Mafiascum.net

sam.samhorn wrote:I'm partially trying to make especially offensive or defiant statements so it will draw more attention to the absurdity of the stark case.

While I'm at it... this smells like bullshit, and even if true is bad play along the lines of zwet's falseclaim to "stimulate discussion".

Xylthixlm wrote:scotmany: You really don't see any difference between my joke, which confused nobody, and stark's "joke", which confused at least three people?

Nope; regardless, you agreed with camn when she said that jokes and scum bullshit look exactly the same. So your joke should look like scum bullshit. If you are going to say starks is scummy, then you have to say yours is too.

scotmany: If I said "I'm a mason with camn", and everyone took me seriously, and then later I said I was just joking... would that be scummy?

Xylthixlm wrote:scotmany: If I said "I'm a mason with camn", and everyone took me seriously, and then later I said I was just joking... would that be scummy?

If anyone took Stark seriously, it would mean that they weren't actually reading the game very closely.

Yosarian2 wrote: What question didn't he answer?

Why didn't he simply read qwint's posts? There is only a handful of them.

Yosarian2 wrote: What post are you talking about here? You're making a case; quote the post, and explain how you think it is scummy.

Ah.. looking back I see he didn't just promise a case on me. But a PBPA.

stark wrote:I would actually be really up for a camn lynch, and not just on OMGUS. If I have time tomorrow, I can work on a more topical PbPA, as the last thirty pages have been a bit of a blur for me.

Yosarian2 wrote: That's horrible logic. If one of them is "giving a couple of good posts", then that makes him less "useless to the town" then the other. It sounds like you want to lynch him because he is lurking, and you want to lynch him because he is posting.

His posting makes me want to lynch him a little less...... and a couple more posts would help even more. This alleged PBPA would REALLY help!

Xylthixlm wrote:scotmany: If I said "I'm a mason with camn", and everyone took me seriously, and then later I said I was just joking... would that be scummy?

Yes, but this analogy doesn't work. Stark never claimed to be a mason with sam. It was Tar who reached that conclusion without thinking.

scotmany12 wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:scotmany: If I said "I'm a mason with camn", and everyone took me seriously, and then later I said I was just joking... would that be scummy?

Yes, but this analogy doesn't work. Stark never claimed to be a mason with sam. It was Tar who reached that conclusion without thinking.

Actually me, Tar, and camn all reached that conclusion.

I'm really having trouble accepting something which 3 out of the 7 people on the stark wagon took as a serious claim and unvoted because of, as an "obvious joke".

Xylthixlm wrote:I'm really having trouble accepting something which 3 out of the 7 people on the stark wagon took as a serious claim and unvoted because of, as an "obvious joke".

I don't get it, either.

I do know that scotmany is a constant contrarian. I'm learning that after they made scotmany, they didn't break the mold, and they made samhorn.

Xylthixlm wrote:I'm really having trouble accepting something which 3 out of the 7 people on the stark wagon took as a serious claim and unvoted because of, as an "obvious joke".

Well, I figured everyone would have realized the whole "confirmed town" thing was an inside joke when I responded to the initial comment with this, waaaay back on Febuary 12th, long before there was a stark wagon:

stark wrote:

Yosarian2 wrote:

Thestatusquo wrote:PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT

Neah. You don't do it right.

That's ok, it's close enough.


So right now, we know that DGB and Shea are confirmed town.

So right now, why don't the two of you name your top suspect for scum.

Then we can move on from there.

Yosarian2 wrote:You know, you're supposed to claim scum first, and then confirm a few people as town. If you're going to pull a Quagmire manuever, you might as well go all the way with it.

I didn't replace in until Feb 16.

Not feelin' great today...Don't expect any sort of post until Tuesday =/

Tarhalindur wrote:

sam.samhorn wrote:just for clarification: I have no role information that implies that stark is good. Or bad. I just said that I guarantee that he's town because this wagon is stupid.

... So stark's mason subclaim just got counterclaimed by his all-but-claimed partner?

Back to Plan A.

Unvote, Vote: stark

No, you invented that. This was a creation of your self. You jumped to a stupid conclusion, and have convinced yourself that it is real.

Tarhalindur wrote:

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:I'm also confirmed town anyways.

sam.samhorn wrote:stark is town; i guarantee it.

That's the mason subclaim, people.

Let's put it this way: either you're a mason with sam.samhorn or you are scum. Since you apparently aren't a mason with sam.samhorn... logic ftw.

No. Still wrong.

[quote="scotmany12] You're reaching.[/quote]

WINNAR!

Yosarian2 wrote:

Tarhalindur wrote: That's the mason subclaim, people.

Uhh...that's not a mason subclaim at all. Not even a little.

DOUBLE WINNAR!

camn wrote:I thought it was, too..thats why I got off the wagon. Thats what I meant when I accused sam of softclaiming.

Lets just ask:

Sam: how do you

know

that stark is town? Are you mason-buddies? If so, prove it.

