Official Everybody Edits Forums

TaskManager

Formerly maxi123

From: i really should update this

Joined: 2015-03-01

Posts: 9,465

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

actually the question still stands

also vote count pls noobroy <3

I voted Zelda simply because I don't want to die. Like I say, if the ruleset was majority and not popularity I'd still be voting Kira. But I can't vote Kira if I'm lynched.

Prior to norboy posting votecount I thought Kira and Zelda wagons were even, so yeah that's why I asked

Dear god shadow you sound like Crybaby

I don't really like this way of handling things, Mutant

---

signature by HG, profile picture by bluecloud, thank!!
previous signature by drstereos

mutantdevle

Moderation Team

From: Hell

Joined: 2015-03-31

Posts: 3,848

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

then you should surely be able to provide instances where you have been trying to solve the game, right?

I sure do:

▼Hidden text

Do you disagree that I'm a player that's generally considered harder to lynch? What do you think would be the reason that mafia would put me in the pool assuming I am town?

Why then is it so hard to believe that I'd come to this conclusion as quickly as I did? In fact, why do you even think it's so hard to come to instant conclusions, is that something you don't consider possible?

Was it? Please point out where I lied.

Okay, what's your point?

However, do you think ShadowsEdge is mafia?

Okay. Do you believe this? If so, why? If not, then why do you feel the need to bring up something you don't even agree with in order to try and discredit my read?

If you believe this, why do you criticise me for coming to this conclusion? Especially when you're clearly of the mindset that I'd think 3 town in the scum pool is the optimal way for the scum to play. This isn't actually what I think, but the fact that you believed it was calls into question why you didn't then think that this could be my reason for thinking that all the people in the pool are town.

It isn't fair on who? Why am I not allowed to form a read based on something that very clearly implicates Shadow as town, do you expect me to just ignore it?

What was the motivation behind your post? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you've formed any reads based on your close analysis of my post which begs the question, what was the point?

Basically, what I'm trying to ask is: why should I, or anyone else for that matter, not scum read you for this post by you when your aim was seemingly not to form your own reads but rather discredit mine?

Why does experience affect how quickly you can come to conclusions? Surely all it affects is how accurate your conclusions may be.

Why are you so insistent that I shouldn't be making those kinds of conclusions?

You've just clipped out the part where I explain the difference between a lie and a mistake to continue pushing your narrative that I lied. Shame on you.

So basically it could be WIFOM? You think the mafia would put me with peace banking on the idea that people would lynch me instead of him out of WIFOM? Sure, that is something that is possible, but do you really think that's likely? Do you really think that's the way that mafia would try to get me lynched?

I don't see how what peace has done today has any relevance to my point. My point is that peace looks obviously scum when he is scum. Unless you're trying to argue that you're scum reading peace based on his behaviour today?

Why am I not allowed to conclude that peace is town? Why is that something that bothers you? I'm not 100% assuming anything about peace I've just settled on the conclusion that he is town.

Also, do you have any evidence as to why you think the mafia are likely to want me to think peace is town?

If you really want us to think for ourselves then why have you spent several long posts telling me I'm not allowed to think the things I do?

If you think the optimal strategy is to put 3 town in the pool. And you think I would be fully aware of this. Why did you question the fact that I considered all 3 players in the pool to be town? You did not know at the time that this wasn't my reason for thinking this. Yet you criticised me with seemingly full confidence that I had no reason to be town reading the entire pool. If you genuinely believe all this, and it's not just stuff you made up on the spot in order to criticise my post, why is it that this wasn't something that crossed your mind as to my potential reasoning?

So what is the point?

What was the point of mentioning it? Also, given that you agree that the chances everyone is in the pool is town, why are you criticising me for coming to same conclusion and why aren't you willing to commit to reading us as town?

Why is me being in the pool a reason to discredit everything I have to say? Is your point that since I'm in the pool nothing I say is worthy of any trust and that you should just ignore my opinions? Investigate my logic, sure. **** all over it, claim it's baseless, accuse me of lying, and shade me every chance you get? That's not simple investigating. You clearly have other motives.

I was hoping that your answer to this question would be an explanation as to the town motivation behind you criticising and pulling apart my posts in the way that you are. But so far you've not provided an adequate explanation as to the purpose of your posting.

▼Hidden text

How do you know that you are correct, or how did you learn that you are? This is a legitimate question, not an attack. Because if there is some sort of pool of evidence that you're drawing from, then I would love to study it. Unless that was just a figure of speech, in which case, I will ignore the first sentence.

You say that intuition led you to believe the Mafia would not put one of their own as a nominee with you and Peace. This is another conclusion I find oddly specific. Given that it's based off of intuition, I don't think that conclusion is foolproof- you don't either.

I was referring to being correct about both I and peace being in the lynch pool. I don't think that mafia would put themselves in a pool with myself and peace because I don't think that the mindset of putting us in a pool together also leads to putting one of your own in the pool.

