Mini Normal 2071 (Game Over!)
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
does this mean your stance will change when i start voting with real reasons?In post 27, cbynumber wrote:
It's like you're making sure it's ok to cast a random vote so you don't have to come up with real ~reasons~In post 25, Exilon wrote:Because i wasn't sure if we were out of rvs and wanted to be on time to be part of it
Is that scummy?
So, yeah.
Sounds fair.
No but srsly is rvs over now /sFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
This is correct! I also had a itch to scratchIn post 30, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:I’ll have to double check but this seems to be Exil’s second game in over a decade. The first one being a Newbie and currently ongoing. I can buy him not knowing if RVS is over or not.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Feels like poor reasoning and a bit forced in order to justify a vote on skitter.In post 31, Ausuka wrote:
VOTE: skitterIn post 18, skitter30 wrote:This is the kind of rvs post i can see scum making ^^^^
(i'm not explicitly calling her scum for this rn, but noting that it comes from scum more than town imo)
it's literally just a naked vote and my standard entrance. why are you not explicitly calling me scum for it? if you think it comes from scum more than town, and the average player has a 1/4 chance to be scum, that's great odds on page 1. it feels as if you're afraid of entering a confrotantion so early more than anything else.
The question here seems unnecessary and loaded (assumes Skitter finds Ausuka scummy, which is incorrect), especially considering that skitter's own bolded words invalidate that same question.
This is what stood out to me the most so far.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: AusukaFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
To note, are you voting because you feel I'm scummy, to assert some pressure, or something else?In post 36, Inferno390 wrote:VOTE: Exilon
I’m off-put by the tone here. Seems weird.
Skitter feels pushy
Sash feels reachy
Egix is NAI I think
What do you mean by Skitter being pushy? If anything, he's the one being pushed by like two or three different people (by his post 39, he was answering CDB, RuiRui, and Ausuka lol)Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Is there an acronym for "quoted for absolute agreement"In post 53, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:I like Deli deciding not to further engage Skitter. I think attempting to create a theory or policy debate there is more likely to come from town than scum. Scum are more likely to want to cast suspicion on Skitter and/or anyone who shares her same sentiments on voting there.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I knew I remembered something like that.
I'm not... I read them very differently. Ausuka's reason was "why didn't you explicitly call me scum?";ChannelDelibird wrote:Exilon, I assume you're just about to call me scum as well along with Ausuka, given that Ausuka's reason is pretty much exactly why I voted for skitter too. (And honestly rereading Ausuka's post just makes me want to vote skitter again, even though my brain knows that she's already responded to it in a sigh-and-stop-voting way.)
@Bob: You don't need to name the player you're unvoting, no. Nice to have you aboard, though be warned as we're not in a specific Newbie game there may be some learning-as-you-go to do.
Your was "why didn't you change your vote, you kept it on someone random"
Here I'll quote your post for reference
I think it's an extremely fair question, in stark contrast to Ausuka's.In post 18, skitter30 wrote:
Why wouldn't you vote for Ausuka here instead of keeping your vote on a random person who hadn't yet posted?
Moreover, your later interactions came across as townie to me.
Regarding Ausuka, I'll have to see the following answers.
@Skitter: So sorry swear I have you as a she on my notesFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I didn't say your point was stupid (and I didn't think it was, either) :/
Why not? I think she just explained it. I think you bring up a relevant point - why the hesitation - but what you seem to be missing and I didn't initially, is that there's no hesitation at all! She recognizes a probability, probes, but know it's not enough to call you scum. So she doesn't.In post 67, Ausuka wrote:If you think my point is so stupid explain how to me please.
Skitter says my vote comes from scum more often than town. This to me is a scumread, how could it not be? If you think someone's only post so far is more common from scum than from town, you think that person's scum. I would expect her reasoning to be used as part of a push on me. She then goes on to say, in the same post, she's not "explicitly" calling me scum for it. This I think isn't genuine, because I think that if skitter sees my post as coming from scum more often than town, she wouldn't have any hesitation to call me scum for it, right?
I mean, if she doesn't find you scum, then she's not going to call you scum. It's why I said the question was loaded - to ask it, you have to assume she finds your post scummy. But that assumption is incorrect.How on earth does the bolded invalidate my question? She's saying that she's not calling me scum in the section that you bolded; I'm asking why she's not calling me scum.
I can't explain this in any other way.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Hum.
Please address, thanksIn post 59, Exilon wrote:
To note, are you voting because you feel I'm scummy, to assert some pressure, or something else?In post 36, Inferno390 wrote:VOTE: Exilon
I’m off-put by the tone here. Seems weird.
