Mafiascum.net

In post 773, Egg wrote:

TSO wrote: Well, I don't really have experience of reading Cho, seeing as I was scum, but the difference here is Cho is being strangely irrational, as opposed to someone nailing her on something trivial like "Day 1 Unlynchables." Also, she didn't vote for people for no reason there.

I feel like being irrational was a big part of the case against her in that game. And the unlynchable thing was a small part of a much larger case. It seems to me like you are downplaying how easy it was for you as scum to make a case against Cho and that makes me a little uncomfortable about your push on her here.

It's possible, I'll admit. I think the lurking she's doing here reminds me of her in AAA as well. Also, I was pretty relentless that game, which is probably more indicative of my scum game than my town game.

Maybe I am downplaying it. It's not a conscious thing, but it is possible.

You might notice something important here, though: So, when you say my push makes you uncomfortable, I say I don't actually see what could make you uncomfortable.

Just because she was irrational doesn't give her an automatic free pass - and the fact remains she voted me when I was the top wagon and wasn't actually able to provide reasoning. Her backdown also feels kinda town - I feel she'd make more out of the transition of her read on me. Here, it was just a cold Scum --> Town, which I'd usually scumread, but I could very easily see it coming from town-Cho.

Okay thor, I understand now. You captured the issue I had with your posting in 762. Just remember that if you say something like 'I want to lynch you now', it makes people think you scumread said person.

Just this one quote doesn't make sense. Haven't we both agreed that iza did not in fact produce scummy content (which I thought you were arguing) or town content (which you think I'm arguing, but I'm not!), but that the scripten scumread was null behaviour? Then how does the next quote in which you call him scummy for it make sense?

In post 756, Thor665 wrote:You have not really addressed why you had issue with me questioning him or finding his answers scummy.

TSO, you were voting her for like half the game.

And no, it doesn't give her a free pass. But it means being irrational isn't a scum tell for Cho.

In post 777, Egg wrote:TSO, you were voting her for like half the game.

And no, it doesn't give her a free pass. But it means being irrational isn't a scum tell for Cho.

I'm fairly sure we had a discussion about me vote-parking early-game - suffice to say, it's just something I do.

Being irrational =/= voting for someone without giving reasoning, and then not being able to give any. That is not irrational behaviour.

But when I first brought it up, you said the difference between townCho there and Cho here was that she was irrational. Now that irrational isn't a scum tell, you weren't pushing her and being irrational wasn't the case against her?

I'm fairly sure I called her irrational here and not there:

In post 493, T S O wrote:

In post 486, Egg wrote:TSO, if I remember correctly, you and I both hard pushed a Day 1 lynch on Cho. Cho flipped town. Can you tell me why Cho is scum here and not just Cho being Cho?

Well, I don't really have experience of reading Cho, seeing as I was scum, but the difference here is Cho is being strangely irrational, as opposed to someone nailing her on something trivial like "Day 1 Unlynchables."

Also, she didn't vote for people for no reason there.

She's not a strong scumread, though - I could see her being Town either. Aneninen's more likely scum. I'm wondering why exactly Thor's pushing Pere over her.

The bolded is also pretty important, though.

I do not really feel strongly in any way about peregrine's reads list on page 21. The gm scumread is okay, I guess.

In post 521, Muffin wrote:
Then, when called on your shitty vote by me you:

• tried to paint my attack on your shitty vote as a chainsaw defense of scripten
  
  
• posted a big giant reads list stretching something scripten wrote to fit your pre-existing vote

I'm not sure how any of those things come from a town frame of mind.

This post is shitty and makes me not want to vote peregrine at all.

In post 538, goodmorning wrote:

In post 519, T S O wrote:

In post 516, T S O wrote:What's your read on Aneninen?

Light Townread.

Why?


I'm exhausted and will make a better vote at the end of catchups, tomorrow probably.
UNVOTE:

In post 722, Thor665 wrote:

In post 715, goodmorning wrote:ey

ey tier

you wanna stop kissing Smurf for five seconds and read thor again?

After he does I look forward to hearing what he should have seen.

Hm.

A neighborhood just got claimed, how are you feeling about that?

Two, actually. Vaguely annoyed.

In post 742, Thor665 wrote:I am holding off on revealing until Goodmorning manages to get back to me with explanations on the fear of revealing and why it is pro-scum in some way.

I've already spoken as much as I want to speak on the subject.
It's a little late now, anyway.

In post 773, Egg wrote:Goodmorning, why would you say you are reaction testing before you get the reaction? Isn't that kind of counterproductive?

Given that I haven't said who I'm reaction testing or how, not at all.

This game is fun.

P-Edit: I don't remember off the top of my head but I think it was probably meta-based.

In post 765, Aneninen wrote:Started to cacth-up.

Axle. Why do you think there is a "4th party"?

Errm I don´t (and didn´t say that I did) as I have never heard of such a thing. Well actually I have heard it mentioned on other sites, but the other people who mentioned it were also talking about made up fanciful stuff.
see Axle 700: ¨My conclusion either you are 4th party, or I misunderstand something. I know which is more likely.¨

Can someone link me to the neighbourhood claims? Or even better, make a neat list?

