In post 222, Krystal Bald wrote:yay, mala if you are town, we can work together. still reading the thread.. >.>
I'm town, and yeah, that would be helpful if we can work together.
agreed.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:25 pm
by Krystal Bald
In post 80, Krystal Bald wrote:Guys I think we should massclaim. Whoever got Role Cop should claim first and we can popcorn from there.
Rid's probtown, mostly because xfdagentx42 and Not_Mafia are scum together.
Vote: xfdagentx42.
nikanor, i agree with NM. not so sure about agent42 though
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:26 pm
by Malakittens
I'm maybe thinking insanity scum. Something triggered in her first post to Tammy that reminded me of our last completed game where we where scum buddies.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:27 pm
by Krystal Bald
In post 82, Krystal Bald wrote:Gonna have to make the obvious joke here and talk about how much I love tits.
They're gooey and squishy and it's like having a couple of jellyfishes on your chest omg
Flavour vote: Tit's wedding plans
gooey? i picture getting my hands all slimey with this reference
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:28 pm
by Krystal Bald
In post 227, Malakittens wrote:I'm maybe thinking insanity scum. Something triggered in her first post to Tammy that reminded me of our last completed game where we where scum buddies.
i don't even think i've acknowledged insanity at this point. i pretty much know only you
i'll look
In post 227, Malakittens wrote:I'm maybe thinking insanity scum. Something triggered in her first post to Tammy that reminded me of our last completed game where we where scum buddies.
i don't even think i've acknowledged insanity at this point. i pretty much know only you
i'll look
Yeah I know. I'm waiting for you go fully catch up, but once you do we should talk about insanity.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:31 pm
by Krystal Bald
In post 103, Not_Mafia wrote:@Riddleton You should spend a little acquainting yourself with the site meta here, we use RVS (or RQS) to start the game and we use wagons to apply pressure and gain information, we usually only get people to roleclaim when they're at L-1 and we declare intent to hammer.
And my question was in direct response to you saying you don't like RVS, it is the expectation here so that's why I asked. I understand why you didn't participate now.
Also votes require bold tags or vote tags or they won't be counted (
[./b] VOTE: [./vote])
@Krystal Considering he stopped after being chastised for it and he did it after we received our Role PMs why is it alignment indicative for him to have stopped trolling?
^scum
VOTE: not mafia
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:33 pm
by Krystal Bald
VOTE: not mafia
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:40 pm
by Malakittens
I think I'm gonna head to bed, catch up and we will sync up maybe tommorow or something Krystal.
In post 100, T S O wrote:Do you think that scum normally do nothing?
Do you think that the more you do, the less likely scum you are?
It seems a rather flawed principle that work = scum. I've made out large cases and relentlessly tunnelled on Town as scum. I don't feel it's alignment indicative, but you do, so I'd like to see you back it up.
Posting good, town-motivated content makes you more likely to be town.
Posting bad, scummy content makes you more likely to be scum.
Posting without including content at all, or to simply defend yourself (active lurking) is a pretty common scum tell yeah.
Has the word "anti-town" ever entered your lexicon?
I mean, it doesn't seem to have, because the definition you've given above seems rather naive. I can show you scum games where I've produced lots of content. I can show you towngames where I've produced none.
You don't take motivation into account, and so your analysis is only surface-deep. Thus, people can easily fool you.
you are wrong with that, speaking on nik's behalf >:I
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:42 pm
by Krystal Bald
In post 233, Malakittens wrote:I think I'm gonna head to bed, catch up and we will sync up maybe tommorow or something Krystal.
In post 134, HGH7193 wrote:I made the list because I feel that there may be one mafia member in there or maybe two because if they post early they will not look suspicious....other than lurking which won't go unnoticed and get them lynched.
If it's just because you think posting in general is a scumtell because we're evading lurking (I'll leave this part to Julatorium), then how can you have made a priority list?
Why was the list in that specific order and what makes each person scummier than the person below?
Nope, it's from season seven when Giles was trying to train the new slayers about the bringers. Here, of course, he's instructing us on how to recognize scum. And Tammy, hope you stay in, I watch Buffy with my kids about once a year. But, and please forgive me for my ignorance, could you explain why I should see you almost as an innocent child?
In post 113, Riddleton wrote:If he did this on purpose, why would he do so? In other words, why would he intentionally make himself look like mafia before the game has even started?
