Mafiascum.net

I don't like the progression of church on mognet culminating into them saying the will nuke them. I'm not sure if it's AI at the moment tho. It doesn't feel right tho. Need to think on this.

In post 1544, Titus wrote:Mognet, I am depressed. Me not liking something =/= scum necessarily. It's me seeking feedback.

I don't even read on subbing in. I don't expect you to have read the entire thread but I am annoyed when I have to use what mental energy I do have to do more than you with the data you ask for and I rarely review past games.

Also, by focusing on LLD's perceived bias you are defending mastina because you are attempting to cut down LLD's argument.

Examining an argument critically is not the same as “attempting to cut it down”. Applying what you do to others is a bad standard Kupo,

Sorry you’re depressed but I think with a qualifier like necessarily you’re scum. You’re wanting people to post about me negatively.

In post 1550, Vaxkiller wrote:I don't like the progression of church on mognet culminating into them saying the will nuke them. I'm not sure if it's AI at the moment tho. It doesn't feel right tho. Need to think on this.

I'm overexaggerating.

In post 1549, The Church of Skitter wrote:

NUKE: POOKYBEAR

Hydra disagreement or scumslip?

scumslip, clearly

Standardly it's the bad guys that shoot first and the Americans who retaliate.

In post 1547, Mognet wrote:

In post 1542, joqiza wrote:Mognet when someone says "I think I'll go ahead and get myself a glass of water" do you start wondering "DAMN I wonder if they're going to get themselves a glass of water??? They said 'I think' that's so noncommital to whether they want that water or not."

That's what this push feels like to me.

Then you’re trivializing it Kupo. If someone said that IRL and I was at the fridge I would get it or ask them what they wanted. Again it’s not the uncertainty that is the question. It’s the motivation behind it and the context and the why. “I think I will vote” and “I think I will hammer” are common scum tells and if it’s really so nebulous you’d just move on and just hunt.

I actually am hunting btw, there's a reason I'm fixated on this and you can call it OMGUS but the cool thing about this setup is I only need to convince one person: myself

You've said that the "motivation and context" behind my vote is scummy but you've failed to sufficiently explain to me why that is true. I've tried to understand your perspective and I've offered my own and you seem unable to understand it. If you genuinely think saying "I think I'll hammer" is a scumtell then I suppose you'll need to do some revision to your methodology. As it is I think we're done here.

I wonder who breaks first on signing posts between me and Ali

In post 1549, The Church of Skitter wrote:

NUKE: POOKYBEAR

In post 1556, joqiza wrote:

In post 1547, Mognet wrote:

In post 1542, joqiza wrote:Mognet when someone says "I think I'll go ahead and get myself a glass of water" do you start wondering "DAMN I wonder if they're going to get themselves a glass of water??? They said 'I think' that's so noncommital to whether they want that water or not."

That's what this push feels like to me.

Then you’re trivializing it Kupo. If someone said that IRL and I was at the fridge I would get it or ask them what they wanted. Again it’s not the uncertainty that is the question. It’s the motivation behind it and the context and the why. “I think I will vote” and “I think I will hammer” are common scum tells and if it’s really so nebulous you’d just move on and just hunt.

I actually am hunting btw, there's a reason I'm fixated on this and you can call it OMGUS but the cool thing about this setup is I only need to convince one person: myself

You've said that the "motivation and context" behind my vote is scummy but you've failed to sufficiently explain to me why that is true. I've tried to understand your perspective and I've offered my own and you seem unable to understand it. If you genuinely think saying "I think I'll hammer" is a scumtell then I suppose you'll need to do some revision to your methodology. As it is I think we're done here.

I don’t think so. Starting with a common scum tell and then poking them and then if they are Townie back off is a good MO and I see little reason to change that.

You shouldn’t be aiming to understand where I am coming from but instead just be town which you’re not.

I can be horrible with my explanations in missives Kupo. There’s a specific type of hedging that is scum related and you’re doing it.

I'll see you in defcon 1 buddy!

In post 1558, SirCakez wrote:

In post 1549, The Church of Skitter wrote:

NUKE: POOKYBEAR

Do not post fake nukes. This is a core rule of this setup.

does it truly count as a fake nuke if we're in a stage of the game where it literally can't be launched?

(understood, I won't do it again)

-M

I'm not actually gonna nuke pooky tho

I'm gonna nuke the entity for bullying ydra out of the game

-M

In post 1557, The Church of Skitter wrote:I wonder who breaks first on signing posts between me and Ali

Which head(s) wants to nuke Pooky and why?
Which head(s) wants to nuke me and why?

Pooky has not been talked about much. Seems an odd choice Kupo.

can submarine function in defcon 3?

No

In post 1563, Mognet wrote:

In post 1557, The Church of Skitter wrote:I wonder who breaks first on signing posts between me and Ali

Which head(s) wants to nuke Pooky and why?
Which head(s) wants to nuke me and why?

Pooky has not been talked about much. Seems an odd choice Kupo.

Ali-head wants to nuke you

me-head is going to nuke the entity

I have no idea what kupo means but I'm not actually planning on nukin the pookin atp

In post 1551, Mognet wrote:

In post 1544, Titus wrote:Mognet, I am depressed. Me not liking something =/= scum necessarily. It's me seeking feedback.