I'm going to ignore that I don't agree with the evidence that otherwise townclears Shadow for a bit. There still isn't any super solid evidence that confirms you as town, aside from the likeliest scenario in my opinion that the nominees today are all town. Again, my disagreement on Onjit's intentions aside, you're the greatest unknown in this scenario. Besides intuitions, there has been nothing to grasp to gain a solid read on you until our discussion picked up.

Assuming you're issue with trying to read me based on my theories is that you can't reliably tell if my intuition is genuine or just made up. Instead, think about what motivation I'd have as either alignment for the explanations that I've given. As mafia why would I make this stuff up?

You ever come across a weird instance in a math test where you use the incorrect formula to solve a problem, but by chance, you get the right answer anyway? This is why I attacked and tried to disprove your reasoning.

I don't think the maths analogy is relevant considering in school showing the workings out is a vital part of getting marks/grades and in professional application proving it the correct way is part of getting it accepted. In mafia that simply does not matter; only whether or not the conclusion is mafia getting lynched is the important bit (not to mention that maths is a process of right as wrong whereas mafia is about subjectivity). And none of this really justifies you approaching my opinions the way you did. What I'd expect from someone who is town who disagrees with my logic but agrees with my conclusion is a simple statement expressing disagreement and, optionally, a desire to understand my thought process. Though that seems to be the way you are approaching it now, your original approach was to dismantle every aspect of my words that you could and shade me for it.   

I think that it is flawed, and even though we come to the same conclusions today, that does not mean we will come to the same conclusions in the future.

Nothing about your original post would suggest this was your motivation. You were clearly not trying to empathise with me and make sure our logic was consistent with each other; you were blatantly trying to discredit me.

Mutant, you're a strong player, wouldn't you say? You have a lot of outstanding experience in this game. Your words are a lot more easier to trust, because they come from someone who has experience in the game. Perhaps, even, people might try to emulate your playstyle to better themselves at the game. I don't want people to mindlessly just take your logic and reasoning at face value and believe it as if they are rules or something like that. I provided my own alternative viewpoint. It is not up to me to decide if people believe it or not. Some already seem to, some seem to disbelieve it. It's more like I'm checking you.

You must think pretty lowly of everyone here's intelligence to think that they'd be taking everything I have to say at face value. It's not necessary for you to tell everyone that they should be reading into everything I have to say rather than just accepting it since that's the whole point of the game and nobody here is new. Furthermore, there's a difference between simply checking my logic and **** all over it like you did. It's like the difference between pointing out a computer is broken vs taking it apart to show everyone all the broken pieces (and stamping on them in the process).

I am trying to debate you on your logic.

Why? What is your motivation behind that and why is that motivation townie?

I am trying to get you to reconsider the process you used to acquire your reads. Your leans today just so happen to be the same as mine, so why would I tell others to scum read you for them when they're the same? I'm trying to debate with your logic.

Please tell me how this list of quotes is you trying to get me to reconsider the process I used to acquire my reads:

▼Aggressive Quotes

Oh, really? Is that so?

Well, that was a **** lie.

Really? Because we don't.

You've gots a lots of 'splainin' to do Mr. Mutant.

You aren't so hard to lynch anymore, Mutant. If you make yourself out to be the scummiest player in a game like this, where a lynch is required every single day, then it's very likely that you can die, so don't be so reckless.

Explain.

Yeah champ?

I think not.

Mutant started out today immediately playing the bus game.

they have weakly argued

it's like you didn't even think about the selections.

Absolutely not. You're smarter than that, Mutant.

Do not tie yourself to him. You and him are two entirely separate players.

I can explain my conclusions with evidence. Where is yours?

Most of what you said to me was either emotively-aggressive, passive-aggressive or, at times, condescending. What part of that is you trying to help me better my logic? You also label my logic as scummy and use adjectives like 'weak' to describe it. Stop pretending that you're somehow being neutral as to 'not tell people what to think' because you are certainly implying what they should be thinking about my opinions.

That does sound reasonable. Living today does not clear you of all charges. We have had instances in past Mafia games where someone who was high-profile before a deciding lynch lived to see the next day, and then something happened that took the town's attention away from that person, and then the high-profile that person had attained was suddenly forgotten. It's happened with TaskManager and (ironically) Shadow within memory. I said on day 1 that just being nominated does not town clear you. If it wasn't fairly obvious, living an even-numbered night doesn't town clear you either. So, I have no problem with this point you made at all.

My point is that it feels like you're actively wanting people to think we could be mafia rather than just saying it shouldn't be ruled out.

I think Onjit's story is a burning pile of ash.

What makes you say this? Why would you think Onjit would lie and also replace out of a game just so that the scum team would win without him?

Finally, I'm also interested in why your approach towards me has changed from aggressive shading to being more diplomatic?