Neighbourhood TSO: TSO-Scripten-NC-dave.
Neighbourhood Cho: Cho, gm?

Wasn't thor in a neighbourhood different from those?

Thor, please confirm if you're part of a neighbourhood or not.

Possibly. He said something about mentioning it, but I didn't actually ISO him to find out.

In post 65, Thor665 wrote:

In post 61, goodmorning wrote:Yes, I'm in a Neighbourhood with 3 others and Cho. No, I don't think we can say there's absolutely Scum in the Neighbourhood, though it is likely.

Maybe.
It's multi-neighborhood though.
Kind of works with the Masquerade theme I suppose.

This?

Yeah. But that's not enough to certainly know he's in a neighbourhood, now is it?

Well, no, but I never claimed he was.

You can add me to Cho and Goodmorning.

You'll see where this is going after thor answers the question.

I'm in Cho's neighborhood.

Regarding the mention of 4th party. If there were two scum teams (mafia and werewolf or 2 mafia) and a SK, then some people might call that 4 parties -- Town, Mafia, Wolf/Mafia2, SK.
I do not think mentioning it is indicative of alignment because the normal setup rules explicitly mention these 4 possible alignments.

In post 782, goodmorning wrote:

P-Edit: I don't remember off the top of my head but I think it was probably meta-based.

What was the p-edit replying to?

In post 796, davesaz wrote:

In post 782, goodmorning wrote:

P-Edit: I don't remember off the top of my head but I think it was probably meta-based.

What was the p-edit replying to?

Tier's post right before it.

Sorry stupid question probably but are neighbourhoods beneficial to either town or scum in any way?

In post 765, Aneninen wrote:Thor, are you scumreading TierShift?

I do not recall calling him scummy or voting for him at any point in this gameday.

In post 765, Aneninen wrote:I still think that my wagon length is absurd compared to the posts about me and to the amount of my posts.

I find it absurd you keep bringing it up, you're a wagon of three votes.
Three.

In post 776, TierShift wrote:Okay thor, I understand now. You captured the issue I had with your posting in 762. Just remember that if you say something like 'I want to lynch you now', it makes people think you scumread said person.

I will agree that if someone read that and decided to infer information from it without paying attention to what I was saying about my issue then, sure, they could get the wrong impression via that inference.

Don't know why you called it bad in any way though, as one would like to think that meant you analyzed it before making said value call.

In post 776, TierShift wrote:Just this one quote doesn't make sense. Haven't we both agreed that iza did not in fact produce scummy content (which I thought you were arguing) or town content (which you think I'm arguing, but I'm not!), but that the scripten scumread was null behaviour? Then how does the next quote in which you call him scummy for it make sense?

In post 756, Thor665 wrote:You have not really addressed why you had issue with me questioning him or finding his answers scummy.

Well...first off, his answers are scummy - that doesn't prove he is scummy, but his answers were screwy as all get out.
I said they were screwy as all get out.
In the perfect world of analysis, if he's town, he is town who is screwy as all get out.

You leapt to his defense and had issue with my conclusions as regards him - which, by definition, means you have to have a town read there or there would be no issue to raise with me and what I said.
If your read of him was 'null' for instance...that would mean that you would understand his reads were screwy and would have agreed with me and, if you had decided to call it out, your language would have been one of 'what scum motive do you see in his screwy logic' as opposed to your chosen track.

As I said, I founf your defense of him/attack of me straneg and illogical and I'm actually trying to get you to explain it.
Quoting something I said after that attack and acting confused by it is *not* helping me understand you.
I have been very open and clear with my thoughts.
You have not.
Stop that.

Back up your gak now please.
1. Explain your specific issue with how I approached him (even working within the misunderstanding you're now admitting to)
2. Then describe your chosen approach and why you thought it was a good approach.

That would be helpful.

In post 782, goodmorning wrote:

In post 742, Thor665 wrote:I am holding off on revealing until Goodmorning manages to get back to me with explanations on the fear of revealing and why it is pro-scum in some way.

I've already spoken as much as I want to speak on the subject.
It's a little late now, anyway.

Well...when you're asked "why shouldn't we, I am curious?"
And your answer is "because it be bad!" and nothing else...what did you expect?
If you gave a hang you did a bad showing for yourself and the belief system you claim to espouse.

In post 790, TierShift wrote:Yeah. But that's not enough to certainly know he's in a neighbourhood, now is it?

I would think my other comment of 'I am in a neighborhood and not claiming it yet' would remove all doubt.
And I'd be fascinated to hear all the theory roles that I might posses wherein I would know the game is multi-neighborhood without being in a neighborhood.

Stupid scum with Pre/Day talk or Neighborizer is all I can come up with at this point.

In post 798, hephaestus wrote:Sorry stupid question probably but are neighbourhoods beneficial to either town or scum in any way?

Do you know what a Neighborhood is? If so - why don't you tell us your opinion on this question.
If not there is the Wiki; http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Neighbor

How much of a newbie are you?