i designed this setup in 2019 [game over]

[Ranger]

Who is in the hood atm?

Just KittyTacky, myself, and the furtiveglance slot. Topic's locked during the day since StD's death.

[Ranger]

re-skimmed ranger's iso. her claim here is false.

That's the thing about skimming an iso. It ignores context.

The context is there. I engaged slots with doubts on me multiple times. Many of those slots were widely townread.

It also was in the neighborhood as well. Cat Scratch Favor was widely townread, and I engaged CSF extensively there. (Neighborhood members can confirm.)

[Ranger]

re-skimmed ranger's iso. her claim here is false.

That's the thing about skimming an iso. It ignores context.

The context is there. I engaged slots with doubts on me multiple times. Many of those slots were widely townread.

It also was in the neighborhood as well. Cat Scratch Favor was widely townread, and I engaged CSF extensively there. (Neighborhood members can confirm.)

CSF had a scumread on me in there, to be clear.

[Ranger]

Ironically, I actually suggested the idea of eliminating Quiet Owl today and having a vig on NM tonight.

I did it in the neighborhood, but the outcome of the night made me shift away from the plan.

Since it was mine to begin with, I am on board with it.

VOTE: Quiet Owl
I'll target NM tonight, per the plan.
I'm fine with Titus targeting me.

[Ranger]

Clearly

, the mods sent me the wrong role PM. There was

certainly

no way I could make up a claim like I did from scratch, right? Lying is against my mafia religion,

obviously

. Even if it weren't, my inexperience lying means there's

no way

I could invent a full lie,

for sure

.

Naturally

, it must've been mod error.

I don't know what

possibly

could have caused a N2 failure for the vend;

surely

I'd tell the truth, yes? I

definitely

received the role and results I claimed. Lying isn't a skill scum need,

undoubtedly

.

:P

[Ranger]

Clearly

, the mods sent me the wrong role PM. There was

certainly

no way I could make up a claim like I did from scratch, right? Lying is against my mafia religion,

obviously

. Even if it weren't, my inexperience lying means there's

no way

I could invent a full lie,

for sure

.

Naturally

, it must've been mod error.

I don't know what

possibly

could have caused a N2 failure for the vend;

surely

I'd tell the truth, yes? I

definitely

received the role and results I claimed. Lying isn't a skill scum need,

undoubtedly

.

:P

For those who don't get the sarcasm, let me make it clear;
I've been lying since my very first werewolf game, predating my time on mafiascum.

Scum lie; telling the truth is a weakness. There's certain lies which're unethical; as long as none crossing lines are made, anything goes.

If this stance seems out of place for your perspective on my mafia worldview, let me be clear;
I am not mastina, nor an alt of her.
Exploiting erroneous assumptions I am I don't consider unethical. I'll tell the truth when need be; I'll lie otherwise.

[Ranger]

Mafia deserved this win after such incompetency.

I feel you're being overly harsh.

You had all the information; the living did not.

The dead knew who the last scum were, what the dead thread mechanics were, and what the scum mechanics were.

The living knew none of these.

A message not clear in origin not conveying two of those three was something the uninformed had every reason to doubt.

LLD was quite correct; the sent message specifying scum wasn't the instant solve you believed, given the above.

[Ranger]

The part that I wanted to reread was your interactions with Ranger specifically. My memory had Ranger not seeming that concerned about dying and also you not pushing as hard for her death as I'd expect given your read on her. I was busy and didn't have time yet to confirm that, unfortunately.

Well, I couldn't stop the kill on me; I had a partner alive. Regardless of who the partner was, that'd have applied. The push not being as hard was certainly valid in my opinion though.

[Ranger]

If say we'd tried to lim Ranger D3, would that have resulted in the ??? phase coming before that night phase rather than after?

It sure would have, but I had my claim ready from N1. Even had my reread efforts not bore fruit, my claim would've prevented an elimination by any means except the execute N_M used on Lycanfire. Even those scumreading me had good reason to let me live after I claimed.

The only major thing that bothers me about my performance is that I didn't listen to George D1. They had a great read on Ranger and I pretty much blew them off. Next time I want to be more flexible in my reads when I see good posts coming out from a quiet slot.

I'd caution against it; there was good reason for blowing the read off. You may recall D1 ended before GeorgeBailey responded to me.

Both the D1/D3 speed-eliminations badly hurt the town and benefited

most

of the scum, yet their timing actually was frustrating and detrimental to me. I

wanted

GeorgeBailey to engage me, so his reasons for scumreading me would either fall apart from a double-down or be reassessed. I

wanted

to engage Lycanfire and similarly cause Lycan to reconsider.

There were tangible benefits given to the scum from those eliminations, and I did what I could to spin them to my favor. I still was miffed my subjects of engagement were removed prior to finishing talks.

[Ranger]

Ffs. No town in their right mind should have FoSed us.

I feel this is also unfair to the uninformed.