Why? What is your motivation behind that and why is that motivation townie?

What makes you say this? Why would you think Onjit would lie and also replace out of a game just so that the scum team would win without him?

Finally, I'm also interested in why your approach towards me has changed from aggressive shading to being more diplomatic?

I can't I just spent 20 minutes on catching Peace's errors.

So why did you?

TaskManager what is it about my opening posts this game that you suspect is scum motivated?

Also, I'd like to point out that Kira's iso is trash and I'd probably lynch him before Crybaby if he doesn't post anything substantial.

Again, it's how you rushed the voting at the start of a day

I'm trying to establish what exactly about that you find scummy though?

Alright I'm done with today's exam which means I should be able to contribute.

So why aren't you?

Are you waiting for us to give you something to comment on? Because if you currently have nothing to say then that's kinda worrying.

Is there something you find inherently scummy about coming to quick decisions?

There you go. This is a list showing the various times that I have said things with the intention of being able to read into the response. I got this list by doing a CTRL+F search of my iso. There's also some other non-question based stuff in there that I randomly picked out through specific memory of it/skim reading. Feel free to pick out any of these quotes to ask me what different responses I was predicting and how they would have affected my read.

---

mutantdevle

Moderation Team

From: Hell

Joined: 2015-03-31

Posts: 3,848

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

You're trying to put doubt into my reason by saying "But would I do this?" That's the most scummiest way you could go about trying to defend yourself.

It's not a case of why would I do this, moreso why would anyone do this? It's a completely illogical way of going about the game.

---

mutantdevle

Moderation Team

From: Hell

Joined: 2015-03-31

Posts: 3,848

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

re approach was to make him "think" that you had scum-read him, instead of actually scum-reading him, then why would you put the effort into creating an entire list dedicated to why you scum-read Crybaby.

1.) To reinforce the idea that I do scum read him.
2.) To give him the opportunity to rebut any of my reasoning for scum reading him.
3.) To clearly explain to others who may not have been keeping up with the argument why I scum read him.

When you scum read someone who is town it's often because there has been a misunderstanding. Giving him a fair chance to prove there's been a misunderstanding allows me to test whether or not he is actually town. It's important to maintain the illusion that you scum read them to keep their responses genuine. If scum knows you're only testing them rather than accusing them then they're more likely to manipulate you and work out how to pass your test.

---

mutantdevle

Moderation Team

From: Hell

Joined: 2015-03-31

Posts: 3,848

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

I prompted you to vote for Crybaby today. You could have easily made a conclusion, you made a conclusion on Crybaby before, claiming that you scum-read them (See the quote above). But instead of voting for Crybaby/NoNK, you deterred the vote over to Kira, because of... a lack of content? What reason do you have to vote for someone that hasn't said much over someone that you LITERALLY claimed as scum.

I literally give you explanations to both of these that you ignore to ask this question.

I didn't fully scum read Crybaby.
Voting for kira was a more useful thing to do with my vote whilst I figured Crybaby out.

If you're just going to dismiss both of those things due to your bias against me then there is no point in asking about them.

This is the probably I have with your case against me and why I find it stupid. Almost all of the things you've said against me can only be refuted by "you're wrong" (because you are wrong).

If you don't already see that I've been game solving, if you don't already see why I voted for Kira, if you don't believe me on my stance on Crybaby, why does me pointing any of it out/repeating it, stuff you've already looked at for yourself and made judgements on, make any difference?

---

mutantdevle

Moderation Team

From: Hell

Joined: 2015-03-31

Posts: 3,848

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Crybaby was the one who cut the debate short, not because of replacing out. Crybaby replaced out D3 iirc. The debate stopped because Crybaby started a lynch against me, and thus changed the course of the debate. It was not cut short because of Crybaby's replacement, but instead because of Crybaby's intent.

I was very clearly still questioning Crybaby after he voted for you in this post. He never had the opportunity to respond to me. Meanwhile, I continued posting and mildly questioning other people. From questioning of taskmanager I concluded that his reasons for scum reading me were townie. My questions towards tofuu and Zelda yielding nothing I could make a solid conclusion on. And my post threating to vote for Kira if he didn't do anything resulted in my voting for him after he continued to not do anything (and after giving him plenty of time to).

---

mutantdevle

Moderation Team

From: Hell

Joined: 2015-03-31

Posts: 3,848

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

I don't really like this way of handling things, Mutant

Too bad. I'm in an aggressive mood. Trust me, I don't like it either. Being aggressive and having to defend yourself don't go hand in hand. But that's how I am right now and we all just have to deal with it.

