Mafiascum.net

Hi lads I'll catch up tomorrow probz

^^^
i really don't mind you taking pot shots at me to make yourself feel better but it does nothing to help the game so if you are town then you prob shouldn't be doing this.

In post 1787, Slandaar wrote:

In post 1786, goodmorning wrote:

Town TSO

is far more likely to throw himself at a brick wall like that.

This is pure meta.

Town is more likely to fall into that trap. That TSO is especially isn't really the point.

In post 1788, Aneninen wrote:@Everyone: does the difference I've written above exist between Mini and Large games?

Yes. Twice as many people results in more than twice as many posts (more responses generated=more responses to responses), it's more exponential sort of but I've not done any math beyond stat for years now so someone else might be better suited to the discussion of exactly how much more it might be expected, mathematically, to be.
Also Larges tend to have longer deadlines than Minis.

In post 1789, Slandaar wrote:

In post 54, goodmorning wrote:Why would Scum try to lynch a claimed PR?

Also, GM, I have an answer your very good question you asked earlier in the game.

Because they are scum and lynching a town PR is beneficial to their win condition.

Now, I know this answer may be a lot to take in but try very hard to understand this difficult concept then let me know what you think about my answer.

It's terribly transparent, trying to lynch a PR. Your answer is too simple - it doesn't take consequences into account.

In post 1796, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 1751, Nero Cain wrote:@GM-Why is Foz scum?

Because he hasn't actually done shit. At some point this weekend I'll demonstrate that even his one apparently contributory post was actually useless.

In post 1798, T S O wrote:wait I said I wasn't going to talk about outside games, ignore the above.

nice dig at the end, Nero. Show off your maturity.

ENOUGH

PLEASE

In post 1648, goodmorning wrote:

Barring that, can you point to anything concrete in the thread to explain any of your reads?

I'm going to pretend I don't know what you're implying.

Explain your reads. I don't listen to meta, I lynch the players who rely too much on it. Because only scum don't explain their reads.
Clear enough for you?

Okay, Nero, let's just not talk anymore - your repressed anger is beginning to spill out and that's bad for the town.

In post 1802, goodmorning wrote:

In post 1787, Slandaar wrote:

In post 1786, goodmorning wrote:

Town TSO

is far more likely to throw himself at a brick wall like that.

This is pure meta.

Town

anyone

is more likely to fall into that trap. That TSO is especially isn't really the point.

I happen to agree with this, though it does start a little in the direction of assuming scum tunnel. I think it's more accurate to say that scum do tunnel, but they do it strategically where they're likely to either appear town or get a mislynch. Scum don't generally tunnel randomly, and they don't generally go back to their tunnel after being called on it by town. This analysis counts as a town-leaning factor for TSO.

I don't like TSO's attempted use of appeal to his own authority. I have not looked deeply into the reasons it came up, and have no real desire to do so. Even if it were in direct response to something like "your case is crap", using previous results to show he can catch scum (in a good game for him) doesn't give a free pass on proving his case in this game. If someone challenges his case, he needs to be able to back it up. If he can't back it up, admit it was a bad case and move on. Not being able to back a case, and in particular being unwilling to back it, is scummy. Notice I'm not focusing on the AtA itself, but the lack of backing on the case.

These two aspects of returning to the tunnel, that scum wouldn't do it causes a town lean, but failing (and refusing) to back up the case causes a scum lean, means that the tunnel itself nulls out. I think we should be sorting TSO by things that don't relate to the tunnels. That kind of analysis will be more accurate than ignoring either side of the equation.

@Axle: The above paragraph means that you need more on TSO than just the tunnel. I totally agree that the tunnel puts him in "needs investigation", but things other than the tunnel are the key.

I have no problem backing my case up.

I have a problem with backing it up when asked by Axle.

I also think you -should- look up my appeal to authority - it was used directly against Nero, and I literally it had any bearing here.

If you can back up your case, then back it up for me please.
Don't forget that I've looked at the early part before and discounted it, which you apparently had agreed with.

fair enough.

In post 1803, davesaz wrote:

In post 1648, goodmorning wrote:

Barring that, can you point to anything concrete in the thread to explain any of your reads?

I'm going to pretend I don't know what you're implying.

Explain your reads. I don't listen to meta, I lynch the players who rely too much on it. Because only scum don't explain their reads.
Clear enough for you?

I feel it's the opposite actually. People feel more inclined to explain their reads as scum.

Are you ever going to actually play this game?

In post 1760, AxleGreaser wrote:

In post 1759, Garmr wrote:

In post 1758, AxleGreaser wrote:

In post 678, Garmr wrote:

In post 675, Aneninen wrote:@Garmmr: I've already checked but apart from the part that "I'm the close 2nd" and the part where I questioned your Boonskiies vote I have found nothing.

