Mafiascum.net

Universal scumread*

I can’t wait to look back at this wagon postgame.

In post 1344, notscience wrote:I’d find it more fun if you guys make me the counterwagon instead of Cakez

we don’t want to make you the counterwagon because you’re town you fucking nugget

In post 1352, petapan wrote:VOTE: momrangal

get back on cakez

Why is cakez scum

Peta I'm sorry I'm not engaging you about nacho, those aren't even the real reasons I think he's scum so /shrug

- ydra

In post 1354, Disaster Cartel wrote:

In post 1352, petapan wrote:VOTE: momrangal

get back on cakez

i'm calling their bluff

I'd love to murder Mom my worry is that if Nacho is scum that after Mom flips scum one of the Nacho drivers will be killed and it will be hard to flip him

In post 1355, Infinity 324 wrote:Why is cakez scum

he’s been v opportunistic all game and has basically just lolcatted when called out on this

Like, take this post infinity

In post 1338, SirCakez wrote:

In post 1330, Disaster Cartel wrote:but like... cakez' intro was bad and I think deservedly called out by nacho? like if it was slightly exaggerated so what, it was still a good push then and is a good push now

I hate this
Nacho's pushback against me was very entangled with our histories playing together
Calling my intro objectively "bad" as called out by Nacho feels like heavy misrep

Apparently this is bad from me bc I’m endorsing nacho’s take of him being bad

But like he has no interest in if *i* disliked his intro for reasons other than nacho’s which, btw, I did

Here are the relevant posts and they’re just bad or neutral:

In post 11, SirCakez wrote:VOTE: venus fly trap
Cursed hydra

blah

In post 29, SirCakez wrote:i've fallen for the not maf policy yeet too many times

looking for reasons to avoid NM

In post 35, SirCakez wrote:

In post 34, Leafeon and Glaceon wrote:

scumlords!

nothing posting

In post 195, SirCakez wrote:I see a bunch of pages here but it is very late so I will see y'all tomorrow

nothing posting

In post 240, SirCakez wrote:

In post 41, Disaster Cartel wrote:policying NM is my idea of a good time

-Mena

why not a good book ^.^

In post 88, Salsabil Faria wrote:

In post 86, Disaster Cartel wrote:

In post 42, Venus Fly Trap wrote:no

VOTE: NM

-Mena

Eh, I don't like this vote.

UNVOTE: Venus Fly Trap

VOTE: Disaster Cartel

I will sheep this in lack of something better
still reading

VOTE: disaster cartel

incredibly lazy vote on me that’s not really justified but worth bearing in mind that I’m p sure others had also been voicing dislike of me (like kismet) making this safe

In post 245, SirCakez wrote:I like Kismet, Salsa and Infinity. Not crazy about notsci, L+G, or Venus Fly Trap. I can have lots of scumreads in this game

In post 154, Disaster Cartel wrote:I stg if we have to have another conversation about policy limming and why it’s worth it I will put my face through my desk given the context

-Mena

this seems so fake

In post 167, Disaster Cartel wrote:

In post 162, notscience wrote:Or we could let the game breathe and if we really can’t come up with a better option and need a deadline scramble then we decide to go there

I’m not saying we speed lim I’m saying that the only reason policy lims don’t work is bc people get attached to their pet SRs which most of the time aren’t any better than rand, and we should just play it safe and agree that we’re limming NM unless someone basically claims scum

-Mena

YIKES

In post 208, Nachomamma8 wrote:

Vote: Not_Mafia

Was a fun thought while it lasted. Don't think notscience is out of scum range but do like what he's posted so far.

In post 29, SirCakez wrote:i've fallen for the not maf policy yeet too many times

If Not_Mafia flips scum (which is looking more and more possible by the minute), then ^this^ is a potential partner.

sure dude

In post 233, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 221, Leafeon and Glaceon wrote:also i am glad to see that my partner did not play after telling me he would

~leaf

Isn't beeboy the one who just doesn't post as scum?

this is true

This has already been covered, but when pushed on these reasons they just... weren’t good and didn’t have much depth to them. But after I interrogated cakez on that, did he like re-evaluate or revise his read at all? No, he just doubled down, and that’s what he’s done on nacho too

He’s just picking the easiest targets and coming up with reasons to have his vote on them. His vote on nacho is v much scum looking to make sure a wagon goes through imo

Anything unsigned is me btw, unless ydra specifically points out that she forgot to sign something

-M

failure to understand and failure to listen are two different things

UNVOTE:

We have a week and I'd like to reengage a lot of the playerlist (even Nacho) from a legitimately reset position. My feelings haven't really changed as of now.

Nacho I would like just kind of an updated list from you at this point if you would, esp wrt my 1271

I don't feel like I can reliably tell the difference between this being a scum alliance to save nacho and two people who are desperately trying to tell me that i am wrong.

That makes me a sad panda

Have we not been over beeboy scum meta Bork

In post 1361, Disaster Cartel wrote:Like, take this post infinity

In post 1338, SirCakez wrote:

In post 1330, Disaster Cartel wrote:but like... cakez' intro was bad and I think deservedly called out by nacho? like if it was slightly exaggerated so what, it was still a good push then and is a good push now

I hate this
Nacho's pushback against me was very entangled with our histories playing together
Calling my intro objectively "bad" as called out by Nacho feels like heavy misrep

Apparently this is bad from me bc I’m endorsing nacho’s take of him being bad

But like he has no interest in if *i* disliked his intro for reasons other than nacho’s which, btw, I did

How is this opportunistic? I've been SRing you for a while

You're quoting old posts and ignored how I've continued to call out your scummy posts well past that point

Why didn't you call out that stuff earlier?

In post 1365, notscience wrote:That makes me a sad panda

Have we not been over beeboy scum meta Bork

I would like to do this my way for the moment. A lot of games I've been in have been lost because I've not been pliable enough with my view of the game early on.

In post 1367, SirCakez wrote:You're quoting old posts and ignored how I've continued to call out your scummy posts well past that point

What scummy posts I didn’t play for like 3 days

In post 1368, SirCakez wrote:Why didn't you call out that stuff earlier?

I... did? I just wasn’t ready to go in on you being scum until I saw if you did re-evaluate or anything AFTER I’d called out your posts, and you didn’t

I obviously didn’t say that because why would I give you a free guide on how to get a TR from me when I was thinking you were >rand scum

In post 1369, Kismet wrote:

In post 1365, notscience wrote:That makes me a sad panda

Have we not been over beeboy scum meta Bork

I would like to do this my way for the moment. A lot of games I've been in have been lost because I've not been pliable enough with my view of the game early on.

I think he’s been very openly trying to manipulate us for most of the day

And you need to consider how difficult it was to get traction for the wagon, despite the townbloc voting it.

I know you want to do it your way but we are giving him the wiggle room to escape and I’d really not piss our chances away at the big one.

In post 1373, notscience wrote:despite the “townbloc” voting it.

ftfy