Mafiascum.net

↑ triangle123 wrote:

Kortul wrote:You said that green is inviting WIFOM, then explained how, said that there's no proper way to react, and told us what would you do in such situation to demonstrate WIFOM. And it was done from scum perspective, that's how i read it. There's no "if i were scum" clause before your example.

Although I do find T-Bone scummy, I actually disagree with this particular point on him. I feel like this is reading too much into his statement because reading over what he said, it looks to me like the "If I were scum" clause was more or less implied since T-Bone's quote was all about how scum would react to a given situation.

I will think about that some more, now that i have an independent opinion. But why do you think that T-Bone's quote was all about how would react to a given situation? Originally greenknight were talking about what he would do as a if Grey did such a claim against him. And in his post T-Bone also doesn't mention alignments until the phrase that i found suspicious. That's why it got my attention, since it is more natural to give examples related to your alignment in the game.

greenknight wrote:I felt explaining my stance on Greyice to be more important.

Just because you think something is not important does not mean that you can ignore it, especially if it is a direct question.

Is there any reason why you could not responf to my question and explain your stance on GreyICE?

greenknight wrote:If you mean what experience I'm going off, I'm used to offsite games with an aggressive 48 hour deadline meta. If you or anyone else wants to check my town meta onsite, I can only point you to one game, Seacore's Good vs Evil large theme (I get killed on night 2 so it shouldn't be a long iso.)

You didn't expect there to be a huge difference in the playstyles of people in a 2 week deadline game and people in a 48 hour deadline game?

greenknight wrote:Actually, the reason I've had to explain my reasoning is because people kept asking me to explain it. I'm not actually defending that as an applicable tell anymore; if I was, I wouldn't have unvoted you. Funnily enough, you call me scummy for trying to push you and Triangle calls me scummy for not pushing you enough I backed down when I did because arguing "this is a good tell" vs "no it isn't" when several people were taking your side meant that further argument wouldn't accomplish anything constructive.

So did you back down because you realized that your reasoning was not applicable or because you realized that you weren't accomplishing anything constructive?

Kolash wrote:You used the word "someone" in reference to the situation between you and ICE. So you either meant "If it was someone else who investigated me" or "If it was someone else ICE investigated". I want to know which one.

I'm not asking who the 'someone' is, I'm asking who the 'someone' replaces in the equation: ICE investigated Zang

I obviously wouldn't have voted for myself if GreyICE was replaced with someone else.

Korlash wrote:Fence sitting is not as simple as 'not taking a stand' on something. It's playing both sides. And while I see no scum motivation in what Jason did, I certainly see the possibility for it to exist.

The definition of fence sitting does not matter. My point is still valid.

Korlash wrote:From an outside perspective, it is. The difference is everything I say lines up on the same side of the fence regardless of how you string it along. I've never called him scum for his fence sitting nor implied fence sitting is a pure scum intent. I assume your mention of 'exploring possibilities' is suppose to imply that it's contradicting for me to say that in conjunction to him fence sitting because they somehow don't go together, which is false as I said him 'exploring possibilities' would 'explain' the fence sit, not 'excuse' it in anyway.

For me at least, the term fencesitting is usually used when you think that person is scum.

Korlash wrote:I hate using such a crap post as an example but T-Bones accusation of me having no reason would be someone holding me accountable for it, wouldn't you say? I said I was voting on a hunch, at some point someone would ask me 'what hunch' and I would be held accountable for what answer I gave at that time. I didn't post the reason because I felt the vote was better without it at the time.

I assumed you meant being held accountable for the reasoning.

How can a vote be better without explaination? I see absolutely no town motivation for thinking this.

Korlash wrote:Also, why is this the only real thing in the T-Bone/Korlash debacle you felt the need to comment on? Didn't you claim the 'case' on him was good? Here it gets even better and you ignore it for the most part.

I had nothing else to comment on. I do see great points on both sides of the argument though.

Korlash wrote:And I did go into details mate, I specifically asked him a question about it which he has so far failed to answer.

How have I failed to answer it? I have specifically stated that I did not have a person in mind.

And asking me a question does not explain how it irks you. Which you never did explain.

