Mafiascum.net

In post 177, Syryana wrote:

In post 149, Katsuki wrote:Don't really care to state my thoughts on matt. Not to you at least.

Are you one of those people?

Well spotted.

Doesn't help that you're incredibly scummy.

In post 222, Zdenek wrote:

In post 220, Pjovek wrote:

In post 218, Zdenek wrote:

In post 217, Pjovek wrote:Because sword was a great day1 lynch (and still is)

In the meantime he has dodged replacement forcing with promises of more lurking, so yeah. A good lynch indeed.


Also should I share my super-secret way of reading ffery as town?
It'll cost you though.

Where did sword promise to do more lurking?

When he posted to let us know he'd actually play the game later.

It looks like the opposite of promising to do more lurking.

Do you think that policy lynching in this game is appropriate? Would you be willing to risk outing the apocalypse role base on a policy?

No, it is "I am lurking, but I'll read the thread eventually and maybe one day I'll even post"

Policy lynching is very appropriate, yes.
If you don't lynch people because they could be apocalypse dude, you'll never get anywhere. Literally the same thing can be said of any wagon ever and it has no value at all.
Why are you trying to instill fear and paranoia about this particular wagon, with a meaningless non-argument like that?

This game's daylength is based on activity, so I'd argue that lurking in this game is an even worse offense than in your regular normal game. BTW.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that longer days generally favor town (up to the "plateau of boredom" that is)

In post 226, Pjovek wrote:No, it is "I am lurking, but I'll read the thread eventually and maybe one day I'll even post"

hmmm?

In post 203, sword_of_omens wrote:hey all!!!
back from V/LA and glad to see this one up and running...
gonna read up this morning and get to posting today...9 pages shouldn't be too bad....

In post 226, Pjovek wrote:If you don't lynch people because they could be apocalypse dude, you'll never get anywhere. Literally the same thing can be said of any wagon ever and it has no value at all.
Why are you trying to instill fear and paranoia about this particular wagon, with a meaningless non-argument like that?

Policy lynches are already questionable because they don't take into account a persons alignment, couple that with the fact that there's a role that we should avoid lynching, and I'm pretty sure that policy lynching is a bad idea.

I'm not trying to instill fear or paranoida in the Sword wagon. I think that your reasons for pushing it are false, since he promised to post today and we are just back from a weekend.

I would expect that someone who was going to be unable to post either for more than a weekend or regularly over the weekend would replace out.

In post 227, Zdenek wrote:

In post 226, Pjovek wrote:No, it is "I am lurking, but I'll read the thread eventually and maybe one day I'll even post"

hmmm?

In post 203, sword_of_omens wrote:hey all!!!
back from V/LA and glad to see this one up and running...
gonna read up this morning and get to posting today...9 pages shouldn't be too bad....

In post 226, Pjovek wrote:If you don't lynch people because they could be apocalypse dude, you'll never get anywhere. Literally the same thing can be said of any wagon ever and it has no value at all.
Why are you trying to instill fear and paranoia about this particular wagon, with a meaningless non-argument like that?

Policy lynches are already questionable because they don't take into account a persons alignment, couple that with the fact that there's a role that we should avoid lynching, and I'm pretty sure that policy lynching is a bad idea.

I'm not trying to instill fear or paranoida in the Sword wagon. I think that your reasons for pushing it are false, since he promised to post today and we are just back from a weekend.

I would expect that someone who was going to be unable to post either for more than a weekend or regularly over the weekend would replace out.

No that's exactly what you're doing, and it's not even an argument either.

Literally everyone and anyone in this game could actually be the apocalypse dude.
Yet you take sword of all people to diffuse a small, short and insignificant push with your emotional fearmongering.
Why do you not say the same of whimsical?
or fferyllt?
or anybody else who has been pushed, ever?

It's like you want to have an argument against it, but you don't have an argument against it, so you have to use a valueless non-argument instead. That's what I'm getting.

And people don't policy-lynch nearly enough, actually.

Policy lynches are the best thing since sliced bread.

There is a difference between running someone up/lynching them because you think they are scum, and running someone up/lynching them based on a policy. Everyone aside from Sword who you mentioned has been voted, I think, because people thought they were scum. I have no problems with that at all. I have a problem with policy lynching in this game in general, and more with the one that you are pushing, since I think you are misinterpreting Sword of Omens post.