---

TaskManager

Formerly maxi123

From: i really should update this

Joined: 2015-03-01

Posts: 9,465

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

I don't really like this way of handling things, Mutant

Too bad. I'm in an aggressive mood. Trust me, I don't like it either. Being aggressive and having to defend yourself don't go hand in hand. But that's how I am right now and we all just have to deal with it.

this game is wicked

---

signature by HG, profile picture by bluecloud, thank!!
previous signature by drstereos

Slabdrill

Formerly 12345678908642

From: canada

Joined: 2015-08-15

Posts: 3,402

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

So since it's almost certainly either mutant or zelda that's getting benched today, I'll just pick which seems scummier...

mutant seems pretty strongly town, and i've been getting some town vibes out of their posts. The only questionable thing is the strong will to survive, but I think unless you're our favourite norwegian doctor that's pretty normal behavior.

zelda is... a pretty good null read. They're always about this inactive, and I know I constantly read them as town in other games due to this; so I'm gonna try not treating them as as much of a townie.

!vote zelda

I'll be back later if it'll be useful to retract this or something, but for now this is what I've got.

---

suddenly random sig change

NoNK

Member

Joined: 2019-07-13

Posts: 922

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Well I hope my death will be useful to town and give the necessary info on my voters to catch the scum.

This is how town loses games btw

mutantdevle

Moderation Team

From: Hell

Joined: 2015-03-31

Posts: 3,848

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Feel free to combine all my posts in a spoiler tomahawk/diff.

Unless anyone posts something before I finished eating my cheese sandwich this will be my last post before going to bed. You have my reads, you have my explanations, feel free to do what you want with that information.

Pedit:

I don't really like this way of handling things, Mutant

Too bad. I'm in an aggressive mood. Trust me, I don't like it either. Being aggressive and having to defend yourself don't go hand in hand. But that's how I am right now and we all just have to deal with it.

this game is wicked

I'd like to say that said aggressiveness isn't game related but that I don't expect that to excuse any of what I've said; my words are still alignment indicative.

---

NoNK

Member

Joined: 2019-07-13

Posts: 922

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

We literally have 2 lynches left before we lose the game and suddenly everyone is saying "oh yeah zelda is null but ill vote him anyways" meanwhile zelda seems to have given up, meaning

(a) If he's mafia he is being bussed and/or is content with mafia's position in this game.
(b) If he's town it means he's a bad player

bad freaking vibes either way

NoNK

Member

Joined: 2019-07-13

Posts: 922

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Literally in what world does town just say "well I'm dead" and proceed to not vote on the counterwagon knowing lylo is imminent

Norwee

Formerly NorwegianboyEE

From: Norway

Joined: 2015-03-16

Posts: 3,773

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

The day ends in 9 and a half hours or until a majority has been reached.
The majority for this day is [5]

[4] ZeldaXD: NoNK, mutantdevle, Taskmanager, Slabdrill [L-1]
[2] Mutantdevle: ShadowsEdge, Kira
Not voting: ILikeTofuuJoe, ZeldaXD, eleizibeth

I made a slight mistake. It’s approximately 9 and a half hours left until overtime from the time of this post.

---

★              ☆        ★        ☆         ★
   ☆    ★                     ★

NoNK

Member

Joined: 2019-07-13

Posts: 922

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

What makes me think that this particular game is going to be near impossible to win for town is that the vast majority of this game has no opinion of their own and is just content to follow what's popular, and I have no idea which of the followers are mafia, and if the leaders are mafia, then we lose just like in C9++ where I just played pied piper and lead all you fools astray.

DO SOMETHING ALIGNMENT INDICATIVE, PEOPLE!

ShadowsEdge

Member

From: somewhere in space ig

Joined: 2018-11-06

Posts: 1,010

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

▼Hidden text

▼Hidden text

Do you disagree that I'm a player that's generally considered harder to lynch? What do you think would be the reason that mafia would put me in the pool assuming I am town?

Why then is it so hard to believe that I'd come to this conclusion as quickly as I did? In fact, why do you even think it's so hard to come to instant conclusions, is that something you don't consider possible?

Was it? Please point out where I lied.

Okay, what's your point?

However, do you think ShadowsEdge is mafia?

Okay. Do you believe this? If so, why? If not, then why do you feel the need to bring up something you don't even agree with in order to try and discredit my read?

If you believe this, why do you criticise me for coming to this conclusion? Especially when you're clearly of the mindset that I'd think 3 town in the scum pool is the optimal way for the scum to play. This isn't actually what I think, but the fact that you believed it was calls into question why you didn't then think that this could be my reason for thinking that all the people in the pool are town.

It isn't fair on who? Why am I not allowed to form a read based on something that very clearly implicates Shadow as town, do you expect me to just ignore it?

What was the motivation behind your post? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you've formed any reads based on your close analysis of my post which begs the question, what was the point?

Basically, what I'm trying to ask is: why should I, or anyone else for that matter, not scum read you for this post by you when your aim was seemingly not to form your own reads but rather discredit mine?

Why does experience affect how quickly you can come to conclusions? Surely all it affects is how accurate your conclusions may be.

Why are you so insistent that I shouldn't be making those kinds of conclusions?