That would be stupid playing to say the least.
Maybe so that people would say "TSO would never do that if he was scum". In his own post he's pointed out that...
In post 100, T S O wrote:I've made out large cases and relentlessly tunnelled on Town as scum.
...which would also tend to antagonize his target and draw attention to him.
In post 100, T S O wrote:Do you think that scum normally do nothing?
Do you think that the more you do, the less likely scum you are?
Do you think scum frame questions so as to avoid the area where they perceive themselves to be vulnerable? I do. And the heart of what Krystal seemed to be trying to get at (Krystal, please correct me if I'm wrong) was the much milder tone you adopted as soon as the game began, as opposed to your previous more caustic behavior. Now I'm pretty old school but I do like inconsistent behavior within the same game as a possible indication that someone is scum.
That said, wildly exaggerating behavior you've found suspicious when placed under pressure...
In post 109, Krystal Bald wrote:I was actually thinking that his play after the game started has been anti-antagonistic. So far he's placed a random vote on a player not in the game and done nothing else but defend himself, despite posting like over a bajillion times.
...doesn't sit well with me either. This is not an accurate representation of TSO's behavior. At the point when this post was made TSO had posted 10 times after the game started. Three of these posts were nonsense/opening business. Three of these posts, all made after your initial case, could be classified as defense. Four of these posts, in a mild, early game manner, could be described as investigative. That's ten posts out of 109, which would also indicate that his posting activity was not too far out of line with the average, especially considering that I hadn't posted at all until now.
Riddle...
In post 105, Riddleton wrote:From my viewpoint, it sounded like a quick bandwagon. From the mafia games I played, mafioso don't like drawing attention to themselves. They would rather just go along with the crowd in order to not raise any questions. I found your question odd which is why I voted for you.
You'll only catch bad scum that way, and you'll catch a lot of timid/disconnected town along the way. On this topic, though...
In post 113, Riddleton wrote:If he did this on purpose, why would he do so? In other words, why would he intentionally make himself look like mafia before the game has even started?
That would be stupid playing to say the least.
Riddle
, can you explain to me in what way TSO's pregame tomfoolery made him look like mafia? What about the manner in which he behaved would indicate that he was scum?
1. Riddleton
2. Krysrtal Bald
3. Not_Mafia
4. T S O
Official Vote: Riddleton
But I've read all of HGH's posts on the site (they're aren't that many). HGH are you an alt or do those posts represent your entire experience playing Mafia?
In post 121, T S O wrote:I was bored and decided to have some fun. It wasn't a reaction test, but it works better to say it's a reaction test than flat-out trolling. How would I reaction test people on something that's impossible?
Sure, it could be that. It could also be taking an opportunity to throw chaff into the air in an attempt to skew accurate reads on your behavior. That's the sort of thing good scum might do.
But once again, Krystal, this is really, really bad...
In post 123, Krystal Bald wrote:My read on you has nothing to do with whether or not you were trolling. I don't really give a fuck about that. You are now ignoring literally everything that is happening around you and focusing entirely on this conversation because it lets you get away with not scumhunting. Tell me, what's the town motivation for ignoring everything and not scumhunting?
Boiled down to its component parts this reads as "hey, I find it suspicious that you're reacting to my continuing suspicions of you". Now I'll grant you that TSO has made the pretty standard move of flipping your initial suspicions of him back on you, forcing you to stake out positions that can be looked back on later for consistency at the least or forcing you into an error that would allow him to mount a case on you at most. But that can certainly be a form of scumhunting every bit as much as it can be a sound scum defensive maneuver. Like it or not, the confrontation between you and TSO is the main thing that is happening around us, at least until Julatorium weighed in and then this odd thing blew up between Mala and Tammy.
And TSO? Thank you for this post. I feel like I know you so much better now.
On the whole there is more to dislike in Krystal's shading of the facts and opportunistic attack than TSO's aggressive defense.
Julatorium
, I have a couple questions for you.
In post 128, Julatorium wrote:1) To address the TSO post, we can talk about the "spirit of the game" nature of that play post-game. Null reaction to the question based on what we know of TSO, but happy we're out of RVS because of it.
Xfd, insanity, and Hgh came in post game-start and made no comments to the issue, infact appeared to wish to resurrect RVS. Why are you RVS'ing when stuff has happenned?