Jason wrote:Yea, looking at GrayICE this guy has added nothing to the game and just spouting scum scum scum at anything without any further backing up or reasoning.

vote: GrayICE

I agree but this is how he always plays.

Korlash wrote:And again, which part of T-Bone's post was 'great'? The fabricated case on me, or the part where he poorly pushes your wagon?

Is this the stance that you always take towards cases against you or is it just because you previously thought that T-bone was scum?

↑ Zang wrote:

Korlash wrote:Also, why is this the only real thing in the T-Bone/Korlash debacle you felt the need to comment on? Didn't you claim the 'case' on him was good? Here it gets even better and you ignore it for the most part.

I had nothing else to comment on. I do see great points on both sides of the argument though.

Zang, can you elaborate, which points you consider great on each side, since some of them are mutually exclusive?

@Zang that wall of text is really hard to read.

In answer 1) I feel I've already explained myself several times over concerning my vote on you and was tired of covering the same ground repeatedly. I'd rather get back to scumhunting. 2) Not sure. It's probably down to the player pool more than anything, I'm used to players who will react aggressively when faced with what they believe to be BS. Actually, I think I did pretty well in Good vs Evil playing the same style as what I'm doing here and I'm surprised I picked up so much heat. Was 50% on the unexplained reads=scum tell there btw. 3) Both.

Regarding Greyice: If he always plays this way, can we expect him to get more readable later in the game?

Bah! My frustration got to me last night with GrayICE. Team Mafia I was able to put up with his crap, as I knew he was town with me being scum. But not knowing what he is, is pissing off as hell when he does this shit. He needs to actually do something other than scream scum. Reasons, theories, connections, why are things scummy, why is person X scummy.

My vote stays until he pulls his finger out of his ass and does something and backs up his shit.

Gray.. why am I scum?
why is Starbuck scum?

Someone asked what seemed town vs town... I don't think scum would want to be drawn into a tit for tat exchange like it was. Often in day 1 we have town going at it with each other while scum slink away letting town fight it out. That is why I get the feeling it is town vs town.

↑ Korlash wrote:

Jason wrote:please show me eexactly where I am fence sitting, please.. don't like how Korlash says Zangs post Irks him but doesnt go into any more details.

You give a reason ICE could be telling the truth, then say you believe he is lying, and then submit a proposal that hinges on him telling the truth. That is playing both sides, cementing a stand on side A while pushing side B.

When you take a stand on Side A and then continue to play over in Side B, that is tantamount to taking no side at all. The stance on Side A is as good as face value for when Side B blows up. The fact someone says "Fence sit" and you go "no no no, look I took a stance here... let me show you..." kinda proves my fucking point.

Luckily for you, the situation in question is a claimed guilty which means there HAS to be some playing in the other field which makes this fence sit very minor. Your reaction to it obviously makes it worse, but I still think it's minor compared to other things (and that other elements in this game also suggest you are town...)

↑ Korlash wrote:

Jason wrote:

Second off, no. You have done nothing to contradict voting ICE(in any sense) and thus there is no fence sitting.

Hey, Korlash... these two basically quotes from you heavily contradiction themselves..

one post you say I am fence sitting or something like it

then say in next there is no fence sitting

Which is it, mate>?

Jason wrote:Hey, Korlash... these two basically quotes from you heavily contradiction themselves..

one post you say I am fence sitting or something like it

then say in next there is no fence sitting

Which is it, mate>?

Ah, underhanded play. As a general term I don't immediately call such a thing 'scum motivated' but given the specific situation you cause here I find it exceedingly so.

The first quote is in regards to your fence sitting regarding the 'ICE claim" and the result given by that. The second quote involves the fake Fence sit possibility that you created regarding you voting ICE. The two are mutually exclusive entities and thus have no relation to each other. In layman's terms, there exists discussions on two separate 'fence sitting' issues and you are trying to suggest they contradict each other simply because they are not both a 'yes'.

If your vote on ICE had mentioned in any way his 'claim' or him 'lying' there would exist some correlation between the two instances, but that link doesn't even exist. There is literally ZERO contradiction here because the two quotes are about two DIFFERENCE 'instances' of fence sitting. (Technically, the second one is about a non-instance but you get my point.)

