Mafiascum.net

It looks like Nico is going to be able to lurk out of his lynch today? Hell no. Move your votes. xvart can keep flailing but if anything we keep him around because I'm too lazy to decode what palisade is saying.

Now this is a place I'm willing to move my vote to.

lol

V/LA for a holiday weekend, but let me leave you with this.
: Palisade, AV, Timeater, Hinduragi, Regfan
:fate, Zajnet, Nicodemus
: CSL
: Wraith, Xvart, Diddin,

Fate wrote:Of course XVART is going to say the case against him sucks.

Look past the lies, look at the entire game, wholistically, he is DEFINITE scum.

If I weren't so short on time I could elaborate why, but trust me this fuck is scum.

You can kiss that doctor protection you were so adamant about getting tonight goodbye when I flip. Fate still hasn't elaborated on why he truncated my post when looking at the quote in its entirely invalidates the point he was attempting to make.

CSL, 273 wrote:xvart, how do you know I'm a mislynch?

Thanks for reading along so closely. Please show me where I said you were a mislynch.

Regfan wrote:

@ Xvart -

I don't disagree, Palisade

should

be stopping this obvious fake posting restriction right about now or at least attempt to communicate understandably with it but him not doing so doesn't make him scum, just a terrible player and pushing them on that is opportunistic as fuck. I don't see how there's "Obvious scum motivation to claim cop under little pressure" at all, especially a role as common as cop whereas I do see him doing it as town to create some sort of authority or leadership over the day. There is also a difference between them being difficult to communicate with and not even attempting to communicate with them, you haven't once directed anything towards them in hope of furthering your read yet you were content enough stating that your vote wouldn't move of them.

The obvious scum motivation is that as scum Palisade would have recognized, even without votes, that people were seriously questioning the fake restriction. They probably didn't know about Slaxx hating post restrictions when they did it and when everyone starts talking about scum lying the obvious thought process is "I'm going to get lynched sometime, I can either hopefully cut this by claiming cop even though there is no tangible pressure if there isn't a cop in this game or at the least I can get the real cop to counterclaim." ; and the people that suggested it was a gambit to draw the NK are even more delusional since he risked outing a real cop and what scum team is going to kill a post restricted person who appears scummy? And I'm seriously laughing at the suggestion of claiming cop to claim authority or leadership over the day. If that was actually the case, his leadership and authority is terrible simply by the fact that he hasn't done anything to even try to communicate.

And finally, I'm not going to make an effort to talk to someone who has no interest in communicating when I believe that person is scum. It's just a waste of time.

Hinduragi wrote:It looks like Nico is going to be able to lurk out of his lynch today? Hell no. Move your votes. xvart can keep flailing but if anything we keep him around because I'm too lazy to decode what palisade is saying.

How is my "flailing" related to you being too lazy to decode what Pallisade is saying, especially when I already decoded the last fake message.

The flailing isn't related to me being lazy. I'm just lazy in general.

Early "the fuck" claim from Xvart.

Oh so NOW he's scum?

BUSBUS TIME BUSBUSBUS

lol ur so bad at misrepping

what was that hindu said about bussing

Well what a spot he's put us in. If we ask for a counterclaim, we risk outing the real doc. If we don't, we risk lynching the doc if he's telling the truth.

@Fate: Don't discount that Timeater could be moving in for the mislynch if xvart really is the doc. But yes, Timeater looks kinda scummy here.

Xvart didn't claim doctor what the fuck?

He's saying "HERP DERP YOU WONT GET DOC PROTECTED WHEN I FLIP TOWNNNNNNNN" which is bullshit fear mongering. "BACK OFF FATE DONT YOU WANT TO BE DOCTORD?" lolu.

Maybe I misread his statement then, in which case it would be really terrible fear mongering.

I thought he was claiming doc >.>

Hey Gaoth, why am I scum?

My head's a mess right now, I'll post tomorrow when I'm capable of some concrete thought.

I took it as a doc claim tbh, or at least a scummy breadcrumb attempt

Fate wrote:

xvart wrote:I think if CSL ever flips town then Nico, Zjanet, and Diddin all score major scum points for trying to push an easy-ish mislynch.

Wow THREE people get to be scumreads for the sacrifice of only ONE mislynch!?!!? IT CANT GET BETTER THAN THAT TRADE.

Fate pointed out what you were implying.

Zajnet wrote:Well what a spot he's put us in. If we ask for a counterclaim, we risk outing the real doc. If we don't, we risk lynching the doc if he's telling the truth.

