Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 6:52 am**

In post 1098, Nero Cain wrote:you guy!!! Nacho is caught scum and avoiding the thread. Why is he not dead yet?

you aren't even voting nacho?

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 6:53 am**

oh you are nvm

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 6:55 am**

Unvote
Vote: Nacho

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 6:56 am**

lol @ Bacde not knowing I was voting Nacho

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 7:07 am**

In post 1103, Nero Cain wrote:lol @ Bacde not knowing I was voting Nacho

I coulda sworn I checked the VC like 4 pages back and thought you WEREN'T voting nacho

so this whole time I've been like "why is nero so vocally supportive but not backing it up"

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 7:25 am**

In post 1099, Cephrir wrote:A serious vote is different from "we should lynch this guy".

I provided reasons.
You called them bad and weak.
However, clearly at some point someone needs to advance from totally random to weak serious, and then from weak serious the actual serious cases can be drawn. Unless you're arguing that there is way to make a legit serious case out of a progression of non-serious posts and that this is the only proper way to do it?

Okay, so he was scum for calling someone 'confscum' without evidence...I would point out that this is, again, pedantry. Obviously he called them 'confscum' without actual proof of them being 'confscum'. So at that point you're saying he can't call a gut read a strong read when he has presented no other read as stronger, and that makes him scummy somehow?

I don't get it - clarify a bit more?

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 7:27 am**

Thor gets to ride in my null leaning scum pile for a bit.

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 7:38 am**

In post 1105, Thor665 wrote:
In post 1099, Cephrir wrote:A serious vote is different from "we should lynch this guy".
I provided reasons.
You called them bad and weak.
However, clearly at some point someone needs to advance from totally random to weak serious, and then from weak serious the actual serious cases can be drawn. Unless you're arguing that there is way to make a legit serious case out of a progression of non-serious posts and that this is the only proper way to do it?

Okay, so he was scum for calling someone 'confscum' without evidence...I would point out that this is, again, pedantry. Obviously he called them 'confscum' without actual proof of them being 'confscum'. So at that point you're saying he can't call a gut read a strong read when he has presented no other read as stronger, and that makes him scummy somehow?

I don't get it - clarify a bit more?

First point - you are allowed to suspect someone for weak reasons and to vote them, just not to say 'die scum die' or the like.

Second - First of all, he never specified that it was a gut read. It's not pedantry, because if you have that strong a suspicion, you've got to have a reason. Personally, I don't think 'gut' is usually enough of a reason to be as certain as they were, and I view it as a cop out reason just like "look at his posts". If you can't tell me what's scummy about their posts you have no right to go on insisting you're super duper sure you've caught scum.

The only one being pedantic at this point is you, I don't know why you're insisting we have this big long argument about my word choice or why I've had to clarify the same thing multiple times. I don't think I can be much clearer, and I don't see how it really matters all that much.

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 7:49 am**

Continuing.

Page 19

@Amethyst

- explain Mollie's town tells please.

Oh gawds, Eddie is very newb.

Ryu's defense of OS, especially in light of OS calling it a reaction test later, looks pretty skeevy. he's really buying into it and buddying the slot hard on what is, functionally, a VT claim.

Apparently we will later need to remember to divide Nero's vote count by 2 to see his actual activity.

Page 20

@Mac

- Why is Slandaar town?

DLG feels town.

Page 21

I agree with Nero's push on B&B here. (the indie thing)
If B&B flips scum - lynch Desperado.

Page 22

@Amethyst

- I have played with town Fuzzy.
I have not played with scum Fuzzy.
This Fuzzy looks like town Fuzzy - I can say that because I have no concept at all of what scum Fuzzy would look like.

Discuss this gak.

Amethyst looks scummy this page.
Bulbazak looks town.

Gawds...bored again, this is like wading through pea soup.

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 7:55 am**

In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:First point - you are allowed to suspect someone for weak reasons and to vote them, just not to say 'die scum die' or the like.

Why not?
Also, why would scum do it and town wouldn't?

In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:Second - First of all, he never specified that it was a gut read.

Because a list of reads he can barely put into words as to why he has them are reads based on solid cases he's refusing to discuss?

In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:It's not pedantry, because if you have that strong a suspicion, you've got to have a reason.

It's only a "strong suspicion" insomuch as you're taking it to pedantic levels.
It's amongst the strongest of a list of reads none of which have reasons...why is it special?

In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:The only one being pedantic at this point is you, I don't know why you're insisting we have this big long argument about my word choice or why I've had to clarify the same thing multiple times. I don't think I can be much clearer, and I don't see how it really matters all that much.

It matters to me because I think you're faking how much you care about word choice in order to make scum cases that look legit and can be pressed for 'legit' reasons, while the cases themselves are, in reality, meaningless gak with no real scumworthiness behind them.

I'm trying to figure out if you really believe what you're saying by pressing you to keep defending the stance in different ways to see if I can find logical holes that appear scummy, or simply town with a playstyle I find disagreeable.

Currently you appear desperate to stop the conversation, as opposed to explaining how your scumhunting style works - which hardly thrills me as a response.

Make sense?

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 8:24 am**

its likely thor is town considering that he would be willing to PL me and isn't finding me obvtown for some reason

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 8:31 am**

I'll leave those answer's to Mala, Thor but I also have a strong townread on the Disney Hydra slot so I don't know how you are coming up with them being likely to flip scum. I also don't know how you came to the conclusion that they are going to flip anytime soon.