You've just clipped out the part where I explain the difference between a lie and a mistake to continue pushing your narrative that I lied. Shame on you.

So basically it could be WIFOM? You think the mafia would put me with peace banking on the idea that people would lynch me instead of him out of WIFOM? Sure, that is something that is possible, but do you really think that's likely? Do you really think that's the way that mafia would try to get me lynched?

I don't see how what peace has done today has any relevance to my point. My point is that peace looks obviously scum when he is scum. Unless you're trying to argue that you're scum reading peace based on his behaviour today?

Why am I not allowed to conclude that peace is town? Why is that something that bothers you? I'm not 100% assuming anything about peace I've just settled on the conclusion that he is town.

Also, do you have any evidence as to why you think the mafia are likely to want me to think peace is town?

If you really want us to think for ourselves then why have you spent several long posts telling me I'm not allowed to think the things I do?

If you think the optimal strategy is to put 3 town in the pool. And you think I would be fully aware of this. Why did you question the fact that I considered all 3 players in the pool to be town? You did not know at the time that this wasn't my reason for thinking this. Yet you criticised me with seemingly full confidence that I had no reason to be town reading the entire pool. If you genuinely believe all this, and it's not just stuff you made up on the spot in order to criticise my post, why is it that this wasn't something that crossed your mind as to my potential reasoning?

So what is the point?

What was the point of mentioning it? Also, given that you agree that the chances everyone is in the pool is town, why are you criticising me for coming to same conclusion and why aren't you willing to commit to reading us as town?

Why is me being in the pool a reason to discredit everything I have to say? Is your point that since I'm in the pool nothing I say is worthy of any trust and that you should just ignore my opinions? Investigate my logic, sure. **** all over it, claim it's baseless, accuse me of lying, and shade me every chance you get? That's not simple investigating. You clearly have other motives.

I was hoping that your answer to this question would be an explanation as to the town motivation behind you criticising and pulling apart my posts in the way that you are. But so far you've not provided an adequate explanation as to the purpose of your posting.

▼Hidden text

How do you know that you are correct, or how did you learn that you are? This is a legitimate question, not an attack. Because if there is some sort of pool of evidence that you're drawing from, then I would love to study it. Unless that was just a figure of speech, in which case, I will ignore the first sentence.

You say that intuition led you to believe the Mafia would not put one of their own as a nominee with you and Peace. This is another conclusion I find oddly specific. Given that it's based off of intuition, I don't think that conclusion is foolproof- you don't either.

I was referring to being correct about both I and peace being in the lynch pool. I don't think that mafia would put themselves in a pool with myself and peace because I don't think that the mindset of putting us in a pool together also leads to putting one of your own in the pool.

I'm going to ignore that I don't agree with the evidence that otherwise townclears Shadow for a bit. There still isn't any super solid evidence that confirms you as town, aside from the likeliest scenario in my opinion that the nominees today are all town. Again, my disagreement on Onjit's intentions aside, you're the greatest unknown in this scenario. Besides intuitions, there has been nothing to grasp to gain a solid read on you until our discussion picked up.

Assuming you're issue with trying to read me based on my theories is that you can't reliably tell if my intuition is genuine or just made up. Instead, think about what motivation I'd have as either alignment for the explanations that I've given. As mafia why would I make this stuff up?

You ever come across a weird instance in a math test where you use the incorrect formula to solve a problem, but by chance, you get the right answer anyway? This is why I attacked and tried to disprove your reasoning.

I don't think the maths analogy is relevant considering in school showing the workings out is a vital part of getting marks/grades and in professional application proving it the correct way is part of getting it accepted. In mafia that simply does not matter; only whether or not the conclusion is mafia getting lynched is the important bit (not to mention that maths is a process of right as wrong whereas mafia is about subjectivity). And none of this really justifies you approaching my opinions the way you did. What I'd expect from someone who is town who disagrees with my logic but agrees with my conclusion is a simple statement expressing disagreement and, optionally, a desire to understand my thought process. Though that seems to be the way you are approaching it now, your original approach was to dismantle every aspect of my words that you could and shade me for it.   

I think that it is flawed, and even though we come to the same conclusions today, that does not mean we will come to the same conclusions in the future.

Nothing about your original post would suggest this was your motivation. You were clearly not trying to empathise with me and make sure our logic was consistent with each other; you were blatantly trying to discredit me.

Mutant, you're a strong player, wouldn't you say? You have a lot of outstanding experience in this game. Your words are a lot more easier to trust, because they come from someone who has experience in the game. Perhaps, even, people might try to emulate your playstyle to better themselves at the game. I don't want people to mindlessly just take your logic and reasoning at face value and believe it as if they are rules or something like that. I provided my own alternative viewpoint. It is not up to me to decide if people believe it or not. Some already seem to, some seem to disbelieve it. It's more like I'm checking you.

