Mafiascum.net

sure.

VOTE: QuantumQuasar

ok im actually mildly shocked you did that but let me just sit on that for a bit

ask and you shall receive.

In post 144, Drew-Sta wrote:Express your read.

And why are you voting Oka if you feeling mixed on me?

My Oka read? Not great. His entrance felt weird tonally, and his contributions so far haven't really made him look any better.
I'm not voting you atm because...I've got mixed feelings
What do you think about Oka? What exactly do you mean by the bolded question, do you think I should be voting you?

@Datisi, what do you think of Oka's entrance?

In post 168, Euphony wrote:

In post 117, Alduskkel wrote:

In post 87, Euphony wrote:What do you mean regarding standing behind evidence if it results in a nightkill, Drew?

Also, why do you assume we can't scumhunt by dropping this meta and seeing how you react to it, in the same vein you'd answer a question that we've asked? It's a shadow, but it's a comforting one, the sort of one you'd relish to find in the middle of the sahara. I've found your reaction so far kinda scummy; your tone completely changed and you think what we've done is anti-town and can't decide whether or not to scumread us for it, but I'm unsure if your reaction would be the same if the meta was about someone else.

When you

originally dropped the meta

, was your primary intention to base a read off the meta itself or off of drew-sta's reaction to it? I don't want to hear what you decided to base your read off later -- I want to know what your intent was at the time of writing the original post.

the basis for my read at the time was the meta. my intention for posting it was to gauge drew-sta's reaction to it.

I don't like you saying "why do you assume we can't scumhunt by dropping this meta and seeing how you react to it" when that what you were doing. To strip it down, it's basically saying, "why didn't you assume I was doing a thing I wasn't doing?"

VOTE: Euphony

In post 180, Alduskkel wrote:

In post 168, Euphony wrote:

In post 117, Alduskkel wrote:

In post 87, Euphony wrote:What do you mean regarding standing behind evidence if it results in a nightkill, Drew?

Also, why do you assume we can't scumhunt by dropping this meta and seeing how you react to it, in the same vein you'd answer a question that we've asked? It's a shadow, but it's a comforting one, the sort of one you'd relish to find in the middle of the sahara. I've found your reaction so far kinda scummy; your tone completely changed and you think what we've done is anti-town and can't decide whether or not to scumread us for it, but I'm unsure if your reaction would be the same if the meta was about someone else.

When you

originally dropped the meta

, was your primary intention to base a read off the meta itself or off of drew-sta's reaction to it? I don't want to hear what you decided to base your read off later -- I want to know what your intent was at the time of writing the original post.

the basis for my read at the time was the meta. my intention for posting it was to gauge drew-sta's reaction to it.

I don't like you saying "why do you assume we can't scumhunt by dropping this meta and seeing how you react to it" when that

wasn't

what you were doing. To strip it down, it's basically saying, "why didn't you assume I was doing a thing I wasn't doing?"

VOTE: Euphony

Colonel Alduskkel, she's literally saying that her intention though. To drop the meta and see how Drew-sta reacted to it. How else are you interpreting her words?

}}}+ Hectic

In post 169, Euphony wrote:

In post 133, Drew-Sta wrote:I think where I'm landing is Eup is trying to stir the pot (which they've succeeded in doing) and moved us out of RVS, which I think was their intent.

In post 78, Euphony wrote:my intentions were to bring us out of rvs.

Ok, I missed that post. My apologies.

In post 178, Kanna wrote:

In post 144, Drew-Sta wrote:Express your read.

And why are you voting Oka if you feeling mixed on me?

My Oka read? Not great. His entrance felt weird tonally, and his contributions so far haven't really made him look any better.
I'm not voting you atm because...I've got mixed feelings
What do you think about Oka? What exactly do you mean by the bolded question, do you think I should be voting you?

He's a glib guy from memory. Squirms too when questioned, which is why we lynched him D1 in one of those games I played with him. I remember he didn't stand up to investigation.

My personal belief is people not actively looking or answering clearly are always problematic. Because they're trying to hide behind their writing style. I don't personally deal well with that. And it makes me sceptical. Personally, I would prefer him to drop the silly games and actually begin to critique posts. At that point, we'll be more likely to see what his alignment is by how he creates his arguments.