This bothers me a little bit because first you say that TSO's actions only warrant a null reaction but then you criticize Xfd, Insanity, and Hgh for not addressing it? Can you elaborate on this position for me?
You excuse Riddle's behavior as a byproduct of his inexperience, even going so far as to prod Mala and Tammy to reconsider their positions on him, but in the same post you lay a vote down on hgh, whose history (if he is not an alt) would indicate a rather pronounced lack of experience. Could you explain what you find different between the two of them?
Thank you for your answers.
fucking walls
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:22 pm
by Krystal Bald
mala, i don't like insanity's question to you either (about what reaction you were trying to get), considering you already explained what your motive/thing was.
k.. so i still like riddle, tammy/wake, mala for town. i also like tso for town.. even though nikanor might have an aneurysm over that read.
i can't read justin's posts, ie walls. they are mind numbing.
and hgh7193 doesnt seem too bad
not mafia seems very much .... very very much, scum to me.
Not voting = ElmoTeHAzN JustinPlayfair xfdagentx42
With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. Deadline is on (expired on 2014-07-05 01:30:00)
Tit Summers opened the front door to her home. It was a nice summer day, with the sun shining overhead on her beachfront property.
Outside were six young people: Wake88, ElmoTeHAzN, KrystalBald, Malakittens, insanity018, JustinPlayfair
"Well hello there guys and gals, are you here for the ad I put in the paper? I'm mighty appreciative! Everyone come on in!". The entire group all shuffled into her living room, sitting around the couches. "Now before we get started, who answered the ad first?"
insanity018 raised her hand. "That's me!" she said.
"Well isn't that a pretty name? Well darn it I'm not going to be able to remember all your names correctly either, so I'm going to nickname you insanity, if that's alright with you". Insanity nodded as Tit gave her a quick hug. "That goes for all of you, Wake, Elmo, Krystal, Mala, and Justin".
"Guess what I have for you my dear insanity." Tit presented insanity with a box.
Inside was a new bracelet. "You are now my Maid of Honor!". Everyone immediately began congratulating insanity on her new title.
Everyone except Krystal.
"Well what's wrong honey?" asked Tit.
"This game has been thoroughly unenjoyable", bemoaned Krystal.
Krystal walked outside and stood on the porch.
KrystalBald, choose one of the following:
A) Walk back inside and apologize, and rejoin the planning party
B) Leave the planning party and go catch up with the Bachelor's planning party
C) Walk back inside and apologize, and secretly plot to steal the Maid of Honor bracelet
(No choice before next vote count results in random choice)
In post 197, Julatorium wrote:And ours is the opposite, both "I don't know" and null reaction display a willingness to define your stance, therefore the need to acknowledge your stance to yourself. RVS precludes stance definition.
Oh poppycock. The very act of putting down an rvs vote after what happened pregame indicates a stance every bit as definitive as "I don't know" or a null reaction. If anything, slightly more definitive, as it lacks the defensive cover and wiggle room that an "I don't know" or a null reaction offers. By placing their RVS votes those players have, by their actions, made it clear that they did not believe the pregame hijinks were relevant to the game. But the notion that "I don't know" or a null reaction serves as anything more meaningful than a placeholder for a future epiphany is naive in a way that does not seem entirely natural.
I disagree. Laying down RVS votes when we were pretty much out of RVS already is not definitive, by definition it is random. If they'd come in and said they found the pre-game stuff null or non-alignment indicative and layed down a random vote, that would be different as they would have shown they'd reached some conclusion about it, even if it is null. If someone comes in and plops down an RVS after content related stuff has happened, it doesn't have to be implicit they've formed an opinion on the pre-game stuff, it can be avoidance of the issue.
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:15 am
by Wake1
So besides the noise, what if anything do we have to work with so far?
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:16 am
by Wake1
Unvote
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:39 am
by xfdagentx42
Btw, I wasnt really paying attention to that thing (pregame nonsense), so I had to go RV. But oh well.
And, I wonder if Scum can take control of Day as well. They'd talk about who to lynch secretly, then they go on together. But I dont think its true, cuz people will obvs call that scum. Anyway, wake's post didnt sound really nice. Dont understand it.
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:40 am
by xfdagentx42
Forgot this...
