Mafiascum.net

In post 1198, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:I don't count Loftwing as a replacement for the purposes of this tell because it was an involuntary rep-out

Okay, let’s turn this boat around then. In Radio Buzz there were two slots that got replaced while under pressure, and their entries were both less-than-stellar. What your problem with how tw or I entered the game? I don’t think tw was even under much pressure coming in but if you’re making the comparison to Radio Buzz I’ll play along a little.

In post 1204, Dwlee99 wrote:

In post 799, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 795, MegAzumarill wrote:

In post 794, Gamma Emerald wrote:and why aren't you voting loftwing if that's your core suspicion out of (loftwing/gamma/pooky)?

I think the associative is there if loftwing is scum.

It doesn't mean that I think he is more likely to be scum.

yeah this is transparently trying to dodge putting actual pressure on loftwing
meg/dwlee/loftwing is the scumteam

In post 1142, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 1042, the worst wrote:Feel like its just 3 of {pooky, mcat, dann, navi} but sure hope I'm wrong

Idk how I missed this, Pooky/MCat/Dann made up my second tier of suspicions after Dwlee/Meg/Jake, so it’s interesting tw came to suspect them as a whole as well. Feels like a mild mind meld in a way that isn’t setting myself up for failure.

nvm I misread this

What did you initially read this as?

In post 1206, Dwlee99 wrote:But I'm lazy. Gamma hasn't been

Ive been focused elsewhere is the thing.

In post 1207, Dwlee99 wrote:Gamma asked me questions but I don't

feel

like they were meant to sort me

The question about your Meg read was but you kinda tuned out after I mentioned meta so I gave up

In post 1570, the worst wrote:@house
what's the positive motive you see? genuine question; i'm v much not above having missed something. if i remove my frustrations etc. then i'm still left with like.. a charitable read of very null, i think

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't think there was any notice at all in the spat. It seemed more like an OOC argument than a game-related one.

In post 1578, House wrote:

In post 1570, the worst wrote:@house
what's the positive motive you see? genuine question; i'm v much not above having missed something. if i remove my frustrations etc. then i'm still left with like.. a charitable read of very null, i think

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't think there was any motive* at all in the spat. It seemed more like an OOC argument than a game-related one.

Fix't

In post 1578, House wrote:

In post 1570, the worst wrote:@house
what's the positive motive you see? genuine question; i'm v much not above having missed something. if i remove my frustrations etc. then i'm still left with like.. a charitable read of very null, i think

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't think there was any notice at all in the spat. It seemed more like an OOC argument than a game-related one.

Oh are you talking about the thing with the worst and not the thing with Dwlee?

I can be explicit again. My argument with the Worst is strictly Out of Game frustration. I said that a bunch.

In post 1580, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:

In post 1578, House wrote:

In post 1570, the worst wrote:@house
what's the positive motive you see? genuine question; i'm v much not above having missed something. if i remove my frustrations etc. then i'm still left with like.. a charitable read of very null, i think

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't think there was any notice at all in the spat. It seemed more like an OOC argument than a game-related one.

Oh are you talking about the thing with the worst and not the thing with Dwlee?

I can be explicit again. My argument with the Worst is strictly Out of Game frustration. I said that a bunch.

Scum can claim their anger at someone is not game-related. I just buy it in your case.

In post 1581, House wrote:

In post 1580, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:

In post 1578, House wrote:

In post 1570, the worst wrote:@house
what's the positive motive you see? genuine question; i'm v much not above having missed something. if i remove my frustrations etc. then i'm still left with like.. a charitable read of very null, i think

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't think there was any notice at all in the spat. It seemed more like an OOC argument than a game-related one.

Oh are you talking about the thing with the worst and not the thing with Dwlee?

I can be explicit again. My argument with the Worst is strictly Out of Game frustration. I said that a bunch.

Scum can claim their anger at someone is not game-related. I just buy it in your case.

Okay but THAT would be angle shooting. Like, getting mad at someone for an out of game harm and then using that as a method to trick them? That's not okay and I don't really want that associated with me in any way.

It's one thing to feign anger or frustration at someone's play. But at something you are saying hurt you?

In post 1210, Dwlee99 wrote:Pretty much all of them

Maybe not the poe one?

749 was because you pinged my tell about wagon logic fishing, and I wanted more info on it before passing hard judgment on the matter
764 was because you showed no signs of a PoE before (and obviously it was horseshit based on ensuing posts)
787 was trying to track if you were actually sorting or just spewing bullshit that sounds believable.
1144 is because I think Meg and you can be partners (tho tbh I also thought that in LN 235 and was wrong)

I’d like it if you could with any of them. Because so far you’ve basically blown me off which idk, feels a little weird for you especially with your read on me.

