Mafiascum.net

In post 1146, Lady 3 wrote:You think Lady 6 is townposting?

No, that was a response to 1142 about L7.

In post 1173, Lady 7 wrote:Maybe I’m missing something but I thought G3’s original post you responded to was a response to g6 getting concerned about something I said. I don’t think he’s been back in the thread since that.

Oh I have no issue with G3. I was explaining to G3 that scum shade rather than address things head on.

In post 1169, Gentleman 5 wrote:

In post 1162, Gentleman 4 wrote:The Lady 8 scum reads don't make sense to me.

I also don't think that forgiving Lady 6 just because she plays like she's got binoculars glued to her eyes is the best course of action either. Too scummy to be scum is rarely an argument, I think.

Ill go into it more if she ends up at the dance.

Tunnel Vision is usually a town issue. I take more issue with L3’s commanding than I do L6 at this time, but...

I agree on tunnel vision. I implied... incorrectly earlier. I meant to say something along the lines of "intentionally making the mistakes town makes doesn't make one town," if that makes more sense to you.

Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1159, Gentleman 5 wrote:

In post 1158, Gentleman 6 wrote:Actually, I dunno if L6 is scum.

^

L5 and L8 deserve to die before L6 imo.

I can dig this chicks vibe. Not sold on town, but Ill play.

I don't think Lady 8 should die. I think Lady 3-5 and G4 have at least 2 scum.

If I had to guess the last scum, it would be G1 or G8 although I would want it to be G6 because he was an ass earlier.

Nopenopenopenopenopenope. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. You lost me.

That said, the post above seems townie though, as I feel those reads are reactionary rather than actual reads imo.

I agree on reactionary, but I want to point out that it looks like she's calling almost half the game scum here and that doesn't necessarily seem ... I think that I could make a better judgement on her alignment if I knew her experience and capabilities in mafia, but because I do not, I'm hesitant to forgive previous scummy play because several townie fallacies have been committed.

In post 1170, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1165, Gentleman 4 wrote:I think reactionary is probably a better word than aggressive. The latter implies proactive play.

So, you don't think me asking to be partners with G3 or G5 is proactive? You don't think me suggesting who scum are is initiative taking? You don't think giving suggestions to improve the thread is proactive? You don't think calling attention to myself when I can be here is proactive?

Just what is your standard for proactive?

Everything you've done today seems to come out of emotional response to the fact that you've been called out multiple times by multiple people. You don't seem to be aware of yourself, in control of your posting, your thoughts aren't congruent, there is little or no discernable process, direction, or purpose behind your posts other than to lash out at the people who have called you out. Hence, reactionary.

In post 1175, Gentleman 3 wrote:

In post 1146, Lady 3 wrote:You think Lady 6 is townposting?

No, that was a response to 1142 about L7.

Why do the cute ones not like me?

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:I want to point out that it looks like she's calling almost half the game scum here and that doesn't necessarily seem

No. I have been calling Ladies 3,4, and 5 scum with Gentleman 1 or 8 and you. That is not almost half the game. No where near. It needs a little filtering down but is not a wild, reactionary list.

In post 1174, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1168, Gentleman 4 wrote:No one has called you arrogant, Lady 6.

Where was Gentleman 6 an ass?

What G5 said. I'm not in the mood for semantics. Someone said I was arrogant or full of myself. I'm not exactly going to find it.

I understand you disagree G5. I really hope L8 ends up at the dance so we can sort it out. I think most of the scum will soon be at the dance though anyway.

No one called you arrogant or full of yourself. I just checked, and it didn't take me very long either.

I think especially since you implied that using such terminology is indicative of scum earlier that it would be to your benefit to know who such people are so you can scum read them, do you not agree?

In post 1178, Lady 6 wrote:Why do the cute ones not like me?

I don't have anything against you but you've legit been MIA for most of the game so I don't have much to go on.

In post 1179, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:I want to point out that it looks like she's calling almost half the game scum here and that doesn't necessarily seem

No. I have been calling Ladies 3,4, and 5 scum with Gentleman 1 or 8 and you. That is not almost half the game. No where near. It needs a little filtering down but is not a wild, reactionary list.

Well, let's see.

8.5 is half, and you called 6 people scum. I'd say 6 is almost 8, so yeah. Very nearly.

It's almost like you could say, you called almost half the game scum here. Oh wait.

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:Everything you've done today seems to come out of emotional response to the fact that you've been called out multiple times by multiple people. You don't seem to be aware of yourself, in control of your posting, your thoughts aren't congruent, there is little or no discernable process, direction, or purpose behind your posts other than to lash out at the people who have called you out. Hence, reactionary.

Look dudes, this chick scumreads me. Rather than ask why or look at the posts she found offensive, I'll just call her crazy and emotional.

If you have trouble understanding why I form the reads I have, how can you be confident their reactionary or emotional? Your posting towards me today has been gaslighting and discrediting rather than intending to solve my alignment.

In post 1179, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:I want to point out that it looks like she's calling almost half the game scum here and that doesn't necessarily seem

No. I have been calling Ladies 3,4, and 5 scum with Gentleman 1 or 8 and you. That is not almost half the game. No where near. It needs a little filtering down but is not a wild, reactionary list.

6 seems a bit much.

@G4, very good answers, i agree with you, but I think L6 is playing reactionary at this time.

Talk to me about L3, do you think directing townreads to join up like she wants is a pro-town move?

In post 1182, Gentleman 4 wrote:

In post 1179, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:I want to point out that it looks like she's calling almost half the game scum here and that doesn't necessarily seem

No. I have been calling Ladies 3,4, and 5 scum with Gentleman 1 or 8 and you. That is not almost half the game. No where near. It needs a little filtering down but is not a wild, reactionary list.