Bacde, no but I love how you posture that OMGUS

OS, I didn't comment on your Gambit because I thought it wasn't helpful. I though it was an obvious fake-claim and that it was obvious that you were looking for how people would react, one of the reasons why I believe Nacho to be scum is because of how he reacted.

I am also not following you on CTD Jiffy, though I might follow you guys tomorrow on Cephrir if Mala allows it. I have him as one of my stronger scum reads

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 8:31 am**

~Mara

Fuck signing

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 8:34 am**

In post 907, Nero Cain wrote:
In post 844, Amethyst Kitty wrote:Mala says that Mollie caught something interesting that I had personally over looked. I do agree with her in that, it's a good point and it has to do with the entire Indie battle you had with her
This looks like nothing but strongly worded bullshit. Why were you needlessly vague here?

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am**

Cuz

~Mara

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 8:53 am**

In post 1111, Amethyst Kitty wrote:Bacde, no but I love how you posture that OMGUS

I wasn't posturing, I was asking a question

Mara you're slipping down my reads fast whats going on

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 9:05 am**

In post 1114, Amethyst Kitty wrote:Cuz

~Mara

'cause you are scum and being hard to get along with? Ok, I'll accept that answer.

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 9:17 am**

BTW Mara, it should be pretty clear that I'm not omgussing you.

It should be pretty apparent that right now I have two objectives:

1) Get scum-nacho lynched
2) Identify other scum before tomorrow

So when I ask you a question like "Are you scum?" and you respond with something like "no, but I can see you are posturing" instead of just "No, I'm not" it sets off my scumbells

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 9:21 am**

She was outted as scum pages ago. Just ignore them.

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 9:30 am**

What do you think of B&TB, fruit?

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 10:01 am**

In post 1109, Thor665 wrote:
In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:First point - you are allowed to suspect someone for weak reasons and to vote them, just not to say 'die scum die' or the like.
Why not?
Also, why would scum do it and town wouldn't?

Because hyperaggressiveness is often percieved as townie, whereas I think town tend to say what they honestly believe, and I didn't think you honestly believed anything that had happened at that point was lynchworthy.

In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:Second - First of all, he never specified that it was a gut read.

Because a list of reads he can barely put into words as to why he has them are reads based on solid cases he's refusing to discuss?

No, they're based on reasons that don't exist?

In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:It's not pedantry, because if you have that strong a suspicion, you've got to have a reason.
It's only a "strong suspicion" insomuch as you're taking it to pedantic levels.
It's amongst the strongest of a list of reads none of which have reasons...why is it special?

What? I mean I know I'm talking about the specific words that are used, but how else should one look at it? I feel like you're twisting what's going on here. Fine, I'll be pedantic if that's what you want. By your definition the entire game of Mafia is pedantic. Anyway, to get to the point: the word 'confscum' is equivalent to expressing a very strong suspicion. I don't see how my interpretation is 'taking it to pedantic levels'... I mean, that's literally what he said. And it's special in that I will allow players to not have reasons for their weaker scumreads, because gut is a legitimate reason at that level. Strong scumreads, as I've stated (and I think as I've shown is really my opinion in my interactions with Bacde), require better reasons.

In post 1107, Cephrir wrote:The only one being pedantic at this point is you, I don't know why you're insisting we have this big long argument about my word choice or why I've had to clarify the same thing multiple times. I don't think I can be much clearer, and I don't see how it really matters all that much.
It matters to me because I think you're faking how much you care about word choice in order to make scum cases that look legit and can be pressed for 'legit' reasons, while the cases themselves are, in reality, meaningless gak with no real scumworthiness behind them.

I don't care that much about the specific word 'confscum' except inasmuch as it expresses a strong suspicion. Also, I would hardly call what I had at that point a 'case'. Wow, did I really just type that? Okay, I'm gonna leave that in there, and given that I just typed that, I guess I do care about word choice. >.<

I'm trying to figure out if you really believe what you're saying by pressing you to keep defending the stance in different ways to see if I can find logical holes that appear scummy, or simply town with a playstyle I find disagreeable.

Currently you appear desperate to stop the conversation, as opposed to explaining how your scumhunting style works - which hardly thrills me as a response.

Make sense?

Okay, I understand your angle better now. I think "desperate to stop the conversation" is a bit of a reach.

I don't know that this is "how my scumhunting style works" so much as an isolated incident. I also don't know that I really have a scumhunting style (see: shitty town player, usually too busy getting lynched to scumhunt), but my *preference* is to scumhunt by presenting cases, and I like it when others make cases rather than try to persuade me with ambiguous meta cases and "look at his posts" reasoning. Both because cases are more persuasive and because they help me read the case-maker. But you probably won't see a really coherent case out of me before Day 3 unless someone flips scum. (Example: the recently finished Amnesiac Mafia, in which I spend the entire game barely avoiding the lynch, present a case in Lylo which turns out to be wrong, and lose us the game)

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 10:09 am**

...

Bacde, I was joking about the OMGUS thing... The tongue smiley should have made that obvious

and no, it's because we don't have to answer something when it's bound to become a distractions VIA set-up analysis. I don't want to go down the road of set-up analysis.

~Mara

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 10:12 am**

WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK.

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 10:15 am**

Unvote
Vote Nacho

Posted: **Sat May 11, 2013 11:19 am**

I'm starting to come around somewhat just based on the avoiding the thread thing. That's the only thing though.

Mafiascum.net

NY 164: Maniacal Street Mafia (Anticlimatically finished.)