Vote: HGH
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:46 am
by Not_Mafia
In post 243, xfdagentx42 wrote:Btw, I wasnt really paying attention to that thing (pregame nonsense), so I had to go RV. But oh well.
And, I wonder if Scum can
take control of Day as well. They'd talk about who to lynch secretly,
then they go on together. But I dont think its true, cuz people will obvs call that scum. Anyway, wake's post didnt sound really nice. Dont understand it.
The bold is a townslip. What do you mean exactly by it not sounding nice?
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:47 am
by xfdagentx42
Its that its nonsense. Grammar errors, bla bla bla. And I was talking about Wake.
Im glad we didnt start with RVS, cuz Scum can take that RVS.
Nope, it's from season seven when Giles was trying to train the new slayers about the bringers. Here, of course, he's instructing us on how to recognize scum. And Tammy, hope you stay in, I watch Buffy with my kids about once a year. But, and please forgive me for my ignorance, could you explain why I should see you almost as an innocent child?
In post 113, Riddleton wrote:If he did this on purpose, why would he do so? In other words, why would he intentionally make himself look like mafia before the game has even started?
That would be stupid playing to say the least.
Maybe so that people would say "TSO would never do that if he was scum". In his own post he's pointed out that...
In post 100, T S O wrote:I've made out large cases and relentlessly tunnelled on Town as scum.
...which would also tend to antagonize his target and draw attention to him.
In post 100, T S O wrote:Do you think that scum normally do nothing?
Do you think that the more you do, the less likely scum you are?
Do you think scum frame questions so as to avoid the area where they perceive themselves to be vulnerable? I do. And the heart of what Krystal seemed to be trying to get at (Krystal, please correct me if I'm wrong) was the much milder tone you adopted as soon as the game began, as opposed to your previous more caustic behavior. Now I'm pretty old school but I do like inconsistent behavior within the same game as a possible indication that someone is scum.
That said, wildly exaggerating behavior you've found suspicious when placed under pressure...
In post 109, Krystal Bald wrote:I was actually thinking that his play after the game started has been anti-antagonistic. So far he's placed a random vote on a player not in the game and done nothing else but defend himself, despite posting like over a bajillion times.
...doesn't sit well with me either. This is not an accurate representation of TSO's behavior. At the point when this post was made TSO had posted 10 times after the game started. Three of these posts were nonsense/opening business. Three of these posts, all made after your initial case, could be classified as defense. Four of these posts, in a mild, early game manner, could be described as investigative. That's ten posts out of 109, which would also indicate that his posting activity was not too far out of line with the average, especially considering that I hadn't posted at all until now.
Riddle...
In post 105, Riddleton wrote:From my viewpoint, it sounded like a quick bandwagon. From the mafia games I played, mafioso don't like drawing attention to themselves. They would rather just go along with the crowd in order to not raise any questions. I found your question odd which is why I voted for you.
You'll only catch bad scum that way, and you'll catch a lot of timid/disconnected town along the way. On this topic, though...
In post 113, Riddleton wrote:If he did this on purpose, why would he do so? In other words, why would he intentionally make himself look like mafia before the game has even started?
That would be stupid playing to say the least.
Riddle
, can you explain to me in what way TSO's pregame tomfoolery made him look like mafia? What about the manner in which he behaved would indicate that he was scum?
1. Riddleton
2. Krysrtal Bald
3. Not_Mafia
4. T S O
Official Vote: Riddleton
But I've read all of HGH's posts on the site (they're aren't that many). HGH are you an alt or do those posts represent your entire experience playing Mafia?
In post 121, T S O wrote:I was bored and decided to have some fun. It wasn't a reaction test, but it works better to say it's a reaction test than flat-out trolling. How would I reaction test people on something that's impossible?
Sure, it could be that. It could also be taking an opportunity to throw chaff into the air in an attempt to skew accurate reads on your behavior. That's the sort of thing good scum might do.
But once again, Krystal, this is really, really bad...
In post 123, Krystal Bald wrote:My read on you has nothing to do with whether or not you were trolling. I don't really give a fuck about that. You are now ignoring literally everything that is happening around you and focusing entirely on this conversation because it lets you get away with not scumhunting. Tell me, what's the town motivation for ignoring everything and not scumhunting?
