Mafiascum.net

i've got a plan
let's vote me out to prove all your speculations about me being scum wrong
VOTE: elements

In post 1074, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:You having me somehow below them is also funny - what cause i fos you?

Ah yes that is... precisely the exact opposite of how this game happened.

In post 462, Green Crayons wrote:I'm getting scum pings from RTP and Harumi.

In post 477, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Im starting to understand the foses on you

you suspected me because I said you were suspicious. thank you for projecting.

In post 1074, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Ur stuck on this like null read bc u dont wanna be forced to vote them or take a stance on them

"GC/elements scum bc GC townreads elements"

oh wait


"GC/elements scum bc GC nullreads elements"

In post 1075, Elements wrote:i've got a plan
let's vote me out to prove all your speculations about me being scum wrong
VOTE: elements

What was duchess's case on me that I was misrepresenting?

for reference, so you can't go "nuh UH I didn't ACTUALLY say those EXACT WORDS":

In post 746, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:

In post 704, Datisi wrote:didn't you say you had too many scumreads earlier?

also ok, but how are you coming to partnered / associate reads then?

Their interactions with each other suggest it, even recently GC outted an unsubstantiated townread on elements

In post 1074, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Ur stuck on this like null read bc u dont wanna be forced to vote them or take a stance on them

In post 1078, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 1075, Elements wrote:i've got a plan
let's vote me out to prove all your speculations about me being scum wrong
VOTE: elements

What was duchess's case on me that I was misrepresenting?

it wasn't a case
you were saying Duchess claimed to have *caught me lurking*
Duchess claim to have *caught me while I was online*
and you just kept saying stuff about catching me lurking

In post 1075, Elements wrote:i've got a plan
let's vote me out to prove all your speculations about me being scum wrong
VOTE: elements

are you triggering me on purpose?

In post 1081, Green Crayons wrote:

In post 1075, Elements wrote:i've got a plan
let's vote me out to prove all your speculations about me being scum wrong
VOTE: elements

are you triggering me on purpose?

If I'm triggered, you can be triggered too

In post 1079, Green Crayons wrote:for reference, so you can't go "nuh UH I didn't ACTUALLY say those EXACT WORDS":

In post 746, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:

In post 704, Datisi wrote:didn't you say you had too many scumreads earlier?

also ok, but how are you coming to partnered / associate reads then?

Their interactions with each other suggest it, even recently GC outted an unsubstantiated townread on elements

In post 1074, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Ur stuck on this like null read bc u dont wanna be forced to vote them or take a stance on them

Ur own words you walked your townread back saying it was a null read - both are scummy regardless. Nice try tho.

In post 1076, Green Crayons wrote:

In post 1074, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:You having me somehow below them is also funny - what cause i fos you?

Ah yes that is... precisely the exact opposite of how this game happened.

In post 462, Green Crayons wrote:I'm getting scum pings from RTP and Harumi.

In post 477, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Im starting to understand the foses on you

you suspected me because I said you were suspicious. thank you for projecting.

No it was not the reason - it was the way you were presenting your reads that i was understanding.

In post 1083, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Ur own words you walked your townread back saying it was a null read

In post 1004, Green Crayons wrote:

you didnt even press the point then -> i say these kinds of offhand comments just to see what ppl will or will not reply to. I find it amusing you are trying to bring up those same comments as suspicious now that its convenient.

In post 1084, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:

In post 1076, Green Crayons wrote:

In post 1074, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:You having me somehow below them is also funny - what cause i fos you?

Ah yes that is... precisely the exact opposite of how this game happened.

In post 462, Green Crayons wrote:I'm getting scum pings from RTP and Harumi.

In post 477, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Im starting to understand the foses on you

you suspected me because I said you were suspicious. thank you for projecting.

No it was not the reason - it was the way you were presenting your reads that i was understanding.

oh yes your suspicion was clearly a process problem, you clearly weren't suspecting me because i suspected you:

In post 470, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:I already revealed it.

I'll quote it when im not at work
But discred me more will ya?

I think imma do trustfalls when i get home and analyze isos

In post 474, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:

In post 471, Green Crayons wrote:

In post 466, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:And whats scummy about the actions youve stated, i.e. whats the scum motivation?

ignoring direct inquiries means not having to explain your actions/reads

not pushing game forward means not potentially taking heat by pushing town vote, like lurker or active lurker status

your town tell with Harumi tbd I want to hear your response first

Can you identify which posts of mine are not attempting to push the game forward?
Because you are going to look silly when i prove you wrong

In post 477, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:I mean you are going to be looking silly when i prove your points about ne wrong because i know youre fudging them.

Im starting to understand the foses on you

if there somehow isn't scum in <RTP, GC, VB> mafia are having a field day

In post 1086, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:you didnt even press the point then -> i say these kinds of offhand comments just to see what ppl will or will not reply to. I find it amusing you are trying to bring up those same comments as suspicious now that its convenient.

lol

you have ignored me c o n s t a n t l y this game

when i pushed you on it, you said that you had already answered it (you hadn't), and called me suspicious for trying to discredit you

Like youre not even responding to the accusation that i said thay youre trying to widen poe -> you outted a bunch of ppl yousay you would be "unopposed" to eliminating. Like u threw in a bunch of inactive slots and added me and called it a day.

I'm not the best with words ever and can adlib and explain things wrong ->but my overall point is often sound. I.e incorrect mapping but correct route

In post 1089, Green Crayons wrote:

In post 1086, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:you didnt even press the point then -> i say these kinds of offhand comments just to see what ppl will or will not reply to. I find it amusing you are trying to bring up those same comments as suspicious now that its convenient.

lol

you have ignored me c o n s t a n t l y this game

when i pushed you on it, you said that you had already answered it (you hadn't), and called me suspicious for trying to discredit you

If you did push me on it then you'd have quoted it.

also it's not that i'm bringing them up now because now it's convenient

i'm bringing it up now because your past comments show when your current comments are bs

the "convenience" is just showing the lack of validity in your present comments based on your past play

In post 1090, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Like youre not even responding to the accusation that i said thay youre trying to widen poe -> you outted a bunch of ppl yousay you would be "unopposed" to eliminating. Like u threw in a bunch of inactive slots and added me and called it a day.

i dont understand what that means but also i dont care about how you envision how i should play so i have no inclination to respond to your characterization of my play

K whatever i may have taken the wrong points that can be potentially NAI but im like confident on this and elements will flip scum and it will incriminate u

In post 1093, Green Crayons wrote:

In post 1090, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Like youre not even responding to the accusation that i said thay youre trying to widen poe -> you outted a bunch of ppl yousay you would be "unopposed" to eliminating. Like u threw in a bunch of inactive slots and added me and called it a day.

i dont understand what that means but also i dont care about how you envision how i should play so i have no inclination to respond to your characterization of my play

you do know what it means u just wanna waste conversation to fluff and ignore it.

In post 1091, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:If you did push me on it then you'd have quoted it.

it's literally right there beside the posts i quoted

In post 1095, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:

In post 1093, Green Crayons wrote:

In post 1090, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:Like youre not even responding to the accusation that i said thay youre trying to widen poe -> you outted a bunch of ppl yousay you would be "unopposed" to eliminating. Like u threw in a bunch of inactive slots and added me and called it a day.

i dont understand what that means but also i dont care about how you envision how i should play so i have no inclination to respond to your characterization of my play

you do know what it means u just wanna waste conversation to fluff and ignore it.

VOTE: RTP

no idea what the fuck "widen poe" means so thanks for your bad faith argument and your bs suspicions that are literally because i suspected you

You misquoted me to remove context about the foses on you- you're full of shit.