I don't even read on subbing in. I don't expect you to have read the entire thread but I am annoyed when I have to use what mental energy I do have to do more than you with the data you ask for and I rarely review past games.

Also, by focusing on LLD's perceived bias you are defending mastina because you are attempting to cut down LLD's argument.

Examining an argument critically is not the same as “attempting to cut it down”. Applying what you do to others is a bad standard Kupo,

Sorry you’re depressed but I think with a qualifier like necessarily you’re scum. You’re wanting people to post about me negatively.

So the fact I seek feedback on something I don't like necessarily makes me scum?

People could post that I was wrong to dislike your response to me, which is why I posted it like I did. So why would you suppose people would post negatively to my statement?

You can critically examine a statement, but that necessarily defends a slot. It's not an outright defense saying mastina is town but it necessarily implies mastina could be town.

If you think I am scum, you're welcome to nuke me.

In post 1566, The Church of Skitter wrote:

In post 1563, Mognet wrote:

In post 1557, The Church of Skitter wrote:I wonder who breaks first on signing posts between me and Ali

Which head(s) wants to nuke Pooky and why?
Which head(s) wants to nuke me and why?

Pooky has not been talked about much. Seems an odd choice Kupo.

Ali-head wants to nuke you

me-head is going to nuke the entity

I have no idea what kupo means but I'm not actually planning on nukin the pookin atp

Think of Kupo like friend. I linked what it means earlier in thread. Where’s the why?

Then why fake a nuke on Pooky? It’s literally impossible like you said.

In post 1552, The Church of Skitter wrote:

In post 1550, Vaxkiller wrote:I don't like the progression of church on mognet culminating into them saying the will nuke them. I'm not sure if it's AI at the moment tho. It doesn't feel right tho. Need to think on this.

I'm overexaggerating.

What part? The yelling? The proposed nuking? All of it?

also entity may just be scum lol

In post 1568, Mognet wrote:

In post 1566, The Church of Skitter wrote:

In post 1563, Mognet wrote:

In post 1557, The Church of Skitter wrote:I wonder who breaks first on signing posts between me and Ali

Which head(s) wants to nuke Pooky and why?
Which head(s) wants to nuke me and why?

Pooky has not been talked about much. Seems an odd choice Kupo.

Ali-head wants to nuke you

me-head is going to nuke the entity

I have no idea what kupo means but I'm not actually planning on nukin the pookin atp

Think of Kupo like friend. I linked what it means earlier in thread. Where’s the why?

Then why fake a nuke on Pooky? It’s literally impossible like you said.

I may or may not see that depending on if it's before or after pg43 which is where I'm catching up from

...bc I thought it would be fun(ny)? idk, I didn't really consider it

In post 1103, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:

In post 1100, Prism wrote:I can't believe the words coming out of my keyboard but this is by far the most tolerable & limited posting mastina has made in awhile and the idea she has to go for gamehealth is nonsense

Yawn.

She does the same thing every game. And now we are cutting it off before she can get into the groove in a game where deacon 5 and 4 are mostly memes and you are like

SHE IS SO RESERVED COMPARED TO NORMAL GUYS COME ON

yeah we have only been actually playing for like 3 hours or sommat.

do you think TM might be related to this or nah?

In post 1567, Titus wrote:

In post 1551, Mognet wrote:

In post 1544, Titus wrote:Mognet, I am depressed. Me not liking something =/= scum necessarily. It's me seeking feedback.

I don't even read on subbing in. I don't expect you to have read the entire thread but I am annoyed when I have to use what mental energy I do have to do more than you with the data you ask for and I rarely review past games.

Also, by focusing on LLD's perceived bias you are defending mastina because you are attempting to cut down LLD's argument.

Examining an argument critically is not the same as “attempting to cut it down”. Applying what you do to others is a bad standard Kupo,

Sorry you’re depressed but I think with a qualifier like necessarily you’re scum. You’re wanting people to post about me negatively.

So the fact I seek feedback on something I don't like necessarily makes me scum?

People could post that I was wrong to dislike your response to me, which is why I posted it like I did. So why would you suppose people would post negatively to my statement?

You can critically examine a statement, but that necessarily defends a slot. It's not an outright defense saying mastina is town but it necessarily implies mastina could be town.

If you think I am scum, you're welcome to nuke me.

Moogles are pacifist by nature Kupo. It’s not the fact you’re seeing feedback it’s now. It’s poisoning the well.

Instead of “I don’t like “blah”, a neutral ask is “What do you think about blah?” Scum will inherently cling onto negativity that suits their purpose and it’s an insidious way to sneak negativity in about a slot.

And no, that’s not how that works. At all. Asking questions is not defense. If I went “Mastina is town” that’s defense. Reasoning can be incorrect but the end result is still right.

Eg if I said 2+2 = 5 and therefore SirCakez is the mod, it’s still correct Sircakez is the mod but analyzing 2+2 is 5 is not a defense of SirCakez.

The Mastina scum argument boils down to LLD says so so I need to analyze her and see if it’s a bias and if it’s justified to form my Mastina read.

In post 1570, The Church of Skitter wrote:also entity may just be scum lol

Now this is interesting