Skitter feels pushy
Sash feels reachy
Egix is NAI I think
What do you mean by Skitter being pushy? If anything, he's the one being pushed by like two or three different people (by his post 39, he was answering CDB, RuiRui, and Ausuka lol)
Like I get from your post 73 that you think I'm scum, but I do wanna know what changed between then and now and if then I was already scummy in your eyes. And also a reply to the other question.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
You're reading town to meIn post 92, skitter30 wrote:hey exilon, do you have a read on me?Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
This sudden voting on CDB feels weird to me. Starting with this;
Something doesn't make sense here. You seem to be referring to postIn post 94, Garmr wrote:In post 28, ChannelDelibird wrote:
VOTE: skitter
Why wouldn't you vote for Ausuka here instead of keeping your vote on a random person who hadn't yet posted?
I literally held off shifting from my rvs to skitter as well. By that same accord would I be scummy as well if not why am I different if so why didn't you mention me?
Spoiler: Post20
but that seems different. you were still deciding if skitter was scummy or not for it. So that's the answer to the question. so what's your question to CDB about, exactly?
Then in post 96,, you say that in the interaction between skitter and CDB, it came across to you that CDB was scummy.
So that's the first vote;
Then in post 95 bob says CDB is suspicious, then 97 says urap2 feels scummy as well.
But then votes CDB in the very next post, right after Garmr does. This happened 3 minutes later to his other post, and 4 other minutes after Garmr's vote.
It's almost as if Garmr's vote caused bob to vote too.
The third vote comes later from Egix, who in
Spoiler: Post 104
goes back to his initial post, and scumreads CDB based on his reaction to that post, for being overaggressive. Then supposedly ctaches up to the rest of the game, posts about a different subject, and then votes him 3 posts later, without more reason.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Regarding 390, some things also don't add up.
Post 73he says Exi and urap2 are scum team.
Post 79 is an ISO analysis.
In response, Post 81 Urap2 asks him that if he thought skitter was still scummy, why wasn't she included in post 73.
He seems to misunderstand the question and answers in Post 83with "because she's scumreads independent of Ur2 and Exi", which only makes sense if you're assuming there's more than one anti-town team, which .... okay, but it seems like a slip up, because, wouldn't wording it as "Exi and urap2 are scum together" be faster, more organic, and natural?
Meanwhile, in Post 82and 84, 390 answers my post 80, where I ask "Why is skitter pushy? She's the one being pushed"; and what amounts to "what's your case on me".
390 answers that, initially, I was the scummiest, so the vote went to me. Then after urap2 called out that post (see post 74), that was seen as chainsaw and therefore we were a team. And that's all there is in regards to a case on me.
But this also doesn't add up, that can't be the only reason; after all, urap2 called out a post in where 390 also scumread *other* people. So that can't be the only thing that links us together; and yet, 390 never presents anything else. This leads to a contradiction:
If urap2's attack is a chainsaw defense and links him as scum to others accused, then I can't be the only one linked.
But if that were true, then Skitter couldn't have been independently scumread.
Then, in post 88,
390 not only backpedals on Skitter by saying she's not as pushy as he thought; he latches on to Ausuka and seems to mirror my own thoughts. (skitter = good; ausuka = bad) Not only is this mirrored, it's not exactly current topic; so it's probably a safe latch.
Post 89 is about Uzi and it seems out of place. Would anyone here not know that from the getgo and keep it in mind? Why bring attention to it? I feel this is a scumtell. It feels like a guilty attempt at strawing closer to town, after that string of posts. I agree with Uzi, it feels very LAMIST (I just learned a new abbreviation).
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Inferno390Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I don't know what kind of comment you want on thisIn post 116, skitter30 wrote:In post 112, skitter30 wrote:i'm getting some buddying-y vibes from you
@exilon
My point was precisely that it wasn't rational (let me post this here), it was emotional ("I want to post about something else that lets me feel closer to town")also i dont' think that scum!inferno really thinks to randomly make that post about uzi there really
Anyway, does it invalidate the remaining case?Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Well, like I said:In post 118, Ausuka wrote:UNVOTE:
ok I thought about it and I think I understand what skitter is saying now.
@Exilon: I still don't understand what about my push you don't think comes from town here.
So I thought it was written with intent to vote rather than genuine analysis and didn't give him much of a benefit of the doubt.Feels like poor reasoning and a bit forced in order to justify a vote on skitter.
The question here seems unnecessary and loaded (assumes Skitter finds Ausuka scummy, which is incorrect), especially considering that skitter's own bolded words invalidate that same question.
