistakes, this is kinda hard to navigate and I don’t feel like spending a bunch of time fixing my posts)

Well, I don't think I , but I definitely . Ultimately this is all just speculationand I think there's always a scenario where anyone could have done something as scum, but it's your job to decide who is more likely to be scum

In post 992, catboi wrote:

In post 990, Meuh wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 958, catboi wrote:

In post 950, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 949, Meuh wrote:

In post 948, catboi wrote:No rush. Take your time.

I must admit while it's nice that my case is being considered the fact that the response from both meuh and lukewarm is essentially "yeah that makes sense" is a little unnerving >_>

My mentality coming into this day was that you were 95% scum, so my energy is shifted towards going over the alternate possibilities and their validity, and while ofc confbias is a thing, everything is lined up in a way where Marci could very well be fakeclaiming. I haven't really made my mind up on if I do think it is her, and there's no rush really, I was just making sure the theory stood strong enough to warrant being considered, and it does

Basically, same.

I came into today thinking we were going to have two clear players + me + catboi, and that meant it was 100% catboi from my pov. But his case on Marci makes enough sense that I am no longer at 100%. Suddenly I have a new problem to solve

Did town!catboi spend night 3 scouring for an alternative scum because he townread me (see post 869) and spotted this fakeclaim from marci
OR
Did scum!catboi spend night 3 scouring for the best person to shift suspicion to after he thought he would lose the 1v1 with me (see post 878) and he came up with a plan to blame marci?

I think if I were scum looking to 1v1 you, I could make arguments there, and it's easier to to fight that way and "win" an argument because scum and town will act similarly in this situation - both know their elimination will lose the game and that voting the other person wins it.

I also think I *can* make a very strong argument for me being town but don't want to just yet, because I do want to get a sense of if people are legitimately solving or not.

I disagree with this honestly, town was leaning towards you being scummier than Lukewarm, so avoiding that is something you could’ve done and even if the Marci idea were to not work, you can always fall back on a case against Lukewarm, I really don’t have a problem imagining Scum!Catboi pushing Marci here
(I’m on my phone so sprry if any of my formatting is bad or if I leave any spelling mistakes, this is kinda hard to navigate and I don’t feel like spending a bunch of time fixing my posts)

Well, I don't think I

would

, but I definitely

could

. Ultimately this is all just speculationand I think there's always a scenario where anyone could have done something as scum, but it's your job to decide who is more likely to be scum

What makes this decision hard is that both options are the most logical decision for either one of you to make as scum.

Marci fake claiming tracker would have been the best play for scum!marci to make
AND
You looking for the best target to shift blame to Night 3, and settling on this marci push would have been the best play for scum!you to make.

Are you trying to say that if you were scum, and you spotted an accusation against Marci that lined up damn near perfectly, you would not have jump on this accusation?
Because I find that hard to believe.

In post 993, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 992, catboi wrote:

In post 990, Meuh wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 958, catboi wrote:

In post 950, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 949, Meuh wrote:

In post 948, catboi wrote:No rush. Take your time.

I must admit while it's nice that my case is being considered the fact that the response from both meuh and lukewarm is essentially "yeah that makes sense" is a little unnerving >_>

My mentality coming into this day was that you were 95% scum, so my energy is shifted towards going over the alternate possibilities and their validity, and while ofc confbias is a thing, everything is lined up in a way where Marci could very well be fakeclaiming. I haven't really made my mind up on if I do think it is her, and there's no rush really, I was just making sure the theory stood strong enough to warrant being considered, and it does

Basically, same.

I came into today thinking we were going to have two clear players + me + catboi, and that meant it was 100% catboi from my pov. But his case on Marci makes enough sense that I am no longer at 100%. Suddenly I have a new problem to solve

Did town!catboi spend night 3 scouring for an alternative scum because he townread me (see post 869) and spotted this fakeclaim from marci
OR
Did scum!catboi spend night 3 scouring for the best person to shift suspicion to after he thought he would lose the 1v1 with me (see post 878) and he came up with a plan to blame marci?

I think if I were scum looking to 1v1 you, I could make arguments there, and it's easier to to fight that way and "win" an argument because scum and town will act similarly in this situation - both know their elimination will lose the game and that voting the other person wins it.

I also think I *can* make a very strong argument for me being town but don't want to just yet, because I do want to get a sense of if people are legitimately solving or not.

I disagree with this honestly, town was leaning towards you being scummier than Lukewarm, so avoiding that is something you could’ve done and even if the Marci idea were to not work, you can always fall back on a case against Lukewarm, I really don’t have a problem imagining Scum!Catboi pushing Marci here
(I’m on my phone so sprry if any of my formatting is bad or if I leave any spelling mistakes, this is kinda hard to navigate and I don’t feel like spending a bunch of time fixing my posts)

Well, I don't think I

would

, but I definitely

could

. Ultimately this is all just speculationand I think there's always a scenario where anyone could have done something as scum, but it's your job to decide who is more likely to be scum

What makes this decision hard is that both options are the most logical decision for either one of you to make as scum.