Even I as scum had reason to

genuinely

suspect you. My suspicion came from an

informed

position; from an

uninformed

perspective, there was even

more

reason to doubt your information.

imaginality's play was lackluster; you didn't try to defend imaginality by play; your claim was suspect given the mechanics scum knew to be in place (I didn't believe masons could exist in a nightless white flag game where only two scum would be alive); your meta worked against you as you have a reputation for lying about claims of this nature; you changed your claim multiple times; the late night of your claimed actions was suspect; Frogsterking's role and two kills per night implied serial killer (even though scum knew both kills were from scum).

A town not blindly believing a suspect claim from suspect players is certainly not something I would place blame on them for.

[Ranger]

Did I suck as much as I think I do?

I wouldn't be too harsh on yourself.

The dead had all the information. That gives them biases.

The dead were also dead largely because their deaths were more advantageous. You almost were among them. Almost dead means you did well enough.

You were working as the uninformed. You did not know the mechanic behind the scum, which influenced play across the game. You did not know where the message came from or if it was even real. You did not know where your double-vote came from. You had no way to even guess.

There's certainly ways you could have seen the furtive slot as scum without the information, but without the lens of information, you were unlikely to conclude furtiveglance was the most probable scum. furtive had interactions from an uninformed perspective appearing unlikely as partnered, in key areas such as attacking one flipped scum (McMenno). Knowing the scum mechanics you'd understand why, but since you couldn't gain that info, it appeared unaligned with flipped scum.

Not_Mafia made key misplays on both D1 and D3, with the D3 play directly tying him to flipped scum (me). From an uninformed perspective, these were suspect. Knowing the setup, it was clear he was given it while disloyal, but while you

could

have concluded this, it wasn't

proven

.

[Ranger]

Rereading the hood I realize I almost had Ranger entire team nailed to the cross at one point
Note to self: Ranger playing belligerently hostile is an admission of guilt, and a dead ringer that you’re on the right track.

You're free to believe what you will.
I'll say your reads had nothing to do with my play.

I pushed you because it was a believable push for me to make.
Note when I say 'believable', I don't mean opportunistic. (I certainly won't say no to convenient pushes, but my push wasn't motivated/driven by convenience.) I simply mean scum--as the informed minority--must lie in at least

some

of their reads, and whatever lies they tell must be believable.

I was informed and thus knew you weren't likely scum. Yet, I believed a town-Ranger would genuinely suspect you. Obviously, I

could

have been mistaken about a town-Ranger suspecting you. It doesn't matter, because it didn't need to be accurate to a town-Ranger; it only needed to be

believable

as town-Ranger. The meta was there to support the scumread.

For proof, Frogsterking was town, and suspected you strongly. If a town-Frogsterking believed you scum by meta, then this indicates your play had elements at least one town player thought suspect. I believe a town-Ranger would have aligned with Frogsterking's view and shared the meta scumread on you. (Notably, my stance was not sheeping Frogsterking; I developed the stance prior to his push.) Frogsterking was wrong, and I knew I was. You knew those reads were wrong. I knew it likely wrong. However, neither Frogsterking or a town-Ranger would

know

it wrong.

This aside from how I'm genuinely baffled where you see hostility in my posts at all. There certainly was none intended. I've read my posts and can't figure out where you even see it in the first place.

[Ranger]

I specifically suggested the masonry

because that’s what mastina does

. So you were willing to exploit misconceptions about playing like mastina, but when I stole her gimmick you tried to snap my neck. Do you see how that comes off as shitty and manipulative?

Honestly, your descriptions of me "trying to snap [your] neck" are the only shitty manipulation I'm seeing.

You are not mastina, and playing like her was suspect because it was playing like mastina instead of playing like Gamma. My read was based off that. While I was scum and knew it came from town, a town-Ranger I felt would view the imitation as suspect.

Like, I fail to see how “I’m going to exploit misconceptions about my similarity to this person people might know me by BUT ALSO I’m going to disavow that identity at every turn and ruthlessly target someone for trying to do something in line with that identity” is a town mindset or a fair way to play in any universe!

I still don't understand why you think I was "ruthlessly targeting" you. I specified my read on you, believing your play was not indicative of typical town-Gamma (this was correct; you were channeling mastina). I specified I believed the diversion from town-Gamma was likely to come from a scum-Gamma (I knew this incorrect, but scum need to lie).

Pointing out an objective truth and forming a(n incorrect) subjective interpretation of the truth is the basis of scumplay; I don't understand your grievances of what was entirely an in-game stance.

I would also note you're correct it's not a town mindset. I

wasn't

town. I'll disavow the identity at every turn; as scum I had incentive to exploit the misconceptions. If people hold misconceptions after my disavowment, it's exploitable. Never correct your opponent when they are making a mistake; misconceptions are a mistake I've no reason to correct.

[Ranger]

Whatever. My mind is made up atp.

That's your right. It's your life.

Perhaps later you'll have some self-reflection.

[Ranger]

Then we kill in the hood ideally until it’s just mafia left then we can talk cooperate or betray.

I kinda want to turn our 10-person neighborhood into a PT that is exclusively the two scumteams, as to allow us to coordinate better.

I wish we could have a pt with the other team, we could totally rule the game, kind of like Survivor where we just vote all of the town out and if both teams stay intact we could actually just totally annihilate all the town. 6 united scum have a lot of power.

