Mafiascum.net

Boop

In post 1798, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1792, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:That's one way to read his hop onto ManateeGal -- when other people pointed out how much they disliked his push on you, he dropped it.

In this case that would be starting from the conclusion and working backwards, or even circularly. I'd be saying we know he lacks confidence because he hopped on Manatee, and he wouldn't have hopped on Manatee without confidence. Where's the

prior evidence

of it, in this case?

It'd*, not "I'd".

In post 1799, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1794, Thor Ragnarok wrote:

In post 495, Miss Midnight wrote:I often like to pretend to be super cool by shrouding myself in mystery and being enigmatic

So much for this huh

I guess? I'm sorry if I insulted or offended you. But like I said, it hurts me as well when people try to use me missing one day against me when I put in a ton in the time that I have here.

Just an observation based on what I've seen from scum before, I don't have an agenda against you, and it felt longer than a day. I'm sorry too for upsetting you.

In post 1798, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1792, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:That's one way to read his hop onto ManateeGal -- when other people pointed out how much they disliked his push on you, he dropped it.

In this case that would be starting from the conclusion and working backwards, or even circularly. I'd be saying we know he lacks confidence because he hopped on Manatee, and he wouldn't have hopped on Manatee without confidence. Where's the

prior evidence

of it, in this case?

Does there need to be prior evidence? Maybe he just lost confidence in the scumread on you, further supported by 1635 and 1648.

I'm not sure how much I want to be arguing this point with you lol, since evidently he didn't drop the scumread on you.

In post 1796, PenguinPower wrote:You seem to approach this game as if everyone plays (or should play) like you.

I like to think that I'm pretty decent at putting myself in other people's shoes. If what you said were true, certainly I would be scumreading Manatee, no? But obviously she's a different player than me with a different playstyle, and I recognize that.

When I make comments about what I expect which isn't there from people, I think that I do so with a good faith effort to analyze people, their personalities and their playstyles and only then to draw conclusions. For instance, certainly if what you said were true then I would be saying the similar things to Something_Smart that I said to you, no? But I think that you're both quite different players, and I make reads as such.

Mmm. I disagree.

Guess we’ll see.

Two names to note though!

In post 1803, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:

In post 1798, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1792, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:That's one way to read his hop onto ManateeGal -- when other people pointed out how much they disliked his push on you, he dropped it.

In this case that would be starting from the conclusion and working backwards, or even circularly. I'd be saying we know he lacks confidence because he hopped on Manatee, and he wouldn't have hopped on Manatee without confidence. Where's the

prior evidence

of it, in this case?

Does there need to be prior evidence? Maybe he just lost confidence in the scumread on you, further supported by 1635 and 1648.

I'm not sure how much I want to be arguing this point with you lol, since evidently he didn't drop the scumread on you.

If you don't have evidence, why believe it? Let me go back to square one here. I said that some things about Gamma's posting were scummy to me. You said that you didn't think so, because if he lacked confidence then it made sense. I said that the evidence I saw pointed against that being the case, and asked you where you saw evidence of it. . Does that make sense? That's my interpretation of this conversation. Like, I agree with you that my point is less of a point if he lacked confidence, but I don't to believe that that's the case. No reason to believe it over the infinite number of other possible reasons that any individual behavior that seems scummy could actually not be.

I don't think we're arguing. I'm just trying to see your perspective, and explain mine.

In post 1806, PenguinPower wrote:Two names to note though!

Note for what? Miss Midnight's birthday bash (NO SCUMZ ALLOWED)?

jfc….there is no evidence on day 1

In post 1808, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1806, PenguinPower wrote:Two names to note though!

Note for what? Miss Midnight's birthday bash (NO SCUMZ ALLOWED)?

A note to look back because it may or may not be important later. Idk.

If it’s your birthday let’s throw a bash though. We can have sushi.

In post 1809, PenguinPower wrote:jfc….there is no evidence on day 1

We have 73 pages worth of people's behavior. Do you think that one or two measly flips and a few PRs is really the only thing to go off of?

Behavior is not evidence until there is a flip. It’s why I like wagons!

And yes. Behavior alone is blah and can be explained or unexplained by anything and everything.