From your answers and my own analysis, feels to me like you went in with an assumption that wasn't exactly correct (but legitimizes your push imo), and it seems like you've come to an understanding. As such, I'm not scum reading it anymore.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
a) I don't agree nor disagree? I mean you're sharing how you feel, so it's true to you. How am I to say what you feel is wrong? Maybe I'm missing something
b) oh I get it when you say scum!inferno you mean his metagame specifically.
c) I don't understand part of this. The contradiction not being a scum tell I get, but could you elaborate further on incorrect assumptions?
Logic oriented is my approach to mafia in general. I don't think I have enough forum mafia games to have a specific scum or town style.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Because it was something I noticed and felt it was important to address. I also wanted to address Inferno390.In post 137, cbynumber wrote:Exilon is still scum, btw. Why would he make an in depth post in 113 about how CDB's wagon is 'weird' only to go and case someone else immediately?
Where's the problem here exactlyFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
In post 133, skitter30 wrote:a) eh fair enough. i do feel a bit buddied (namely in how you were defending me earlier) tho
b) yeah town!inferno is notation for 'inferno when he's playing as town'; scum!inferno is notation for 'inferno when he's playing as scum', and so on (pr!inferno is 'inferno playing as pr' etc)
c) you said this:
which i understood to mean that you're objecting to the fact that inferno was not scumreading me as being part of a team with his other scumreads urap and exi. i.e. that you think having scumreads but not reading all of them together as a team is problematic - that independant scumreads aren't a thingIn post 114, Exilon wrote:He seems to misunderstand the question and answers in Post 83with "because she's scumreads independent of Ur2 and Exi",which only makes sense if you're assuming there's more than one anti-town team,which .... okay, but it seems like a slip up, because, wouldn't wording it as "Exi and urap2 are scum together" be faster, more organic, and natural?
i'm saying that i fundementally disagree with that (especially at this stage of the game) - i think it's entirely possible to scumread multiple people without viewing them holistically as a team
(fwiw mini normals are not allowed to have multiball these days btw)
what i mean by incorrect assumption is that you used that to build your case, and i'm saying that i disagree with this pov to begin with
As in: if there's only one team of scum, and if you think three people are scum, you're not going to say "the scum team is these 2 people", right? That's how I read it.
I understand later this point is expanded into "these 2 people are scum by association" (=they're a team); but the justification of this (it's chainsaw) also applies to skitter, whom he said he was reading scum for something else. (which leads to the contradiction). Later he removes scumread on skitter. But the accusation of chainsaw defense remains.
So he says urap2 is scummy because his attack is chainsaw-y, which would make me and skitter is scumbuddies. Since we know he thinks skitter is townie and I'm scum, this can't be the only reason why he feels scummy about me. But he hasn't elaborated on what it could be.
I don't think there's anything circular about it. I'll try to express the idea differently:In post 134, Inferno390 wrote:
I don’t like this. I feel like it’s circular logic. And what about my post was not rational, exactly?In post 129, Exilon wrote:
My point was precisely that it wasn't rational (let me post this here), it was emotional ("I want to post about something else that lets me feel closer to town")In post 116, skitter30 wrote:also i dont' think that scum!inferno really thinks to randomly make that post about uzi there really
The timing of the post felt relevant when put together with the previous posts where you seem to backpedal on something that was putting an hypothetical scum in a tight spot.
As part of a feeling of being encroached and under pressure, the post emerges as an attempt by scum to find mental common ground with town.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I think I get it. But it's still not circular; it's not feeding itself. It's complementing the conclusion (which is scumread), in consequence to the posts before.In post 142, Inferno390 wrote:See your not addressing why I think your logic is circular.
The reason I think your logic is circular is because you’re using the fact that you think I’m scum to say that my post was aimed to look Town.
X is scum
Therefore this thing X did is scum motivated or is done because of scum reasons
So X is scum. Die, scum!
Or something like that.
And what would make you think I felt encroached and under pressure. There wasn’t a wagon on me, the two people scumreading me I’m already interacting with, and no one is pushing me except my scumreads. What pressure?
And what exactly am I backpedaling from?
I understand it isn't, in itself, worthy of a scumread.
To me, it's when you put everything I've pointed together that a scummy mindset emerges, not with each individual piece.
