Mafiascum.net

OOC: I know my activity level is abhorrent but I am producing and acting in and teching and am president of the group that is putting up a play this weekend so I am literally swamped. I promise promise promise I will be active come Sunday night. I should probably just state V/LA

So V/LA until Sunday

yrstruly i do suspek de scum is waitin n hopin for more votes on marine zim n furthermost i suspek if you join yrstruly an vote for poe then therewego and the game wil get to movin

Brian stirred in his chair, and drowsily listened to the current chatting. It was mostly the same people with some added pentameter from Bill Shakespeare. On the bright side, he finally understood some of James Joyce's mutterings.

Oscar rubbed his forehead, growing simultaneously tired and restless.

"I really must have more of those rhymes. Wherever has that doctor gone?"

VOTE: Dr. Seuss

I concur with the views that we must have more activity, and I agree with Mr Wilde's vote for Dr. Seuss, but we must remember that Seuss is not simply the chosen lurker. Votes must not go his way only because he does not post! Those posts that he has made are scumminess in their purest form, and that is why we must vote him; I consider the repetition of these messages my strongest duty. I only hope those posters who have not posted in a while shall read my words again when in a more agreeable mood, and sharply change their votes.

Jane,

↑ Jane Austen wrote:I agree with Mr Wilde's vote for Dr. Seuss, but we must remember that Seuss is not simply the chosen lurker. Votes must not go his way only because he does not post!

It is true that a vote should have substance, a word which here means "reason behind it." Yet I do not see a reason for a Seuss vote other than that he has been lurking in the shadows. Why are his rhymes and poems scummy?

↑ Lemony Snicket wrote:Jane,

↑ Jane Austen wrote:I agree with Mr Wilde's vote for Dr. Seuss, but we must remember that Seuss is not simply the chosen lurker. Votes must not go his way only because he does not post!

It is true that a vote should have substance, a word which here means "reason behind it." Yet I do not see a reason for a Seuss vote other than that he has been lurking in the shadows. Why are his rhymes and poems scummy?

His only post after his random vote is prepping to go on the Bugle wagon, yet he didn't enter it; that level of opportunistic forethought is most likely to come from scum.

Rucks Kill Kill Rucks Rucks Rucks Rucks Rucks Rucks Kill Kill Rucks Kill Kill Kill Kill Rucks Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill KillKill Kill Kill Kill

Kill

Rucks

↑ Brian Jacques wrote:Brian stirred in his chair, and drowsily listened to the current chatting. It was mostly the same people with some added pentameter from Bill Shakespeare. On the bright side, he finally understood some of James Joyce's mutterings.

The Funeral Director recovers his chair and mode-declaring Brian Jacques a distinguished Prime Ministerial member of the scumbag alliance in his ability to express voidnothing with nonwords.

One bullet kills Rucks and Jacques the heme of one's bloodtaste giving the heme bloodtaste of the other.

Per request, and after my own careful consideration, I have prodded "a whole mess of folks". Hopefully this will solve some of the reluctance many of you have with respect to posting.

d(e

a)

th

↑ ee cummings wrote:d(e

a)

th

mZb?

Timewasting everyone's blurbablurbablurb. Nonsense must halt under penal tea of soaking in afterlife.

cummings, Rucks, Jacques equals triumvirate age of plainsightlurkage. Fuckend inkspillage in navelgaze to rest ore mean ing!

"Mr Joyce seems to think that a few of our number are simply blowing warm air," Wilde observed. "I had thought to press Seuss for more rhymes, but it has been nearly a fortnight since he has last spoken. That's not unusual for our group though. It does seem that a good number of us have been very quiet for a very long time."

Pondering further, he commented on the proposed relationship between Rucks and Jacques. "I have not noticed it myself, however, that may be because I find Jacques to communicate his thoughts more clearly than Rucks does."

↑ James Joyce wrote:Inkpens down on the farnientedesks!

Wagon this hiss bag'o'scum! Gums aflapping, pens ascraping, brain nomeaning.

No more page-antry, soldiers, war has bee gun.

VOTE: Rucks

Apologies, good sir, but Rucks is not a criminal. Truly, he is very much likely to be my highest read of innocence at this hour.

The fact thou art simply muttering over and over thy suspicion of Ruck, without much motivation, nor, I daresay, incentive, hath, in turn, surely convinced me that thou merit a closer look, and that thou should ever be gazed upon from the angels above, lest, thou, when this madness truly ends, when we resign from the torture that is this... this.. hell (for it is truly maddening to accuse a genius author like myself of murder!) truly turn out to be an evildoer, in which I will, simply, be not to blame, for I, I hear, I listen, I understand, listening to what the angels whisper, fathoming why they hide in the shadows and fear a great age of darkness, fear what this world is coming down to, what this world is boiling to, an age where crimes go unpunished by the local authorities, where murderers are allowed to walk freely amidst poor souls, a world where criminals hide cadaverous faces behind smiles, and where they can beguile the general public with charisma and charm.

If thou art not a criminal, and simply a good man who hath been accused of a heinous crime, thou art simply articulating thy thoughts ever so wrongly. If thou would not mind, it would please me, and I suspect, “a whole mess of folks”, as goodman Rucks would put it, if thou would express thy thoughts in a better design. Simply stating over and over that Rucks should be killed will not simply materialize a great shadow out of the heavens that swoops down upon us and engulfs Rucks in eternal flame; surely not?

↑ Jane Austen wrote:His only post after his random vote is prepping to go on the Bugle wagon, yet he didn't enter it; that level of opportunistic forethought is most likely to come from scum.