So your 162 post has you creating a new separate discussion about a new possible fence sitting, and your post 181 is you using that new fence sit to pretend there is a contradiction. Nice... I need to catch up, but at this point I'd be willing to switch my vote to you simply because you seem determined to do as many scummy things as you possibly can. (And I'm rapidly running out of time so shit needs to happen)

Sorry, got distracted by my package arriving... The last piece of my collection... The master's screwdriver, dun dun dun... ;_; but it's defective... Sigh... The other two screwdrivers work... I wanted to make people age... oh well, still looks cool and I can make the sound effects myself *zap zap* kurazy...

...

Sorry, not at all joking by the way... thought it would be relevant to mention it seeing as how I'm here and all....

anyway, back to the game...

Triangle wrote:Although I do find T-Bone scummy, I actually disagree with this particular point on him. I feel like this is reading too much into his statement because reading over what he said, it looks to me like the "If I were scum" clause was more or less implied since T-Bone's quote was all about how scum would react to a given situation.

The 'if I was scum' is implied because Green said it and T-Bone was simply adding onto what Green had said, thus he gets the credit of carrying such implication over with him. However, major props to Kort for this find because it is the type of thing that 'could' be a scum slip. While, in theory, he is saved by the fact Green said it first, since it's an 'implication' T-Bones response to this is going to be key in determining if that implication actually exists.

=\

Seriously Triangle, this is one of those times you majorly fucked up stepping in to respond to something directed at another player before they had a chance to respond to it first. *rubs temples* I... can sorta understand... It wasn't in the phrase of a question so it's hard to tell sometimes when it's majorly important not to intervene on another's behalf... But this could seriously have yielded something... and now T-Bone gets a free out...

So... What do you find scummy about T-Bone exactly? The only thing you've said about him is "you think him scum", "You feel uneasy", and now... what (intentional or not) amounts to defending him from an attack, pure and simply. Sorry, just noticed you also mentioned him 'misrepping me'.. but you say 'borderline' which... it clearly isn't...

Green wrote:Korlash, you're reading way too much into T-bone's #82. His explanation that he voted to pressure me for an explanation and unvoted when he didn't find my response scummy makes sense to me at face value. And since he gets my explanation, commenting on triangle's immediately preceding #81 which didn't get it is natural enough. There's no insinuation of triangle being scum there (it's a bit odd that he refers to it as an attack later as it doesn't really look like one.)

Dude, don't tell me I'm 'reading into something' too much, and then end by saying something I was actually talking about (or trying to get T-Bone to talk about) is something worth looking into. It's whack posting that makes no sense and suggests you have no idea what you're talking about.

1) The explanation makes sense to you 'at face value'? Don't tell me I'm reading too deep into it when you just admit you barely looked at it at all. You not looking into it deeper, is actually MORE reason for me to do it since you aren't 'pulling your weight'. (And this is just an 'illustrated example'. I do not mean to accuse you of anything nor imply anything regarding you 'not working', although technically... It's kinda spot on...) And you can't say I'm looking 'too deep' into soemthing if you haven't looked deep into it to begin with. That is literally accusing me of something you have no way of knowing anything about.

2) You seem to be ignoring a major problem or two I've mentioned regarding his unvote, so... That part about me saying you don't seem to know what you're talking about seems to be holding true. (Primarily the fact T-Bone had recently said his stuff on you was the only thing he saw worth mentioning. this factors into why his unvote was unacceptable and is proof enough why you letting things slide 'at face value' is poor play. Not intended as an insult, constructive criticism.)

3)'Commenting' on Triangle might be natural, the 'comment' in question was not. If and when I can get more out of T-Bone in the discussion he's stalling on/ ignoring... I'll be able to go into it more. As it stands... I'm waiting on him.

Green wrote:At #127 he decides you're scummy for continuing to attack him over #82. In his point 2 against you there, he asks you why you think unvoting me was scummy. You haven't further explained this. You should.

He decides I'm scummy for continuing to attack him? Isn't that the definition of OMGUS? You should work on your phrasing here mate and try again.

