Mafiascum.net

Who cares? Its to early for all that.

↑ Mehdi2277 wrote:Mhork I never claimed reaction fishing. Skim too much?

Nope. You were reaction fishing and then you were all like 'is that what you call it here?' and stuff. I remember.

↑ Mogadishu Jones wrote:But if youre asking about baby spice then yeah. Reasons=math

unvote

The speed of this wagon is ridiculous

Because early wagons are bad, right?

Mhork I didn't. That was robert and that kind of proves you're skimming to forget who said what.

Early wagons that are being treated seriously, are based on bad reasoning, and are up to L-2 are bad especially when two votes are blatant sheeping and one is rvs.

VOTE: Mhork

You're not even taking a minute or two to go back and check and are just arguing back without thinking much. Currently you're worse then Xis the guy who can't pressure at all.

[quote="In Because early wagons are bad, right?[/quote]
Not necessarily, but speed lynches are.

↑ Mehdi2277 wrote:VOTE: Mhork

You're not even taking a minute or two to go back and check and are just arguing back without thinking much. Currently you're worse then Xis the guy who can't pressure at all.

How is what he's doing indicative of scum alignment at all?

Shit. You're right. That FoS should be on Robert.

Robert, get an avatar.

And I disagree on your wagon point.

Man those tags got all effed up.

I tell him he's wrong. He doesn't take a minute to iso me to check or just look back. He has a scum read on me for something that never happened and it's not worth checking somehow. That's how it's scummy since townies would think more about their scum reads then that.

And then add in his vote on Lurker is also blatant sheeping. The reason he gave is near identical to what Jal gave.

Six pages in and this medhi guy seriously is about to wet himself to lynch someone, its tripping me out.

↑ Mehdi2277 wrote:And then add in his vote on Lurker is also blatant sheeping. The reason he gave is near identical to what Jal gave.

So scum are sheep? This game is going to be way easier than I thought :hifive:

So what am I supposed to do? I think he's scum which is enough of a reason for me to push him hard.

Let's see a person is near a lynch, he's shown to skim the thread, and still votes him with 0 new reasoning. Yeah I think that's scummy.

Wagons get results, Mehdi. That is how you git dem scums. Actually Mog's turn against you looks pretty scummy.

↑ Mogadishu Jones wrote:Six pages in and this medhi guy seriously is about to wet himself to lynch someone, its tripping me out.

Yeah, putting those first or second votes on people. He really wants a lynch. So, do you think Mehdi be da scums?

Lurker is paying attention to the thread a lot more than he actually gives on. See his sudden replies after my vote on him and to me). He just doesn't care to actually post worth a shit.

Doesn't matter.

Mog, answer the question.

I'm more against I still don't know why he's voting lurker. He says it's not sheeping you, but won't say why.

At the moment though Mhork > Xis >>> Mog when it comes to lynching.

I'd expect quick replies to all the other votes too if that were the case unless he decided to react differently for different votes which I doubt.

Well, most people didn't actually give a reasoning. I think I'm actually the only one. Mehdi, I hope you're town. I like your alternate thinking to my own.

Mhorky-pie, why am I town by the way?

I mean, I know it's not for meta reasons.

And your still voting lurker why? Or is mog a lesser scum read currently?

Lesser scum read and I want him to answer my question.

↑ Jal wrote:

That's great, I see that. How is it mispresenting Lurker? How is saying...

↑ Jal wrote:I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

"bull shit misrepresentation" and please don't tell me you took the "read four posts" thing as being literal other than the meaning being he has deliberately chosen not to engage in meaningful conversation. How does this scream scum?

↑ Jal wrote:

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Lurker

Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?

I think not speculate -> not play while an exaggeration isn't that bad of one for someone who thinks he's mafia.

↑ Baby Spice wrote:Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?

You're a numbskull or you're scum hoping you got on something special.

Take your pick.

Waiting on those official numbers.

↑ Jal wrote:I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.

I've thrown around two. One reliable, (the 72%), one not so, (the 50/50). One in one post and the other in answer to a direct question.

You're one of these vague generalizers aren't you Jal?

Questions, lol. The only one I didn't answer is my read on Lurker, which is still fairly null. Being Null I didn't think it that worth mentioning.

and if you want to see the stats compiled, work them out yourself. (I skipped mini 1367 as they took a long time to actually get a wagon past two votes, and counted SK's as scum since from a town point of view they are)

How hard is it to copy the data and post it here?