Mafiascum.net

In post 98, Definitely Not Scum wrote:Why did you put parentheses around could be when that’s what I actually said?

Because generalization.
I didn't want to type out "This behavior could be a playstyle" ∈ "This behavior is a playstyle."

I’m not assuming anything when I’m using conditional language like “might be”, list an action that could verify the conditional la gauge, do the action, and then Co firm it wasn’t the conditional.

Like ???

And I was arguing generally there, not specific.

In post 101, Definitely Not Scum wrote:I’m not assuming anything when I’m using conditional language like “might be”, list an action that could verify the conditional la gauge, do the action, and then Co firm it wasn’t the conditional.

Like ???

All your sematics gets redirected to:

Key point here is that you declared the possibility of it being playstyle before you fact-check it.

In post 100, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 98, Definitely Not Scum wrote:Why did you put parentheses around could be when that’s what I actually said?

Because generalization.
I didn't want to type out "This behavior could be a playstyle" ∈ "This behavior is a playstyle."

You adding parentheses actually changes the entire meaning of the sentence. It changes an outright statement, which is what I made, to an implied statement. You are trying to paint it into a worse light than it actually is.

In post 103, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 101, Definitely Not Scum wrote:I’m not assuming anything when I’m using conditional language like “might be”, list an action that could verify the conditional la gauge, do the action, and then Co firm it wasn’t the conditional.

Like ???

All your sematics gets redirected to:

Key point here is that you declared the possibility of it being playstyle before you fact-check it.

Which isn’t scummy. If I had just left it hanging sure, that could be me trying to change the narrative. But I immediately followed up on it.

In post 105, Definitely Not Scum wrote:If I had just left it hanging sure, that could be me trying to change the narrative. But I immediately followed up on it.

In post 99, GuyInFreezer wrote:It reeks of rushed defense.

In post 96, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 93, popsofctown wrote:When I see someone shading a transparent progression with a quasi-rhetorical question I will take no such precautions.

If you correctly guess what I was trying to do with that question, I'll gladly back off (Don't worry, I'm not that cheap to lie what I was thinking or was planning of doing).
Otherwise, please don't assume.

Since you used the "there exists" symbol in a recent post, I'll point out that just like existence proofs, I don't have to know exactly what it is you're doing to think it's unproductive and inductive.

In post 104, Definitely Not Scum wrote:You adding parentheses actually changes the entire meaning of the sentence. It changes an outright statement, which is what I made, to an implied statement. You are trying to paint it into a worse light than it actually is.

Not really? It should be clear about what I was implying there given my context.

In post 106, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 105, Definitely Not Scum wrote:If I had just left it hanging sure, that could be me trying to change the narrative. But I immediately followed up on it.

In post 99, GuyInFreezer wrote:It reeks of rushed defense.

You cannot have it both ways dude, but kept chugging along with that tunnel.

I want to hate you but this DNS push seems towny

In post 107, popsofctown wrote:Since you used the "there exists" symbol in a recent post, I'll point out that just like existence proofs, I don't have to know exactly what it is you're doing to think it's unproductive and inductive.

I'm simply asking you (nicely) to not interrupt me because I do things way differently from average players and interrupting in general is fucking hell for people who read base off of interactions in general.

In post 81, GuyInFreezer wrote: I'm only going to warn you once.

In post 111, GuyInFreezer wrote: I'm simply asking you (nicely)

In post 109, Definitely Not Scum wrote:You cannot have it both ways dude, but kept chugging along with that tunnel.

Ah yes, there we go. The word "tunnel" by only the 5th page into the game. But since "both ways" was mentioned and I only argued one way the entire time, I went through my post to see if anything would give off wrong idea. Therefore, let me fix one of my post.

In post 92, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 89, Definitely Not Scum wrote:Y’all are so bad at reading obvtown people. I expect it from GIF, but Pine.

Clearly you don't know how obvtowning works.
Obvtowning means one is towning up without doing odd shit.

Defending a player you are not familiar with by mentioning a playstyle from half-ass meta attempt with 2 games is hella odd at best.

Sorry about that, it should be "by mentioning a playstyle use half-ass meta attempt with 2 games" instead.

In post 112, popsofctown wrote:

In post 81, GuyInFreezer wrote: I'm only going to warn you once.

In post 111, GuyInFreezer wrote: I'm simply asking you (nicely)

Oh I'll tell you the consequence then to clear that off.
Each violation will cause me to treat you 1% less favorable.

Hello!

GIF: You've shown the inability to read me, so I only ask that you defer to people who actually know how to read me like Firebringer, Pops, Dunnstral, potentially Shadoweh.

You’re awfully sensitive, my dude

In post 117, Pine wrote:You’re awfully sensitive, my dude

I do react harshly to bad scumreads on town me, yes.

In post 116, Definitely Not Scum wrote:GIF: You've shown the inability to read me, so I only ask that you defer to people who actually know how to read me like Firebringer, Pops, Dunnstral, potentially Shadoweh.

Oh I wonder since when I wasn't allowed to make a read on someone that I'm not familiar with.
I guess newbie queue should shut down since it's illegal.

In post 119, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 116, Definitely Not Scum wrote:GIF: You've shown the inability to read me, so I only ask that you defer to people who actually know how to read me like Firebringer, Pops, Dunnstral, potentially Shadoweh.

Oh I wonder since when I wasn't allowed to make a read on someone that I'm not familiar with.
I guess newbie queue should shut down since it's illegal.

Also I'm not familiar with any of them in your list in terms of gameplay.
In fact, I'm not familiar with anyone in this game in terms of gameplay.

In post 116, Definitely Not Scum wrote:GIF: You've shown the inability to read me, so I only ask that you defer to people who actually know how to read me like Firebringer, Pops, Dunnstral, potentially Shadoweh.

This is a sketchy way to discredit GiF's read since I'm batting .5000 on volxen and 0.000 on Oversoul.
VOTE: Definitely Not Scum

Oh wow, pops is scum. :\

The fact you wanted GiF to defer to the read of one of your scumreads is yet another problem with the way you're acting right now