Mafiascum.net

In post 123, OkaPoka wrote:sir those comms were for her majesty eyes only sir

the goddamned germans hacked the code and i apologize for that

we do have a mole in m16 sir

This discussion is terminated. Do not say out ever again. Over. Clear comms.

In post 126, QuantumQuasar wrote:

In post 123, OkaPoka wrote:sir those comms were for her majesty eyes only sir

the goddamned germans hacked the code and i apologize for that

we do have a mole in m16 sir

This discussion is terminated. Do not say out ever again. Over. Clear comms.

Copy that.

In post 87, Euphony wrote:1. What do you mean regarding standing behind evidence if it results in a nightkill, Drew?

2. Also, why do you assume we can't scumhunt by dropping this meta and seeing how you react to it, in the same vein you'd answer a question that we've asked? It's a shadow, but it's a comforting one, the sort of one you'd relish to find in the middle of the sahara. I've found your reaction so far kinda scummy; your tone completely changed and you think what we've done is anti-town and can't decide whether or not to scumread us for it, but I'm unsure if your reaction would be the same if the meta was about someone else.

3. In 53 it looks like you're assessing ways scum!you could react and how they'd all look bad, rather than just be honest and disregard it as negligible really old meta like most would do.

€^^* Hectic

1. If you're scum (I'm not convinced you are - but your initial behaviour reads like it), then if you form a lynch train on someone as scum or NK them, you can simply claim faulty logic for your read. It's generating your excuse for yourself prior to the behaviour happening. That's called premeditation. Which is a scum behaviour.

2. On an anecdotal level, utilising meta 6 years old assumes I play the same way I did 6 years ago. It's faulty logic. So, on a base level, I think you're approaching things wrong. It's also weird that you seem focussed on my reaction yet haven't applied this to others, who have played games more recently. Especially since you then suggest you have problems with Oka, who has played games recently, but didn't undertake the same level of scrutiny.

Also, the tone changed because we went from RVS to actual mafia. Wouldn't you expect that?

3. I also said that was one of the wayI could react. You could also call me out on it too. It seems you're saying this because you're unhappy how I'm reacting and instead trying to expose the reality of your process.

In post 93, Euphony wrote:I can see Drew-Sta being frustrated as town but evaluating ways in which he

could

react and how we might be trying to paint him as scummy no matter what he says feels defensive, instead of just reacting normally. I need to discuss this point with shiki, maybe I'm dumb.

Alduskkel's mason game

++/------- Hectic

So you say I'm reacting scummy then read me as reacting town? I'm unsure what you're saying now.

I don't think you're dumb. I think your approach is misguided though.

In post 98, Euphony wrote:

In post 82, Drew-Sta wrote:For your first question, I answered this in 59?

my question was:

In post 78, Euphony wrote:what do you think your reaction here ^ looks like?

your answer in 59 was:

In post 59, Drew-Sta wrote:The point is I’m not. I’m trying to work out why you’d do that and you’re intending to use it for.

1. it is strange to me that you focused on what your reaction would look like to everyone else, and then when asked what you thought your reaction looked like to us, you said you had already answered that by more or less saying you were wary of my intentions, which does not answer the question.

In post 82, Drew-Sta wrote:What I find most unusual is you haven't done this to anyone else. Can I ask why?

2. while looking over your games i noticed a potentially alignment indicative pattern. i did not notice a comparable pattern in anyone else's posts so far this game.

In post 84, Datisi wrote:shiki, i find it a bit surprising you haven't mentioned my opening (which has been used in multiple games of mine), how come?

i am aware that it is a running joke between iconeum, menalque and you. it seemed likely to me that you would have used it regardless of alignment.

1. No, I said I hadn't reacted, really. Your questions don't lead me to believe you're scum but you haven't started off positively in my mind.

To be clear - I reacted cautiously. Because as town, your post poses a threat to town.

2. So why not post about theirs? Why did you single me out?

In post 102, Euphony wrote:

In post 101, OkaPoka wrote:and so how do you feel about me bb

uncomfortable, mostly.

Why?

In post 83, Drew-Sta wrote:BTW Kanna, casting a shadow is what I think they have done, and I believe you can differentiate.

I kinda get what you're saying, but i'm not seeing it. I do know what shading is and I think it comes with bad faith which I don't really see with Euphony

Out of interest, do you think *your* comments on them are shading?

kanna wanna help a brother out and sheep me

codebreaker kanna does not follow orders from unauthorized personnel (๑•̀ㅁ•́๑)✧

In post 87, Euphony wrote:What do you mean regarding standing behind evidence if it results in a nightkill, Drew?

Also what's the context here? I read this like 2 times and I'm not sure what you mean

In post 129, Kanna wrote:

In post 83, Drew-Sta wrote:BTW Kanna, casting a shadow is what I think they have done, and I believe you can differentiate.

I kinda get what you're saying, but i'm not seeing it. I do know what shading is and I think it comes with bad faith which

I don't really see with Euphony

Out of interest, do you think *your* comments on them are shading?

Bold is possible, which is why I haven't voted yet for them.