I said I thought you felt encroached and under pressure at that moment for recognizing the skitter read being wrong (which is what I mean by backpedaling), in conjunction with urap2's callouts, as well as my own posts on the matter. This would be enough for me and the general tone in your posts seemed to convey a level of antsiness. From what you're saying, it seems you weren't in fact feeling this type of pressure. Is this right?Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
If my interpretation of it is wrong, then what motivated you to write that post? what was on your mind?In post 152, Inferno390 wrote:
No. I don’t feel like there’s a lot of pressure in my direction at the moment.In post 143, Exilon wrote:
I think I get it. But it's still not circular; it's not feeding itself. It's complementing the conclusion (which is scumread), in consequence to the posts before.In post 142, Inferno390 wrote:See your not addressing why I think your logic is circular.
The reason I think your logic is circular is because you’re using the fact that you think I’m scum to say that my post was aimed to look Town.
X is scum
Therefore this thing X did is scum motivated or is done because of scum reasons
So X is scum. Die, scum!
Or something like that.
And what would make you think I felt encroached and under pressure. There wasn’t a wagon on me, the two people scumreading me I’m already interacting with, and no one is pushing me except my scumreads. What pressure?
And what exactly am I backpedaling from?
I understand it isn't, in itself, worthy of a scumread.
To me, it's when you put everything I've pointed together that a scummy mindset emerges, not with each individual piece.
I said I thought you felt encroached and under pressure at that moment for recognizing the skitter read being wrong (which is what I mean by backpedaling), in conjunction with urap2's callouts, as well as my own posts on the matter. This would be enough for me and the general tone in your posts seemed to convey a level of antsiness. From what you're saying, it seems you weren't in fact feeling this type of pressure. Is this right?
Regardless, I'm willing to take that for what it is and adjust my read accordingly.
This point still remains, could you address it?
In post 141, Exilon wrote:
As in: if there's only one team of scum, and if you think three people are scum, you're not going to say "the scum team is these 2 people", right? That's how I read it.In post 133, skitter30 wrote: [...]
c) you said this:
which i understood to mean that you're objecting to the fact that inferno was not scumreading me as being part of a team with his other scumreads urap and exi. i.e. that you think having scumreads but not reading all of them together as a team is problematic - that independant scumreads aren't a thingIn post 114, Exilon wrote:He seems to misunderstand the question and answers in Post 83with "because she's scumreads independent of Ur2 and Exi",which only makes sense if you're assuming there's more than one anti-town team,which .... okay, but it seems like a slip up, because, wouldn't wording it as "Exi and urap2 are scum together" be faster, more organic, and natural?
i'm saying that i fundementally disagree with that (especially at this stage of the game) - i think it's entirely possible to scumread multiple people without viewing them holistically as a team
(fwiw mini normals are not allowed to have multiball these days btw)
what i mean by incorrect assumption is that you used that to build your case, and i'm saying that i disagree with this pov to begin with
I understand later this point is expanded into "these 2 people are scum by association" (=they're a team); but the justification of this (it's chainsaw) also applies to skitter, whom he said he was reading scum for something else. (which leads to the contradiction). Later he removes scumread on skitter. But the accusation of chainsaw defense remains.
So he says urap2 is scummy because his attack is chainsaw-y, which would make me and skitter is scumbuddies. Since we know he thinks skitter is townie and I'm scum, this can't be the only reason why he feels scummy about me. But he hasn't elaborated on what it could be.
Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
That was a sarcastic question, so it is throwing the assertion that it is indeed AtE.In post 197, u r a person 2 wrote:This is a frustrating moment to be pushing me for this reason.
I voted there because the iso was scummy af, and I read the iso because their posts shortly prior to my vote were really pinging.
But I actually like the woe-is-me response as town and Exilon asking if it was ate rather than asserting that it was ate and calling that scummy pinged me hard. I was town reading there but I want to give him another read
But none of that is going to happen tonightFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Well, it was weird. And I needed to point it out there, because, where else. The conclusion was, "this bandwagon is suspicious". For me, the play by play speaks for itself. But I find your notion of "you didn't come to any conclusions" false. For one, I said thisIn post 202, cbynumber wrote:
The problem is you didn't address anything, aside from essentially giving a play by play on how the wagon formed.In post 138, Exilon wrote:
Because it was something I noticed and felt it was important to address. I also wanted to address Inferno390.In post 137, cbynumber wrote:Exilon is still scum, btw. Why would he make an in depth post in 113 about how CDB's wagon is 'weird' only to go and case someone else immediately?
Where's the problem here exactly
I assume saying it's weird means you think it's scummy, right? so I would imagine that you would want to try and find scum off of it if you were town, but you don't follow up on it at all. Fair enough that you want to address inferno as well, but how does posting this help us catch scum if yo uarn't going to follow up or attempt to come to any conclusions from it?
It reads to me like you felt obliged to comment on the most recent wagon at the time.