You must think pretty lowly of everyone here's intelligence to think that they'd be taking everything I have to say at face value. It's not necessary for you to tell everyone that they should be reading into everything I have to say rather than just accepting it since that's the whole point of the game and nobody here is new. Furthermore, there's a difference between simply checking my logic and **** all over it like you did. It's like the difference between pointing out a computer is broken vs taking it apart to show everyone all the broken pieces (and stamping on them in the process).

I am trying to debate you on your logic.

Why? What is your motivation behind that and why is that motivation townie?

I am trying to get you to reconsider the process you used to acquire your reads. Your leans today just so happen to be the same as mine, so why would I tell others to scum read you for them when they're the same? I'm trying to debate with your logic.

Please tell me how this list of quotes is you trying to get me to reconsider the process I used to acquire my reads:

▼Aggressive Quotes

Oh, really? Is that so?

Well, that was a **** lie.

Really? Because we don't.

You've gots a lots of 'splainin' to do Mr. Mutant.

You aren't so hard to lynch anymore, Mutant. If you make yourself out to be the scummiest player in a game like this, where a lynch is required every single day, then it's very likely that you can die, so don't be so reckless.

Explain.

Yeah champ?

I think not.

Mutant started out today immediately playing the bus game.

they have weakly argued

it's like you didn't even think about the selections.

Absolutely not. You're smarter than that, Mutant.

Do not tie yourself to him. You and him are two entirely separate players.

I can explain my conclusions with evidence. Where is yours?

Most of what you said to me was either emotively-aggressive, passive-aggressive or, at times, condescending. What part of that is you trying to help me better my logic? You also label my logic as scummy and use adjectives like 'weak' to describe it. Stop pretending that you're somehow being neutral as to 'not tell people what to think' because you are certainly implying what they should be thinking about my opinions.

That does sound reasonable. Living today does not clear you of all charges. We have had instances in past Mafia games where someone who was high-profile before a deciding lynch lived to see the next day, and then something happened that took the town's attention away from that person, and then the high-profile that person had attained was suddenly forgotten. It's happened with TaskManager and (ironically) Shadow within memory. I said on day 1 that just being nominated does not town clear you. If it wasn't fairly obvious, living an even-numbered night doesn't town clear you either. So, I have no problem with this point you made at all.

My point is that it feels like you're actively wanting people to think we could be mafia rather than just saying it shouldn't be ruled out.

I think Onjit's story is a burning pile of ash.

What makes you say this? Why would you think Onjit would lie and also replace out of a game just so that the scum team would win without him?

Finally, I'm also interested in why your approach towards me has changed from aggressive shading to being more diplomatic?

Why? What is your motivation behind that and why is that motivation townie?

What makes you say this? Why would you think Onjit would lie and also replace out of a game just so that the scum team would win without him?

Finally, I'm also interested in why your approach towards me has changed from aggressive shading to being more diplomatic?

I can't I just spent 20 minutes on catching Peace's errors.

So why did you?

TaskManager what is it about my opening posts this game that you suspect is scum motivated?

Also, I'd like to point out that Kira's iso is trash and I'd probably lynch him before Crybaby if he doesn't post anything substantial.

Again, it's how you rushed the voting at the start of a day

I'm trying to establish what exactly about that you find scummy though?

Alright I'm done with today's exam which means I should be able to contribute.

So why aren't you?

Are you waiting for us to give you something to comment on? Because if you currently have nothing to say then that's kinda worrying.

Is there something you find inherently scummy about coming to quick decisions?

While I don't disagree that these do seem like you're trying to solve the game, it doesn't disprove the other part of the claim I made:

> Mutant hasn't been trying to solve the game. The only clear suspicion he's had against anyone is against Crybaby/NoNK.

My reasoning for believing that you're not trying to solve the game is because your focus is completely on Crybaby/NoNK. The only other instance of a suspicion was Kira, which I provided my reasoning for why I didn't consider it a "suspicion."

All the questions and instances that you've provided of you "Solving the game" have been directed towards Crybaby/NoNK. Your focus has been primarily on Crybaby, and though they were your main scumread, you ditched it all to go for a lynch against Kira or Zelda.

Despite saying you have reason to suspect Kira, and that they're your "Main Scumread," you didn't include evidence of you actively trying to question their motives, nor instances of you trying to get a reaction out of them. Your questioning of Crybaby has been different than your investigation of Kira, yet you more heavily believe Kira is scum, rather than Crybaby/NoNK despite your own suspicions of them, and my presentation of my suspicions against them.

You're trying to put doubt into my reason by saying "But would I do this?" That's the most scummiest way you could go about trying to defend yourself.

It's not a case of why would I do this, moreso why would anyone do this? It's a completely illogical way of going about the game.

