Mafiascum.net

I'm off to bed guys. Just saying so you know why I'll be gone for multiple hours. It's 2.AM here now. My bedtime.

I'll be interested to see how this has developed in the morning. Ni night.

In post 126, WeCanSimplyBeOurselves wrote:I'm off to bed guys. Just saying so you know why I'll be gone for multiple hours. It's 2.AM here now. My bedtime.

I'll be interested to see how this has developed in the morning. Ni night.

What's your read on Charloux? You've said before that you don't think we're both scum together. Any other thoughts, or are we both null?

@Accountant: I refuse to play your game anymore. Being one-sidedly asked a series of questions isn't what a normal person would call discussion.
In 119 you asked me why i don't look into my gut read, and i hinted that i am in 120. THEN you asked what my gut read is, and i asked the question in 122, hinting you the reason why i can't answer that. Instead of silence i get you accusing me of deflecting questions and even having scum motivation.
I either overestimated your ability to see into text deeply or you have a reason for sabotaging me on purpose. I doubt the end result would change for my gut feeling, but who knows?

@Norska: Don't be scared to vote, give opinions and reads. Town don't that emotion. This is your first game, so try learning something. And feel free to bombard the IC with questions!

Forget seeing into text deeply, that text was just one layered. Find someone else to start the game with please!

In post 128, Charloux wrote:@Accountant: I refuse to play your game anymore. Being one-sidedly asked a series of questions isn't what a normal person would call discussion.
In 119 you asked me why i don't look into my gut read, and i hinted that i am in 120. THEN you asked what my gut read is, and i asked the question in 122, hinting you the reason why i can't answer that. Instead of silence i get you accusing me of deflecting questions and even having scum motivation.
I either overestimated your ability to see into text deeply or you have a reason for sabotaging me on purpose. I doubt the end result would change for my gut feeling, but who knows?

If this "gut read" is something you can't share - why bring it up at all?

I have a vote on you, so isn't it natural that I'd pepper you with questions and pressure you? Why are you acting like this is some sort of farce or I'm bullying you in some way?

In post 116, Accountant wrote:Post 114 implies that you do have a good feeling about

someone

.

I tried being cooperative, and now you are using it as a scumtell. Really smart move Accountant!

In post 115, Charloux wrote:gut feeling*
@Morning tweet: Bad answers to bad questions. Vote Accountant if you want to vote the guy who started the interaction.

Hi.

"Friendly" SE here.

Game isn't that hard guys, I think we'll get a scumlynch d1.

Read this post.

He tells people to vote Accountant over him.

As shown in 108 by our (lovely) moderator, it shows that CHARLOUX IS STILL IN RVS LOL LOL LOL.

Which means,

That Charloux was trying to get people to vote someone that he wasn't even voting.

That statement is flawed. I never said i had a scumread on him, i said that birdie should vote Accountant if his vote on me was because of those fluff posts.

You're not being cooperative at all. You're stonewalling perfectly reasonable questions and hiding your thought processes - something which should never be done as town.

In post 128, you tell me that you can't any questions about your gut feeling:

hinting you the reason why i can't answer that

Okay, fair enough. I can see why you might want to do that. But, if the gut feeling is secret, why did you write this in post 114?

And i definitely won't vote until i have more than a good feeling.

If the feeling you had is so secret, you could have written it as "I definitely won't vote until I have a more concrete grasp of the game and have a good lead". In this case, the gut feeling you can't talk about wouldn't be brought up at all. So when you write this, I think there's one main scenario in which this pattern of behavior makes sense.

Namely - you don't have a real gut feeling at all. You're scum who's trying to placate me by giving a vague answer then being tight-lipped about the specifics when I press you about it. This is supported by the difference in response between post 131 and post 117. In post 117, you quoted my 116 and wrote

But i can see how my statement is misleading now that i read it. Well, there could be something in Norska's vote and quick unvote earlier...

This implies that you think my question is reasonable and coming from a position where I'm merely misunderstanding your stance. You also show a willingness to talk about your gut feeling, hinting that it has something to do with Norska.

But later on, in 131, you wrote this:

I tried being cooperative, and now you are using it as a scumtell. Really smart move Accountant!

In other words, you think I'm being distinctly reasonable in 116, which doesn't match up with your initial reaction in 117. You imply that I'm witchhunting you, but in 117 you thought it was just a misunderstanding. Which is it?

I told you i won't be participating in the interrogation anymore, this will be the last.
"Well, there could be something in Norska's vote and quick unvote earlier..." I wrote it on an impulse, and regretted immediately after posting it. I don't plan my posts ahead of time, i make them on the spot, so of course i will make mistakes sometimes.

I think you're perhaps both town. Just different playstyles. That's my gut. Scum like to watch town at each other's throats.

???

I think we need to pressure the more inactive players.

In post 138, WeCanSimplyBeOurselves wrote:I think we need to pressure the more inactive players.

Perhaps you should start by voting one of them, then.

u do realize

that the inactive players may not even be aware this game is a thing right now

just wait for them to get replaced, tunneling inactives is a very bad and useless idea.

In post 75, borkjerfkin wrote:

Charloux is currently experiencing connectivity issues. Please consider him V/LA until these issues are resolved.

In post 77, Accountant wrote:VOTE: Charloux
I like this wagon.

I feel like garbage since it doesn't apply to me

ya but u posted before n u were being a scumfuck

zaragui and nalsco haven't posted at all

I just thought a joke would be good around this time... Don't take all i write seriously please

In post 139, Accountant wrote:

In post 138, WeCanSimplyBeOurselves wrote:I think we need to pressure the more inactive players.

Perhaps you should start by voting one of them, then.

I already am.

In post 140, Transcend wrote:u do realize

that the inactive players may not even be aware this game is a thing right now

just wait for them to get replaced, tunneling inactives is a very bad and useless idea.

Yes I'm aware that the inactive players may not even be aware this game is a thing right now. Yes tunnelling inactives is a bad idea if they're not aware it's a thing and they're going to get replaced.

You are assuming, however, that they're not lurking intentionally. Pressure voting the less active players so they actually post so we can read them is a good way for town to defend itself against scum lurkers.

Hello everyone,

I have done a quick read since i asked to repleace in will probably do some isos tomorrow.
Initial gut reads:
Accountant (IC) - town
Morning Tweet - town
Transcend (SE) - townlean
WeCanSimplyBeOurselves - nullCharloux (SE) - scum
nalsco - null
NorskaBlue - scumlean
thatsit - null slight scumlean

I like the idea of sharing timezones
Europ GMT+1 Ill go to bed eary around 22:00 (thats in 4 hours from now)