"it's almost as if Bob's vote was caused by that first vote"
And the lack of follow up or even pointing out by other people is information in itself, at least to me.
I still don't see any problem here except you saying there's a problem with it and saying it isn't helping town while I see yo butt sitting there still voting for me and doing absolutely nothing else of note that would help town win with 5 posts in the entire game, 3 of which are dedicated to saying I'm scum.
But you do youFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
.....that was meIn post 210, Inferno390 wrote:@Exil:
I was motivated to do it, so to speak, by a combination of someone(don’t remember who) saying that it felt like skitter was being pushed more than pushing, and me liking some of his posts after I made that comment. I wanted to rethink my stance on her and make sure what I was saying was actually valid (which it wasn’t)
Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
ok actually I'm ok with thisIn post 232, ChannelDelibird wrote:FYI, I'm going to be limited to phoneposting until Sunday evening.
Those squeamish about the Sash wagon should come hang out on the infinitely more wholesome RuiRui wagon, which grows more righteous with every passing minute since her last (awful) post.
VOTE: RuiRuiFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Vote on Channel sheepy? He was the first one to vote for CDB if I'm not mistaken (I even posted about it). My attention on that wagon is more on Bob (which *did* feel sheepy and let's say opportunistic)In post 245, Inferno390 wrote:
I’m disregarding the IC because I know he’s town.In post 243, Garmr wrote:
Even more genuine than a IC?In post 241, Inferno390 wrote:Yeah I’m not buying Sash. If anything, Bob’s vote on Sash feels the most genuine of any of them.
I feel like he moved his vote back onto Sash because a wagon started forming there. I only saw reasons for why he thought Sash was scum until after the wagon. And the vote on Channel was very sheepy. And I don’t like the “vote first, reasons later” narrative I’m seeing. Seems unnatural.Ausuka wrote:
opportunistic? how?In post 242, Inferno390 wrote:Gamr I’m conflicted about. He comes off very tonally odd and very opportunistic rn.
Gamr I’m conflicted about. He comes off very tonally odd and very opportunistic rn.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Have you considered that it stalled because the deadline for the day isn't over and some of us would like to have more information? Seems like you're relying on some incorrect assumptions here.
In fact, the only reason I'm not voting Sash is because the day isn't over and if I had voted for Sash I would have been hammering him (at least when I looked at the votecount and considered it). And I won't change it now because pressure = information and I like that.
However and for now let it be known that I find Sash to scummier than RuiRui and would rather lynch Sash than RuiRui.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
This is so WIFOM it hurts. I'm suspicious even if I don't say anything, so I'd rather put it out there what my feelings are on the subject.In post 297, skitter30 wrote:I feel complete apathy wrt the sash wagon. Like it just kinda is, dont really get why it happened
I think ausuka is town now
@exilon ur post just above feels kinda exactly like what a partner would say
Also i want to sort urap
I think at one point Sash had 6 votes on him (shortly after the "I'm quitting!" post), so I thought "hummm, better not"In post 301, Ausuka wrote:
We have 5 days left; I actually think this would be a perfect time to run up Sashaddin and give intent, so if he's actually town and has a claim that justifies leaving him alive, we have enough time to find a good alternative instead of compromise lynching. I don't think running this down to deadline will be helpful and could just cause a scramble. Unless I'm mistaken in counting which I'm 99% sure I'm not, Sashaddin has been at 5 votes, then dropped to 4, leaving him at L-3; that's plenty of room to vote if you want to. I don't think the Ruirui wagon is providing us that much information right now.In post 293, Exilon wrote:Have you considered that it stalled because the deadline for the day isn't over and some of us would like to have more information? Seems like you're relying on some incorrect assumptions here.
In fact, the only reason I'm not voting Sash is because the day isn't over and if I had voted for Sash I would have been hammering him (at least when I looked at the votecount and considered it). And I won't change it now because pressure = information and I like that.
However and for now let it be known that I find Sash to scummier than RuiRui and would rather lynch Sash than RuiRui.
If Sasha is scum you're almost definitely town. If he's town you're null-townish. Based on play I feel that you're probably not scum regardless.In post 294, Inferno390 wrote:So where do I fall in all of that Ausuka?In post 297, skitter30 wrote:ur post just above feels kinda exactly like what a partner would sayYeah this probably makes Exilon the most suspicious of the Ruirui wagon; it feels like upon being associated to Sasha his reaction was that he had to disprove what I was saying.
