Mafiascum.net

In post 1730, davesaz wrote:Timestamp of IKS's claim Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:00:09 pm

what are you implying?

Now is not the time to make vague insinuations or provide publicly available information. Its time to make a case instead of float ideas.

In post 1734, davesaz wrote:Why would scum bus before a claim, especially when there was a seemingly valid counter to work with?
Possibly more importantly, what do you think about people who switched from NPOM vs. people who hadn't voted NPOM?

My thoughts: any new bussing (if any) is after claim, and probably not the first 1-2 after claim. Pre-claim bussing (if any) should be much earlier in the wagon before it got real, and people who had laid a foundation to not vote NPOM.

I disagree. Titus, for instance, was known to power-lynch partners and then ride the towncred. Ive done the same, tbh.

In post 1738, BrightEyedFish wrote:2nd person (from my PoE) to toss shade on my scum hunting.

I approve of you increased activity. I just wish it was more substantive.

In post 1747, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:Quick question, Npom was also a policy elim, yes?

not that I know. There were actual reasons people had for voting him.

In post 1748, TiphaineDeath wrote:Also why the fuck was Titus shot? They weren't being super-leader or anything.

Titus is one of the more competent players on the playerlist here. And them not being active doesnt mean they wont be more active. Presuming that it was a scum bullet that did her in I'd say it tells me that scum knows who to target and probably has some apprehension about late-game titus. She has cost me a game or three.

Her outdated reads list means little though. It probably had something to do with her death, but I doubt she pegged the whole team or whatever.

In post 1754, Iecerint wrote:Chkflp voted NPOM based on my case -- it wasn't policy. Walter should know this, because he also voted NPOM based on my case. At minimum, I would expect him to remember that it wasn't policy.

I too suspect walter. At least, him over you.

In post 1782, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I'm the towniest player now and you know it.

Lol, youre in a baker-bastard game designed by boonitoons.

In post 1794, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:Vigilantism is dangerous.

Not true. You give me a gun, Ill be able to find and shoot another guy with a gun.

• Galron is so cool. Wish he would've shredded scum, though.
  
• @MOD: The last votecount doesn't include davesaz or chkflip

In post 1731, BrightEyedFish wrote:

In post 1723, Starbuck wrote:@BEF - if you're going to POE the wagon, you shouldn't leave off TD and Bambi. If you're going to analyze the wagon, analyze all of it.

I said I want to

START

my PoE on the latter half of the wagon (i.e. the Post-Titus votes)

I'm not tunneled on only those slots but that's where I will start looking.

But 11/2=5.5. Shouldn't I make the cutoff?

• Starbuck shouldn't determine contribution from the Activity Overview; it doesn't account for spam posters.
  
• Does DrippingGoofball still think NPOM is scum?
  
• What were davesaz's timestamps for?

VOTE: TiphaineDeath Why focus on the latter half of IKS's wagon instead of the earlier half? Why are we targeting IKS's wagon at all?

In post 1746, TiphaineDeath wrote:I'm kind of tempted to vote Starbuck here, given the weird beginning of day interaction that just happened with the fishy, and how hard I was town reading them and how easy I am to pocket, but that is prolly just my paranoia talking.

What about it and why? I could give a crap less if BEF needs to use a magnifying glass on me. I'm not scum. Let him do his worst. I'll debunk everything that's thrown at me.

What bothered me was leaving you and Bambi off that analysis. If you're clean, you should have no problem being analyzed. This response makes me feel like you may not be as clean as I thought.

In post 1747, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:Quick question, Npom was also a policy elim, yes?

Not for me. I already wanted NPOM gone ages before Iec's case, but stayed off the wagon due to what I thought was legit info from rudeboy that ended up being a gut feeling.

However, I thought some others were voting due to policy. I need to go back and look at the wagon to name names.

In post 1748, TiphaineDeath wrote:I don't think scum would shoot just for Wifom this early

Yeah, I don't like the way you discount this.

In post 1810, Looker wrote:Starbuck shouldn't determine contribution from the Activity Overview; it doesn't account for spam posters.

I will until posts aren't less than, equal to, or just above the mod in quantity. That's my threshold. You can post less than those of us in the midrange or even a bit below, but if your contribution is near the same as the mod's, you're not helpful. You're a hindrance.

I really like Starbuck's post right here, seems very transparent. What I don't like, however, is she immediately attacking BEF for how they are analyzing the IKS wagon. Instead of poo-pooing it before they give any reads why not wait until said reads are given and then voice any issues you have.