Marci fake claiming tracker would have been the best play for scum!marci to make
AND
You looking for the best target to shift blame to Night 3, and settling on this marci push would have been the best play for scum!you to make.

Are you trying to say that if you were scum, and you spotted an accusation against Marci that lined up damn near perfectly, you would not have jump on this accusation?
Because I find that hard to believe.

Hum, I probably would jump on it I'm not sure I would notice that angle in the first place, but can't really deny that as scum I would make the case I feel has the highest chance for success. I think people are reluctant to disbelieve PR claims in newbie games, though. The thing is, when you're manufacturing reads, you don't have to genuinely solve so you aren't analyzing and considering every angle, I'd be more likely to look at what's right in front of me and say "what's the best case I can make for lukewarm-scum", and not read anyone else. (but, again, self-meta doesn't mean a whole lot)

In post 994, catboi wrote:(but, again, self-meta doesn't mean a whole lot)

You can say that again. As of post 968, I was leaning pretty strongly towards Marci being the vote today, and really was just waiting to hear Meuh's response to post 965 before I settled in to that being the case I was going to build. But every time you have tried to defend yourself, I have been left less sure its her

Speaking of which, @Meuh can you make sure to respond to Post 965 - 968

In post 995, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 994, catboi wrote:(but, again, self-meta doesn't mean a whole lot)

You can say that again. As of post 968, I was leaning pretty strongly towards Marci being the vote today, and really was just waiting to hear Meuh's response to post 965 before I settled in to that being the case I was going to build. But every time you have tried to defend yourself, I have been left less sure its her

Speaking of which, @Meuh can you make sure to respond to Post 965 - 968

Well, I thik if muy posting has been offputting you should remember what gets said today isn't the most important thing - the most revealing evidence is on all the days before this. I think getting dragged down because someone's posting in ELO sounds "off" to you is a mistake. Like how you sounding like you were fencesitting earlier pinged me, but I didn't flip my entire read on it. I just was upfront with what made me uneasy and asked you to clarify.

In post 995, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 994, catboi wrote:(but, again, self-meta doesn't mean a whole lot)

You can say that again. As of post 968, I was leaning pretty strongly towards Marci being the vote today, and really was just waiting to hear Meuh's response to post 965 before I settled in to that being the case I was going to build. But every time you have tried to defend yourself, I have been left less sure its her

Speaking of which, @Meuh can you make sure to respond to Post 965 - 968

Will do

In post 996, catboi wrote:

In post 995, Lukewarm wrote:

In post 994, catboi wrote:(but, again, self-meta doesn't mean a whole lot)

You can say that again. As of post 968, I was leaning pretty strongly towards Marci being the vote today, and really was just waiting to hear Meuh's response to post 965 before I settled in to that being the case I was going to build. But every time you have tried to defend yourself, I have been left less sure its her

Speaking of which, @Meuh can you make sure to respond to Post 965 - 968

Well, I thik if muy posting has been offputting you should remember what gets said today isn't the most important thing - the most revealing evidence is on all the days before this. I think getting dragged down because someone's posting in ELO sounds "off" to you is a mistake. Like how you sounding like you were fencesitting earlier pinged me, but I didn't flip my entire read on it. I just was upfront with what made me uneasy and asked you to clarify.

It is not that I am "getting dragged down because someone's posting in ELO sounds "off." It is much more like you keep reminding me why I was scum reading you earlier in the game. Like I had you near the top of my scum read list during my catchup on Day 1... and I had you as my top scum read Day 2... And even at the start of this day, you were my scum read. How dumb would I feel post game if I literally scum read you the entire game, and still lost to scum!catboi because he managed to side track me last min.

I think at this point I am going to have to build full cases against both of you tomorrow, because I have been pulled back to uncertainty

In post 998, Lukewarm wrote:It is not that I am "getting dragged down because someone's posting in ELO sounds "off." It is much more like you keep reminding me why I was scum reading you earlier in the game. Like I had you near the top of my scum read list during my catchup on Day 1... and I had you as my top scum read Day 2... And even at the start of this day, you were my scum read. How dumb would I feel post game if I literally scum read you the entire game, and still lost to scum!catboi because he managed to side track me last min.

I think at this point I am going to have to build full cases against both of you tomorrow, because I have been pulled back to uncertainty

I dunno. That's always a fear, I guess. I've lost because of second-guessing myself and it sucks. But it also sucks to lose because you were tunneling and ignored the things that changed your mind. Like, if you were scumreading me all game, it's likely that something about the way I write just registers as scummy to you. But if that's the case you need to step back and re-evaluate based on new evidence, rather than just pressing on the same things all game. The me/VFP relationship doesn't make sense as a scum pair, if you really look at it - I weakly defend him and only vote him late, while he's pushing me as scum when that would be an autoloss if I were eliminated as roleblocker? Doesn't make sense. There's no strategy in it.