VOTE: Sashaddin
In regards to bold see above. The objetive wasn't to disprove what you're saying but rather make you think about other possibilities, which seemed to be missing from your thought-out post.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
In post 496, Sashaddin wrote:
I don't know how your opinion could effect the game differently than other players. If you want to explain please?In post 492, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:I’m confirmed town. Why do you not have an opinion on me voting for you?
Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I don't even think that's what he asked?
I mean, I think the whole exchange doesn't make a whole lot of sense
Uzi (or is it LUV?) asks: why don't you have an opinion on my vote?
sash answers: your opinion doesn't affect the game any differently than any other player (???? this isn't a response to the question whatsoever)
There's two topics here, and they got nothing to do with each other.
I addressed Sash's answer and took it on its own (which is just as well considering it doesn't at all link with what it supposedly answers to), Inferno focused on Uzi's point.
Just wanted to untangle this before I move on and answer Sash:
Well if he's town it stands to reason that he's more trustworthy and isn't fabricating reads so that in itself makes him and his vote trustworthy. So by default town gives his opinion more credit than someone whose alignment is a mystery.In post 506, Sashaddin wrote:
I know, but HOW does it change something?In post 502, Exilon wrote:In post 496, Sashaddin wrote:
I don't know how your opinion could effect the game differently than other players. If you want to explain please?In post 492, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:I’m confirmed town. Why do you not have an opinion on me voting for you?
Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Well generally when there's two mutually exclusive hypotheses, interrogating one of them indicates the assumption of the opposite.In post 514, Sashaddin wrote:
I meant that I didn't know how his opinion of me should affect the game differently than how the other players see me. It was not affirmative, it was interrogative.In post 508, Exilon wrote:Uzi (or is it LUV?) asks: why don't you have an opinion on my vote?
sash answers: your opinion doesn't affect the game any differently than any other player (???? this isn't a response to the question whatsoever)
Please walk through it with baby steps, I don't get how this comftown-from-the-start affects this game.
In other words, if you would ask "I don't know how god can exist?", your initial assumption is that god doesn't exist.
So within the interrogation there is a necessary affirmation. So when you interrogate him, there's an affirmation behind it. I simply brought it to the forefront to make it clear that you didn't answer his question (for whatever reason):
He asked you why you hadn't voicedyour opinionon his vote.
Your answer addressed the topic,his opinion.
Completely separate things.
Anyway, in regards to the bolded quoted text, I don't really know what type of answer you're looking for? Besides what's been mentioned, anyway.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I reread a bit. I really am fine with Sash's lynch.
[quote=Skitter30]i'm debating whether or not i think channel's outburst is scummy; i'm still thinking about it
i think it's fakeable in real time for some people[/quote]
this is weird to me.
Is the outburst in itself possibly scummy to you (but genuine) or can it be scummy *because* it could be faked?
If the latter, why would you fake an outburst?Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
EDBWOP: huuuu so that quote was this one:
In post 593, skitter30 wrote:
[...]
i'm debating whether or not i think channel's outburst is scummy; i'm still thinking about it
i think it's fakeable in real time for some peopleFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I share this opinion.In post 643, Inferno390 wrote:Honestly, I would rather a Sash flip than a Rui one. I think we get a lot more info off the Sash flip than anything else [...]
What's this about? I feel like I missed something that would justify this type of replyIn post 645, Garmr wrote:
Lol what ever.In post 643, Inferno390 wrote:Honestly, I would rather a Sash flip than a Rui one. I think we get a lot more info off the Sash flip than anything else atp except maybe UR2.
P-edit: Yah a legit scum read cause it’s made by legit scum
Skitter whatIn post 639, skitter30 wrote:well now i'm getting spooked that you're suggesting this wagon too soFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I want to share a different hypothesis:In post 663, Garmr wrote:@URAP2 and Sash
Just want to straighten this out you guys think rui rui is scum if sash is town right?
I think it's pretty much the opposite. A scum Rui rui has had all day to jump on the sash wagon if sash was town. I also doubt a scum rui would actively oppose the counter wagon to their wagon. They haven't relaly done much but they could of saved their own skin earlier and the sash lynch would of gone through.
So that leaves them in two circumstances town that actually think sash is town or scum with sash and not willing to bus for reasons.
So I don't understand why Rui rui is the counter wagon if you think sash is town?
Why would scum!RuiRui jump on a wagon already populated by scum (or about to be) and with people willing to go for it?
If she had got on the Sash wagon I think it would've been damning.
huh?In post 696, High Risk Gamble wrote:
This ones even worse since your attraction hasn't been any where near RuiRui. What made you feel that this is solid reasoning as scummy here?In post 234, Exilon wrote:
ok actually I'm ok with thisIn post 232, ChannelDelibird wrote:FYI, I'm going to be limited to phoneposting until Sunday evening.
