Mafiascum.net

*endorse his lynch. Sorry.

I understood it. He's asking why you having additional scumreads makes you stop endorsing your original scumread.

You can only endorse one lynch at a time.

@Phillammon:

I don't like his tone at all. It's way too snarky. His push on AcRv and attack for an OMGUS vote is bad.

↑ Quinter wrote:I reread this multiple times and cannot understand the addition analogy. Right now I am endorsing the Jal lynch, since I am voting for him.

You find drmyshotgun scummy for a dumb reason. This is A. You make a (shit) case on him. This is B. You find someone scummier than drmyshotgun, which would be Jal. This is C. You said you are no longer endorsing your case on drmyshotgun, because you're endorsing Jal's lynch. This is D. A + B + C = D. Well, that addition is incorrect, because (although this is not proven, it's mostly common sense), just because you are endorsing someone else's lynch, doesn't mean you aren't endorsing your case on drmyshotgun. You're just not posting it in-thread. But you're endorsing it to yourself. Probably to be used later, in which I will ignore, because the case meant nothing to me.

Don't take any of my thoughts to be rude, I'm just using the rudeness for emphasis. Sorry if I've insulted you. Wasn't intended.

↑ kondi2424 wrote:I understood it. He's asking why you having additional scumreads makes you stop endorsing your original scumread.

Correct. Thank you, kondi2424.

↑ Quinter wrote:You can only endorse one lynch at a time.

@Phillammon:

I don't like his tone at all. It's way too snarky. His push on AcRv and attack for an OMGUS vote is bad.

You weren't endorsing two lynches at a time. You were endorsing your case on drmyshotgun, while endorsing Jal's lynch.

OK, I am just going to stop using the word "endorse" because it is just making everything confusing. I think shotgun scumtold for the PGO thing. It's weak though, and I have a better lynch in mind. Where we disagree is about the shotgun scumtell.

Quinter's making good points, and everything's explained adequately. His point on shotgun is good, and I dislike the whole exchange from 107 to 110, but I ddislike how McQUeen is sort of buddying up to me there more than I dislike the perceived manipulation, so VOTE: McQueen

↑ Phillammon wrote:Quinter's making good points, and everything's explained adequately. His point on shotgun is good, and I dislike the whole exchange from 107 to 110, but I ddislike how McQUeen is sort of buddying up to me there more than I dislike the perceived manipulation, so VOTE: McQueen

I'm not buddying to you, I'm buddying to your problems. I will not let anyone -- I don't care if it's a fucking shitter -- get policy lynched because of his troubles, such as late game lislynch bait, easily manipulated, bad player, etc. I don't play those games. I play Mafia.

Besides Phillammon, if we're both town, I'm just going to let scum lynch you? Um, no. So why should it matter if I "buddy you?"

mcqueen wrote:

↑ Phillammon wrote:Quinter's making good points, and everything's explained adequately. His point on shotgun is good, and I dislike the whole exchange from 107 to 110, but I ddislike how McQUeen is sort of buddying up to me there more than I dislike the perceived manipulation, so VOTE: McQueen

I'm not buddying to you, I'm buddying to your problems. I will not let anyone -- I don't care if it's a fucking shitter -- get policy lynched because of his troubles, such as late game lislynch bait, easily manipulated, bad player, etc. I don't play those games. I play Mafia.

Who is this person we are talking about?

↑ Quinter wrote:

mcqueen wrote:

↑ Phillammon wrote:Quinter's making good points, and everything's explained adequately. His point on shotgun is good, and I dislike the whole exchange from 107 to 110, but I ddislike how McQUeen is sort of buddying up to me there more than I dislike the perceived manipulation, so VOTE: McQueen

I'm not buddying to you, I'm buddying to your problems. I will not let anyone -- I don't care if it's a fucking shitter -- get policy lynched because of his troubles, such as late game lislynch bait, easily manipulated, bad player, etc. I don't play those games. I play Mafia.

Who is this person we are talking about?

Not you.