To the second question: No. My interactions are refutational, and in giving my defence, I've identified what they're doing and the consequences of it. You've independently agreed it creates a problem ('it comes with bad faith', to use your own words), but I've just been the one who identified it.

Exposing an issue is not reversing an issue e.g. me showing something and exposing what it is (good or bad) is different to me turning that back on someone.

The inverse to this is arguing for someone to be town. That would be casting a ray of light (to continue with my imagery) and is a positive action. The issue is there is again intent: are they doing it because the person is showing clear town markers, or are they doing it because they they're town and it's an easy way to get people onside. It poses its own problems but is different.

I think where I'm landing is Eup is trying to stir the pot (which they've succeeded in doing) and moved us out of RVS, which I was their intent.

so drew

why aren't you doing a positive action and helping us move the game forward by voting quantum or someone

In post 134, OkaPoka wrote:so drew

why aren't you doing a positive action and helping us move the game forward by voting quantum or someone

QQ is active lurking. So far that does raise questions.

Your glib posting also raises questions.

Why are you voting QQ?

QQ is going after LHF

Now some may argue I'm going after LHF, but ehh who cares. What's more interesting is a general hesitancy for people to actually vote anyone.

so why don't you just want to cast a vote? nothing like a vote to make the game more interesting

In post 136, OkaPoka wrote:QQ is going after LHF

Now some may argue I'm going after LHF, but ehh who cares. What's more interesting is a general hesitancy for people to actually vote anyone.

so why don't you just want to cast a vote? nothing like a vote to make the game more interesting

LHF?

I use my vote carefully as I think town needs strong voting to win. We've also just started and plenty of time. Why rush to a lynch? Are you happy to waste a day and move us to lynch/

In post 116, OkaPoka wrote:VOTE: quantumquasar

pat me on the back and sheep me

Yes sir

VOTE: QQ[/vote,]

I'm a bit worried this slot is lynchbait and that maybe what QQ does is NAI as it seems to be a common pattern, but I don't see the logic in voting for the AFK

Ugh.

VOTE: QQ

Mobile problems

In post 137, Drew-Sta wrote:

In post 136, OkaPoka wrote:QQ is going after LHF

Now some may argue I'm going after LHF, but ehh who cares. What's more interesting is a general hesitancy for people to actually vote anyone.

so why don't you just want to cast a vote? nothing like a vote to make the game more interesting

LHF?

I use my vote carefully as I think town needs strong voting to win. We've also just started and plenty of time. Why rush to a lynch? Are you happy to waste a day and move us to lynch/

low hanging fruit, aka very easy targets that look reasonable to vote ~at least on a surface level

anyways, i don't doubt that you can parse through a thread of lots of talking and no action to get some reads but as it stands in today's meta, people need wagons and votes to analyze and well uh, this is not a 1v9 game

nobody said anything about death, although it is nice to always have the fear of a lolhammer to raise the stakes but better to get the ball rolling than wait until the deadline does it for us

Mixed feelings on Drew, leaning not-so-good but willing to see more.

I have a pet theory why scum would want to wagon QQ and I don't think I like this.

VOTE: OkaPoka @Oka, what do you think about Drew so far?

I think drew is a relic of the past, its refreshing to be reminded of the ancient way of playing

I actually think Drew is town, idk where this is coming from

In post 140, OkaPoka wrote:

In post 137, Drew-Sta wrote:

In post 136, OkaPoka wrote:QQ is going after LHF

Now some may argue I'm going after LHF, but ehh who cares. What's more interesting is a general hesitancy for people to actually vote anyone.

so why don't you just want to cast a vote? nothing like a vote to make the game more interesting

LHF?

I use my vote carefully as I think town needs strong voting to win. We've also just started and plenty of time. Why rush to a lynch? Are you happy to waste a day and move us to lynch/

low hanging fruit, aka very easy targets that look reasonable to vote ~at least on a surface level

anyways, i don't doubt that you can parse through a thread of lots of talking and no action to get some reads but as it stands in today's meta, people need wagons and votes to analyze and well uh, this is not a 1v9 game

nobody said anything about death, although it is nice to always have the fear of a lolhammer to raise the stakes but better to get the ball rolling than wait until the deadline does it for us

You say a lot without saying a lot.

In post 141, Kanna wrote:Mixed feelings on Drew, leaning not-so-good but willing to see more.

I have a pet theory why scum would want to wagon QQ and I don't think I like this.

VOTE: OkaPoka @Oka, what do you think about Drew so far?

Express your read. And why are you voting Oka if you feeling mixed on me?

In post 142, OkaPoka wrote:I think drew is a relic of the past, its refreshing to be reminded of the ancient way of playing

Good to know time hasn't improved your game

In post 143, DoctorPepper wrote:I actually think Drew is town, idk where this is coming from

Why do you believe this?

don't you mean the other way drew ~i get the comment you say not much but you type so much

In post 145, OkaPoka wrote:don't you mean the other way drew ~i get the comment you say not much but you type so much

No, I said it the way I wanted to say it.

aww, I'll take that as a compliment and a sign that my redemption arc is complete