Newbie Student Mafia XXIV

On October 31 2016 09:24 NeverUnlucky wrote:
Sure. c: One more /in.

This is what is going to happen this game:

1. I will roll town.
2. Game starts; unoriginal players'll say "First confirmed town!"
3. One town will have a weird or even scummy entry.
4. Calix will tunnel said player. NeverUnlucky will have a good read on Calix based on the tunnel.
5. Said town will claim that the intent behind his entry was to stir up conversation.
6. Everyone will mock him and some will town-read him.
7. Active players’ll shitpost, lurkers’ll lurk.
8. One player will case another player who’ll become the main wagon, but the case is weak, thus :
9. People will initiate a CFD at EoD, and a town will die.

On October 31 2016 20:49 cakepie wrote:

Coaches are good for much more than just mechanics!

On October 31 2016 21:33 Shapelog wrote:

Actually, all he has done, is back himself in a corner with you if he is scum.

See number 4 states that he will have a good read on you, in the case that you tunnel. If no such read was to come, or a crappy one, then he would look less credible. Perhaps, you could argue that 6 could set up a possible scum read for him (if people keep scum reading him) but that is weak.

He also is forced in this to read the "One town with a weird entry" as town, due to wording. Which is bad for scum, as it knocks off a ML for day 1 at least.

In fact, the only way this benefits scum is if the person to make the weird entry is scum buddies, which is a high risk, low reward (a weak reason to TR at most) move IMO

The rest of it is unpredictable and useless, since it revolves on other players doing it.

Sorry, regaining my mafia mindset.

EDIT: He also would have to point out the case is weak too due to #8 and make reads accordly.

On November 03 2016 03:08 Calix wrote:


So if you ARE mainly communicating in gifs then why claim a role first thing before doing that? Seems illogical for town to do.

On November 03 2016 03:20 Calix wrote:


Sheep vote noted.

How is claiming that posting gifs after claiming a role tryhard?

On November 03 2016 03:21 Calix wrote:
And as a side note, how is being tryhard a scum tell?

On November 03 2016 03:33 Calix wrote:


You are voting right after I received a vote. There is no discrediting here, only using evidence to draw a conclusion.

Why would I not question your push? I don't consider 'tryhard' to be a scum-tell and wanted to know what your logic was for thinking so.

I am not scum-reading ExO. That's not 'going after an easy target', it's asking for a response to a simple question.

No it didn't. I asked why they weren't doing it. That cannot be interpreted as a subtle nudge to keep doing it in any world.

It's not pro-scum. It's anti-town.

On November 03 2016 03:40 Calix wrote:


Correction. I am not voting for ExO and you should be suspicious of me if I was given that you (correctly) think I am not scum-reading him.

On November 03 2016 03:38 Calix wrote:


Incorrect. Pro-scum behaviour is something that ONLY scum are capable of doing. Town never act in pro-scum ways (short of game-throwing which isn't 'playing' the game anyway) because they are town and their actions are, in their own way, working towards their wincon of finding and eliminating scum.

Anti-town behaviour is only detrimental to town and is done by both alignments. (e.g., shit-posting)

On November 03 2016 04:01 mahrgell wrote:
@Foreman
Now that you noticed your misread. Are you still going after Calix, or have you shifted your focus on NU?
Would the argument you made for Calix also apply to NU? Or where do you see the difference there?

On November 03 2016 04:14 Calix wrote:


Knock knock, Calix is here, asking you to read my NU case like a good dear.

Is my NU case also disingenuous? If so, how?

On November 03 2016 04:20 Calix wrote:


Why do I need to 'acquit myself' for you to take my NU case seriously?

You either agree with it or you don't. My 'credibility' has nothing to do with wherever you think I make valid points on NU.

Poor reaction from you.

On November 03 2016 04:22 mahrgell wrote:


Why not? Following multiple leads is not bad for town.
And even if we flip Calix in the end, no matter what color it is, having his talking points discussed would be beneficial to town. So I can't understand that refusal to comment on it. Especially as I would be very interested in your opinion.

Don't worry, we won't forget about Calix. And if you feel it got forgotten, ust bring it up later again, if someone wants to balem you for it, just forward it to me.

On November 03 2016 04:24 Calix wrote:


Ah, it's the MS classic of "you're totally scum so I'm ignoring everything you say" shtick.

How anyone has such a strong read that they are willing to dismiss everything that I say post-scum-read with less than 200 posts in the entire thread is beyond me.

So do explain, how have you concluded that I'm so scummy this early on?

On November 03 2016 04:31 mahrgell wrote:


Well... So you refuse to answer me, because I share points with Calix on this issue? So I'm now scum by association for you?
Doing that after posting large paragraphs about "what kind of behaviour is protown"?