Mafiascum.net

122 & 123 were made mostly out of boredom due to the fact that;

Korlash wrote:Ah man... It's one of these games... where everyone talks... *rolls eyes*

You're very correct sir. People need to start posting and not reading & waiting (better term for this?) Best thing that one can do is hope Glados & Crayons express some interest in the latest developments.

Till something happens I'll continue to zzz.

Why is the best thing I/anyone else can do is hope that I express some interest in the "latest developments?" And what specific "latest developments" are you wanting me to comment upon which I have not already?

7 to lynch

Gorrad: 1 (ZEEnon)
GLaDOS: 1 (GhostWriter)
Giuseppe: 1 (Green Crayons)
Seraphim: 1 (zwetschanwasser)
GhostWriter: 1 (Seraphim)
zwetschanwasser: 1 (LynchHimNotMe)
Korlash: 1 (Korlash)
Green Crayons: 1 (GLaDOS)
Albert B. Rampage: 1 (PhilyEc)
PhilyEc: 1 (Albert B. Rampage)

Not Voting: 2 (Gorrad, Giuseppe)

Green Crayons wrote:Why is the best thing I/anyone else can do is hope that I express some interest in the "latest developments?" And what specific "latest developments" are you wanting me to comment upon which I have not already?

Albert's childish outburst to be exact. Its very emotional and has little content. Not only that he performed an OMGUS, his second weakly backed vote.

Nobody seems to care o-o

Green Crayons seems bent on misrepping my earlier post.

Its pretty easy to misrep a post where all you give the direct question is a one word answer though (being 'scum'). I thought you earlier accused Giuseppe of misreping your post by this;

I hadn't actually seen this when I was reading the topic before, but upon seeing the quote in Phil's post, sirens went off in my mind. Zwet doesn't normally wait to hear other people's opinions... This is massively out of character. This seems to me like scum who want to hear a Townie's PoV before latching on and repeating the same argument, thus clearing themselves.

Of course, then again, after seeing Zwet's post, I thought of ABR's most recent post, and saw how they were quite similar. Both in the severity of their condemnations of their respective targets, and also the seeming lack of their own arguments to bring to the table.

FoS: Zwet and ABR

Is this what you're thinking of and typo'd the wrong name?

Nope. Green Crayons later said THE EXACT SAME THING that Gius said.

wasser wrote:Green Crayons seems bent on misrepping my earlier post.

What was doing was explaining how I saw the situation. I asked for you to clarify. Instead of clarifying, you decided that I'm trying to slander you, claimed as such with no actual facts to support such a notion, and then you apparently consider the case closed because you don't attempt to clear up the confusion... all of which leaves me none the wiser as to your convoluted/nonsensical/suspicious posts.

And where did I repeat "THE EXACT SAME THING" as Giuseppe?

Giuseppe wrote:I hadn't actually seen this when I was reading the topic before, but upon seeing the quote in Phil's post, sirens went off in my mind. Zwet doesn't normally wait to hear other people's opinions... This is massively out of character. This seems to me like scum who want to hear a Townie's PoV before latching on and repeating the same argument, thus clearing themselves.

Green Crayons wrote:Also, does anyone else find wasser's post 73 exceptionally odd? As in, he thinks he has found scum on page three and then, instead of explaining his conviction, he wants someone else to respond to something I can't readily identify first?

The only thing that can be considered 'the exact same thing' is the FoS.

I clarified, Green. Right after Gius. Then you came up with the same argument reworded.

Alright, I didn't catch that portion of Giuseppe's post. But, looking at it I'm still not satisfied with your explanation, because, actually, only my FOS seems to be quite similar to what Giuseppe said, but my main issue in 115 is different than what Giuseppe was talking about. So, no. I am not merely repeating Giuseppe's issues. Please hang the parroting accusation on someone else's door, thanks.

Once again: There are a few discrepancies between your original post and your "clarification" that bug me, and I want you to explain it.

Explain:
DOS asked you what you thought of me - not Phily, not anyone else.
Your response was "scum."
Now, you want to say that you were saying you thought Phily was scum, not me. Even though you were answering DOS' question .

Explain:
You added to your answer that you wanted Phily to "answer first."
It is unclear at the time what you are wanting him to answer.
Your clarification post says that you were wanting him to "give [you] something to work with."
He had already "given [you] something to work with" in his 67, which was six posts prior to this one where you were wanting him to give you something. It had already been given.

Phily wrote:Albert's childish outburst to be exact. Its very emotional and has little content. Not only that he performed an OMGUS, his second weakly backed vote.

So you want me to say something more about something I've already commented upon while I'm awaiting a reply because that's the only thing people can rely upon to see activity in this game? ... Wow.

Green Crayons wrote:So you want me to say something more about something I've already commented upon while I'm awaiting a reply because that's the only thing people can rely upon to see activity in this game? ... Wow.

Well how can you explain Albert's reaction? Its 'Wow' itself and I think it deserves more attention.
---
Rest of your post I agree with, I think I've mentioned some of what you've said earlier regarding your opinion of Zwet's behaviour but its a good summary of what hes said.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't ask for something to work with. I had just gotten it.