Zajnet is so obviously scum.
Just read this post.

xvart-Zajnet-Wraith

It has to be.

xvart wrote:

3

The operative word being IF, and only in the context of IF he is correct this game.

4

Yes.

So that means IFF he's right that I'm town, you want to see me lynched. Hurrdurr.

xvart wrote:You're taking what I said out of context. I was implicitly talking about your vote hop from Zajnet to Wraith and how you had stated a legitimate and justified reason for voting Zajnet when you jumped to Wraith on the basis of wanting to see if any of these scummy people would come and vote with you.

If -YOU- don't think Zajnet was a justified lynch, if you're going off what -I- think, then why the hell are you judging the Wraith vote as unjustified? You can't have it both ways. I have a legit reason for voting both fmpov. You've either gotta accept that or admit that you're judging it on your own basis. The fact you're hovering between the two makes you scum.

xvart wrote:lol @ the "I need to make xvart look like scum which is difficult because I've called him town on a half dozen occasions, so if I look more closely at what I originally thought was a town motivated behavior it is actually scum motivated."

My history teacher always used to say we had to be aware when we were wearing our "hindsight goggles" and this is one of those times. Considering your later scummy behaviour, it throws a new light on the stuff that came before. For a more pretentious analogy, I could direct you to Wolfgang Iser's study of the "blank", in which he says:

Iser wrote:Once a theme has been grasped, conditioned by the marginal position of the preceding segment, a feedback is bound to occur, thus retroactively modifying the shaping influence of the reader’s viewpoint. [...] In this sense, the vacancy transforms the referential field of the moving viewpoint into a self-regulating structure, which proves to be one of the most important links in the interaction between text and reader, and which prevents the reciprocal transformation of textual segments from being arbitrary.

The important thing to note here is that the feedback is "bound to occur" and is not "arbitrary" in the least.

---

xvart wrote:

You can also remove the "three scumreads for the sacrifice of one mislynch since he truncated the quote to fit his needs and I never suggested that we lynch CSL, which was the basis of his point;

Not really. IF CSL ever gets mislynched then your "lolthreescum" comes into play. It doesn't require you to push his lynch, but you're setting up for the future.

---

xvart wrote:

AurorusVox wrote:And you didn't indicate anything to suggest my challenge to you was actually scummy; just that it was the "wrong thing to say", hence the goading you into voting me.

It was pretty damn obvious that was the reason I was voting you for. Are you trying to deflect attention away from your scummy behaviour?

Hinduragi, 281 wrote:The flailing isn't related to me being lazy. I'm just lazy in general.

No. They are connected; you said: xvart can keep flailing but if anything we keep him around I'm too lazy to decode what palisade is saying". What does your inability or lack of desire to decode what Palisade is saying have anything to do with keeping me around despite my alleged flailing?

AurorusVox, 292 wrote:So that means IFF he's right that I'm town, you want to see me lynched. Hurrdurr.

You really want to keep arguing this? It's making you look petty and desperate. IF he's right that you're town, the operative word being IF. I don't believe he is right (that much should be painfully obvious) therefore you are not cleared of town because so-and-so player thinks you're town. It's unconfirmed third party information with no supporting evidence. If he wants to provide me with evidence to show all the games you guys have played together and all the times he's called you town and you have been town and the games where you were scum and he was town and he couldn't read you as town he is free to do so.

AurorusVox, 292 wrote:If -YOU- don't think Zajnet was a justified lynch, if you're going off what -I- think, then why the hell are you judging the Wraith vote as unjustified? You can't have it both ways. I have a legit reason for voting both fmpov. You've either gotta accept that or admit that you're judging it on your own basis.

Because I'm assessing your motivations based on what you have typed, posted, and said. Scum can vote for justified reasons just as much as town can vote for justified reasons. Your vote on Wraith is horrible based on the reason you stated for voting Zajnet originally. You jumped ship on a stated justified reason to vote someone .

AurorusVox, 292 wrote:The fact you're hovering between the two makes you scum.

The fact that you are just now bringing this up is convenient now that other people are voting me and not before when you still thought I was town.

AurousVox, 292 wrote:Not really. IF CSL ever gets mislynched then your "lolthreescum" comes into play. It doesn't require you to push his lynch, but you're setting up for the future.

Weren't you basically saying the same thing? Everyone on the CSL wagon at the time were people you were most suspicious of when you voted Wraith to test these people. You never denied that you thought these people were pushing a counterwagon to scum Wraith after you decided he was definitely scum because of the people on the CSL wagon refusing to vote for Wraith.