In post 1223, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:

In post 1221, Dwlee99 wrote:

In post 1219, House wrote:

In post 1216, Dwlee99 wrote:I will be more engaged when I feel more strongly about things. Right now I don't even feel completely solid forming a poe so I'm just kinda trudging along

C'mon dwlee, perk up.

VOTE: dwlee

Too early to be demoralized.

No

In post 1222, Dwlee99 wrote:It isn't demoralized btw, it's just a lack of strong feels

Feeling a little down that your easy elimination for later got replaced with someone notoriously difficult to murder?

I get it, it's okay. The scum QT must be really quiet for you to be this sad out here though.

In post 1224, Dwlee99 wrote:Gamma? Difficult to murder?

I know LLD meant herself but I put up a hell of a fight as town, and tbh Dwlee should know that, having seen me in LN 235

In post 1231, Kazyan wrote:The discourse about Gamma was going in circles

wut

In post 1558, the worst wrote:

In post 1551, Dannflor wrote:the worst, when you get back from your stroll, what about the dwlee push did you find nonsensical?

i literally don't relate to any of it. i don't know how to start picking it apart, because it's just yelling about surface level observations which are painted in a scummy way.

do you disagree? could you show me what you're seeing there?

I don't know man like dwlee's reaction to LLD's entrance was weird??? I feel? I don't necessarily think it is scummy now but like I sure as hell understand poking at that and pushing for more

this feels a lot like team mafia when LLD pushed Hercule or whoever for like not the most airtight reasons but then hercule's reactions were what sealed the deal. That feels like what LLD was fishing for here, although I don't think dwlee had anywhere near the same type of reaction

also I feel you can read along with the questions I was asking dwlee during that whole back and forth to kinda see where I was agreeing with LLD. I also get not really agreeing with it, but I don't understand where you are reading scummy out of it

I want to flip LLD over the other viable wagons here because if LLD flips red, then I think that confirms Worst as town. I am convinced that the argument couldn't have been scum theater, if only because TSQ would have vetoed them when they considered in their PT.

In post 1241, MURDERCAT wrote:Same here as well. I really dislike these sort of posts where they look like they aren't naked votes because there is content around them, but the content doesn't relate to the vote itself. It's lookbusyish and should be called out.

I kinda get this.
UNVOTE:
I think it was still on murdercat

In post 1587, Kazyan wrote:I want to flip LLD over the other viable wagons here because if LLD flips red, then I think that confirms Worst as town. I am convinced that the argument couldn't have been scum theater, if only because TSQ would have vetoed them when they considered in their PT.

I’m sorry, ??? That sounds like undue mod influence.

I mean like "please don't break Rule 5", not mod-controlled actions

In post 1255, Gorkington wrote:if i was playing under a self imposed post restriction and couldnt say things that i wanted to say i would feel unleashed by the prospect of being able to drop content unhindered after having tried to express things that people werent really picking up on but navi does not feel that way at all.

p-edit: isis is the name of her main account. lol.

I feel this.

In post 1587, Kazyan wrote:I want to flip LLD over the other viable wagons here because if LLD flips red, then I think that confirms Worst as town. I am convinced that the argument couldn't have been scum theater, if only because TSQ would have vetoed them when they considered in their PT.

... what?

That's... no. That would never happen on this website. Have you played in games where this has happened before?

If they planned out theater then obviously any expressed animosity is staged?

In post 1590, Kazyan wrote:I mean like "please don't break Rule 5", not mod-controlled actions

That's... also not....

I haven't been in games where this has happened. If it's a pants-on-head speculation, then I take the L

In post 1578, House wrote:

In post 1570, the worst wrote:@house
what's the positive motive you see? genuine question; i'm v much not above having missed something. if i remove my frustrations etc. then i'm still left with like.. a charitable read of very null, i think

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't think there was any notice at all in the spat. It seemed more like an OOC argument than a game-related one.

That's fine, why do you think LLD is town?

In post 1595, Kazyan wrote:I haven't been in games where this has happened. If it's a pants-on-head speculation, then I take the L

It's not a thing. Moderators will never intervene in that way. The most they might do is warn individuals to tone it down an keep it civil, but any interaction between players is player decided, regardless of the rules.

In post 1587, Kazyan wrote:I want to flip LLD over the other viable wagons here because if LLD flips red, then I think that confirms Worst as town. I am convinced that the argument couldn't have been scum theater, if only because TSQ would have vetoed them when they considered in their PT.

I don't think it'd be appropriate for a mod to influence the game in this fashion. It's also probably best to try and avoid leaning on pie in the sky ideas like this to form reads, because if you're town, there's no way to qualify it until post-game. It just brings non-game related factors into solving the game which makes things icky and murky.