Mafiascum.net

Unless they are a cop or a rolecop and dont have a report amiright?

Ya it seems like rolblocker would be preferable to jailkeeper in a newbie setup

I have decided to be nice for the duration of this game but my vote still stands. GM can we make peace with the fact that our terminology se t has different nuances and stick to more relevant discussion? My point is that under the stress of a gif lynch you are uneasy while everyone else is ok with it and vice versa. You also both foss me, seemingly moreso while i am voting the other person. This serve as the end result of you protecting each other from a lynch and smiting the torchbearer of it. Call it whatever you want

Umm i typod gif in plqce of mac but ya

Has gif even been here since this. Wagon started? Plz come back and be JK and hammer

He's been here since she role-claimed. His vote is on Mac.

In post 1724, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 1723, goodmorning wrote:

In post 1720, Mac wrote:You are not lynched yet...?

No, but I'm going to keep doing final thoughts as the fancy strikes me.

Hopefully I won't be the lynch today

, but I'll probably be the kill tonight.

Explain yourself on this one because it awfully looks like a scumslip.

In post 1728, GuyInFreezer wrote:'cause I see no reason why claimed PR should be worried about getting lynched if he/she's real PR.

@Ine: I'm willing to call a terminology truce if you are.

That said I have many reasons for supporting a lynch on you, none of which have anything to do with Mac.

And many of which I've stated before.

Feryl have you found something particularly townie about Mac's responses? You seem oddly resistant all of a sudden, did you make it clear why somewhere I'm not seeing? You say that "nothing counterweights" what he said on Sunday which was "give me time". He's had time and all he's commented on has been the claim - he hasn't really elaborated on who he thinks is scum, or why. Just that in his opinion we shouldn't lynch GM on the basis of her unCC'd claim.




His vote is blatant OMGUS of Ineffective. There's nothing townie in his response in my opinion whatsoever. He isn't interested in lynching scum, he's only interested in lynching people who want to lynch him. Now I want to lynch him. Let's see if I'm now more scummy to him than Ineffective.

I've had two games at L-1 today. I'm not multitasking very well now that the other game is active again. I'll tear myself away for a bit.

K this wagon is dead im gunna cry now brb :p

Inef will you join me in hanging Mac from the neck until dead?

In post 1910, Ineffective wrote:K this wagon is dead im gunna cry now brb :p

I've done this a lot.

In post 1904, Ineffective wrote:Has gif even been here since this. Wagon started? Plz come back and be JK and hammer

If I was gonna cc I would've hammered her already.

Here is a progression of his posts after he saw the claim. I'm not seeing this as a hard defense of GM qua JK I'm seeing it as a policy of not lynching PRs with no counterclaim.

In post 1767, Mac wrote:I don't think we should ever be lynching a PR with no cc. Not today at least. But then there's a chance theres no JK and scumGM has lucked out.

In post 1770, Mac wrote:What?

Because I won't lynch a claimed PR, I'm not lynching scum? Where's the sense in that? What if gm is the jk?

In post 1773, Mac wrote:So you are saying that I should vote GM on the basis she could be scum claiming PR and not PR claiming PR, and then further add to this by saying if it's not GM, it's me?

In post 1774, Mac wrote:this is me being fucking practical, no one has expressed intent to vote gm after she claimed.

In post 1778, Mac wrote:Thats not the fucking point. We have no cc, and I personally have no reason not to believe GM's claim.

In post 1779, Mac wrote:

In post 1777, Ineffective wrote:Mac do you have a reason not to vote GM aside him claiming pr?

I've had a townread on her for most of d2 now, and I still haven't read some of the last few pages prior to gm's claim right now.

In post 1782, Mac wrote:Well I'm not but I'd never lynch a claimed PR with no CC regardless. I made the mistake of hammering our cop in my first newbie game.

As it progressed from here, he did the research on "keep", and I think he has a point that some of those posts looked contrived to include a phrase with the word keep.

In post 1878, fferyllt wrote:

In post 1875, VisceraEyes wrote:Between the two you prefer Mac is that correct feryl?

Are you assuming that what we're seeing here is scumMac trying to buddy a townJK GM by hard defending her?

I started liking Mac again when he posted on Sunday saying to give him until tomorrow to put his thoughts together for a wrap-up post.

What are you gonna do if he doesn't give us the wrap-up?

If GM isnt getting lynched im gunna stall and weigh the options between mac and GIF

Actually i didnt think any of those quote were contrived they seem like they had natural placement....

In post 1915, GuyInFreezer wrote:

In post 1878, fferyllt wrote:

In post 1875, VisceraEyes wrote:Between the two you prefer Mac is that correct feryl?

Are you assuming that what we're seeing here is scumMac trying to buddy a townJK GM by hard defending her?

I started liking Mac again when he posted on Sunday saying to give him until tomorrow to put his thoughts together for a wrap-up post.

What are you gonna do if he doesn't give us the wrap-up?

I'll have an ugly mood swing.

@Ineffective: Didn't GM pushed on Mac hard yesterday? I don't remember GM buddying Mac except for that one lilttle "O HAI MAC" at the beginning.

I dont know much about yesterday... But some self-meta... I push on my partners d1 alot and end up finding a legitimate reason to unvote... Its called softbussing and it is a very effective tactic to enable you to buddy your partber for the rest of the game without suspicion

@feryl
I'm inclined to agree that it looks to be more adhering to a policy rather than hard-defending reading like that - but what does that change? Is that MORE likely to come from town than scum? If it's null then what about the rest of his posting leaves you wanting to find other targets?

In post 1921, VisceraEyes wrote:@feryl
I'm inclined to agree that it looks to be more adhering to a policy rather than hard-defending reading like that - but what does that change? Is that MORE likely to come from town than scum? If it's null then what about the rest of his posting leaves you wanting to find other targets?

I still like his post on Sunday when he was at L-1 with intent stated. it seemed to come from a town PoV.

he returned to a vastly changed game and wound up posting here about the GM wagon instead of socializing or whatever he had planned for the holiday.

I still want to hear the thoughts he would have shared but it's a new situation and I imagine his thoughts are in transit if he is town. Mine are.

I still don't get it but whatever. I want to see what more he thinks than "Inef and GiF are scum because they want to lynch me" for my part. If you're right you're right but I'm not convinced.

I didn't like the Ineffective vote. The GiF vote was interesting, given that it could have been his last input in the game if he'd been hammered.

I"m being waffly as hell. I am not looking forward to more isos but I need to do them.