Re the bolded - I think votes are breadcrumbs, and who you select when you read different people scum is important. Because it shows intent and it shows your contribution to a lynch. There's no way in future days we can win if we aren't able to see the pattern scum forms by their voting habits.

Rawr!

In post 29, Euphony wrote:

In post 28, Datisi wrote:not noteworthy enough for a vote?

i have not discussed voting procedure with hectic.

hi scum

In post 42, DoctorPepper wrote:

In post 22, Euphony wrote:

In post 11, Drew-Sta wrote:Hello all!

by my count, you opened with 'hello' in mini 1582 and mini 1593, both as mafia. there was no 'hello' in mini 1591, micro 349, newbie 1537, newbie 1513, newbie 1500 and mini 1578 as town and micro 366 as mafia.

I don't like this one but, coupled with the "scum is in these positions". Mods don't do that

VOTE: Euphony

do you think euphony's post is scum motivated?

In post 44, Datisi wrote:VOTE: doctorpepper

The scum being in those positions thing was obviously a joke. Also don't rolefish kids.

please be town

thanks

In post 49, DoctorPepper wrote:

In post 44, Datisi wrote:VOTE: doctorpepper

The scum being in those positions thing was obviously a joke. Also don't rolefish kids.

Yeah I'll choose to take it seriously.


Besides the bigger ping was 22.

VOTE: pepper

In post 58, Euphony wrote:Hard claiming Field Marshal

hard claim Dragon. I outrank every last one of you.

In post 63, Kanna wrote:@DOCTORPEPPER; DO NOT DODGE MY QUESTION

hi Kanna

i hope we're in the same team again

In post 114, QuantumQuasar wrote:VOTE: IconeumAFKThe most silent is the most suspect given the circumstances.

what circumstances?

In post 181, Euphony wrote:

In post 180, Alduskkel wrote:

In post 168, Euphony wrote:

In post 117, Alduskkel wrote:

In post 87, Euphony wrote:What do you mean regarding standing behind evidence if it results in a nightkill, Drew?

Also, why do you assume we can't scumhunt by dropping this meta and seeing how you react to it, in the same vein you'd answer a question that we've asked? It's a shadow, but it's a comforting one, the sort of one you'd relish to find in the middle of the sahara. I've found your reaction so far kinda scummy; your tone completely changed and you think what we've done is anti-town and can't decide whether or not to scumread us for it, but I'm unsure if your reaction would be the same if the meta was about someone else.

When you

originally dropped the meta

, was your primary intention to base a read off the meta itself or off of drew-sta's reaction to it? I don't want to hear what you decided to base your read off later -- I want to know what your intent was at the time of writing the original post.

the basis for my read at the time was the meta. my intention for posting it was to gauge drew-sta's reaction to it.

I don't like you saying "why do you assume we can't scumhunt by dropping this meta and seeing how you react to it" when that

wasn't

what you were doing. To strip it down, it's basically saying, "why didn't you assume I was doing a thing I wasn't doing?"

VOTE: Euphony

Colonel Alduskkel, she's literally saying that

was

her intention though. To drop the meta and see how Drew-sta reacted to it. How else are you interpreting her words?

}}}+ Hectic

fuck i'm dumb

In post 122, QuantumQuasar wrote:In other news, vote Iconeum obvious afk player 1 the usual shebang.

this is so low-effort and pingy to me that i think i just wanny lynch you today

fortunately for you the other scum will get peppered first

In post 155, DoctorPepper wrote:I still have Euphonia as my top scum read tho that may be because I'm super annoyed by the posting style.

i don't see you trying to sort said read tho

In post 157, DoctorPepper wrote:I can't seem to get anything off Aldus or Iconeum

lol

*insert generic statement* /pepper

In post 174, OkaPoka wrote:then alternatively come join the QQ wagon ~perhaps a good ol wagon can get your reads fired up

In post 175, Datisi wrote:sure.

VOTE: QuantumQuasar

In post 176, OkaPoka wrote:ok im actually mildly shocked you did that but let me just sit on that for a bit

In post 177, Datisi wrote:ask and you shall receive.

doubt that was s/s interaction
definitely a good read

Bruh, this is like the worst tunnel ever

i've barely started tho, i don't think i'm tunneling here?

it's ok tho, not easy to fake scumreads when ur scum

we'll lynch you quickly and get it over with