I have further explained this, in post 101. T-Bone ignored this post when he accused me of this, I informed him he ignored this, and now you've both ignored that post and ignored me telling him he ignored it. (CONFUCKINGFUSING)

Korlash, post 101 wrote:A few things bothered me about your vote/unvote. For starters, you say Green's thing was the only thing that stood out to you in this early phase, yet you ran away from the vote after one single post. Not only that, but you 180 and seem to chastise the wagon you were just on. And on top of that, you seem to be in turn defending Greenknight himself. So the only thing that you thought worth commenting on in the early phase, you completely 180 on immediately... and you don't even have a strong belief in what green said because you say you disagree with him.

Regardless of what you think of my explanations, and regardless of if I ever get to go into more details (or from your perspective if I even have more details to go into), the fact is I not only explained this a LONG time ago, but I did so rather quickly after my vote. Please try not to falsely accuse me of the same things I just said someone else falsely accused me of, thanks.

Zang wrote:I obviously wouldn't have voted for myself if GreyICE was replaced with someone else.

So I'm taking this as you saying the "someone" was in reference to you. You've had too many opportunities to correct me if I'm wrong, so I'm running with this. Sadly, I'll have to backtrack a long fucking way to pick up where I left off so bare with me.

Zang wrote:The definition of fence sitting does not matter. My point is still valid.

... No... I would love to agree with you and end it here, but I can't because your point isn't valid. You say taking a stance ruins scum motivation, and it doesn't. It increases it. Taking a stance and then pushing the opposite allows you to let the opposite thing happen (let's pretend it's a mislynch) and yet remain safe from the falloutt (because your 'stance' was on the other side). Scum have just pushed a mislynch, yet get a free pass because they laid down a 'fake' stance. The only way to attack them for it at this point? Argue 'fence sit", and looky at that, the 'fake stance' doubles as a defense to that attack. So there is HUGE scum motivation to do this.

As it stands, given the situation, there was also 'huge' town motivation to do it. Which is why I called the fence sit such a small point at the time. However, given Jason's recent stuff, he no longer gets any town cred for it (especially due to his immediate rush to defend himself of the fence sit with the 'stance').

So again, while I would love to say "Yeah I agree with you because that was my original read of it too"... I no longer feel that way and you are wrong so... continue the argument we shall... god... this... game...

Zang wrote:For me at least, the term fencesitting is usually used when you think that person is scum.

Then I shall respect your opinion and you should in turn respect mine. I assume by your lack of continuing this, this is what you've done and we can let this portion rest? I don't believe I have further comment if you don't.

Zang wrote:How can a vote be better without explaination? I see absolutely no town motivation for thinking this.

And... I won't answer this now as it would defeat the purpose. If you cannot accept this then fine, It will have to do. I will only say that I've been playing this game for a long freaking time, and the title 'krap logick' isn't only about my logic being poor. It's about me being able to think outside the box and occasionally be spectacular at it.

I can tell you I have motivation for it and that motivation was in the best interest of the town. I can tell you that my reasons for ding it have already appeared to bare fruit, so to speak. And I can tell you that I believe I still have reasons not to go into it. As I said, you can either accept this or not... nothing I can or will do about it at this time.

Zang wrote:I had nothing else to comment on. I do see great points on both sides of the argument though.

Perfect, go into that then. What great points and why?

Zang wrote:How have I failed to answer it? I have specifically stated that I did not have a person in mind.

And asking me a question does not explain how it irks you. Which you never did explain.

And that answer, from my perspective, is impossible. Even in the event it IS the truth, that answer makes it impossible for me to go into further details as the answer itself is impossible. (or improbable, this hypothetical suggests it is not in fact impossible.)

I didn't explain (yet) because I needed you to answer first. Hence, why I asked you a question. Now that I have your answer, from the top of the page, I'll go into it. but I'm fairly certain your response will be to say that isn't your answer and try to use this 'improbably answer' as a way to wiggle out of it.

I am laughing at the irony here... Will probably go into this when I backtrack to the original point and finally explain the 'irksomeness' of your post...

Zang wrote:Is this the stance that you always take towards cases against you or is it just because you previously thought that T-bone was scum?

