The Walking Dead Mafia! ( Game Over )

[Jon Doe]

I certainly extrovert both of those things

Yes. You certainly do, but that wasn't the question. The other part just shows some hydra dissonance. She may not feel as I do yet.

[No Brains Here]

I'm beginning to think OGML is pacing himself off because he hopes his wagon goes away - while we distract ourselves towards a town lynch.

[Jon Doe]

And a follow up to go with that answer...

Generally what you come up with is spot on, and most of the folks here know that, right?

[Jon Doe]

@Thor, When I like a post, it is an indication of being town but not necessarily a town read. That's all it means to me.

~Titus

[Jon Doe]

I'm beginning to think OGML is pacing himself off because he hopes his wagon goes away - while we distract ourselves towards a town lynch.

Is that his normal meta as scum?

[Jon Doe]

^^ was Titus. Sorry.

[No Brains Here]

Is that his normal meta as scum?

I don't believe in meta.

[MattP]

I don't believe in meta.

'Atta girl

[Thor665]

Because I think different things when I push different people, since as a human being I generally have altering reasons for different actions I take, and when I call one person scum (Jon Doe) it does not have the same meaning as a different scenario where I call someone scummy (you), since both motives and intensity of reads can change. In the situation with Jon Doe, I wasn't trying to push a lynch through at the time I started pushing him, because that would have required me being positive about the read. I obviously was not positive about the read, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to get him to prove his scumminess or towniness with the reaction test regarding his QT knowledge.

As for me calling you scummy for a Sugar Cain push, I called you scummy because I think your tone was scummy. Let's compare to the Jon Doe slot. Intensity of read? I thought your action was less weakly scum-oriented than my initial points on Jon Doe. Motivation-wise did I call your action scummy? I wasn't trying to push you, I was talking to fellow people I thought were town so that they knew my stance. Why am I not motivated to push you? Because I don't think a Thor wagon right now is lucrative. Why is that? Because I don't read you any better under pressure than not under pressure, so there's nothing positive to gain for me right now in pushing you. I'll push you when I'm confident of a scumread on you. You're more experienced that most players that I would pressure. I don't push CES either in games. I avoid placing pressure on experienced scum players to derive information, I push experienced scum players when I want them lynched.

Well, that's a lot of answer that actually isn't to my point, allow me to clarify it for you.

You suggested my push on Sugar was scummy.
Yet you say that a bad push you had on Doe is legit because it was scumhunting.
Please tell me how you know I'm not scumhunting since you clearly believe very bad pushes can be used as scumhunting and the extent of your issue with my Sugar push is that it is 'bad' (for reasons you haven't explained) and that you think Sugar is town.

I would actually like you to show me anything that was functionally name-calling against Jon Doe. The entire conversation with him I felt incredibly impartial about being rude in response to him. If you show me something that was functionally name calling I'll agree to it, but currently it looks like you made a throwaway statement that served no purpose but to antagonize me. Please prove me wrong.

I'll repeat my question.
Could you define 'functionally' for me - and then apply it to what I said.
If you do this so I understand where you're coming from, I'll happily answer your question.
You do seem to be acting as though functionally = literally though, which is why I want this done.

I certainly extrovert both of those things

Yes. You certainly do, but that wasn't the question. The other part just shows some hydra dissonance. She may not feel as I do yet.

If that wasn't the question, what was the question?
I think that is an answer to the question.

And a follow up to go with that answer...

Generally what you come up with is spot on, and most of the folks here know that, right?

I don't think I'm as spot on as I'd like to be, and I'm not sure who believes I'm spot on or not - I seem to generally carry an aura more of 'unreadable mastermind' than 'unquestionable gawd scumhunter' though insomuch as mostly what I deal with is being obv. town all the time while everyone says I am probably still scum for no reason other than my username.

[Thor665]

Pretty much everything in your "case" is stuff Mara did.

That...excuses it?

What's this "bad start to day 2" junk about?

I explained that - I said it was a specific and elaborate build up to vote OGML over failure to justify every inch of his scumhunting, which i hypocrisy from your slot and also not a scumtell in the first place.

@Thor, When I like a post, it is an indication of being town but not necessarily a town read. That's all it means to me.

~Titus

Sheep me?

[Desperado]

MORE OGML votes please

focus focus focus

My pitoli case is much better than your OGML case and I'm annoyed that I asked you to comment on it and all you could muster was "I've never played with them so i dunno."

desp

desp

desp

I want you to look into my eyes and know that I am here for you. okay? you are in my don't lynch don't touch pile if anyone looks at you funny I will eat their liver.

the ogml case is mostly dgb cos I don't them either. and that was dgb posting right there.

let me elaborate on the pitouli case; I think it is decent but the thing is, is some of that could be a playstyle thing. if I had at least 1 game with them I could give you a better response. dgb is pretty adamant about ogml so I don't see our vote moving.

Alright, you take half of the town block I quoted on OGML and I'll take the other half on Pitoli.