Boiled down to its component parts this reads as "hey, I find it suspicious that you're reacting to my continuing suspicions of you". Now I'll grant you that TSO has made the pretty standard move of flipping your initial suspicions of him back on you, forcing you to stake out positions that can be looked back on later for consistency at the least or forcing you into an error that would allow him to mount a case on you at most. But that can certainly be a form of scumhunting every bit as much as it can be a sound scum defensive maneuver. Like it or not, the confrontation between you and TSO is the main thing that is happening around us, at least until Julatorium weighed in and then this odd thing blew up between Mala and Tammy.
And TSO? Thank you for this post. I feel like I know you so much better now.
On the whole there is more to dislike in Krystal's shading of the facts and opportunistic attack than TSO's aggressive defense.
Julatorium
, I have a couple questions for you.
In post 128, Julatorium wrote:1) To address the TSO post, we can talk about the "spirit of the game" nature of that play post-game. Null reaction to the question based on what we know of TSO, but happy we're out of RVS because of it.
Xfd, insanity, and Hgh came in post game-start and made no comments to the issue, infact appeared to wish to resurrect RVS. Why are you RVS'ing when stuff has happenned?
This bothers me a little bit because first you say that TSO's actions only warrant a null reaction but then you criticize Xfd, Insanity, and Hgh for not addressing it? Can you elaborate on this position for me?
You excuse Riddle's behavior as a byproduct of his inexperience, even going so far as to prod Mala and Tammy to reconsider their positions on him, but in the same post you lay a vote down on hgh, whose history (if he is not an alt) would indicate a rather pronounced lack of experience. Could you explain what you find different between the two of them?
In post 197, Julatorium wrote:And ours is the opposite, both "I don't know" and null reaction display a willingness to define your stance, therefore the need to acknowledge your stance to yourself. RVS precludes stance definition.
Oh poppycock. The very act of putting down an rvs vote after what happened pregame indicates a stance every bit as definitive as "I don't know" or a null reaction. If anything, slightly more definitive, as it lacks the defensive cover and wiggle room that an "I don't know" or a null reaction offers. By placing their RVS votes those players have, by their actions, made it clear that they did not believe the pregame hijinks were relevant to the game. But the notion that "I don't know" or a null reaction serves as anything more meaningful than a placeholder for a future epiphany is naive in a way that does not seem entirely natural.
And this?
In post 197, Julatorium wrote:therefore the need to acknowledge your stance to yourself.
Would you be so kind as to explain precisely what you mean by the above? Because in context it seems to indicate that the reason for posting "I don't know" or a null reaction would be to show others that you'd thought about it. That seems more likely to come from a scummy place than a townie one.
In post 197, Julatorium wrote:So far, there has been no answer, he appears to have vanished.
Does this make you more certainly believe he is scum?
In post 197, Julatorium wrote:As for acting in concert, what I'm expecting is a conversation with him, but instead I'm apparently dealing with this seemingly proxy obstruction. So be it.
Well...you expected this too.
In post 194, Julatorium wrote:we would have expected you to parse the meaning without stating it explicitly.
And you're wrong on two counts at the end of your statement. First, that I could obstruct a conversation that isn't happening, as you noted just above. Second, that I'm acting as a proxy, which would suggest that I am offering answers on his behalf, which I am not. So at this point I've not only revealed the secret of pressure votes in the game of Mafia but I've also gotten in the way of you watching the thread in peace for an answer from hgh.
Since you did bring it up, though, would you care to explain how you believe I'm obstructing you from having a conversation with hgh?
So you're a waller. That's awesome. Your questions are generally irrelevant, and you are distracting. Engaging you is zero fun. We think you are town.
In post 200, HGH7193 wrote:I dig out tiny caves, and store gold and silver in them.
I also build bridges of silver and make crowns of gold.
They are the smallest you could imagine.
Sooner or later everybody needs my help, yet many people are afraid to let me help them. Who am I?
You're a dentist who is going to get himself lynched. If you're town you should try to keep that from happening.
In post 204, Elmo TeH AzN wrote:Krystal is playing bad scum. Or just a horrible player not sure which yet
Would tend to agree with you here as well. The question is whether it might be just a horrible case of confirmation bias, in favor of Mala and against TSO, based on personal likes and dislikes.
Town who doesn't vote.
