Mafiascum.net

I'm pretty confident it would've been ineffective and peta probably knew that

Or he wasn't engaged enough and as town he probably wouldn't have been as confident saying there's scum in that bloc

you can have it! @fferry

In post 2427, The Bulge wrote:you can have it! @fferry

ahhhhh this was supposed to be jeering but she deleted the moof post and now it looks sincere boooooooooo

In post 2426, Infinity 324 wrote:I'm pretty confident it would've been ineffective and peta probably knew that

Or he wasn't engaged enough and as town he probably wouldn't have been as confident saying there's scum in that bloc

but he did lol

you're tripping over yourself so hard you had my dim ass confused for a second. so from what I can gather you're suddenly now arguing, in order to cover up an inconsistency, that peta wouldn't want to say that there's scum in the bloc, because that wouldn't look very town of him to people familiar with his play. the issue at hand is why you think he didn't name any names.

and I don't buy the first line either, or the response to the line about townies defending NM for that matter

gotta run soon, trying to read along at the same time rn but it's hard for me when the thread is active

I bet iverson's gonna have some strong feelings about how I'm choosing to allot my time

In post 2430, The Bulge wrote:the issue at hand is why you think he didn't name any names.

And if he named names, he would have to give specific arguments for one of those players being scum, which probably would not go over very well. If you're specific you're more easy to hold accountable

It's possible that peta wasn't specific for other reasons (see, the other reason I also gave) or even that he would've approached it the same way as town. I don't know for sure but the fact that you're hung up on this as a contradiction is absurd to me

It's pretty clear that there's many points of possible benefit of the doubt you could be giving me and are not, I don't believe that you're trying not to tunnel

I am hung up on the contradiction, as should any townie in the game of mafia. you haven't justified it or cleared up any inconsistencies, and any attempt you've made to do that so far has come across to me as a backpedal, or stretching of any potentially ambiguous wording in your posts you can find.

That's an absurd characterization, I literally gave reasoning in the original post for why peta wouldn't want to name specific townies as scum, which would've been the most intuitive thing to ask about if town cause that was like, the heart of your issue. But you treated it as if it wasn't there

(Also contradictions aren't scummy lmao but that's a separate thing)

Peta: scum is in townbloc
Others: I disagree but ok

Peta: bork is scum
Others: lmao no

In post 2431, The Bulge wrote:or the response to the line about townies defending NM for that matter

Can you elaborate on this? Why do you disagree and why does that make me scum

I'm not sure this is going to be super productive but I'm going to try anyway: this is my interpretation of what bulge is getting hung up on:

In post 1768, Infinity 324 wrote:Peta didn't want to point to examples because the townies were all transparently town and he didn't want to sow paranoia on a buddy

(that I also believe is in the townbloc)

. If you want I can argue this point with you until I can convince you I believe it

Does this track w/ everyone so far?

In post 2422, The Bulge wrote:that belief directly contradicts with your belief that peta didn't want to name names within the bloc.

I interpret this as "believing that the bloc is all town and that peta didn't want to name individuals from it is inherently a contradiction"

I'm not sure it mattered to bulge what I implied about the bloc to begin with

In post 2440, Infinity 324 wrote:"believing that the bloc is all town and that peta didn't want to name individuals from it is inherently a contradiction"

noted. i want to see what bulge has to say.

In post 2408, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 2406, SirCakez wrote:who are people, besides Bulge?

Lilith, ydrasse, mom

my impression was the latter two were caught up but I guess I was wrong

I'm not sure I understand this infinity/bulge argument

Ydra is not caught up

-M

Bulge mean I appreciate that you're at least reading a slot and pushing it but I'm not your dad and it's not my job to tell you I'm proud of you, I really hope my qualitative opinion of your play isn't something you think about at night or sitting on the couch.

There are multiple interpretations where this resolves without any contradiction but I'll continue holding off until one is made apparent, which to me it remains ambiguous.

Infinity, it might help to specify whether the people he'd sow paranoia on are inside/outside the bloc, and if that statement diverges into two separate scenarios depending on whether the townbloc is correct or not.

In post 2436, Infinity 324 wrote:That's an absurd characterization, I literally gave reasoning in the original post for why peta wouldn't want to name specific townies as scum, which would've been the most intuitive thing to ask about if town cause that was like, the heart of your issue. But you treated it as if it wasn't there

(Also contradictions aren't scummy lmao but that's a separate thing)

"contradictions aren't scummy" is hugely reductive. i mean sure if you want to ignore all the context and nuance of what I'm actually pointing out. don't try to make this out to be a game theory discussion where you've already given yourself the crutch that you "disagree with everyone on like 90% of mafia theory".

In post 2438, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 2431, The Bulge wrote:or the response to the line about townies defending NM for that matter

Can you elaborate on this? Why do you disagree and why does that make me scum

In post 2417, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 2412, The Bulge wrote:

In post 1793, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 1791, Not_Mafia wrote:Scum are going all out to get 2-0 and put us on the back foot for the rest of the game, there’s at least 1, probably 2 scum already on me here, if I were scum I would 100% have been the sacrifice

There were a bunch of townies defending you

???

That's why NM wasn't the sacrifice

I don't believe that is what you meant. your wording in the original quoted post does not at all imply speculation. this is a good example of the backpedalling/stretching of ambiguous wording I talked about last night

In post 2439, Kismet wrote:I'm not sure this is going to be super productive but I'm going to try anyway: this is my interpretation of what bulge is getting hung up on:

In post 1768, Infinity 324 wrote:Peta didn't want to point to examples because the townies were all transparently town and he didn't want to sow paranoia on a buddy

(that I also believe is in the townbloc)

. If you want I can argue this point with you until I can convince you I believe it

Does this track w/ everyone so far?

yes because the logic doesn't make any sense without that implication? how does naming names within the bloc cast shade on someone outside of it?

In post 2440, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 2422, The Bulge wrote:that belief directly contradicts with your belief that peta didn't want to name names within the bloc.

I interpret this as "believing that the bloc is all town and that peta didn't want to name individuals from it is inherently a contradiction"

I'm not sure it mattered to bulge what I implied about the bloc to begin with

wrong. there you go again reducing my argument to a simple application of game theory. it isn't "inherently" a contradiction, especially not the way you're twisting it and removing context. it's a contradiction because of how you first presented it. I don't believe anything you have since retroactively claimed to have been inferring.

nobody makes 1768 without knowledge of a scum in the bloc. nobody makes this post without at least that hunch.

moof