Because they're too busy voting town.
What do you think of my Sugar Cain case?

Not too enamored with it. I think they're town and you don't seem too invested in it either so let's rev the Pitoli wagon up together.

[Thor665]

Not too enamored with it. I think they're town and you don't seem too invested in it either so let's rev the Pitoli wagon up together.

Has the case been added to since Day 1 when I was on it?
Because if not then I don't see why we can't rev up this case instead.

[Desperado]

Yeah let me quote it

[Desperado]

Spoiler: Pitoli is scum

Erm, why are people voting Desperado?

Erm, why are people voting Desperado?

They think he's scum.
Who do you think is scum?

No idea for now, I'll come back and read the thread later when it's not moving a mile a minute.

p-edit: goddammit let me post, people.

Never follows up his original question, can't give any scum reads, whines about people voting him before he has a chance to post. This is why they were scum yesterday.

Whether scum started driving or not there were townies on the wagon.

Self-evident fluff

I watch the show but

WHO THE HECK IS SHUMPERT

Irrelevant fluff easily answered by google

I watch the show but

WHO THE HECK IS SHUMPERT

one of the gov's cronies. Anything, any opinions on this game at all??

I really, really didn’t understand the StupendousKey lynch, no matter how many times their posts and the justification for it by other players. I’m thinking scum got to capitalize on the speed of the thread since nobody was going back to check how baseless the SK wagon was??

Worst post in the game by far. Pitoli was active throughout Wednesday night, which means they were reading the thread (and really, really not understanding the Stup lynch) but didn't do anything to stop it. That's active lurking AND gunning for cheap town cred, and it's scummy.

Still not done reading but at page 15 I'm thinking in {Jon Doe, Sugar Cain, RedCoyote} mostly because plenty of other people leaving me with stronger town impressions.

p-edit: wow okay

Already discussed in detail but this set of reads is pretty clearly manufactured. And they whine about someone voting them again.

Enough people, so that you can actually narrow down the list to just us 5?

~Sugar

Sure, for now that's where I want to look.

I feel like you're setting me up for a fall later when I scumread someone not in this list.

^Town wouldn't say that. He's extremely concerned with how he appears to Sugar.

The thing is, a lot of people in this game are dropping what I want to interpret as towntells, but I haven't played with like 80% of the player list so I'm not sure if I'm getting ahead of myself by sorting them town. Actually you know what I probably am but whatever for now~ they can enjoy it before I get paranoid.

Who

do

you have a strong impression on, Sugar?

This is just all over the place. Earlier people were leaving strong town impressions, but now, after Sugar pushed him on it, he's starting to question his own interpretations. It's contrived. And scummy.

[Jon Doe]

@Thor - I don't think we can sheep you on Sugar. We want OMG more. I'm sure we might consider hitting Sugar on Day 3.

~Titus

[MattP]

Because I think different things when I push different people, since as a human being I generally have altering reasons for different actions I take, and when I call one person scum (Jon Doe) it does not have the same meaning as a different scenario where I call someone scummy (you), since both motives and intensity of reads can change. In the situation with Jon Doe, I wasn't trying to push a lynch through at the time I started pushing him, because that would have required me being positive about the read. I obviously was not positive about the read, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to get him to prove his scumminess or towniness with the reaction test regarding his QT knowledge.

As for me calling you scummy for a Sugar Cain push, I called you scummy because I think your tone was scummy. Let's compare to the Jon Doe slot. Intensity of read? I thought your action was less weakly scum-oriented than my initial points on Jon Doe. Motivation-wise did I call your action scummy? I wasn't trying to push you, I was talking to fellow people I thought were town so that they knew my stance. Why am I not motivated to push you? Because I don't think a Thor wagon right now is lucrative. Why is that? Because I don't read you any better under pressure than not under pressure, so there's nothing positive to gain for me right now in pushing you. I'll push you when I'm confident of a scumread on you. You're more experienced that most players that I would pressure. I don't push CES either in games. I avoid placing pressure on experienced scum players to derive information, I push experienced scum players when I want them lynched.

Well, that's a lot of answer that actually isn't to my point, allow me to clarify it for you.

You suggested my push on Sugar was scummy.
Yet you say that a bad push you had on Doe is legit because it was scumhunting.
Please tell me how you know I'm not scumhunting since you clearly believe very bad pushes can be used as scumhunting and the extent of your issue with my Sugar push is that it is 'bad' (for reasons you haven't explained) and that you think Sugar is town.

I would actually like you to show me anything that was functionally name-calling against Jon Doe. The entire conversation with him I felt incredibly impartial about being rude in response to him. If you show me something that was functionally name calling I'll agree to it, but currently it looks like you made a throwaway statement that served no purpose but to antagonize me. Please prove me wrong.

I'll repeat my question.
Could you define 'functionally' for me - and then apply it to what I said.
If you do this so I understand where you're coming from, I'll happily answer your question.
You do seem to be acting as though functionally = literally though, which is why I want this done.