I really dislike Chk defending IKS, but it seemed like the typical 'Chk says his piece and just yells at you when you bring other points up'. I also totally won't rub it in his face that he was completely wrong(luv ya ).

I forget who mentioned it, but Titus dying can implicate DGB...but there is so much wifom surrounding it you could make a million arguments for why she is and isn't scum because of the NK(and when I am scum many times I choose someone who others wouldn't just for the wifom and distraction).

I still think NPOM looks bad, and why IKS as scum wouldn't vote to save himself(I believe, will have to double check the final VC) and instead really try to get a wagon going on PK and to a lesser extent myself makes me think he may have taken one for the team to protect NPOM. But maybe I am veering into tinfoil hat territory there.

Ok ya, IKS had his vote on PK.

Pooky, why were you on PK as well.

he challenged the flashwagon gods

In post 1812, Doctor Drew wrote:I really like Starbuck's post right here, seems very transparent. What I don't like, however, is she immediately attacking BEF for how they are analyzing the IKS wagon. Instead of poo-pooing it before they give any reads why not wait until said reads are given and then voice any issues you have.

I already pointed out the discrepancy of analyzing the wagon and leaving off the 2 people before Looker. This isn't new news.

I'm not poo-pooing the analysis. I look forward to reading it. I'm poo-pooing purposefully ignoring TD and Bambi which is problematic in my eyes.

In post 1814, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:he challenged the flashwagon gods

In post 1480, pisskop wrote:You wanton vote hopping will look very bad late game..

I mean . . .

In post 1813, Doctor Drew wrote:Ok ya, IKS had his vote on PK.

in fact, a lot of what iks did is probably very useful. not who he spoke to but what he voted and when.

In post 1815, Starbuck wrote:

In post 1812, Doctor Drew wrote:I really like Starbuck's post right here, seems very transparent. What I don't like, however, is she immediately attacking BEF for how they are analyzing the IKS wagon. Instead of poo-pooing it before they give any reads why not wait until said reads are given and then voice any issues you have.

I already pointed out the discrepancy of analyzing the wagon and leaving off the 2 people before Looker. This isn't new news.

I'm not poo-pooing the analysis. I look forward to reading it. I'm poo-pooing purposefully ignoring TD and Bambi which is problematic in my eyes.

But they said it was a good place to start analyzing the wagon minus TD and Bambi, you made the leap that they were purposely ignoring them, which I don't get.

In post 1780, Almost50 wrote:

In post 1726, davesaz wrote:Final vote (timestamp according to UTC -7)
Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:54:27 am

??? Are you trying to say something?

You have to use all the posts that have timestamps to follow it.

In post 1816, pisskop wrote:

In post 1814, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:he challenged the flashwagon gods

In post 1480, pisskop wrote:You wanton vote hopping will look very bad late game..

I mean . . .

I follow my heart and feel no shame

In post 1816, pisskop wrote:

In post 1814, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:he challenged the flashwagon gods

In post 1480, pisskop wrote:You wanton vote hopping will look very bad late game..

I mean . . .

I follow my heart and feel no shame

In post 1800, pisskop wrote:

In post 1730, davesaz wrote:Timestamp of IKS's claim Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:00:09 pm

what are you implying?

In post 1801, pisskop wrote:Now is not the time to make vague insinuations or provide publicly available information. Its time to make a case instead of float ideas.

Same answer as I gave A50, read all the posts that are related.

In post 1802, pisskop wrote:

In post 1734, davesaz wrote:Why would scum bus before a claim, especially when there was a seemingly valid counter to work with?
Possibly more importantly, what do you think about people who switched from NPOM vs. people who hadn't voted NPOM?

My thoughts: any new bussing (if any) is after claim, and probably not the first 1-2 after claim. Pre-claim bussing (if any) should be much earlier in the wagon before it got real, and people who had laid a foundation to not vote NPOM.

I disagree. Titus, for instance, was known to power-lynch partners and then ride the towncred. Ive done the same, tbh.

Nobody came in like thunder after the claim so we can pretty much rule that out. Context matters.

In post 1806, pisskop wrote:Her outdated reads list means little though. It probably had something to do with her death, but I doubt she pegged the whole team or whatever.

I agree that if it was reads it will be from later posting and probably not from the readslist. I think I saw some signs that she was fishing with that list.
I wouldn't be too quick to rule out the low(er) information nature of her death.