That's why we kill in the neighborhood (ideally CatScratchFever) so we get a scum neighborhood.

Do we have a thread connection to them to like
Talk to them, convince them into cooperating?

Not directly. There is the neighborhood. From that neighborhood, I signaled to MathBlade to choose cooperate. I mentioned the key phrase and signaled to him unambiguously, so he knows I want to choose cooperation.

My plan was to have the neighborhood be just scum alive so that tomorrow night, we could coordinate actions and orchestrate a tie.

I'm not sure what the math is for the scum death during

this

night. It wasn't supposed to happen until next night at the soonest.

I

knew

you had the same thought as me, MathBlade. <3

Glad you knew the strat to use.

I'm still so sorry about the betrayal; you did deserve to win, and should've if we all lived to N4.

[Ranger]

I have reflected enough both recently and in the past.

That may be so. Your current posting still indicates you will later wish you had done some more.

I was staying completely within the game. I did not make things personal. I did not attack you. As far as I know, I treated you with respect. I checked the neighborhood posts now that I have access there and even there, my stance was respectful. I kept everything within the game. I did not insult you.

Your impression was wrong. I not once wanted to 'go low'. I still don't know why you think so.

I've asked you to point out what posts of mine were problematic. I did so because you obviously believe they were.

I can't improve my treatment of you if I don't know what I did wrong to you in the first place. I read my posts, repeatedly; I can't find anything crossing the line. I've read the neighborhood PT; I can't find anything crossing the line.

You believe I was problematic. But you have spewed vitriol in this stance the whole time, without actually pointing out to me where I was so. I have avoided accusing you of anything. I've pointed out your posts have been incredibly toxic, because they

have

been. Your language has been very accusatory and harsh. You've called me 'shitty', you've called me 'manipulative'.

Near as I can tell

, I was none of that. I'm not infallible in self-reflection, so I know I might have missed something I did which was unacceptable. Asking where I went wrong and what I can do better isn't an unreasonable request. As far as I could tell, I kept things entirely in-game. What actions pushed you to near your breaking point? What actions made you go near-ballistic? The things I said were entirely normal things to say, as far as I know.

Even here, you are being aggressive in saying I am accusing you. You are certainly speaking your mind, but the way you have done so is certainly worse than anything I could have done.

I feel I've not disrespected you. I feel I've engaged with diplomacy and openness. I've stated a willingness to learn and improve, a willingness to be shown what I did which you felt was over the line, which you felt got too personal/insulting/etc.

You have kept the hostility up for a perceived hostility, but

I still have no idea what it was

.

As far as I can tell

, I never once accused you of anything outside of specifying I felt your play was antitown and more likely to come from scum. Those are certainly not anything over the line. Yet you believe I did something which crossed a line. Given I can't see it, I have tried to engage you on what it was.

You said I was 'immensely shitty' after calling you scum or bad town. I don't think I actually did even this? I specified actions were pro-scum regardless of alignment, but those say nothing of your skill; every town player makes pro-scum actions when pushing any player not scum. (This might be unclear, so to explain this concept with an example: Frogsterking flipped town, so inherently, every town player on his elimination was pro-scum. This does nothing to make them bad town. Town make +scum actions all the time regardless of skill.) You yourself noted I was not passing the buck on you.

You have accused me at every stage of having crossed some line, of having done something unforgiveable, of having done something that was unacceptable. I've no doubt of your sincerity in this belief. So I've asked you

where

. I can't fix an issue I can't see. You stated I was hostile; near as I can tell, I was not, so I asked where. You stated I was ruthlessly targeting you. I've reviewed my posts and I can't see how, so I asked where. I don't understand the source of your hostility. I don't doubt you have it; I believe you do. You've stated I verbally assaulted you. I looked for what that could've been, couldn't find it, and asked you where you saw it.

You have stated it was mental torture, and it is apparent that you were mentally tortured. I believe you. I agree being mentally tortured is not okay. So any behavior of mine which was out of line, needs to be improved. So

where was it

? You saw it, but I don't see it. That is all I am asking. To be shown where it was I went too far in your eyes.

I've reread my neighborhood posts a second time in the process of writing this. The only thing I can find is 269. If this was the post, then I can understand the grievance. It was very poorly worded on my end. That was a mistake. I certainly shouldn't word things that way. I will not make a post like 269 again.

Was there anywhere else? I've demonstrated I

am

searching, I've demonstrated I

am

looking. I can say I certainly did not intend for 269 to be over any line, but I see why it would be perceived so with the poor wording choice. I should not have said 'lack of integrity'. That wording did not convey my intended in-game meaning and I understand why it'd be seen as an out-of-game attack. I definitely can find a better way to state my point. (The intent was essentially, 'arguing in this specific way with an agenda'. Arguing that way doesn't guarantee a scum alignment but is +scum, because scum have agendas more than town and need to paint a certain picture. I can word it better in the future.)

Did I miss anywhere else I can improve?

[Ranger]

I try not to carry past games into future ones, so that is agreeable.