Well, just like you I can only assume, and I can only point them out because I'm once again a human being. Then you can feel free to postpone responding to me, which would have been fine since I wasn't actively attacking you anyway and wasn't preventing you from your push, or you could explain your motivations to me on the spot and I can see if I agree with them. Your connection is a logical fallacy.

You're very much confusing me. You said it was functionally name calling. I don't know what you mean by "functionally name calling" so I'm asking for you to give examples. You're then telling me to define "functionally" when you were the one that used it first and I don't know what YOU meant by it. That literally doesn't make sense

[Thor665]

@Desp - actually your quoting of 773 reminded me of it. I'm calling that one paranoia as a town tell. The rest of it is mostly 'pitoli plays weakly' and I feel we've already done one policy lynch, so why rush to a second? Naw, I don't want that wagon - you should come join my wagon.

@Jon Doe - The "case" on OGML is that he was scumhunting. It is an inherently bad case, and I loathe it. Let's speed lynch Sugar and laugh about it post game.

[No Brains Here]

The way to bring back harmony is to vote for OGML who is absolutely scum.

We can lynch Thor tomorrow.

[Sugar Cain]

@Thor - I don't think we can sheep you on Sugar. We want OMG more. I'm sure we might consider hitting Sugar on Day 3.

~Titus

What part on the case do you agree with?

[Thor665]

Well, just like you I can only assume, and I can only point them out because I'm once again a human being. Then you can feel free to postpone responding to me, which would have been fine since I wasn't actively attacking you anyway and wasn't preventing you from your push, or you could explain your motivations to me on the spot and I can see if I agree with them. Your connection is a logical fallacy.

No - it isn't. Explain how it is.

You're very much confusing me. You said it was functionally name calling.

Yes.

I don't know what you mean by "functionally name calling" so I'm asking for you to give examples.

No, you claimed it hadn't happened - you decided what functionally meant and got excited that you could catch me in a lie, trolololol.
But grammar wins again!

You're then telling me to define "functionally" when you were the one that used it first and I don't know what YOU meant by it. That literally doesn't make sense

Interesting that you thought I could call you a liar over it.
Here's the gist - you implied that people would be able to call your trio 'scum' by pressuring them (e.g. name calling) and getting them to respond negatively.
You then pressured Jon to the point there was the whole dip-Smurf commentary,a nd then you sort of stepped back and pointed at him reacting negatively to the pressure with a 'see, see, officers!' attitude.
That's functionally the same thing, him getting peeved at you is not a scumtell - it is a playstyle tell.
You did then go and call him town afterwards, which I liked, but the inbuilt hypocrisy I don't - which is why I challenged you on it when I saw it happen.

So, now that you have my funtionally name calling story - what are you going to do with it, oh King of the Scum?

[Desperado]

@Desp - actually your quoting of 773 reminded me of it. I'm calling that one paranoia as a town tell. The rest of it is mostly 'pitoli plays weakly' and I feel we've already done one policy lynch, so why rush to a second? Naw, I don't want that wagon - you should come join my wagon.

@Jon Doe - The "case" on OGML is that he was scumhunting. It is an inherently bad case, and I loathe it. Let's speed lynch Sugar and laugh about it post game.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. Once you realize this is townNero you're more than welcome to change your mind.

[Thor665]

The way to bring back harmony is to vote for OGML who is absolutely scum.

What do you think about me calling the case on him 'He's scum because he was scumhunting'?
Please get the non-DGB head to answer, I can always provide my own snarky one-liners if needed, so I don't need to hear from her
Here, I'll even provide a few;

'We didn't read your posts, because you're scum.'

'Your reasoning doesn't matter, because OGML is scum.'

'You're saying scum wouldn't scumhunt? What do you know about the setup, scum?'

'Thorscum defending OGMLscum, scumtastic!'

That about covers the bases, so...other head, whassup?

[Thor665]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. Once you realize this is townNero you're more than welcome to change your mind.

Sheep me?

[MattP]

I assumed functionally means "effectively"

I never effectively namecalled Jon Doe. You said I did. Show me an exact quote where, without using negative terms, I was effectively namecalling

[Jon Doe]

@Thor/Cain, I really like the OGML case better and his sudden vanishing after being FoSed seems to indicate he doesn't want more attention being brought to him. That being said, Sugar and GiF have been the biggest other suspects in our thread right now. Sugar and OGML are both consistent with how the nightkills went down. I just would rather stay on the wagon with a stronger case. If Sugar says something scummy later, I'll talk to my other head about it. I don't like Sugar, but I like OGML less. Sugar's voting pattern has been erratic at best. By the way, this head doesn't like "sheeping" that much. I usually hesitate to even sheep confirmed town. Plus the begging people to sheep you makes your case look much weaker and possibly scum driven.

@Thor, was the "King of the Scum" comment necessary?

~Titus