Tomorrow I may have more time. I'll check the posts between Thor and PeregrineV again because it's possible that I missed things because of the sheer size and amount of the posts.

@Cho: WTF? Yet another vote with no additional content?

At this point I must tell you the following: If I got lynched Today you all should examine these votes. It's strongly possible that the scums are between these votes because they want to build a counter-wagon quickly.

In other words: compare the PeregrineV wagon and my one. On PeregrineV there were much content written. On me, almost nothing.

In post 533, Garmr wrote: finally I don't like the way Aneninen handled the way I pushed on boonskies by trying to disprove my points yet being unable to, ending up saying I don't agree with you. It just felt like a failed chainsaw attempt for boon.

Basically What I'm saying is you tried to defend against my points with out having a valid counter points in fact you actually strengthened my points in some parts and that comes off as scummy.

can you explain how him strengthening your argument has scum motivation?

Sure if his arguing against my points and someone strengthens my points instead it shows he/she didn't think it through and was saying it on a whim and most likley in this case to try and dismantle the case I made. I would would of been fine if it was legit critismn but none of it was.

So your original post claimed Aneninen chainsawed for Boonskies without really thinking it through on a whim?
In my experience scum don't act on a whim.

I am fairly sure it (I am referring to 420 please check i am talking about the same criticism you are)
was all legit criticism from Aneninens point of view.

In post 420, Aneninen wrote:

Garrmrrmr wrote:Boonskies was the fact he needed to clarify that those were rvs votes.¹ No one really asked him for it and it seems odd as town why you feel the need to say hey this is a rvs vote. He really hasn't done anything to strike me as town either.² Also he dodged the csereo subject and didn't give his thoughts on it which made me feel uncomfortable.³

(1) Boonskiies was just being Boonskiies. I can tell you I've seen that. Even if you haven't come across with him, why is it a scumtell?
(2) So? Hasn't done anything to strike me as town either? This description fits quite a lot of people here.
(3) He has dodged almost every subject so far.

I'm not saying that he's town. He may be scum. But, NOT because of your reasons, Gammrnmhrm.

Point 2
is quite valid criticism. he is no more scummy than anyone else due to that.

Point 1
as i have argued several times you need to judge people against their own meta, capabilities, etc.
The argument Boonskies is boonskies is potentially valid. True you need to counter or question whether or not that is typical of town boonskies, but its not claim you can reject out of hand.
(I have less experience reading games that boonskie played than i think Aneninen has, but as said to reject it you need to show that is scum.Boonskies and that town.Boonskies is not usually that bad.)

Point 3
Same as above. Boonskies indeed plays VI. As I believe Thor (932 937) has pointed out (I think implied) that is sufficient reason to lynch him D1, if you have no better options.

I feel like your ignoring the answers I gave to and
1yes you can argue that but ane didn't show why a town boon skies would be conscious us of his own rvs posts so the whole that's just boon being boon is irrelevant.

2.like I said before if he had no redeeming qualities at the time so it strengthens the read but I guess this could be valid critismn

3.So having a history of dodging subjects makes you town? Notice how ane is referring to this game only why would would you even bring up meta.

Your above post makes me feel you just skimmed isos instead of reading it in context.

Sorry about the quote walls I'm using a tablet for today.

I'm playing the way I am for a reason. This reason shall be brought out, and most likely the main subject of Day 2.

@Garmr - Boon just being boon is completely relevant. I literally type whatever comes to my mind and don't really ever backspace. Plus, I'm basically just skimming through this thread.

We get it, we get it, you're softclaiming a PR and scum are going to keep you alive-

oh wait, plan flaw

Why is it flawed? You going to kill me toNight?

yes I'll post it in my QT now

What QT?

Boon you need to make your cop breadcrumbs less obvious in future. Scum are just going to kill you n1 now making your power worthless.

In post 1814, Boonskiies wrote:@Garmr - Boon just being boon is completely relevant. I literally type whatever comes to my mind and don't really ever backspace. Plus, I'm basically just skimming through this thread.

Tbh I could accept this boon does as the boon do if someone could put it into context and that's what I didn't like about ane approach.

In post 1802, goodmorning wrote:
Town

anyone

is more likely to fall into that trap. That TSO is especially isn't really the point.

I see.

In post 1802, goodmorning wrote:
It's terribly transparent, trying to lynch a PR. Your answer is too simple - it doesn't take consequences into account.

PR's get lynched all the time by town and scum alike. The 'consequences' are what? they may get lynched for it? but it's no different to any other town wagon/lynch they try to push.

Do you think it's obvious I'm a cop? I'd like to know how many people think that's obvious.

I have no idea what you are - I think that you're either a PR or a VT trying to soak PR shots.

If you're the latter, playing now would be great.

So boon at least try to scumhunt or something.

What do you think about Thor's reaction to your totally not awkward vote?