↑ Quinter wrote:Vote: Jal
I don't like his tone at all. It's way too snarky. His push on AcRv and attack for an OMGUS vote is bad.

Are you mostly voting me for not liking my tone or do you actually think I'm scum?

: No one was going to get policy lynched.

↑ Jal wrote:

↑ Quinter wrote:Vote: Jal
I don't like his tone at all. It's way too snarky. His push on AcRv and attack for an OMGUS vote is bad.

Are you mostly voting me for not liking my tone or do you actually think I'm scum?

Mcqueen

: No one was going to get policy lynched.

Anyways, it could lead to a policy lynch. It , but . That's why I .

The fuck...2 new pages, and Chrimi replacing out?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

So, AcRv, Christmas reference goes down the toilet right? What's your view on Quinter now?

↑ Jal wrote:

AcRv

:

↑ AcRv wrote:Look at it this way - why would a town member lie about a townread? And scum would only lie about a townread on their buddy, and as soon as they flip scum then hey, we know to ignore everything they said about reads. So really, you don't lose anything from me not explaining why I think someone is town. All you need to know is that I have no plans on voting him/her in the forseeable future.

So basically, you had no justifiable townread on Phill whatsoever. Mmmkay.

No, I have no good reason to tell you why I have a townread on Phill. How many times do you want me to tell you that?

↑ AcRv wrote:Which I did adress, and was the main point. You were denying you defended him, which at the time it looked like you were, (until LastSurvivor told us what happened with that... so now you're saying I'm scum for not knowing something that I couldn't have possibly known yet).

What? Nothing in what you quoted concerning your horrible logic had anything to do with the pms. I never stated you were scum specifically for the pms either. How do you even constitute that as defending Gunny anyway? The reasonings you come up with don't make sense. Nothing in the rest of your post makes sense.

Stop trying to find horrible ways to rationalize your OMGUS vote.

You denied defending shotgun which you did in this post that I will quote again:

↑ Jal wrote:

↑ Phillammon wrote:despite having apparently

read

your PM, and despite both PMs being posted above?

Whoa whoa whoa. We're already assuming too much here.

That there is telling us to stop assuming that the guy read his role PM. Which is what the case revolved around. Shooting down a case against someone is defending someone.

The reason that I'm voting you is because you defended a player and then denied you did. Town have no reason to deny defending someone. Scum can do that for distancing, which can be WIFOMed into buddying. You're only point on me thus far has been "you're making it look like me and gunny are connected". But the thing is that you are. At least you've got a connection to him... he seems mostly oblivious to it, so I dunno if you actually are buddies or if you were buddying him.

↑ drmyshotgun wrote:So, AcRv, Christmas reference goes down the toilet right? What's your view on Quinter now?

Well now he's actually posting stuff he's looking not that bad. Probably a player who takes a while to get into things.

I really don't like AcRv.

First, he won't explain a townread. Since when do people not explain reads, because scum might use that against him? That's why you don't make tons of lists explaining all your reads. I do it, but only occasionally. Thus, you should explain your (town)read (or any signular read, if requested to explain it).

Second, he tries to make a case on someone for not reading their Role PM. First, this cannot be proven; he could lie about it (don't ask me why, but he could). Second, it's just a bad case. It ends up in a big arguement, with a whole lot of reasoning based off of shit WIFOM. That's not a legitimate arguement. Neither are cases based on "What if?".

Third, he's voting someone (I can't remember)* for denying defending a player. Well, if you haven't noticed, I denied defending Phillammon, on the basis that I wasn't defending him, I was defending his problems he has. Well, maybe whoever you're voting has a legimate reason for "defending" whoever he was "defending." Just because he denies something, esepcially something minor, that you is true, doesn't mean he's scum.

So, I'm liking an AcRv lynch right now.

VOTE: AcRv

*@Lastsurvivor - I don't know if you've posted a votecount recently, but I don't see one in the number of previous posts I can scroll through on my New Post screen, so could you post one? Thanks.