I am honestly very sad. This is a tear-jerking game. My hopes and dreams are crushed every time I read one of your posts.

For the record:

I AM NOT SAM'S MASON. SAM IS NOT MY MASON. WE HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR. YOU HAVE WHIPPED THIS CONCLUSION OUT OF THE COLLECTIVE POSTERIOR.

camn wrote:yosarian-
I obviously support a qwints lynch... But i feel like
a) we are getting more information from pressuring stark
And
b) the case on qwints is just as weak
Thus:
C) it is more productive for us to lynch stark.
We get more opinions, we even get info from stark himself! Which, whichever way he flips, is useful.

Qwints, on the other hand, gives us nothing. Which means he should die, certainly, but later.

I cannot articulate how I feel about this post. Your posts have gotten exponentially more absurd.

scotmany12 wrote:I didn't even think anything of it. I thought it was a joke. There is no way that this was a mason subclaim.

TRIPAL WINNAR!

Xylthixlm wrote:scotmany: Someone says "I'm confirmed town" and you assume they're

joking

?

Xylthixlm wrote:I might accept it as a joke (maybe) the first time he said it. But the bit where he quotes himself and sam.samhorn is pretty hard to pass off as a joke.

Xylthixlm wrote:I've seen scum do something scummy and then try to pass it off as a "joke" multiple times. I hardly ever see townies do that.

Xylthixlm wrote:I'm really having trouble accepting something which 3 out of the 7 people on the stark wagon took as a serious claim and unvoted because of, as an "obvious joke".

The above player is in violation of . I demand a mod-kill.

----------------

1253 is too long to quote directly so I will simply articulate that if you (camn) had read my Livingstone post, you would not have a question.
-----------------------------

I'm going to do try to do a serious analysis tonight. Things have been very busy for me, but I won't dissapoint.

DrippingGoofball wrote:camn isn't scum. The scum is trying to distract us from a worthy lynch.

You are scum with camn.

Xylthixlm wrote:scotmany: You really don't see any difference between my joke, which confused nobody, and stark's "joke", which confused at least three people?

So I'm scum because other people are dense?

Yosarian2 wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:scotmany: If I said "I'm a mason with camn", and everyone took me seriously, and then later I said I was just joking... would that be scummy?

If anyone took Stark seriously, it would mean that they weren't actually reading the game very closely.

I'm a little hurt, but

QUAD_WINNAR!

As I said above, I'm going to do some analysis of two confirmed scum (camn and DGB) in the near future.

CORRECTION: Xythlm is in violation of

stark wrote:So I'm scum because other people are dense?

Let's go with "You're scum because of your callous disregard for how your joke would be interpreted".

stark wrote:

MOD:

CORRECTION: Xythlm is in violation of

RULE 3, SUBCLAUSE B

I'm lynching you, you're scum, lynching scum is fun.

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:So I'm scum because other people are dense?

Let's go with "You're scum because of your callous disregard for how your joke would be interpreted".

So you're saying I'm scum because I overestimated the capacity of my fellow players to recognize a joke?

Excuse me if this question makes me seem "dense," but why is DGB scum?

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:So I'm scum because other people are dense?

Let's go with "You're scum because of your callous disregard for how your joke would be interpreted".

So you're saying I'm scum because I overestimated the capacity of my fellow players to recognize a joke?

Or so you claim. Pretty lucky mistake for you that your "joke" resulted in half your bandwagon vanishing.

stark wrote:

MOD:

CORRECTION: Xythlm is in violation of

RULE 3, SUBCLAUSE B

stark, why do you feel it necessary to ask for a modkill in thread?
I find that quite scummy.

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:So I'm scum because other people are dense?

Let's go with "You're scum because of your callous disregard for how your joke would be interpreted".

So you're saying I'm scum because I overestimated the capacity of my fellow players to recognize a joke?

Or so you claim. Pretty lucky mistake for you that your "joke" resulted in half your bandwagon vanishing.

What? What? What?

My wagon APPEARED because of my joke.

They haven't gone away yet.

Where did that come from?

hasdgfas wrote:

stark wrote:

MOD:

CORRECTION: Xythlm is in violation of

RULE 3, SUBCLAUSE B

stark, why do you feel it necessary to ask for a modkill in thread?
I find that quite scummy.

Wow.
I wonder if you read stark's post.

Dismissive arrogance is a big scumtell, and stark has committed it time and time again.

DrippingGoofball wrote:Dismissive arrogance is a big scumtell, and stark has committed it time and time again.

And you haven't?

Post 1128: stark is at 7 votes.
Post 1175: stark makes his "joke".
Post 1188: stark quotes his "joke" and sam.samhorn's "guarantee". This is the post that people thought was a mason claim.
Post 1189: Tarhalindur unvotes stark because of post 1188.
Post 1190: I unvote stark because of post 1188.
Post 1194: sam.samhorn clarifies.
Post 1198: I revote stark.
Post 1206: camn (behind the times) unvotes stark.