Mafiascum.net

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:SafetyDance has a weird fixation on people being NS's scumbuddies.

Here he is voting me for "busing" NS:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Oh look, self-confessed bussing.

Vote: Cub Diagoro

Mind you, he hasn't called NS scummy at this point. He prepares for that here:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:I completely agree with you, NS. Know this, I will tunnel the fuck out of you today to get you lynched if you start lurking here. Would like to nip this in the bud early. K thx.

And follows through here:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:

UNVOTE
VOTE:Nobody Special

Post count is nice but substance would be nice. Don't you have any reads?

Then he hops off that distancing vote, declaring that PPP is now NS's scumbuddy:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Hang on, why FOS instead of putting you're vote there? In fact, why would you not, unless you're actually worried about a wagon forming and not wanting to vote your scum buddy

FOS: pieceofpecanpie

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Oh, did I write FOS? Silly me.

Vote: pieceofpecanpie

Conclusion: Safety is NS's scumbuddy.

HoS: SafetyDance

Or you know, I'm looking at how other players are interacting with others because there's more than one scum in this game.

But that would be too logical it seems.

Trolling noted.

↑ Messiah wrote:

vote: SafetyDance

Here's why:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Hang on, why FOS instead of putting you're vote there? In fact, why would you not, unless you're actually worried about a wagon forming and not wanting to vote your scum buddy

In this post SafetyDance definitively attributes an action that clearly has the potential for town motivations solely to scum motivations and uses it to justify a vote. In my experience this is a pretty slam dunk tell, so I'm very confident here relative to the length and depth of the game so far. That he did it while already having what he considers a legitimate vote out is just a bonus.

More from me later, I'm exhausted and my eyes are glazing over trying to focus on anything.

You're playing! Nice of you to join us. If you think that's a slam dunk then clearly you're not a NBA fan.

I think (which is why I mentioned it) that FOS are weak excuses from players who don't wish to vote but want to appear like they are scum-hunting to throw fake reads out there. As town, you're only ability in this game is to vote, so no, I don't see any town-motivation to not vote someone. Especially this early in the game.

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:
Overreaction much?

No, it's not. I don't like how he asked "why the FoS" literally one line after that question was answered in. I don't like the early advocacy of a policy lynch. What I do like is the points made by Messiah and Cub. I'm not sure which one of them I'm sheeping.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: SafetyDance

You're sheeping and you have a policy against policy lynching. The irony.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:VOTE: SafetyDance

That hop off NS was ridiculous. You've got some explaining to do.

Lmao coming from a panicky pastry puff like yourself that's very hypocritical. You were never on his wagon to begin with. Actual OMGUS vote noted.

Oh and I couldn't really care what your willy meta is, I'm playing this game, reading this game and reacting to comments made in this game.

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:we shouldn't be partner hunting right now ... (

I saw someone else claiming someone was NS's scumbuddy too

)

Normally I'd agree, if not for the fact that Safety used the bolded as the basis of two of his three votes. His third vote was on NS himself. He seems awfully confident that NS is going to flip scum.

Really? Have I mentioned anywhere that I am confident of a scum flip? Have I said anything to the affirmative that his playing style is 'slam dunk' scummy? No.

In fact if you can find an actual quote that proves I have more confidence in NS being scum than this post:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Are you satisfied with NS's responses?

I'd love to see it.

I'm rather amused at the backlash to be honest. Popc clearly can't handle being voted on, he didn't react well at all. Certainly reacted very negatively about it, I don't see why I should change my vote currently.

As for NS, I still find his posts lacking of substance. You already know I hold reservations about his play but again, that's not why I voted. I didn't see anything of substance in his posts. Please, look at his meta below and tell me if there's anything positive in it or even looks remotely like engaging in scumhunting.

@implosion The hyperbole and tone are noted, but I don't have anything further to add so you'll have to wait a bit (perhaps longer than six hours) before you can bounce off the walls with something else.

@SafetyDance Yes, I paraphrase my interpretation of what people say, when I don't I quote them. But this way you can be exactly clear on my thoughts on your posts, so you'll also clearly realise that there is a genuine problem with your posts completely irrelevant to OMGUS. By the way, I don't know about the rest of the class, but I can't read minds. If you do something alarming like say switch your vote for an arbitrary reason than how is anyone to know you're balancing your vote between two scum suspects unless you state it? Is that your best excuse for jumping off NS?

