Mafiascum.net

In post 748, -Grey- wrote:Since Gamma claimed Ascetic Enabler, any "no results" results should be insta-lynched because the ascetic(s) is/are scum hiding behind the role.

I'm happy returning to my previous vote.

VOTE: Naomi

In post 751, krylea wrote:I don't like this. There are tons of other roles that could lead to no-results.

In post 752, -Grey- wrote:

In post 751, krylea wrote:I don't like this. There are tons of other roles that could lead to no-results.

I don't for a second buy an ascetic enabler + roleblocker/rolestopper in this game.

In post 753, Alisae wrote:Now that I think about it, Grey's origonal vote on me seemed very forced.

In post 754, TwoFace wrote:

In post 752, -Grey- wrote:

In post 751, krylea wrote:I don't like this. There are tons of other roles that could lead to no-results.

I don't for a second buy an ascetic enabler + roleblocker/rolestopper in this game.

Unless I misread your post. You are saying any ascetics are scum.

Town enabler suggests at least one town ascetics (obviously could be a red herring and we have none at all).

To say a no result = scum is not town thinking.

In post 756, -Grey- wrote:I'm saying town has a NU role that strengthens scum because any town ascetics would have claimed by now.

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

In post 757, TwoFace wrote:

In post 756, -Grey- wrote:I'm saying town has a NU role that strengthens scum because any town ascetics would have claimed by now.

No pr is claiming day 1. Ascetic or not. Well no smart one anyway

In post 735, Alisae wrote:

In post 733, XnadrojX wrote:Not Voting 4 (Ircher, TheRealGin-N-Tonic, Rainbowdash)

Vote some nerds when ywall get the chance please, otherwise it looks bad cause to me this reads to me as ywall have no strong scumreads.

In post 759, -Grey- wrote:

In post 757, TwoFace wrote:

In post 756, -Grey- wrote:I'm saying town has a NU role that strengthens scum because any town ascetics would have claimed by now.

No pr is claiming day 1. Ascetic or not. Well no smart one anyway

Negative utility always claims straight out the gate. You should be experienced enough to know that.

In post 678, TwoFace wrote:I've never heard of that being proper play and I've had the ascetic modifier a couple of times.

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

In post 752, -Grey- wrote:

In post 751, krylea wrote:I don't like this. There are tons of other roles that could lead to no-results.

I don't for a second buy an ascetic enabler + roleblocker/rolestopper in this game.

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

In post 745, TwoFace wrote:If somebody said "scum probably have day talk" would that be a slip?

In post 747, Flubbernugget wrote:What do you think about Ircher saying that being pr confirmed ascetic with no claim is an auto lynch?

In post 748, -Grey- wrote:Since Gamma claimed Ascetic Enabler, any "no results" results should be insta-lynched because the ascetic(s) is/are scum hiding behind the role.

-Grey- wrote:Negative utility always claims straight out the gate. You should be experienced enough to know that.

In post 762, Alisae wrote:

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

Whats your point here?

In post 764, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

Are you in cahoots with Skold?

In post 766, Ircher wrote:

In post 762, Alisae wrote:

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

Whats your point here?

It's a pretty much useless "tell".

In post 768, Alisae wrote:

In post 766, Ircher wrote:

In post 762, Alisae wrote:

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

Whats your point here?

It's a pretty much useless "tell".

Can you prove that it's wrong?

In post 765, Rainbowdash wrote:

In post 745, TwoFace wrote:If somebody said "scum probably have day talk" would that be a slip?

I would be far more concerned about that one. We speak in declaratives quite a bit, such as "Grey is scum".

In post 747, Flubbernugget wrote:What do you think about Ircher saying that being pr confirmed ascetic with no claim is an auto lynch?

That bothers me a little, but I still have a fairly solid town read on him. However

In post 748, -Grey- wrote:Since Gamma claimed Ascetic Enabler, any "no results" results should be insta-lynched because the ascetic(s) is/are scum hiding behind the role.

Grey is still pushing it without addressing my post about why this logic is bad and my case on him. Can we really lynch him at this point?

-Grey- wrote:Negative utility always claims straight out the gate. You should be experienced enough to know that.

No they don't. The only role that I can see as the justifiable D1 claim out the gate is PGO, otherwise you help scum. Plus Ascetic is not necessarily negative utility. You will learn that with experience.

I will ALWAYS make the point that pushing on fake slips is a scumtell, in every single game I ever play. Because it's been a very reliable tell for me. I'll let you in on a couple of my other tricks as well; being "excited" about the game when the general mood is depressed or uninterested to the point of wanting to abandon is a scumtell. Claiming an investigative PR and making a lot of content about who you're going to check the following night (especially framing it as an fos ie "For that I'm going to check YOU tonight") is a scumtell. Jumping on people for too quickly commenting on a nightkill is a scumtell. These are all things I will pretty much always points out when they happen, regardless of my alignment.

Scum love having a "justified" vote. Instinctively, they look for a vote where they can lean back on a "factual" basis. A "slip" is a perfect example. When you push on a slip, you're no longer making your own read, you're just saying A therefore B. There is no read, you're presenting it as a fact. And when the person you push flips town, you don't have to defend your "read" being wrong, you can just use that justification you built as a scape-goat. It's what scum subconsciously do ALL THE TIME. Yes, sometimes town will mistakenly think they've found a scumslip. Players like Mathblade are notorious for that kind of play. But as a general rule it's a scum tactic.

In post 768, Alisae wrote:

In post 766, Ircher wrote:

In post 762, Alisae wrote:

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.

Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.

So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

Whats your point here?

It's a pretty much useless "tell".

Can you prove that it's wrong?

In post 767, -Grey- wrote:

In post 764, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 758, Ircher wrote:

In post 727, Alisae wrote:I think I need to explain how Grey fucked up.

He called Naomi's thing a "Slip." but was that a slip? No, it wasn't.
Scum like to push slips. They like to have a justified vote.
So thats why my tell on Grey works.

That tell works just about as well as all the other scumtells.

Are you in cahoots with Skold?

What's your opinion of my theory that any ascetics are scum?