Mafiascum.net

In post 1241, Thor665 wrote:I certainly extrovert both of those things

In post 1251, No Brains Here wrote:I'm beginning to think OGML is pacing himself off because he hopes his wagon goes away - while we distract ourselves towards a town lynch.

In post 1254, Jon Doe wrote:Is that his normal meta as scum?

In post 1256, No Brains Here wrote:I don't believe in meta.

In post 1249, MattP wrote:Because I think different things when I push different people, since as a human being I generally have altering reasons for different actions I take, and when I call one person scum (Jon Doe) it does not have the same meaning as a different scenario where I call someone scummy (you), since both motives and intensity of reads can change. In the situation with Jon Doe, I wasn't trying to push a lynch through at the time I started pushing him, because that would have required me being positive about the read. I obviously was not positive about the read, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to get him to prove his scumminess or towniness with the reaction test regarding his QT knowledge.

As for me calling you scummy for a Sugar Cain push, I called you scummy because I think your tone was scummy. Let's compare to the Jon Doe slot. Intensity of read? I thought your action was less weakly scum-oriented than my initial points on Jon Doe. Motivation-wise did I call your action scummy? I wasn't trying to push you, I was talking to fellow people I thought were town so that they knew my stance. Why am I not motivated to push you? Because I don't think a Thor wagon right now is lucrative. Why is that? Because I don't read you any better under pressure than not under pressure, so there's nothing positive to gain for me right now in pushing you. I'll push you when I'm confident of a scumread on you. You're more experienced that most players that I would pressure. I don't push CES either in games. I avoid placing pressure on experienced scum players to derive information, I push experienced scum players when I want them lynched.

In post 1249, MattP wrote:I would actually like you to show me anything that was functionally name-calling against Jon Doe. The entire conversation with him I felt incredibly impartial about being rude in response to him. If you show me something that was functionally name calling I'll agree to it, but currently it looks like you made a throwaway statement that served no purpose but to antagonize me. Please prove me wrong.

In post 1250, Jon Doe wrote:

In post 1241, Thor665 wrote:I certainly extrovert both of those things

Yes. You certainly do, but that wasn't the question. The other part just shows some hydra dissonance. She may not feel as I do yet.

In post 1252, Jon Doe wrote:And a follow up to go with that answer...

Generally what you come up with is spot on, and most of the folks here know that, right?

In post 1248, Sugar Cain wrote:Pretty much everything in your "case" is stuff Mara did.

In post 1248, Sugar Cain wrote:What's this "bad start to day 2" junk about?

In post 1253, Jon Doe wrote:@Thor, When I like a post, it is an indication of being town but not necessarily a town read. That's all it means to me.

~Titus

In post 1240, No Brains Here wrote:

In post 1208, Desperado wrote:

In post 1205, No Brains Here wrote:

MORE OGML votes please

focus focus focus

My pitoli case is much better than your OGML case and I'm annoyed that I asked you to comment on it and all you could muster was "I've never played with them so i dunno."

desp

desp

desp

I want you to look into my eyes and know that I am here for you. okay? you are in my don't lynch don't touch pile if anyone looks at you funny I will eat their liver.

the ogml case is mostly dgb cos I don't them either. and that was dgb posting right there.

let me elaborate on the pitouli case; I think it is decent but the thing is, is some of that could be a playstyle thing. if I had at least 1 game with them I could give you a better response. dgb is pretty adamant about ogml so I don't see our vote moving.

In post 1241, Thor665 wrote:Because they're too busy voting town.
What do you think of my Sugar Cain case?

In post 1260, Desperado wrote:Not too enamored with it. I think they're town and you don't seem too invested in it either so let's rev the Pitoli wagon up together.

In post 1258, Thor665 wrote:

In post 1249, MattP wrote:Because I think different things when I push different people, since as a human being I generally have altering reasons for different actions I take, and when I call one person scum (Jon Doe) it does not have the same meaning as a different scenario where I call someone scummy (you), since both motives and intensity of reads can change. In the situation with Jon Doe, I wasn't trying to push a lynch through at the time I started pushing him, because that would have required me being positive about the read. I obviously was not positive about the read, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to get him to prove his scumminess or towniness with the reaction test regarding his QT knowledge.

As for me calling you scummy for a Sugar Cain push, I called you scummy because I think your tone was scummy. Let's compare to the Jon Doe slot. Intensity of read? I thought your action was less weakly scum-oriented than my initial points on Jon Doe. Motivation-wise did I call your action scummy? I wasn't trying to push you, I was talking to fellow people I thought were town so that they knew my stance. Why am I not motivated to push you? Because I don't think a Thor wagon right now is lucrative. Why is that? Because I don't read you any better under pressure than not under pressure, so there's nothing positive to gain for me right now in pushing you. I'll push you when I'm confident of a scumread on you. You're more experienced that most players that I would pressure. I don't push CES either in games. I avoid placing pressure on experienced scum players to derive information, I push experienced scum players when I want them lynched.

Well, that's a lot of answer that actually isn't to my point, allow me to clarify it for you.

You suggested my push on Sugar was scummy.
Yet you say that a bad push you had on Doe is legit because it was scumhunting.
Please tell me how you know I'm not scumhunting since you clearly believe very bad pushes can be used as scumhunting and the extent of your issue with my Sugar push is that it is 'bad' (for reasons you haven't explained) and that you think Sugar is town.

In post 1249, MattP wrote:I would actually like you to show me anything that was functionally name-calling against Jon Doe. The entire conversation with him I felt incredibly impartial about being rude in response to him. If you show me something that was functionally name calling I'll agree to it, but currently it looks like you made a throwaway statement that served no purpose but to antagonize me. Please prove me wrong.

I'll repeat my question.
Could you define 'functionally' for me - and then apply it to what I said.
If you do this so I understand where you're coming from, I'll happily answer your question.
You do seem to be acting as though functionally = literally though, which is why I want this done.

In post 1264, Jon Doe wrote:@Thor - I don't think we can sheep you on Sugar. We want OMG more. I'm sure we might consider hitting Sugar on Day 3.

~Titus

In post 1265, MattP wrote:Well, just like you I can only assume, and I can only point them out because I'm once again a human being. Then you can feel free to postpone responding to me, which would have been fine since I wasn't actively attacking you anyway and wasn't preventing you from your push, or you could explain your motivations to me on the spot and I can see if I agree with them. Your connection is a logical fallacy.

In post 1265, MattP wrote:You're very much confusing me. You said it was functionally name calling.

In post 1265, MattP wrote:I don't know what you mean by "functionally name calling" so I'm asking for you to give examples.

In post 1265, MattP wrote:You're then telling me to define "functionally" when you were the one that used it first and I don't know what YOU meant by it. That literally doesn't make sense

In post 1266, Thor665 wrote:@Desp - actually your quoting of 773 reminded me of it. I'm calling that one paranoia as a town tell. The rest of it is mostly 'pitoli plays weakly' and I feel we've already done one policy lynch, so why rush to a second? Naw, I don't want that wagon - you should come join my wagon.

@Jon Doe - The "case" on OGML is that he was scumhunting. It is an inherently bad case, and I loathe it. Let's speed lynch Sugar and laugh about it post game.

In post 1267, No Brains Here wrote:The way to bring back harmony is to vote for OGML who is absolutely scum.

In post 1270, Desperado wrote:I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. Once you realize this is townNero you're more than welcome to change your mind.