Mafiascum.net

I don't like how this hasn't at any point felt like you are actually trying to help me understand what you meant, infinity. it all feels entirely like coverup. also not a fan of shit like this

In post 2434, Infinity 324 wrote:It's pretty clear that there's many points of possible benefit of the doubt you could be giving me and are not

or calling my takes "absurd", trying to discredit me. it feels reactive and defensive. the quoted line here has big caught-for-the-wrong-reasons frustration vibes.

I don't think you want your points and thought process to be fully laid out on display and explored and have all its holes exposed. the stretching and backpedalling and retroactive justification is spinning it all into a more convoluted web. if you were town being incorrectly pushed for a take you feel has been misinterpreted, I would expect some kind of summary, or alternate explanation, or a dumbed down version at least. instead I get stuff like you quoting the same post I have a problem with twice in a row as if that should be convincing me of anything new. you're looking for evidence that you didn't let your perspective slip instead of just explaining what you meant.

back to catching up later, don't have much a head for reading atm

bulge what exactly is the perspective slip here and what does it imply about the townblock in your opinion?

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.

my interpretation of this line is "peta didn't want to shake things up too much because the actual townies in the bloc were all transparently so, and he didn't want to risk blowing his partner's deep cover"

it doesn't make sense to say this at all if infinity doesn't think there is a partner in that bloc, regardless of any alternate theories she has given since then for why peta might have done that.

In post 2453, Kismet wrote:what does it imply about the townblock in your opinion?

I've been running on the assumption that infinity is generally considered to be a part of the bloc. if that's the case then that's obviously where I think the partner is.

so you think the perspective slip is about her own slot and everyone else in the bloc is actually town?

yea

VFT if not

or no one! i dont have an opinion of my own on the townbloc itself as a whole, i havent read enough. but im pretty sure infinity is scum.

In post 2458, The Bulge wrote:VFT if not

VFT if infinity is town?

not to imply any reverse-associatives or anything. but you and notty are strong town reads and I'm not aware of anyone else who belongs in that group

I'm just trying to suss out opinions about things. Does VFTs alignment depend on infinity's to you?

im down for that

and no it does not

I'm going to be honest: I don't think "infinity made 1768 because, even though she was townreading kistmet/noddy/vft, she still subconsciously knew she was scum" to be a very convincing argument.

i myself didn't really understand the point you were trying to make here until very recently and i think it's plausible infinity didn't either considering she doesn't consider what she posted to be a contradiction. I don't think she's trying to run you in circles, she just really doesn't understand the point you're making.

I'm not sure where else to go with this particular point. What other opinions have evolved since you made your earlier reads post?

i don't think it matters who think the scum in the bloc is. infinity presented very strongly that she believed the bloc to be all town. she then presented even stronger that she believed peta was protecting a buddy within the bloc. when pressed about this inconsistency, she flailed.

In post 2464, Kismet wrote:I'm not sure where else to go with this particular point. What other opinions have evolved since you made your earlier reads post?

nothing much yet that I havent already said (which i know isnt much apart from infinity's slot)

In post 2465, The Bulge wrote:i don't think it matters who

i

think the scum in the bloc is. infinity presented very strongly that she believed the bloc to be all town. she then presented even stronger that she believed peta was protecting a buddy within the bloc. when pressed about this inconsistency, she flailed.

i actually would like to hear infinity's final word on this

In post 2446, The Bulge wrote: "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".

I don't want to make this about mafia theory, but I wanted to express my somewhat relevant opinion

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

Ok but what do you think I actually meant and why is that scummy

infinity i think 2465 sums it up.

In post 1768, Infinity 324 wrote:Scum often don't know how confident to be, especially when they replace in, town generally have examples in mind when they're suspicious of a group. 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

(possible)

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

Are you happy now? I should've added a word in the original post, that's literally all it was

In post 2469, Kismet wrote:infinity i think 2465 sums it up.

That doesn't sum up the response to NM though

i'm not sure i'm following

In post 2451, The Bulge wrote:I don't think you want your points and thought process to be fully laid out on display and explored and have all its holes exposed. the stretching and backpedalling and retroactive justification is spinning it all into a more convoluted web. if you were town being incorrectly pushed for a take you feel has been misinterpreted, I would expect some kind of summary, or alternate explanation, or a dumbed down version at least. instead I get stuff like you quoting the same post I have a problem with twice in a row as if that should be convincing me of anything new. you're looking for evidence that you didn't let your perspective slip instead of just explaining what you meant.

It's because I thought it was pretty clear what I meant to begin with, to be fair I didn't quite understand the problem you had with my posting and I thought the explanation was more obvious than it actually was. I still don't think a townie would make as big a deal out of this as you are, because my point still holds if there's no scum in the townbloc. My wording just wrongly implied that I believe such a scum exists.

Bulge has a problem with 2417 that I don't get.