THat's terrible, mcqueen. UNVOTE: , VOTE: McQueen

1) Explaining how to get a townread out of you will end up in you being permanently crippled in all future games, as Scum will be able to emulate.
2) Not having read a core mechanic of the game as well as not reading their role PM properly? That's not bad grounds for a policy lynch, let alone a scum lynch. I've seen people hang for far less.
3) Okay, that's fair enough. But the other two are terrible.

I appreciate that 2 would be better grounds for hanging shotgun, but he said something else that makes me hesitant on that front. So, next best thing, I guess.

You were already voting for McQueen. Getting forgetful are we?
VOTE: Phillammon

To me you seem to be asking small questions here and there without making much substance from the answers you get.
Fillers I think.

Time to switch.

↑ Shattered Viewpoint wrote:Time to switch.

unvote

Vote: Quinter

Why??

prod dodge.
wiull post 2morrow

↑ mcqueen wrote:I really don't like AcRv.

First, he won't explain a townread. Since when do people not explain reads, because scum might use that against him? That's why you don't make tons of lists explaining all your reads. I do it, but only occasionally. Thus, you should explain your (town)read (or any signular read, if requested to explain it).

How is one read different to three reads? Especially given it's so early in game that scum can get in on how to fake town reads with more opportunities to do it... if it were like in a final three LyLo or something, then explaining reasons is definitely a good thing, but I don't see why it is now.

Second, he tries to make a case on someone for not reading their Role PM. First, this cannot be proven; he could lie about it (don't ask me why, but he could). Second, it's just a bad case. It ends up in a big arguement, with a whole lot of reasoning based off of shit WIFOM. That's not a legitimate arguement. Neither are cases based on "What if?".

... So you know that he got a town PM do you? You right there admited it. My case was because I assumed that if he got the PGO PM he would have read it, which was why he wouldn't know. You just then said that the case was on him for not reading his PM. Is that because you know he got a PGO PM so you automatically ruled out the fact that he didn't get a PGO PM?

Third, he's voting someone (I can't remember)* for denying defending a player. Well, if you haven't noticed, I denied defending Phillammon, on the basis that I wasn't defending him, I was defending his problems he has. Well, maybe whoever you're voting has a legimate reason for "defending" whoever he was "defending." Just because he denies something, esepcially something minor, that you

assume

is true, doesn't mean he's scum.

Well, the fact his case on me revolves around pointing out a connection that is there is also kinda scummy if you ask me...

So, I'm liking

an

AcRv

lynch right now.

I'm liking me too

↑ drmyshotgun wrote:

↑ Shattered Viewpoint wrote:Time to switch.

unvote

Vote: Quinter

Why??

Why not?

↑ Phillammon wrote:THat's terrible, mcqueen. UNVOTE: , VOTE: McQueen

1) Explaining how to get a townread out of you will end up in you being permanently crippled in all future games, as Scum will be able to emulate.
2) Not having read a core mechanic of the game as well as not reading their role PM properly? That's not bad grounds for a policy lynch, let alone a scum lynch. I've seen people hang for far less.
3) Okay, that's fair enough. But the other two are terrible.

I appreciate that 2 would be better grounds for hanging shotgun, but he said something else that makes me hesitant on that front. So, next best thing, I guess.

I've never been told it's not a good idea to explain a singular read if asked. No matter townread, scumread, cultread, third party read, etc. Only if it's consistant long reads lists.

AcRv wrote:... So you know that he got a town PM do you? You right there admited it. My case was because I assumed that if he got the PGO PM he would have read it, which was why he wouldn't know. You just then said that the case was on him for not reading his PM. Is that because you know he got a PGO PM so you automatically ruled out the fact that he didn't get a PGO PM?

This is WIFOM. I never said I knew he had a PGO Role PM. I said (and meant it in the way of) I have a townread on him, so I'm assuming he has a Vanilla Townie Role PM. Mhm. (Yes, I put Vanilla Tonwie on purpose, just because I felt like being sarcastic. I do mean PGO, not Vanilla Townie.) But my main point was, you can't base a whole case or read on not reading, skimming, or misreading your Role PM. It's only a small part of a case. Basing a whole case off of it is pure ignorancy to me.