I only take the stance that a case is 'fabricated' when I prove it to be. I showed how his case was misrep, ignoring of facts, outright lying, and deflection. That proves it to be fabrication and so far he, and no one else, has made ANY meaningful responses to these accusations by me. So, as of this point, my suggesting that his case is fabricated has yet to be even partially suggested as wrong. The fact the case was 'on me' and the fact I felt 'T-Bone was scum' only comes into play as reasons why I analyzed his post, they do not factor as reasons I reached the conclusion.

*swish*

You need to step up your game mate.

post 142 (kortul):

??? You're saying you think GreyICE KNOWS Zang's alignment? "It is necessary to know at least Zang's alignment," is it?

post 144 (kortul):

greenknight is freaking out about GreyICE. Seems like he wanted to railroad Zang and use GreyICE's "claim" as an excuse. Then the rug was pulled out from under him. :sadtrombone:

post 160 (jasonT1981):

wow someone is mad

Korlash (in general):

Concision is a virtue.

↑ jasonT1981 wrote:Bah! My frustration got to me last night with GrayICE. Team Mafia I was able to put up with his crap, as I knew he was town with me being scum. But not knowing what he is, is pissing off as hell when he does this shit. He needs to actually do something other than scream scum. Reasons, theories, connections, why are things scummy, why is person X scummy.

My vote stays until he pulls his finger out of his ass and does something and backs up his shit.

Gray.. why am I scum?
why is Starbuck scum?

Someone asked what seemed town vs town... I don't think scum would want to be drawn into a tit for tat exchange like it was. Often in day 1 we have town going at it with each other while scum slink away letting town fight it out. That is why I get the feeling it is town vs town.

Yeah this post

That's why

You're scum

Acomist has
Not found time to
Mention Jason

Why?

This green knight wagon
Is fucking crap
Get off him, town

I mentioned jason two posts up, what the hell are you on

wow someone is mad

well it's not your mom I made sure she was happy last night

real reads stat

No.

'kay so you really have nothing to say
about post #180
Nevermind
Post #63

Woo boy

Not one drop of townie motivation
In either one

Agreed. Jason and green are scum. We can sort out who gets the rope in the next two weeks.

You still butthurt over the miller thing? It gives me a frisson of pleasure to think of that now.

Acosmist wrote:greenknight is freaking out about GreyICE. Seems like he wanted to railroad Zang and use GreyICE's "claim" as an excuse. Then the rug was pulled out from under him. :sadtrombone:

"Railroad" him? That's a lazy push. Hell you've said virtually null on the Green wagon... And you're still rocking your random stage vote... You asked him a question back in post 81, did you ever follow up on it? Have you contributed anything meaningful to the green wagon?

Aco wrote:Korlash (in general):

Concision is a virtue.

Never been my strong suit. I've tried, honest. Can't do it.

Grey wrote:This green knight wagon
Is fucking crap
Get off him, town

This is the smartest fucking post of the game so far...

Aco wrote:Agreed. Jason and green are scum. We can sort out who gets the rope in the next two weeks.

You still butthurt over the miller thing? It gives me a frisson of pleasure to think of that now.

Why is Green scum? Exactly? Concisely? Specifically?

Oh gods no
I've been anally raped by mods much worse than that

Like imagine you're scum
And the moderator thinks its funny to put in PGOs who can redirect players to themselves, like multiple
Or you're scum and the moderator thinks its hysterical to take 3 townies out of 3 players left alive and make one a serial killer
Or imagine you're scum and you realize there's two trackers, a cop, a doctor, a vigilante, a bulletproof innocent child and a backup. And you have three scumteam members.

Green may not be scum.
There's some town tells. I'll go over them, but they're there.
Jason needs the good death.

We may be arguing about which scumteam member dies first, this is possible.

The second one is town.
Hmmm
Oh the game where there was 5 scum out of 13 players and the town had no real power roles. That was funny.

If Jason is scum, Starbuck seems like a likely scumfriend for her support of the green counterwagon while awkwardly ignoring jason altogether. I don't think she's even mentioned him at all.

Jason's comeback posts do nothing to change my view that he looks bad.