[Reads new Bleach manga]

Oh lordy~

... Processing ...

Post 73 wrote:Scum, but I want Phily to answer first.

Post 89 wrote:I think Phily could be scum. That's why I was holding off on GC until Phily gave me something to work with. How is this hard to understand?

Post 137 wrote:Exactly. Which is why I didn't ask for something to work with. I had just gotten it.

I find no way to read these three statements without there being a contradiction. If he had already gotten what he wanted from PhilyEc, he had no reason to hold off voting for Green Crayons. This looks like a classic case of muddying the water.

~~~

I think Giuseppe nicely explained the "discrepancy" of whether or not his vote was "random" in Post 79. The thing I currently like least about him is his martyr-like choice of words in Post 81 and Post 103.

~~~

I 100% disagree with Green Crayons' analysis in Post 80.

Green Crayons has been pushing an agenda of "lying" this whole time. I find that most games do not have "true" random voting to begin with. This is like telling children there is a Santa Claus or an Easter Bunny. It is akin to when I falsely tell tests subjects that I am going to murder them. It is simply part of the protocol.

I still think the best way to think of Giuseppe's vote is as "random whilst being informative," and he called it random because that is the traditional thing to do. For those following the game, this is almost entirely a rehash of my own Post 82.

~~~

I am not intrigued by the debate between Albert B. Rampage and PhilyEc.

Albert claims he had suspicion of PhilyEc prior to voting PhilyEc, but even the most cursory glance at his posts shows that this is false. The most he had done was say that he would ignore PhilyEc until PhilyEc "posted something of value." This is ironic because Albert B. Rampage himself had posted nothing of value by that time – he instead pointed to Green Crayons' posts to explain his suspicions. This is decidedly not "open and honest."

~~~

... Processing ...

When I sign up to play a 12-player game, I expect to see twelve players. This game has fallen far short of that expectation. Even some people who have been posting I would not call "players" for their lack of contribution to the game.

I have earned my title.

... Processing ...

You are close to earning my vote as well. My one regret is that I only have one vote to give.

Okay robocop, I guess I gotta get lucky sometimes.

I've decided to get back into the game. I will take no questions for the moment.

7 to lynch

zwetschanwasser: 2 (LynchHimNotMe, GLaDOS)
Gorrad: 1 (ZEEnon)
GLaDOS: 1 (GhostWriter)
Giuseppe: 1 (Green Crayons)
Seraphim: 1 (zwetschanwasser)
GhostWriter: 1 (Seraphim)
Korlash: 1 (Korlash)
Albert B. Rampage: 1 (PhilyEc)

Not Voting: 3 (Gorrad, Giuseppe, Albert B. Rampage)

GLaDOS wrote:... Processing ...

Zwetschenwasser: A Play in Three Parts

Act #1: Zwetschenwasser, what do you think about Green Crayons?

Post 73 wrote:Scum, but I want Phily to answer first.

Act #2: Zwetschenwasser, why did you not vote Green Crayons? There were no questions for Phily at the time!

Post 89 wrote:I think Phily could be scum. That's why I was holding off on GC until Phily gave me something to work with. How is this hard to understand?

Act #3: Zwetschenwasser, didn't Phily already give you something to work with?

Post 137 wrote:Exactly. Which is why I didn't ask for something to work with. I had just gotten it.

Zwetschenwasser exuant. Fin.

I find no way to read these three statements without there being a contradiction. If he had already gotten what he wanted from PhilyEc, he had no reason to hold off voting for Green Crayons. This looks like a classic case of muddying the water.

~~~

Thanks, that clears up and pretty much explains why I couldnt make sense of Zwet's intentions, perhaps hes trying to look like someone contributing rather than simply flinging around contradicting claims of intention.

I'm still happy with my vote at the moment as Zwet hasnt had the chance to explain yet.

---

@Albert
You some sort of representative now? You decide when the questions come? Thats a very arrogant think to say wouldn't you agree? Also...is water wet?

EBWOP: Thing* to say (staying up far too late..)

Phily wrote:Well how can you explain Albert's reaction? Its 'Wow' itself and I think it deserves more attention.

I can't explain someone else's reaction for them. That's why I'm wanting him to explain it for himself. And now he's gone into "Whoops, my mistake! No questions for the moment!" mode which is dumb because nobody is exempt from questioning. So, I'm still awaiting an explanation (see below), but his actions have been duly noted.

DOS wrote:I find no way to read these three statements without there being a contradiction. If he had already gotten what he wanted from PhilyEc, he had no reason to hold off voting for Green Crayons. This looks like a classic case of muddying the water.

Careful, you'll be called out on your "willful misinterpretation" of this confusing clusterfuck of logic. Because you're obviously trying to slander the poor fellow.

DOS wrote:I 100% disagree with Green Crayons' analysis in Post 80.

Obviously. And I 100% agree with it. This point of discussion is becoming old hat and continually coming back to it is retarding the natural growth of conversation. If there is anything that won't be a simple rehash of your 82 where I will have to respond with a rehash of my 80, please get it out now. Otherwise, I think we can let this point be for the time being.

Albert wrote:I have earned my title.

So you're saying that there were no suspicions you had about Phily prior to his vote on you?

No.