↑ SafetyDance wrote:I'm rather amused at the backlash to be honest.

You're reacting very negatively about it.

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Popc clearly can't handle being voted on, he didn't react well at all. Certainly reacted very negatively about it, I don't see why I should change my vote currently.

Take note my reaction hasn't been towards your vote at all, it's been towards the reasons for the vote and who you took it off (NS). You haven't justified either and/or I'm finding your current reasons rediculous (re:paraphrasing). And when you say the following...

↑ SafetyDance wrote:As for NS, I still find his posts lacking of substance. You already know I hold reservations about his play but again, that's not why I voted. I didn't see anything of substance in his posts. Please, look at his meta below and tell me if there's anything positive in it or even looks remotely like engaging in scumhunting.

...I'm all the more confused as to why you moved your vote, since I was with the point you were making about NS.

While I'm on NS, it'd be great if he popped in and gave some insight. The previous game I've had with NS he played very similar and turned out to be scum, but I've meta'd him before as well and this is essentially what he does as both scum and town. There needs to be a little more going before you can start discerning scum-NS from town-NS. I still find it suspicious, but too early to vote on. And when I stated that previously I'd only read NS on Page 4 and your reaction/vote to him. I did still have to go back and read through the previous pages more thoroughly Safety.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:@implosion The hyperbole and tone are noted, but I don't have anything further to add so you'll have to wait a bit (perhaps longer than six hours) before you can bounce off the walls with something else.

@SafetyDance Yes, I paraphrase my interpretation of what people say, when I don't I quote them. But this way you can be exactly clear on my thoughts on your posts, so you'll also clearly realise that there is a genuine problem with your posts completely irrelevant to OMGUS. By the way, I don't know about the rest of the class, but I can't read minds. If you do something alarming like say switch your vote for an arbitrary reason than how is anyone to know you're balancing your vote between two scum suspects unless you state it? Is that your best excuse for jumping off NS?

You consider it arbitrary. That is your label, not mine. I consider it valid. There doesn't need to be any mind reading if you can comprehend what I am saying and don't try to assume yourself and misrepresent me. Your paraphrasing in #110 is a gross misrepresentation, whether you think its bad or not.

I would think the vote(s) speak for themselves that I consider both those people are potentially scummy. A negative read after FOS to me is suspicious and since I didn't saying anything like "OK GUYZ NS IZ LIKE TOTALLY COOL NOW, MOVING ONS" then there is absolutely no reason other than your own assumptions to think that I now think NS is totally in the clear or isn't in the spotlight once he starts posting again. Otherwise, what the fuck was I doing in #128?

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:

↑ SafetyDance wrote:I'm rather amused at the backlash to be honest.

You're reacting very negatively about it.

^
Would you prefer me to react like that in the future?

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:
Take note my reaction hasn't been towards your vote at all, it's been towards the reasons for the vote and who you took it off (NS). You haven't justified either and/or I'm finding your current reasons rediculous (re:paraphrasing). And when you say the following...

↑ SafetyDance wrote:As for NS, I still find his posts lacking of substance. You already know I hold reservations about his play but again, that's not why I voted. I didn't see anything of substance in his posts. Please, look at his meta below and tell me if there's anything positive in it or even looks remotely like engaging in scumhunting.

...I'm all the more confused as to why you moved your vote, since I was

agreeing

with the point you were making about NS.

Why I moved it? Let see:

I realise you can't be a subjective opinon in this but really, if you can't understand my position or why I voted and why I think it's valid you never will. It seems we've gone in a circle now. We can keep doing this if you like. I can quote my posts for days.

Btw, have you caught up now? Because we've all be waiting with great trepidation for your reads of the first few pages, but in all this excitement you've seen to have forgotten about it.

Oh well, tally ho! Catch you on the morrow.

Ah very well old chap I shall catch you on the 'morrow then. Cracking good you say. Rather!

What's that you say old sport? Reads? Did I promise any reads my butter-whip plum pudding?

goodmorning, what was your reason to vote for Nobody Special in post 46?

↑ SafetyDance wrote:Oh look, self-confessed bussing.

What does that mean?