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:55 am
by Julatorium
xfdagentx42 wrote:Anyway, wake's post didnt sound really nice. Dont understand it.
You don't understand that he's asking for what we have to work with so far?
In post 128, Julatorium wrote:1) To address the TSO post, we can talk about the "spirit of the game" nature of that play post-game.
Well, you can talk about it postgame, I guess - I have no intention of apologising for trolling, and although you seem to think it's outside "the spirit of the game"... I don't.
Wasn't looking for an apology, nor a discussion to prompt one. We've stated that it's a null-tell. It's your nature, so we can't use it to read you.
...what?
You said it required post-game discussion, I said it didn't, you said you weren't looking for a discussion?
What are you even doing?
In post 139, Julatorium wrote:
Our quote wasn't about the content, or your vindication, it was about your nature. This is where you like to wallow. Therefore it can't be used.
Your quote should have been about the content. I enjoy, however, the fact that you are a rank hypocrite. You complain about the levels where the troll named TSO lurks, then post a link to a discussion which you now admit had no relevance other to ...slander my name? Your attempts to take the high moral ground makes me laugh.
In post 128, Julatorium wrote:We also don't agree with the statement from KB that TSO's demeanor changed at all, or that a perceived change even matters, because he had his role when he made the accusation. It would be different if he didn't have his role, made this play pre-roles, and acted different once the game started. Trolls be trolling.
Wow, lots of words, but no read at all! Trolling =/= scum.
That's right, and the statement is one regarding KB's views, not yours. Your reaction seems disproportionate to us. I thought you had some measure of pride in your trolling efforts?
Not particularly - I've never sold myself as a troll. You're the one who's pushing that I do.
Our daughter is going to 3rd grade ACE classes next year, and the kids will have to vote on what subjects they are taught. This is a laughable exercise, because the choices are going to be like... Dinosaurs and Mythical Creatures, or Art and Music appreciation. The classes are inevitably chosen by how many boys and girls are in the class that year.
That said, We dissonantly
choose A
based on rock paper scissors (good ol' rock!).
Yes, yes, you're very smart.
She is. We're proud parents.
Um, no. I never mentioned your daughter. You were the one who was flaunting how you feel the question is useless, before defeating the only purpose you could have for doing that by then participating in the question anyway.
In post 100, T S O wrote:Do you think that scum normally do nothing?
Do you think that the more you do, the less likely scum you are?
Do you think scum frame questions so as to avoid the area where they perceive themselves to be vulnerable? I do. And the heart of what Krystal seemed to be trying to get at (Krystal, please correct me if I'm wrong) was the much milder tone you adopted as soon as the game began, as opposed to your previous more caustic behavior. Now I'm pretty old school but I do like inconsistent behavior within the same game as a possible indication that someone is scum.
My behaviour was inconsistent, yes, because that more "caustic tone" is not my usual. I adopted it solely for people who did and still do get on my nerves (shoutout to you, Julian!). It would be both unenjoyable for me and you if I were to continue to use it. You can simply use my meta to evidence the fact I'm generally a nice guy. I have mean-guy scumgames and towngames. I also have nice-guy scumgames and towngames.
In post 121, T S O wrote:I was bored and decided to have some fun. It wasn't a reaction test, but it works better to say it's a reaction test than flat-out trolling. How would I reaction test people on something that's impossible?
Sure, it could be that. It could also be taking an opportunity to throw chaff into the air in an attempt to skew accurate reads on your behavior. That's the sort of thing good scum might do.
Am I good scum, though? Because if I'm bad scum, this argument falls to pieces.
You're welcome - it was enjoyable to show Julatorium why he was wrong. It still is.
But, let's be honest for a second here and I'll cut my condescending bullshit. Julatorium is either a prick, an idiot, or scum. He brought in a topic about verbal abuse, where I was the only example cited, and I was cited from only one game, where I was scum. He saw the quotes of me on the first damn page. Then he comes back, knowing that I can be aggressive and nasty as scum, knowing I'm being aggressive and nasty here, and what does he fucking do? Calls it a null tell! Where's the paranoia? That should set off the alarm bells in his head, because he knows I'm playing to relatively recent scum meta. But he doesn't. If he used that as a Town player should, in an attempt to figure out my alignment, he should be proclaiming wariness of me. He's not. He's probably scum.