Expect the unexpected, for one. But just because something is an "illogical way of going about the game" doesn't mean it's instantly a reason to disregard it. Furthermore, it's not illogical, creating arguments is fundamentally the easiest way to break a connection between players in Mafia. It's not always successful, but it's the most commonly used method of doing so. Regardless of the magnitude of both of your posts, it's still an argument at heart, and that's the basis for my reasoning.

1.) To reinforce the idea that I do scum read him.

You're literally contradicting yourself now:

I didn't fully scum read Crybaby.

If you don't fully have reason to scumread Crybaby, then why would you feel the need to reinforce the idea that you scumread him? Furthermore, what reason would you need to do so regardless? The argument in general showcases that you have a scumread on Crybaby regardless of whatever conclusion you came up with, because if you believed he was town, more likely than not, you would not have continued the argument with Crybaby, nor would you have tried questioning Crybaby.

I don't have any opinion for or against the second or third reasonings.

Voting for kira was a more useful thing to do with my vote whilst I figured Crybaby out.

My gripe with it isn't the fact that you're using your vote to vote for Kira for investigation. You've said that you wanted to put pressure on Kira. But you aren't actively investigating Kira, you simply put a vote on them, said some reasonings that didn't mean much, and then called it that. If you were trying to use your vote more usefully, you would be actively investigating Kira, trying to figure out their alignment, but instead you just changed the vote to Kira, without providing much onto it other than you wanted to put pressure on them.

That's the reason I believe you were just trying to switch the vote, rather than gauge a reaction. You had a tell on Crybaby, which you could have acted on, but you decided to go for Kira, claiming that it was for the sake of pressuring them, yet the vote was virtually the only amount of pressure on them you have.

If you're just going to dismiss both of those things due to your bias against me then there is no point in asking about them.

I'm not dismissing your points because of any "Bias" I have against you. I've stated my reasonings, multiple times. You want to claim that it's a bias, then go along with it. But my reasonings against you have nothing to do with a bias.

This is the probably I have with your case against me and why I find it stupid. Almost all of the things you've said against me can only be refuted by "you're wrong" (because you are wrong).

Or maybe I'm right, and you can't refute it because my case is accurate? I've presented my reasonings, and exactly where I got the reasonings from, if you want to refute it, by all means, go ahead. I presented my reasonings and sources so that you could refute it if you wanted to, knowing where I got my evidence from. Yet you only claimed my evidence and reasoning were false, and left it at that.

I prompted you to vote for Crybaby today. You could have easily made a conclusion, you made a conclusion on Crybaby before, claiming that you scum-read them (See the quote above). But instead of voting for Crybaby/NoNK, you deterred the vote over to Kira, because of... a lack of content? What reason do you have to vote for someone that hasn't said much over someone that you LITERALLY claimed as scum.

I literally give you explanations to both of these that you ignore to ask this question.

I didn't fully scum read Crybaby.
Voting for kira was a more useful thing to do with my vote whilst I figured Crybaby out.

If you're just going to dismiss both of those things due to your bias against me then there is no point in asking about them.

This is the probably I have with your case against me and why I find it stupid. Almost all of the things you've said against me can only be refuted by "you're wrong" (because you are wrong).

If you don't already see that I've been game solving, if you don't already see why I voted for Kira, if you don't believe me on my stance on Crybaby, why does me pointing any of it out/repeating it, stuff you've already looked at for yourself and made judgements on, make any difference?

It makes a difference because it's the key factor of whether or not I'm going to continue with my lynch on you. I've said before, all I'm looking for is a viable reason to not put you up for the hammer. But despite that, you've continued to just throw shade on my case, and use that to boost your standings.

I told you I wanted you to debate with me, show me a reason to not suspect you, because I wanted something to work with to see both sides of the case. But all your reasonings haven't thrown me to believing in your townness, and instead, push me more to believing that you're scum.

I was very clearly still questioning Crybaby after he voted for you in this post. He never had the opportunity to respond to me.

Missed that. My bad.

Literally in what world does town just say "well I'm dead" and proceed to not vote on the counterwagon knowing lylo is imminent

I did it on Universe Mafia. Not during LyLo, ofc, but I was town and went with the idea that I was inevitably going to be lynched, despite not being lynched.

I'm still against lynching Zelda. I don't disagree with the suspicion against him, but the fact that his lynch is building up so quickly bothers me. Especially since the case against him has less substantial standings than cases I've provided. As well as both of the people I scum read are on board for the lynch.

I'm not reconsidering my vote for you, Mutant. I presented my case, asked you for a reason to believe that you aren't scum, but you stuck with the argument that my case is stupid, and chose to discredit my own logic instead of trying to provide some sense of reasoning of believing why you shouldn't take the rope.

I still feel Mutant should take the hammer. I have suspicions on Mutant, and his flip would ultimate provide the most information out of everyone (On NoNK, Taskmanager, ILikeToFuuJoe (Only slightly), ZeldaXD, as well as myself, if you wish). Take it as bias if you want, Mutant, but my case has nothing to do with bias, you're simply the one I find the most scummy, and your actions just add to that narrative.