SafetyDance, why did you specifically mention trying to get Nobody Special lynched due to lurking? You did mention 'everybody else', but why call out NS?

Cheery Dog, what was your interpretation of implosion's case? Basically, I agree with Cub Daigoro's reasoning here, so I'm curious as to why you disagree (preferably without using implosion's reasoning in Post 89, as that came later and elaborates on his initial reasoning presented).

Continuing with that, implosion, I have some questions...

↑ implosion wrote:What information from this question could be gleaned that is indicative of NS's alignment?

To see how Nobody Special responds and if there's a good reason for it?

↑ implosion wrote:NS probably doesn't have any particularly amazing reason for not having voted.

Perhaps not. But being called out on it might make NS do something about it: either state why he won't vote (which can be analyzed) or place a vote (which can be analyzed).

↑ implosion wrote:But the more important point here is Cub's focus on NS, rather than paying attention to anyone else. Cub's first four posts are all either about or directed at NS. They effectively ignore everything else in the game. And here, we find a mafia motivation for Cub's question: that it allowed him to ignore everything for the first two pages of the game. This means fewer things that Cub has to directly respond to without getting to see others' responses, which lowers his odds of being "caught" from a psychological perspective.

This is one possible interpretation... why do you think this is the correct one, as opposed to anything else (such as Cub actually trying to find out NS's reason for not having a vote yet)?

↑ implosion wrote:This passive phrasing is scummy because townies are attempting to, again, glean alignment information - rather than phrase the question in a way that implies that he wants to know what NS's reason is, he's just kind of whining at NS for a reason.

I disagree. He answered NS's question by stating the he would rather have a reason with the vote. I don't see why that (or why his passive vs active response) is scummy or why that means he is whining.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:For a start, I'm not a fan of Nobody Special's "people haven't posted yet, how scummy of them, they must be scum, and that is an adequate defence for me not being scum" doesn't sit well. Firstly, not everyone late to the game are part of the nefarious scum, drooling at the chaos town have already caused for each other. Secondly, I'd find it just as likely (if not more so) that scum are already posting, just not posting content... just like NS.

What? He never said this nor implied this.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:but this page is all about NS dodging questions and making dodgy excuses.

What? Where did he do this?

Post 114: Wait, what? Calling players Nobody Special's scumbuddy automatically makes the accuser Nobody Special's scumbuddy? Will you explain that to me? Semi-Edit: Basically, Post 127.

pieceofpecanpie: I don't like you calling players partners based on flips we don't have so early in the game. It never turns out well.

In other news, I'm voting for pieceofpecanpie. I don't like the way he reacted to SafetyDance's vote nor his "conclusion" (post 110) based off of it.

VOTE: pieceofpecanpie

↑ SafetyDance wrote:In fact if you can find an actual quote that proves I have more confidence in NS being scum than this post:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Are you satisfied with NS's responses?

I'd love to see it.

I posted three. Your three votes. The common denominator in your all your votes is NS.

BTW, Pointing out that I am just as likely as anyone else to have hit scum with my RVS means only that I felt no need to move my vote just because it was an RVS vote. Not sure how you derived busing from it.

↑ Zaicon wrote:Post 114: Wait, what? Calling players Nobody Special's scumbuddy automatically makes the accuser Nobody Special's scumbuddy? Will you explain that to me? Semi-Edit: Basically, Post 127.

No, not automatically. But there's a pattern that looks like Safety treating NS as confirmed scum. It gives me the willies.

↑ Zaicon wrote:goodmorning, what was your reason to vote for Nobody Special in post 46?

One part wanting to get off my RVS vote, one part wanting to sheep implosion, four or five parts not liking posts 25, 37 and 42 from NS.

Also DAMMIT STOP STEALING MY VOTE SWITCHES

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:...there's a pattern that looks like Safety treating NS as confirmed scum. It gives me the willies.

Honestly Safety's a better player than that I think, not that anyone's infallible or anything but that would be pretty low for him.



And the reason I haven't posted in two days is this Safety thing. I just don't see it, and until the slapfest is over I'm going to try very hard to ignore it, it's distracting and mostly unhelpful to have a couple of guys misrepping and/or snarking.

Also it's not really been long enough for me to get any big meta feels from Safety so it makes me want to reserve judgement on him for a bit.