Palisade

:

The claimed cop with a fake post restriction. Let's look at this objectively.
He claimed "cop" with a sum total of zero votes on him (Fate had just removed his vote). There had been discussion on lynching Palisade from AV to Fate. What benefit is there to claim cop with zero votes placed? And strangely enough nobody has been able to generate a town reason for this claim at this time of the game. The scum benefit of claiming with a fake restriction is that he is going to go down sooner or later and with the limited discussion about lynching him based on his fake post restriction he could have realized he was going down sooner or later and possibly sooner so he claimed a role with two possible outcomes:

1. There would be no counter claim and he could go on his merry way;
   
2. There would be a counter claim and the real cop would be outted to be killed during the night.

Furthermore, Palisade has not made any effort to communicate anything since his claim. His only messages since his claim (Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:44 pm) are:

1. Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:51 pm - no message
   
2. Mon Aug 29, 2011 4:22 am - no message
   
3. Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:38 am - scum in ozt scum???

So, if he was town, he has now unnecessarily claimed, waited three and half days to post no message, and waited two more days to post a message that doesn't make sense. It's obvious he is sitting back and riding the fake cop claim for all it is worth while everyone else gets distracted by other things. Everyone has acknowledged that the restriction is fake and evidence has been provided that Slaxx would not include a post restriction because they distract from the game. A town person under these circumstances would drop the facade and actually try and participate yet Palisade continues to be a lurking scumbag. Town with debilitating post restrictions find a way to communicate.

My prediction for tomorrow is one of two things is going to happen.

1. Palisade will somehow find a way to communicate that he got a guilty on one of his partners so he can buy town cred and ride it to the end like in hascow in Storm of Swords; or,
   
2. Palisade's partners are going to immediately call for his lynch tomorrow and buy town cred with their tenacity since that is the general consensus (lynch him tomorrow).

These two scenarios only work effectively if the scum team secures a mislynch today because it would extremely challenging to sacrifice a teammate if we successfully lynched a scum today (the would be down two people at the end of D2).

AurousVox

:

AV's voting pattern and suspicion justifications is not sound. He originally voted Zajnet for reasons that were justified (having a reason to vote someone and voting elsewhere). He then said Wraith was scum with Zajnet along with Palisade who was scum with Zajnet (no explanations on why they both were independently scum partners with Wraith). He then says "Wraith is scummy, as I pointed out earlier, but I'm more confident in ZajnetScum". Where did he point out why Wraith was scummy? He didn't. But he then transitions his vote to Wraith because "So many people calling Wraith scum but so few voting for him".

He transitioned his vote from someone who was uniquely scummy because of independent behavior to someone because other scummy people's behaviors. The real kicker is one of those people who is not voting Wraith is none other than Zajnet, the person he was previously voting. So not only is he not voting someone for behavior unique to that person, but

he is now not voting the person he was previously voting who has been identified as being one of the suspicious people he is supposedly testing

. Furthermore, if you think people aren't voting but casting suspicion on someone because they are softly busing you lynch them for suspicious behavior, and if they flip scum you then push the person you think they were softly bussing and not voting. And finally, he is voting Wraith to test six, maybe seven people, and by virtue of standard setup designs means the people he is testing a predominately populated with town members.

This is illustrated by this quote:

AurorusVox, 181 wrote:xvart: I still would like a Zajnet lynch today. However, my vote on Wraith was an attempt to get people to "put their money where their mouth is" and join me on the wagon. The absolute lack therein is very concerning and makes Wraith the best place for my vote atm.

Here AV essentially says that it was a test to see if the people acting scummy would vote someone and because they won't his vote is now justified after the fact.

He also uses discrediting tactics on me (someone whom he has identified as town a couple of times) by generalizing all my reads as false because I questioned him calling Palisade scum (which he did but denied).

He then uses semantics to softly paint me as scum ("be that as it may") while he builds up to voting me. He's obviously trying to back off of his multiple town reads of me and says "I thought his hop off was pro-town, but if we look for scum motivation in the move we do find it ", but he obviously can't immediately vote me because of his past comments so he is slowly building up to it. He only voted me when I goaded him into it. In the same post he takes out of context what I had been questioning him on and attempting to undermine me by saying I was agreeing with his reads.

WALLS ARE SCUMMY

Timeater wrote:WALLS ARE SCUMMY

Cool story, bro.

