Mafiascum.net

In post 256, Marky Mark wrote:206 - you claim that I hadn't been providing reasons to SR you, when I had in fact spelled them out at length in the thread.

229 - you imply that I was being inconsistent by not treating you and chkflip the same, when it was pretty clear that both of you naked voted in very different contexts. I think you knew this too.

238 - you try to claim that if I actually was scumhunting you in good faith then I would be looking into your meta, despite the fact that this is not something I generally do, and not something that anyone else in the thread had been doing.

1: Your "reasons" are surface level and I've debunked them already. If you want to call them reasons that's fine, but I'm not going to when they have no merit.

2: Chkflp's ISO is horrid, especially when you factor in that vote coming at the end of it. The fact you ignored that is huge +partner equity. Calling this "very different contexts" is very inaccurate imo

3: It's just very convenient that the one thing that ruins your "reason" for SRing me is what you ignored. If you don't look into meta that much, then fine. Not much either of us can do about that. The fact is though that you're wrong and if you're really concerned about engaging in "good faith" you either would've given this meta some credence or asked me to provide examples, of which you didn't.

I'm not really interested in engaging with you anymore based on your whole "stop misrepping me" thing. It's getting tiresome. There's a difference between misrepping and having different opinions. I could argue I'm being misrepped as well by the blatant disregard of both my meta, posting style and the fact that you're making assumptions such as "I didn't want to generate so much heat" when anyone who knows me knows I am 100% fine with being thrown into chaos and being forced into these types of interactions. Don't be hypocritical, yeah?

In post 253, Flea The Magician wrote:Given I've got 1 game meta with both of you, you're the one slightly off meta.

I mean, sure. But I'm not talking about meta in a wide sense. That can swing in so many different ways on a game by game basis depending on mood, the playerlist, the setup, roles, etc. etc.

What I'm pointing to (and why I'm partly annoyed at this BS narrative about my initial vote) is the fact that there is no evidence of Scumcrowned ever voting that way, while there's at least 3+ instances (I believe) of Towncrowned doing so.

Does that automatically mean I'm town here? Of course not.

Does that mean I should be given +scum equity? Hell no.

It's pure NAI or at best, slightly +town from a meta perspective and it's getting kinda gross having to keep justifying it with people who say I'm not engaging in good faith and that I'm misrepping when if anything, I'm the one being misrepped and the one being engaged in a way that seems to be in bad faith.

Time for a gamestate read.

As much as Mark is acting scummy, the lack of involvement from a majority of slots while we've been dueling is objectively +town for him, I'd say. Assuming this, there's probably scum on each of our wagons. Given Cassowary's weird fence-sitty comment about my one which just looked like someone trying show townie caution, I think we push there.

I lowkey missed the last page where people started posting which kinda weakens the point I just made above. Oh well. I think it's still valid to an extent.

Im up for zaping both you you now for funsies.

chkflip is less than wanted for sure.

Lemme iso cass

In post 219, cassowary wrote:Dang, L-2. Careful with that wagon, Eugene.

Dad?

Seriously you gotta be like 50+ to use this reference. I mean im 40ish and I get it, but I forget where its from.

Fuck.

Shrug

Lol I am a young'un, I just have been on a pink floyd kick lately.

In post 242, Uncrowned wrote:

In post 219, cassowary wrote:Dang, L-2. Careful with that wagon, Eugene.

Oh man I forgot how gross this was.

"Hey guys, L-2 watch out watch out but lemme stay on the wagon."

I mean, yeah? Why would I unvote here? I don't see how it's 'gross' to note this so we don't accidentally end the day 9 days early? Maybe this is a meta difference but I really don't see the logic for pushing me based on this.

Like, sorry I don't know all the meta on you, person I have never played with before, but I'm calling it as I see it... I don't really see how you're construing my comments as 'fence-sitty' when I straight up voted you. Like, I'm not going to vote you with 100% certainty of course, we're on d1 like 5 IRL days in, you might very well be town, but this accusation is just kind of bizarre to me and I'm not sure how to respond.

it's fake town signalling that lets you put the blame on whoever votes me when I green flip

also I never talked about meta in relation to you so idk where that's coming from

and it's gross because you just pop in only to say that and do nothing else to progress the game, develop reads or try to do any form of solving. it reads as fake af concern to give you some easy towncred

In post 264, Grendel wrote:Isnt chkflip normally a more abrasive/domineering personality type in discussion?

I've been eh-trying to chill out. Shit makes me legitimately angry and same people feel like it makes the thread toxic. So if I can play the same way but just less caps lock and F bombs it's better for everyone regardless of my alignment.

Eh-UNVOTE: Uncrowned

Definitely agree on the "different context" legitimacy Uc. I saw MMs #2 and looked back at my post and thought "wait how is this not describink my vote?"

But discussion was had. Thees is better than I could've hoped for.

In post 262, Not Known 15 wrote:

In post 242, Uncrowned wrote:

In post 219, cassowary wrote:Dang, L-2. Careful with that wagon, Eugene.

Oh man I forgot how gross this was.

"Hey guys, L-2 watch out watch out but lemme stay on the wagon."

I agree, this does not look good.

My vote stays where it is, though.

If you are seeing uncrowned as scummy here and also voting me then are you interpreting me and uncrowned clashing in this thread as scum vs scum?