In post 1810, PenguinPower wrote:

In post 1808, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1806, PenguinPower wrote:Two names to note though!

Note for what? Miss Midnight's birthday bash (NO SCUMZ ALLOWED)?

A note to look back because it may or may not be important later. Idk.

If it’s your birthday let’s throw a bash though. We can have sushi.

Okay. So, again, without trying to be snarky, two names to note for absolutely nothing, for no reason whatsoever except maybe to pretend to be "noting things" and analyzing.

It's not my birthday, thanks. Sushi sounds good anyways, though.

Tbf - there are some circumstances that don’t fit that mold. But that’s not usual.

In post 1807, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1803, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:

In post 1798, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1792, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:That's one way to read his hop onto ManateeGal -- when other people pointed out how much they disliked his push on you, he dropped it.

In this case that would be starting from the conclusion and working backwards, or even circularly. I'd be saying we know he lacks confidence because he hopped on Manatee, and he wouldn't have hopped on Manatee without confidence. Where's the

prior evidence

of it, in this case?

Does there need to be prior evidence? Maybe he just lost confidence in the scumread on you, further supported by 1635 and 1648.

I'm not sure how much I want to be arguing this point with you lol, since evidently he didn't drop the scumread on you.

If you don't have evidence, why believe it? Let me go back to square one here. I said that some things about Gamma's posting were scummy to me. You said that you didn't think so, because if he lacked confidence then it made sense. I said that the evidence I saw pointed against that being the case, and asked you where you saw evidence of it.

Then you seemed to say the original scummy thing itself was evidence

. Does that make sense? That's my interpretation of this conversation. Like, I agree with you that my point is less of a point if he lacked confidence, but I don't

see a reason

to believe that that's the case. No reason to believe it over the infinite number of other possible reasons that any individual behavior that seems scummy could actually not be.

I don't think we're arguing. I'm just trying to see your perspective, and explain mine.

His posts on page 66 (especially the two that I linked) is when I started feeling like he was just town struggling with reads. He's not being very survivalistic there even at E-1.

I don't mind hashing this out, but I also lowkey don't really want to be defending Gamma too hard rn, since I'm not a huge fan of 1693. I kind of just want to see what he does.

In post 1801, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1798, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1792, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:That's one way to read his hop onto ManateeGal -- when other people pointed out how much they disliked his push on you, he dropped it.

In this case that would be starting from the conclusion and working backwards, or even circularly. I'd be saying we know he lacks confidence because he hopped on Manatee, and he wouldn't have hopped on Manatee without confidence. Where's the

prior evidence

of it, in this case?

It'd*, not "I'd".

In post 1813, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1810, PenguinPower wrote:

In post 1808, Miss Midnight wrote:

In post 1806, PenguinPower wrote:Two names to note though!

Note for what? Miss Midnight's birthday bash (NO SCUMZ ALLOWED)?

A note to look back because it may or may not be important later. Idk.

If it’s your birthday let’s throw a bash though. We can have sushi.

Okay. So, again, without trying to be snarky, two names to note for absolutely nothing, for no reason whatsoever except maybe to pretend to be "noting things" and analyzing.

It's not my birthday, thanks. Sushi sounds good anyways, though.

To be not snarky, two names for me to note should your wagon actually go through and then I will analyze. But sure…nothing.

I mean - you realize that you are being wagoned right?

In post 1812, PenguinPower wrote:Behavior is not evidence until there is a flip. It’s why I like wagons!

And yes. Behavior alone is blah and can be explained or unexplained by anything and everything.

You clearly have some preferences today for some people over others. So clearly behavior is evidence to you. No?

No. It’s guide a gut feeling. It’s not evidence of anything

In post 1817, PenguinPower wrote:I mean - you realize that you are being wagoned right?

To be honest, I didn't realize. And I'm still not sure that I am? I noticed like two votes earlier, and I think that Thor has already changed elsewhere.

Fight, fight, fight.

In post 1819, PenguinPower wrote:No. It’s guide a gut feeling. It’s not evidence of anything

If you don't like the word evidence, how about this; behavior is clearly enough to influence you to prefer one wagon over another, no?

Dats! Vc pls.

It's only evidence if it's from the evidence region of France. Otherwise, it's just a gut feeling.