So why do you appeal to emotion instead of just saying that?


PS: You have no balls

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Where did appeal to emotion?

At sword

That's not an answer. Quote it.

I already did.

I now additionally suspect you of not reading.

Why pjovek is scum:

1. Anti-town proposal of the mass universe claim.

2. Vote on Sword of Omens looks more like trying to look like he's doing something than actually doing something.

3. He made up a false reason to be suspicious of Sword - that Sword promised to continue lurking. When I called him out on it he kept pushing it.

4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.

In post 238, Zdenek wrote:Why pjovek is scum:

1. Anti-town proposal of the mass universe claim.

2. Vote on Sword of Omens looks more like trying to look like he's doing something than actually doing something.

3. He made up a false reason to be suspicious of Sword - that Sword promised to continue lurking. When I called him out on it he kept pushing it.

4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.

I thought your theory is that I am scum and buddying pjovik up.

In post 238, Zdenek wrote: 4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.

That's the same one thing, bambi...

It's an appeal to emotion, because you, like, appeal. To an emotion. Yeah.

But please point me to where you made a rational and logical argument instead of appealing to the inherent fear of lynching the apocalypse dude.

You may quote it.

In post 239, fferyllt wrote:

In post 238, Zdenek wrote:Why pjovek is scum:

1. Anti-town proposal of the mass universe claim.

2. Vote on Sword of Omens looks more like trying to look like he's doing something than actually doing something.

3. He made up a false reason to be suspicious of Sword - that Sword promised to continue lurking. When I called him out on it he kept pushing it.

4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.

I thought your theory is that I am scum and buddying pjovik up.

It's possible that you are scum doing that, but it's also possible that you liked his play in that past game, so I don't know, and it's not such a big deal.

Pjo misrepresenting SoO's post and inventing reasons to attack me is much worse.

In post 242, Zdenek wrote:

In post 239, fferyllt wrote:

In post 238, Zdenek wrote:Why pjovek is scum:

1. Anti-town proposal of the mass universe claim.

2. Vote on Sword of Omens looks more like trying to look like he's doing something than actually doing something.

3. He made up a false reason to be suspicious of Sword - that Sword promised to continue lurking. When I called him out on it he kept pushing it.

4. When I questioned him about what he thought of policy lynching in this game rather than just answering he attempts to cast suspicion on to me for trying to instill fear and paranoia about the wagon. Now he's asking me why I chose to appeal to emotion, which never happened, and he's refusing to point out what he's talking about, and deciding to accuse me of not reading.

I thought your theory is that I am scum and buddying pjovik up.

It's possible that you are scum doing that, but it's also possible that you liked his play in that past game, so I don't know, and it's not such a big deal.

Pjo misrepresenting SoO's post and inventing reasons to attack me is much worse.

Oh please, keep misrepresenting like all my posts while pushing me for misrepresenting posts.

The hypocricy is tasty and sweet.

In post 241, Pjovek wrote:But please point me to where you made a rational and logical argument instead of appealing to the inherent fear of lynching the apocalypse dude.

You may quote it.

I asked you some questions to try figuring out what you were thinking, you could have just answered, but you decided to accuse me of fear mongering and AtE.

In post 243, Pjovek wrote:Oh please, keep misrepresenting like all my posts while pushing me for misrepresenting posts.

What have I misreped?

In post 244, Zdenek wrote:

In post 241, Pjovek wrote:But please point me to where you made a rational and logical argument instead of appealing to the inherent fear of lynching the apocalypse dude.

You may quote it.

I asked you some questions to try figuring out what you were thinking, you could have just answered, but you decided to accuse me of fear mongering and AtE.

There is still no logic, and only emotionalities, when I ask you for logic instead of emotionalities.
what am I to think of this, heh?

In post 244, Zdenek wrote:

In post 243, Pjovek wrote:Oh please, keep misrepresenting like all my posts while pushing me for misrepresenting posts.

What have I misreped?

Oh, just like half my filter. No big deal.

Nice to see that you can't point to a single example and everything you say is bullshit.

Eat rope.

I could.

But it's funnier not to.

I guess Pjovek can't even wait until Sword fails to post following his V/LA to call him lurker scum.

By fails, I mean like, we get to tommorow/Wednesday and he still hasn't posted.

There is remarkably little to be gained by waiting around and doing nothing.