I think we should lynch Jason and then think seriously about lynching Starbuck given a Jasonscumflip.

Alrighty. Timey-wimey wibbly-wobbly "tomorrow" is apparently now.
This game is all over the place.

↑ greenknight wrote:

↑ Tierce wrote:
What makes you think that GreyICE would make that list as scum? You were trying for a reaction from Zang and have this whole elaborate argument for it... but can't see GreyICE doing the same, and instead jump on it as if it makes him scum?

Because the list looks like he is just trying to agree with as many people as possible.

Hint: it's a reaction test, and you're failing it badly.

Oh, so you don't think a player who rode a joke claim through the RVS should post some actual reasoning once the joke is done?

Tell me, how am I "failing" this so-called reaction test?

I think you're too eager to show some proactivity here.

No, the list isn't that--he was clearly (from my perspective) trying to see who would jump on it with poor reasoning. Question: if you have this kind of issue with GreyICE, why didn't you have one with Iecerint here:

↑ Iecerint wrote:I think T-Bone is town.

↑ Iecerint wrote:Mainly because I had the same thoughts as T-Bone going through my head when I read his first post with content.

In most cases, being able to follow someone else's train of thought is indication that they have a town mindset. People picking up votes mean that they are gathering suspicion by others, and if GreyICE agrees with it... It's not bad reasoning for a page 4-5 read.


T-Bone: I brought up the issue of fencesitting on post #70. It's on the second line you quoted. However, you are right--the main issue I have with jason is the pile of inane role confusion he was going through to justify doubting/believing GreyICE. Instead of taking a stance or asking, he had this line of setup speculation that cautiously keeps him from making a definitive statement.

↑ greenknight wrote:And by not giving any actual reasons for them being town, he leaves maximum flexibility to reverse his stance and attack them later if needed. The disclaimer "She's awesome, although I have some misgivings" regarding Tierce is particularly bad. Especially since Greyice then proceeds to follow her vote on Jason with no other explanation. So presumably if the Jason wagon goes bad, he should have trusted his "misgivings" and it's all Tierce's fault really.

Rest assured that this won't happen. I'm quite capable of defending myself against sheeplings who suddenly turn on wagon pushers for no reason. In assition, listing townreads isn't scummy.


Why on earth is Korlash being all IC-mode? That said, he appreciates DGB, and I love a man who can enjoy a woman for what she is even if she has a time head.


GreyICE--Read on triangle, T-Bone and Korlash, please.

↑ Zang wrote:Being wrong is not scummy. Greenknight is scummy for his insistence on his wrong reasoning.

If he unvoted me a few posts later and admitted that his reasoning was bad or that it didn't apply in this case, then I would have even seen that as a town tell.

But he didn't do that and even when it was clear to everyone else that his reasoning was bad, he kept trying to push his case on me. Even after he unvoted me, he still defends his reasoning. This is scummy.

The case is that your post where you unvoted greenknight is scum motivated.

This is false.

greenknight clearly believed his reasoning. Bad or wrong, he kept insisting on it for quite a while--this does not match with scummy behavior of testing the waters for a viable wagon. He really thought he knew what was up and had an opinion on it (unlike, guess who, jason). Yes, he kept pushing it for quite a while. How is this not also a possible town move? Town stick to their guns. Even when it became clear that people disagreed with him and it wouldn't be a viable wagon. What is the scum motivation to push it that way? And where did he keep defending his reasoning between unvoting and this post?

↑ Zang wrote:Why would he be concerned about not quicklynching you but not be concerned about that when he voted for jason?

Is this a disguised "hypocrisy is a scumtell" I see? It's not. If greenknight is town, he knows he's town. He'll be more afraid of himself being quicklynched than of others being quicklynched.


Oh hello page 7 on full-on retard mode kthxbai seriously stop that guys. If you don't want to play with this playerlist, replace out. The same goes for the amount of aggression on page 8. I'm here to have fun and to win this, if you can't enjoy yourselves without a dick measuring contest, reaplce out.


Just going to assume Korlash is town some more until I can be bothered to read through those walls.
Weak townread on kortul. greenknight is town. This has little to do with his behavior in AFFC Mafia, from what I recall.