Well, let's see.

8.5 is half, and you called 6 people scum. I'd say 6 is almost 8, so yeah. Very nearly.

It's almost like you could say, you called almost half the game scum here. Oh wait.

There's 17 players. 6/17 =35 percent. If you want to play even more semantics, 3 and 6 are only 1 person away from 8 and 6.

So, can you do better? Can you name all the scum in 5 names? I did ask for your reads.

Or is "nearly half" just a potshot when I have 2/3 of the game as town.

In post 1152, Lady 7 wrote:Like 6 if you said hey 7 wanna hang id say yes, you and three are my preferences really, but that’s not how that happened.

G6 this was a tack on to my earlier post to you.

In post 1184, Gentleman 5 wrote:@G4, very good answers, i agree with you, but I think L6 is playing reactionary at this time.

You break my heart G5.

In post 1183, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:Everything you've done today seems to come out of emotional response to the fact that you've been called out multiple times by multiple people. You don't seem to be aware of yourself, in control of your posting, your thoughts aren't congruent, there is little or no discernable process, direction, or purpose behind your posts other than to lash out at the people who have called you out. Hence, reactionary.

Look dudes, this chick scumreads me. Rather than ask why or look at the posts she found offensive, I'll just call her crazy and emotional.

If you have trouble understanding why I form the reads I have, how can you be confident their reactionary or emotional? Your posting towards me today has been gaslighting and discrediting rather than intending to solve my alignment.

I think it's beyond evident that I have done more than my part in research. I also don't find myself to be lacking in understanding as far what your reads are.

I haven't gaslighted you and I doubt that simply using big words to attempt to discredit me will get you very far. You've made multiple posts that show a remarkable lack of awareness of game state and positions, and several of your posts have said that things have happened that have specifically not happened. I highly recommend you re-examine your perspective.

In post 1188, Gentleman 4 wrote:

In post 1183, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:Everything you've done today seems to come out of emotional response to the fact that you've been called out multiple times by multiple people. You don't seem to be aware of yourself, in control of your posting, your thoughts aren't congruent, there is little or no discernable process, direction, or purpose behind your posts other than to lash out at the people who have called you out. Hence, reactionary.

Look dudes, this chick scumreads me. Rather than ask why or look at the posts she found offensive, I'll just call her crazy and emotional.

If you have trouble understanding why I form the reads I have, how can you be confident their reactionary or emotional? Your posting towards me today has been gaslighting and discrediting rather than intending to solve my alignment.

I think it's beyond evident that I have done more than my part in research. I also don't find myself to be lacking in understanding as far what your reads are.

I haven't gaslighted you and I doubt that simply using big words to attempt to discredit me will get you very far. You've made multiple posts that show a remarkable lack of awareness of game state and positions, and several of your posts have said that things have happened that have specifically not happened. I highly recommend you re-examine your perspective.

I recommend you go die. Neither of us is getting what we want.

The closest I came today to an error in perspective is when I misread a question from L7 as involving you and not G3.

Until you put your reads in the thread, we have nothing more to say to each other, you repugnant toad.

In post 1181, Gentleman 3 wrote:

In post 1178, Lady 6 wrote:Why do the cute ones not like me?

I don't have anything against you but you've legit been MIA for most of the game so I don't have much to go on.

Well I'm here now. I will have holiday celebrations to attend to this weekend but I don't expect to much silence after that. I put in the time when I have it and I am open to any honest questions.

uh...

In post 1185, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1182, Gentleman 4 wrote:

In post 1179, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1177, Gentleman 4 wrote:I want to point out that it looks like she's calling almost half the game scum here and that doesn't necessarily seem

No. I have been calling Ladies 3,4, and 5 scum with Gentleman 1 or 8 and you. That is not almost half the game. No where near. It needs a little filtering down but is not a wild, reactionary list.

Well, let's see.

8.5 is half, and you called 6 people scum. I'd say 6 is almost 8, so yeah. Very nearly.

It's almost like you could say, you called almost half the game scum here. Oh wait.

There's 17 players. 6/17 =35 percent. If you want to play even more semantics, 3 and 6 are only 1 person away from 8 and 6.

So, can you do better? Can you name all the scum in 5 names? I did ask for your reads.

Or is "nearly half" just a potshot when I have 2/3 of the game as town.

Ohhh! Yeah, let's do that. Let's just both multiply numbers so the fractions we use support our statements. I will bloat your numbers out of proportion and call you wrong, and then you can bloat mine even more, and then let's continue down this path until we're both exhausted!

For my rebuttal, I will remark that you didn't call 2/3 of the game town, I will say you actually called 6470588/10000000 of the game town. That's nowhere close. Now it's your turn!

this is even dumber than the new ic's entrance.

In post 1187, Lady 6 wrote:

In post 1184, Gentleman 5 wrote:@G4, very good answers, i agree with you, but I think L6 is playing reactionary at this time.

You break my heart G5.

Im trying to help you actually. I dont think you are scum.

Had this be a game where our identities were known, I would tell you from expierence what you are doing right now is going to end with you flipping town early and bitching in the dead thread about how you were right all along.

Stop posting for now, take a deep breath and relax.

I plan on getting more from you later but right now youre digging a hole.

P-Edit: Please stop. Wtf is this

okay I don't mind leaving Lady 6 this phase

With that being said, I do have some overlap with her scum pool ~

G4, if you need to cool your head fine. But when you come back, I have a question for you that needs to be discussed.

I'm cool again. Sorry. What do you need?

Talk to me about L3, do you think directing townreads to join up like she wants is a pro-town move?