I actually read the entire wall, and I find it to be a town-motivated post. I think you're probably right about Palisade, but I don't know if its worth lynching an un-CCd Cop D1. However, I don't find AV particularly scummy. I can understand his motivation for the Wraith / me thing (although, clearly he's wrong about me, but not everyone can have perfect reads all of the time).

Just to confirm, xvart, you weren't claiming doc were you?

xvart wrote:You really want to keep arguing this? It's making you look petty and desperate. IF he's right that you're town, the operative word being IF

And the chain was IF x THEN y.
x was AV is town
y was you want to lynch me.

"If" AV is town, "then" you want to lynch me.

xvart wrote:Because I'm assessing your motivations based on what you have typed, posted, and said. Scum can vote for justified reasons just as much as town can vote for justified reasons. Your vote on Wraith is horrible based on the reason you stated for voting Zajnet originally. You jumped ship on a stated justified reason to vote someone because people other than the person you were voting were behaving scummy

This isn't a rebuttal of my point.

xvart wrote:The fact that you are just now bringing this up is convenient now that other people are voting me and not before when you still thought I was town.

Well that's because it's only transpired recently that you're hovering between the two.
I said I found it scummy that you called it justified, then you tried to back off from that, and I'm calling that scummy too. How can I call that scummy when you hadn't tried to back away yet?

xvart wrote:Weren't you basically saying the same thing?

Nope.
I was saying Wraith is scummy, people are fannying around about it. I identified what everyone had done but I'm not chaining lynches. Plus mine was looking for connections between two scum - i.e. if Wraith flips scum, I'll know where to start looking. You were chaining lynches for after a town flip, which is opportunistic and scummy.

More xvart votes.
Hindu, come and join us.
I'll translate for you.

AurorusVox, 297 wrote:

xvart wrote:You really want to keep arguing this? It's making you look petty and desperate. IF he's right that you're town, the operative word being IF

And the chain was IF x THEN y.
x was AV is town
y was you want to lynch me.

"If" AV is town, "then" you want to lynch me.

No. , which I clearly don't believe and no proof or further elaboration has been provided. Seriously, that is exactly what you quoted. The logical implication truth table you are pushing only works if I had said I believe Hindu can accurately read you. Where have I said that?

AurorusVox, 297 wrote:This isn't a rebuttal of my point.

It is; but if you think I'm missing it then I missed your point. It appears that you are trying to discredit me by saying I agree with your reads and I am calling you scum for that. I'm not, I'm calling you scum because of your behavior and your posting unique to your stated motivations and priorities. I really don't know how to say this more clearly: you moved your vote from Zajnet (whom you had a posted justified reason for voting) to Wraith because seven other players were unwilling to vote for him (their scummy behavior). You are voting someone because of someone elses scummy behavior. If you think they are joined you should have been voting the people most scummy, like... wait for it... the person you were already voting for. If anything, your little test exercise should have been further evidence that Zajnet was scum; and if he flipped scum, then looked at Wraith for the possible not wanting to bus a partner.

AurorusVox, 297 wrote:Well that's because it's only transpired recently that you're hovering between the two.
I said I found it scummy that you called it justified, then you tried to back off from that, and I'm calling that scummy too. How can I call that scummy when you hadn't tried to back away yet?

I'm not backing off of anything. The only thing we have to go on are what people post. I thought your Zajnet vote was justified, as you had stated why you were voting him for his specific behavior. . That is not a justified vote compared to your previous Zajnet vote.

AurorusVox, 297 wrote:I was saying Wraith is scummy, people are fannying around about it.

No, you didn't. You never identified and have never clarified why you originally though Wraith was scummy other than he is scum with Zajnet; which is further proof that you should have kept your vote on Zajnet since you had more posted reasons to suspect him.

AurorusVox, 297 wrote:I identified what everyone had done but I'm not chaining lynches. Plus mine was looking for connections between two scum - i.e. if Wraith flips scum, I'll know where to start looking.

You were chaining lynches for after a town flip, which is opportunistic and scummy.

Yes, a town flip I wasn't pushing, voting, etc. You are also negating the context of the full quote (the same as Fate): "Overall, I think this analysis has merit, but not for the reasons you put forward. For instance, I think if CSL ever flips town..." It was said in conjunction with me discussing how your Wraith vote analysis was faulty and you were incorrectly valuing it. Is my observation incorrect? But, your last sentence seems to know that CSL is a town flip and how would you know that?

Xvart... ill give you a pass this time and ONLY this time because you used area tags and really seem to give a damn.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: CSL

He seriously can't be allowed to live after his last post.