This, Madame, makes my blood freeze and sends shivers down my spine. My eyes weep from the horrors that are put behind this thought, this logic, this... this... design. Thou art truly condemning a man for simply one post at this stage? This seems highly artificial and of want of looking “inventive” and “original”. And on the morrow, morrow, and morrow, thou would have achieved the same general purpose any sly man desires; that is to simply black-mark an innocent man, to keep thy organization of criminals safe and sound.

also catches my eye as a potential criminal. Curt, short, and seemingly trying to fade in with the general public.

Joyce is perhaps right, but when lurking is so commonplace surely lurking out of sight is better disguised - less likely to get a person in trouble? For surely Joyce cannot believe that his threesome has posted less useful information than those who have not posted at all! As such I consider being in love with one's own voice, rather than scumhunting a null tell; it is a failing on the player's part.

P-Edit: If Seuss was to post more than one post, then I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy.

↑ Jane Austen wrote:P-Edit: If Seuss was to post more than one post, then I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy.

This needs major death.
Thou are truly a foolish one, dear sir. Foolish men inhabiting the body of a genius think they can control it? Begone from my sight!


This needs major death.

In [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=4380998#p4380998]post 117[/url], Edgar Allan Poe wrote:

↑ Jane Austen wrote:P-Edit: If Seuss was to post more than one post, then I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy.

Vote: Madame Austen

Thank you for pointing this out; I meant "were", of course - I apologise profusely. I noticed that you voted me, and longed to ask "why?", for I am sure that my mistake was not so hard upon you to warrant that, and I can see no other reason; was there one?

Many many people to choose from yet only one only one only one Vote to be placed. Madness. The Bad Persons are taking full advantage of the quiet atmosphere and yet a grammar seldom goes without punishment.


The Female Novelist is surely to be bad for her undying suspicion hatred fingerpointing toward the good Rhyming Doctor.



Arthur a grammar. A rose is.

Jane,

↑ Jane Austen wrote:Joyce is perhaps right, but when lurking is so commonplace surely lurking out of sight is better disguised - less likely to get a person in trouble? For surely Joyce cannot believe that his threesome has posted less useful information than those who have not posted at all! As such I consider being in love with one's own voice, rather than scumhunting a null tell; it is a failing on the player's part.

But why is an author whose mouth is sealed shut different from an author who is faking contributions? How are you not hunting a "null tell" (which my research tells me is "lurking," a vapid thing that is indeed done by either alignment) by voting Seuss? The fact that, as you say, the three posters have contributed little means little since their contributions are fruitless and might as well be nothing, and furthermore I do not see how that exonerates you from, as you say, hunting null tells.

The tabloid will have to wait, although I am waiting for their next issue as I wait for the next letter from Beatrice that will never come.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Jane Austen

I've received a prod. It was pointy! It hurt!
I'll catch up later, when I'm not so curt.

↑ Jane Austen wrote:

In [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=4380998#p4380998]post 117[/url], Edgar Allan Poe wrote:

↑ Jane Austen wrote:P-Edit: If Seuss was to post more than one post, then I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy.

Vote: Madame Austen

Thank you for pointing this out; I meant "were", of course - I apologise profusely. I noticed that you voted me, and longed to ask "why?", for I am sure that my mistake was not so hard upon you to warrant that, and I can see no other reason; was there one?

Ah, Madame. You do not see your own fault? You see, what thou state is a very clear indication that thy current thought on Dr. Seuss is artificial. You state that "I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy".

This, methinks, makes it look like thou are looking for artificial reasons to throw suspects towards the public, in hopes of calling them "genuine thoughts". Some might call this confirmation bias. However, coming from the way thou said it, in the situation thou said it, it is a sure sign of a criminal.

Thou are simply digging the morgues for artificial participation in our discussion over the murder. This is proven by the fact that thou have made up thy mind a man says their piece. Thou are condemning a man before he opens his mouth.

This can simply mean one of two things. Either thou art a criminal, and know Seuss is innocent of the crime. Or thou art a criminal, and know Seuss is a criminal with thee.

In any situation, a criminal is a criminal, and should be met with swift death.

Nothing but darkness.





JANE AUSTEN, a regal British woman wearing a bonnet, stands up and points at the elderly fellow with silky white locks and massive glasses. This man is DOCTOR SEUSS.



Kaufman turns around, glancing back at David Mamet.



Charlie winks a proud wink, then turns back and narrows his eyes at Jane Austen.



VOTE: Jane Austen

↑ Lemony Snicket wrote:But why is an author whose mouth is sealed shut different from an author who is faking contributions?

Sir, I pray that your apparent ignorance does not come from a position of trouble making; for, to be sure, that was my point exactly. If you are not going to find a player wicked for forgetting to post - a view I have urged many times while you were absent - then you should not find them wicked for forgetting to contribute.

How are you not hunting a "null tell" (which my research tells me is "lurking," a vapid thing that is indeed done by either alignment) by voting Seuss?

I pray that you spare my blushes and do not urge me to repeat my minor little thoughts. Instead you can read my post 107, an answer to your question from before; you seemed to have ignored it, why?

The fact that, as you say, the three posters have contributed little means little since their contributions are fruitless and might as well be nothing, and furthermore I do not see how that exonerates you from, as you say, hunting null tells.

I have not hunted null tells. I have always been opposed to hunting null tells! Read post 105, I plead.

Poe: I say that if a man must take a fragment and read too much into it in order to make an argument then he must not have an argument; in context I merely claimed that he is not innocent just because he only has one post that shows his character, because he only has one post in total. It is a response to your nonsense of an implication that a man with one post must be innocent; you mustn't ignore context.

Although it may show a failing in my character, I must confess that I laugh at your comment that "This is proven by the fact that thou have made up thy mind before a man says their piece. Thou are condemning a man before he opens his mouth.", for Seuss has had no less time to talk than myself; I trust that you are aware of the difference between the mute and the quadriplegic?