In post 271, Vaxkiller wrote:

In post 203, Marky Mark wrote:I'll drop VAX a cheeky FOS too - lots of posts, but fairly thin on any scrutiny/analysis/reads. Could be posting style tbf, but feels very different to the Bears mini where we played together.

I dont remember u in bears, were you in a hydra?

What the hell is a "cheeky" FOS

It was just me and I was a VT.

A cheeky FOS is a bit like a cheeky Nando's but instead of delicious fried chicken you get to be one of my SRs.

In post 273, Vaxkiller wrote:

In post 236, Marky Mark wrote:Still keen to hear back from both Vax and Not Known on the questions I asked them btw

?

In post 214, Marky Mark wrote:Not the first time you've voted me with minimal explanation Vax (unless your reason is that you think I'm wrong about uncrowned, which you have alluded to).

Why vote Porkens earlier in 163? I'm not sure you explained that one either

chkflip who do you SR

In post 275, Uncrowned wrote:3: It's just very convenient that the one thing that ruins your "reason" for SRing me is what you ignored. If you don't look into meta that much, then fine. Not much either of us can do about that. The fact is though that you're wrong and if you're really concerned about engaging in "good faith" you either would've given this meta some credence or asked me to provide examples, of which you didn't.

If you've brought something up as self-meta then I believe that you have examples for it, but it is of limited usefulness as you have selectively picked it to prove a point. I will let the rest of the town decide whether it's bad faith to SR/vote someone without diving into their meta when they try to use it as a defence.

In post 275, Uncrowned wrote:I'm not really interested in engaging with you anymore based on your whole "stop misrepping me" thing. It's getting tiresome. There's a difference between misrepping and having different opinions. I could argue I'm being misrepped as well by the blatant disregard of both my meta, posting style and the fact that you're making assumptions such as "I didn't want to generate so much heat" when anyone who knows me knows I am 100% fine with being thrown into chaos and being forced into these types of interactions. Don't be hypocritical, yeah?

I have explained how I feel like you are misrepping me with examples. You disagree, and have argued those points, but its not like I'm throwing around naked accusations here - I've backed up my accusations with specific examples and I'm trying to spell this out in good faith so that the playerbase can see and make their own judgements. I don't think I'm being hypocritical here, but happy to hear from others on this too

I have played agianst scum before who have pulled the "I'm not interested in engaging with you card" when I was (correctly) pushing them. That doesn't mean that you are scum here because you are saying the same thing ofc, but it is a behaviour that in my experience tends to come from scum.

@Uncrowned, all this being said, I don't see why scum!you would let me off the hook somewhat with 277, so have some townpoints for that

In post 259, Jake The Wolfie wrote:I don't exist to scumhunt. I exist to be a terrible quote machine.

You were way more active/involved than this in the micro we played together where you and ircher were a hydra

I don't think voting you would achieve much here in terms of pressure, but I'd be keen to hear from others if this normal Jake play

I'm happy with my vote where its at, but would also consider a vote on Not Known and/or Vax. I'll wait for their responses to my questions.

Top TRs for me rn are cass and misty (despite misty's p1 rejection of me )

In post 293, Uncrowned wrote:chkflip who do you SR

Unfortunately, I'll have to re-reed I think. Those couple of days away have me feeling a leettle disconnected. It's only p12 so it shouldn't take terribly long to do so, but don't expect it out of me today.

In post 287, Uncrowned wrote:also I never talked about meta in relation to you so idk where that's coming from

Um, I think you first brought up this meta justification in a response to me:

In post 226, Uncrowned wrote:

In post 216, cassowary wrote:This logic is weird. "Thing that both town and scum can do" doesn't mean "NAI". If it's more likely as scum than town, it should push people towards a scumread, and vice versa. There are very few things that only town or scum can '100% do'; if there were then mafia would be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Right.

But *why* is it more likely for scum to do what I'm doing than town would be? That still hasn't been answered yet.

If you even want to go into iffy self-meta territory, I could argue this as being more town indicative for me, as this is something I've done in several town games during the early game while never having done it in a scum game.

But that's surface level at best. The fact is this quite easily comes from either alignment, and this wagon being based on it is nonsense and contains at minimum 2 scum, I'd wager.

^{(emphasis mine)}

I mean sure, you called it 'iffy' here but you later went on to argue from an actual meta perspective (#276) as if you expected the people voting you to be aware of your meta and therefore could say that suspecting you for your naked vote (which... I did justify at the time as being scummy; I said "feels like scum trying to imitate slacking town") had to be disingenuous or "engaging in bad faith," which is just a ridiculous read on the situation because, well, I don't know you - why would I know how you tend to enter the game as scum vs town?

That said, I'll walk back my accusation of 'feels like scum trying to imitate slacking town' because wow that is not the vibe I am getting anymore. I certainly buy this behavior as town-motivated, even if it is ultimately misguided.

UNVOTE: uncrowned

In post 288, Uncrowned wrote:and it's gross because you just pop in only to say that and do nothing else to progress the game, develop reads or try to do any form of solving. it reads as fake af concern to give you some easy towncred

This is fair. I was legitimately concerned though bc the last game I played on MS we had a couple days end extremely early due to quickhammer which scum claimed was miscounting votes and just a straight up troll-hammer from a townie, so I thought I'd quickly post that as I noticed it so as not to let people go 'oh, I didn't realize we were at L-1' or whatever as an excuse for quickhammering a townie.

Apologies for the absence, should have time later today.