---

Don't ask me what I'm doing, I don't even know what I'm doing.

   ~BeepnBoop

Slabdrill

Formerly 12345678908642

From: canada

Joined: 2015-08-15

Posts: 3,402

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

wait majority is that low wtf

shadows' pressure on mutant just made me realize the point that their overfocus on maxi really isn't how i'm used to them playing from older mafs

!unvote

i'm still getting too many town vibes to actually want to vote them, but i'll reconsider for now (and make sure mafia cant just hammer before that happens)

---

suddenly random sig change

NoNK

Member

Joined: 2019-07-13

Posts: 922

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

slab/shadow/task/nonk all town is good unless im wrong on task or shadow in which case town should lose for sucking

!vote kira

We should flashwagon kira

Slabdrill

Formerly 12345678908642

From: canada

Joined: 2015-08-15

Posts: 3,402

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

ok honestly, after remembering maxi's arguments i do think mutant is pretty scummy. a lot of their arguments have been pretty weak (i still don't understand their peace+mutant in the pool hunch they mentioned at the start of d2, for instance).

!vote mutantdevle

---

suddenly random sig change

rat

Formerly eleizibeth

Joined: 2017-06-29

Posts: 785

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Why do you think mutant and/or shadow are scum?

i just don't think the voting pool on D2 was 3 town, i think there was at least 1 scum and i believe it was devle over shadow

If either NoNK or eleizibeth flips scum the other is town. By default I consider them both null.

how am i connected to nonk? is it just because of process of elimination?

--
right now though, my vote is either going to devle or zelda. not bc of everyone else voting for them, those are just the two that strike me as the scummiest. BUT honestly, zelda strikes me as scum every game,, so i'm not sure. if anything happens before the day ends then that'll be the deciding factor.
also sorry i haven't been active, i just don't have enough energy to comprehend all these long posts, i'll have to read over the thread soon

Kira

Member

Joined: 2019-04-22

Posts: 1,346

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

I'll actually defend myself because I don't want to throw this game because of my inactivity.

I am town.

I cannot prove it. But I smell tobacco and gunfire on Mutantdevle's clothes. Therefore, he is mafia. I'm keeping my vote on him.

NoNK

Member

Joined: 2019-07-13

Posts: 922

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

While the act of getting votes quickly is in and of itself suspicious, I don't really find anyone that voted for zelda suspicious (myself, slab, task) except maybe mutant

!vote mutantdevle [L-1]

ZeldaXD

EE Homeboy

From: Cyprus

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 1,539

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Well I hope my death will be useful to town and give the necessary info on my voters to catch the scum.

This is how town loses games btw

No, town loses games by lynching townies.

---

ShadowsEdge

Member

From: somewhere in space ig

Joined: 2018-11-06

Posts: 1,010

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Zelda, can you say your opinion on the situation? I think it'd be helpful for everyone to know what your standings on everyone are.

---

Don't ask me what I'm doing, I don't even know what I'm doing.

   ~BeepnBoop

ZeldaXD

EE Homeboy

From: Cyprus

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 1,539

Website

Re: Mafia 35 game thread [MAFIA WINS] (GAME OVER)

Zelda, can you say your opinion on the situation? I think it'd be helpful for everyone to know what your standings on everyone are.

Most townie
4: Onjit/ShadowsEdge: This read is mostly based on Onjit wanting replacement at the start of the game for apparently not being mafia anymore. When it comes to Shadows he is doing his usual narrator behavior which based on previous games is not determinant on whether he is town or mafia, he's a risky choice to put so high on this tier list because if scum he'll be complicated to catch, but I think this is a good decent temporal spot.
----- START OF THE NULL READ AREA -----
5: ILikeTofuuJoe: His posts don't strike me as if he is trying to manipulate town.
8: eleizibeth
3: Kira
----- END OF THE NULL READ AREA -----
1: Crybaby/NoNK: My read on him is mostly based on Crybaby.
7: mutantdevle: I generally agree with Shadows' post.
6: Slabdrill: His last post says "ok honestly, after remembering maxi's arguments i do think mutant is pretty scummy", but Taskmanager has never given really strong arguments against mutant to make him feel like mutant is "pretty scummy", Task has only accused mutant of being too quick to lynch peace, which is obvious to anyone, it doesn't really say anything.
9: Taskmanager: If mutantdevle is mafia, then I think Taskmanager is a very solid candidate for being his buddy, based on iso his relation with mutant is cold, distant, just some empty messages to try to distance eachother, "soft punching", if you read his iso and pay attention to posts where he talks about mutant you'll see what I mean. He said that "if two players agree with eachother most of the time thats what points to a connection between them" which could be him setting up the town psychologically to think exactly that, when he distances himself with mutant in a cold fashion so they don't look connected.
Most scummy

Not going to vote for anyone atm.

---