Those squeamish about the Sash wagon should come hang out on the infinitely more wholesome RuiRui wagon, which grows more righteous with every passing minute since her last (awful) post.
VOTE: RuiRuiFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
So I reread Sash's ISO with some more attention.
I want to point out what I feel about it and what I'm seeing.
Mostly there's a consisting tone shift from the early part of the game up to when the wagon on Sash formed and moved. Ealier on, up to 145. In this same posts he mentions to have tried sheeping. He sheeps Inferno390. This is consistent as well with what he says later in 186.
From then on, it's possible to denote a clear shift in tone - less pushy, less "agressive", more dialogical. There's interest in egaging here.
261 feels town honest to me too.
This too:In post 289, Sashaddin wrote:
Very honestly no, this was atypical of myself. It's just that I don't seem to have that kind of problems in minis, only in larges. Plus, I had another game going on that wasn't too pleasant either. And some non-mafia related problems, to think of it. Maybe now I can see better in this one since my two previous things are gone.In post 285, skitter30 wrote:has town!you ever gotten this worked up about being wagoned before?
The greatest scumread of Sash is Garmr. The lean shows up in #146. About their interactions, there is quite a bit and Garmr seems very intent on Sash being scum. Forcefully, I'd say.
There's something interesting here in hindsight. Notice this exchange:
Garmr states something demonstrably false. Look above! He even uses the word sheeping in 145, and "I'll follow". It's not incoherent at all!In post 290, Sashaddin wrote:
Is this still about me in 90?In post 288, Garmr wrote:Person is under pressure to come up with a excuse makes the "I was sheeping town reads." Since their actions show no signs of sheeping town reads in fact you look for them saying they were going to do it you can't find it. You find evidence of the opposite.So by adding all those points you can conclude they were lying about it and it was a rushed excused.
There's ONE more recent post that I dislike and makes Sash look very scummy:
We know from a later post Skitter is "solid town" to Sash, after being null for a long while.In post 664, Sashaddin wrote:In post 647, u r a person 2 wrote:but actually if sash is scum, skitter might actually be scum here because I don't see it being you and I'd be surprised if my wagon was clean there eitherIf I'm scum Skitter definitely is compromising herself by defending me so hard. What's the reverse of tunneling?
This should be an element of thought... Would a scum go forward and defend with such vigor a scum lynch on the first day?
Then this:
Sash never scumread me, quite the opposite. So this is false, amidst a sea of reading consistency from him.In post 690, Sashaddin wrote:Well on my wagon I suspected at some point everyone but LUV and Ausuka. But if you trust your reads, well yeah, it could be a town wagon.
Personally, I'm afraid my scum list has run dry with the extinction of Bob and URAP2 . The wolves are well hidden... Are we 10/3 or 9/4 in this format usually?
I need to think on this a bit and how it affects my read on Sash. I'm going to a dance class but I'll be back in about 1.5 hours.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
In post 717, Exilon wrote:
Garmr states something demonstrably false. Look above! He even uses the word sheeping in 145, and "I'll follow". It's not incoherent at all!In post 290, Sashaddin wrote:
Is this still about me in 90?In post 288, Garmr wrote:Person is under pressure to come up with a excuse makes the "I was sheeping town reads." Since their actions show no signs of sheeping town reads in fact you look for them saying they were going to do it you can't find it. You find evidence of the opposite.So by adding all those points you can conclude they were lying about it and it was a rushed excused.
He did!In post 718, Garmr wrote: Wrong he didn't sheep a town read post refers to skitter being a town read on the wagon and sheeping infernos reasoning.
Post #90 is Sash saying "I'm not right about Skitter and it was mostly RVS". Then he follows Inferno's vote on urap2.
He refers to this in 145:
In post 145, Sashaddin wrote:
The game started hard and fast. My vote on Skitter was pure RVS but I sensed town in her, so I wanted to unvote and settle elsewhere.In post 119, Ausuka wrote:Can you explain this further please? Like, what about Inferno's analysis is great? I'm not seeing your pov here.
Of all the posts I found that far, this was the post that was telling me the most.I was feeling what was being said real good: the yikes 40 , the convenient 76, the free shade on 42... since we are early I decided not to be inactive and sheep a bit. I know taking someone else's reasoning is not the best move, but it's a start.People tell me I'm inactive Day 1 so I try to get away from that image now.
In 146, Sash has the following reads:In post 718, Garmr wrote:
I don't know if I am their greatest scum read but if I was why vote bob before me and switch to me when I'm starting to get into a debate with inferno??The greatest scumread of Sash is Garmr.