I still like my NS vote at the moment, but am weighing the relative benefits of the ppp case-type thing. Who else is being voted, Cub and Cheery? I'm going to say those wagons are very interesting to me, or at any rate will be if I manage to survive a few more days. Definitely not wagons I'd want to join today unless some very good evidence came up.

There's a couple of stragglers yet to post yeah?

If it's the same couple of people having a slapfest we'll tire ourselves out and make scum out of us all.

Yeah, it's that ac1983 fan who has yet to post.

@MOD: It's been like 5 days, can we get a prod or replacement or something on that guy?

This may be premature, but it seems to me that Cub and Zaicon are the same alignment. I'm much less willing to lump SafetyDance into that grouping, but it's possible.

And what makes you say that?

↑ Zaicon wrote:
Cheery Dog, what was your interpretation of implosion's case? Basically, I agree with Cub Daigoro's reasoning here, so I'm curious as to why you disagree (preferably without using implosion's reasoning in Post 89, as that came later and elaborates on his initial reasoning presented).

implosion's case I feel is actually very weak, my reasons for voting were all to do with Cub's response to it though, which I've already summed up in 78.

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:(Cub) understands what is put against him, therefore I believe that means he does actually know what he has been doing is fake. I probably wouldn't have had a problem with him doing it, except that he's gone and tried to turn the case into "gut".

↑ goodmorning wrote:
And the reason I haven't posted in two days is this Safety thing. I just don't see it, and until the slapfest is over I'm going to try very hard to ignore it, it's distracting and mostly unhelpful to have a couple of guys misrepping and/or snarking.

The Safety thing was less that two days ago, so you have no comments on anything that was posted before it. (such as the Cub wagon? You've only posted a useless FTFY remark since that started)

↑ Nobody Special wrote:This may be premature, but it seems to me that Cub and Zaicon are the same alignment. I'm much less willing to lump SafetyDance into that grouping, but it's possible.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:And what makes you say that?

And like that...



..he's gone

@Cheery: As I've said, the Cub wagon is interesting but not, in my opinion, particularly good (at least not today). Most of the before-Safetyslapfest stuff is focused on that wagon. Safetyslapfest starts roundabout 106 when he votes ppp. Between 82 (my last post before 2-day hiatus) (and I've already addressed all before it that I care to address for the moment) and 106 there was the following content:
People hammer down Cub's reasons for voting NS - great, whatever
implosion brings suspicion of Cub - looks like an alright case, I'm just not feeling it
Cub says he wasn't ignoring stuff - sure, fine
People hammer down the definition of "content" - blahhhhhhhh words
Safety wishy-washily votes NS - dullllllll and the wishy-washiness alone kinda makes me think Saftey's Town
The new guys show up - FINALLY
Safety votes ppp and everything goes to hell

There wasn't really that much content prior to the slapfest. The only things that are really interesting to me are implosion's case on Cub and Safety's NS vote.

Sorry it's kind of a textwall.

↑ goodmorning wrote:The only things that are really interesting to me are implosion's case on Cub and Safety's NS vote.

Sorry if that's still mostly directed at Cheery.

If he doesn't ask this, consider me wanting it answered: Why are those things really interesting to you?

I was going to ask that if she's still alive day 3 when it becomes more interesting apparently.

But seeing as you've asked now, I may as well add more; is the wagon on me still as interesting?

To examine them later as early counterwagons would be more useful than examining them now under the very thin D1 cases they have.
They are interesting when I define interesting as "perhaps not horribly useful now, but will be things to come back to".
The wagon on Cheery is still interesting, but of the four folks being voted at the moment is the wagon I agree with least, so I'm tending to focus away from it because I find it silly.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:

↑ Nobody Special wrote:This may be premature, but it seems to me that Cub and Zaicon are the same alignment. I'm much less willing to lump SafetyDance into that grouping, but it's possible.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:And what makes you say that?

And like that...



..he's gone

There's a reason for that.

Not that I necessarily agree with what NS is saying there -- I don't see it myself -- but if he's right and the scum don't get it, good.

↑ Belisarius wrote:There's a reason for that.

Not that I necessarily agree with what NS is saying there -- I don't see it myself -- but if he's right and the scum don't get it, good.

Can I take this to mean you have a town read on NS?