These are his scumreads then. In 151, he votes Bob, gets wagoned, and 30 posts later posts this one:In post 146, Sashaddin wrote:(...)
- Garmr and I were scum partners once, he hasn't done much but I'm getting the same vibe. I'm watching this slot.
- Bob seems nervous scum, like post 97 below
(...)
He comes back in #260, which is relevant:In post 185, Sashaddin wrote:I think I'm going to quit playing Mafia, I always end up being lynched in the first days and that doesn't help town at all.
My main gripe here is that I can see this both ways. I can see Sash having been coached by maf to get back in the game and try to follow up on this one read. In 284 he went over ISOS and asides from Bob, his reads are much unchanged - skitter goes back to null and URAP2, even though the initial vote on him had been sheeped, is "less trustworthy". But he keeps the vote on Garmr.In post 260, Sashaddin wrote:Um, hello. Sorry for the absence, I thought of quitting then I thought how I hate when someone quits on games I like, so here i am.
Having caught up, the very first thing that comes to my mind is that Garmr is very opportunistic and shrewd. He's the same that when were red together, he's playing within his scum range imo. He's my prime suspect.
Others are less obvious, I'll have to read a second or third time this evening to get a feel of the other players, probably when the kids and wife are sleeping.
But in the meantime:
VOTE: Garmr
Is latching behaviour "scummy by nature" (wink)? Or is it motivated by a townie mindset who has been a bit shaken?
Sash came back with some renewed energy to the game. But his reads and votes didn't change much. After his vote on URAP2, in 573, he's scumread. Later, without any more interaction, he unvotes URAP2, in 661. He later explains this is due to finding some of the posts URAP makes townie. But now isn't voting anyone else.
Who's scumread right now? Only Garmr, I guess?Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I eventually understood that the assumed hypothesis was scum!Skitter.In post 721, Sashaddin wrote:
If I'm scumIn post 717, Exilon wrote:If I'm scum Skitter definitely is compromising herself by defending me so hard. What's the reverse of tunneling?scum!skitterdefinitely would be compromising herself.
What I meant.
I want to bring up the original post though. I may be reading too much into it but there's something here that I feel is deeply off and even though I may be reading too much into it I have to be attentive:
1. is she really defending that hard? // 2. why not? If scum!skitter, she would try to keep up appearances and be consistent. It wouldn't surprise me too much. //In post 664, Sashaddin wrote:
If I'm scum Skitter definitely is compromising herself by defending me so hard. What's the reverse of tunneling?In post 647, u r a person 2 wrote:but actually if sash is scum, skitter might actually be scum here because I don't see it being you and I'd be surprised if my wagon was clean there either
This should be an element of thought... Would a scum go forward and defend with such vigor a scum lynch on the first day?
3. aaaaa this is what has been tickling my spider senses!
Yes scum would most definitely be defending a scum lynch on the first day! Why would they shoot themselves in the foot by not trying?!Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I'm mostly with cdb here and i will add that, in any scenario, garm, the reasoning follows that ruirui is not playing to a town win condition whereas it can be argued (and his iso shows it) that sash tried.
But i personally would be more keen on jumping if the last few sash contributions hadn't been unvote and metagame discussion as opposed to actual scumhunting.
That's how i feel about the slot right now.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
That sounds like a very familiar sentence, is this a jab at someone here lolIn post 762, ChannelDelibird wrote:
Obviously I have encountered lots of people who were blasé about the idea of being lynched over the years. You know what they did? They showed up and said "I don't really care if you lynch me, sheep me when I'm dead" or variations thereof. Because that's all they had.
RUIRUI IS TRYING TO BE IGNOREDFeels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
I get the logic and the premises that you used; thanks!In post 780, Garmr wrote:Add both scenarios together and it shows to me rui rui more like town. In scenario A Rui rui is not likely scum with sash. So when you add scenario B were it rui rui can only be scum with sash that means rui rui must be town. Get my logic?Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
Sash's flip gives us info because of his interactions, which have been plenty; and they have been plenty because he's been engaging. Going into day 2, an alive Sash will still engage, or at least he is likely to do so.
Rui's flip will also give us info, not because of her interactions, which have been sparse, but because of how her counter wagon emerged, and who interacted with the wagon.
So Sash gives us information by virtue of him engaging, while RuiRui gives us information by virtue of her wagon.
My point here is, it's more likely I get more information from an alive sash day 2 by the fact he is participating and therefore autonomously generating information than RuiRui.Feels like I've been here before.-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010
-
-
Exilon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: February 16, 2010