Mafiascum.net

In post 2760, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2640, SirCakez wrote:it's not just you specifically

What team do you see peta as a part of, and why does that team have extra incentive to kill Pooky?

In post 2772, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2678, SirCakez wrote:infinity just seems so absent and uninfluential it's really weird and makes me think they are scum too

Thats kinda just how she plays ?

In post 2776, Taly wrote:The two-ended admission of bussing is very on the nose.

In post 2785, skitter30 wrote:

In post 2707, SirCakez wrote:here's a reason to vote infinity
she pops in just to drop a vote on Gypyx who randomly showed up in the last few pages and made a mistake
feels like Inf was just looking to drop a vote somewhere and picked Gyp

How are you reading gypyx?

In post 2821, unwnd wrote:You know what? Spiteful vote.

VOTE: unwnd

Hurry this shit up. Then whatever the outcome may be once you see that I'm a contestant rethink the gamestate because one of you is not being charitable. Someone asked me earlier 'what about the people who voted your slot galron' and my answer back then no longer applies. I refuse to believe a town of Skitter/Peta/Ydra/Cakez can't see that I'm not the right choice. One or even two in that group is not playing for the green team.

In post 2865, petapan wrote:yeah, nvm, cakez's response to unwnd last night is in total null territory (citation: warehouse 13), townreads for it are bad

i think the solving feels maybe genuine there but not confident at all

In post 2919, petapan wrote:

In post 2918, Infinity 324 wrote:@peta sorry i read cakez iso and came to the same conclusion as before. the towniest thing i can pinpoint is the indecisiveness on you

i feel like if anything he'd be more prone to to getting tunnely, he seemed almost too soft in his read of ceph/me

but that's not really what the basis for my read is, i'm just not hard shoving it yet

was interested in your take because you've seen him as both alignments relatively recently

In post 2927, SirCakez wrote:a team that's trying to dominate the gamestate and completely control the direction of the town
pooky is a loud voice that has to go if you want to accomplish that
so that means that scum is in the more active players

In post 2868, ulyana wrote:unwnd still at e-1 and infinity moving the default second duelist off herself onto saber

In post 2860, Saber wrote:

In post 2858, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 1918, Saber wrote:It was less about it being tactical, and more about it feeling unnatural.

My issue rn kinda lies with this comment. I feel like it’s a bit revisionist history given pushing me is no longer the in mode thing to do. Before this I distinctly recall you saying when I was switching things up it felt to you like I was scum seeing my current approach wasn’t working and trying something new. That is essentially being tactical about switching up my play. And yet you nitpick my word choice like this, it feels incredibly concerning, like you’re trying to detach yourself from the push on me you had before.

Yes, it was both. My point was that your shifts in attitude seemed unnatural, which is the main way to tell whether they're from a stagehand or contestant. It can only be theorised whether they're actually tactical because they didn't even go well for you. For example, your acting like a jester and then turning on Prism only seemed to attract more heat on you, so saying it's a stagehand tactic is iffy since you'd be actively pursuing bad tactics. I'd prefer to look at whether it was actually natural for you start acting those ways when you did.

In post 2930, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2868, ulyana wrote:unwnd still at e-1 and infinity moving the default second duelist off herself onto saber

Pretty sure my vote had already moved it?

In post 2881, ulyana wrote:

In post 2879, petapan wrote:

In post 2878, ulyana wrote:like everyone slightly moving the second duelist while not really making it clear they are is suspicious yeah? and how everyone is ignoring what happened last night from toog unwnd vote on is very very confusing

what is it you want to be acknowledged

toog votes unwnd to e-2 when toog is the most likely other duelist, then unwnd selfvotes to e-1 when toog/unwnd would be the duelists, then gamma moves the second duelist off of toogeloo while asking unwnd who second duelist should be?? which just doesn't make any sense when we are trying to have two mafias in the duel,

In post 2884, Saber wrote:I see what ulyana means. If we're aiming to get 2 stagehands inside the duel, we shouldn't be allowing 1 duelist to pick the other since a stagehand isn't going to pick another stagehand to include.

In post 2932, ulyana wrote:

In post 2930, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2868, ulyana wrote:unwnd still at e-1 and infinity moving the default second duelist off herself onto saber

Pretty sure my vote had already moved it?

nope your vote moved it from toogeloo onto infinity

In post 2934, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2932, ulyana wrote:

In post 2930, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2868, ulyana wrote:unwnd still at e-1 and infinity moving the default second duelist off herself onto saber

Pretty sure my vote had already moved it?

nope your vote moved it from toogeloo onto infinity

I don’t recall infinity having 2 votes when I did that

In post 2933, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2881, ulyana wrote:

In post 2879, petapan wrote:

In post 2878, ulyana wrote:like everyone slightly moving the second duelist while not really making it clear they are is suspicious yeah? and how everyone is ignoring what happened last night from toog unwnd vote on is very very confusing

what is it you want to be acknowledged

toog votes unwnd to e-2 when toog is the most likely other duelist, then unwnd selfvotes to e-1 when toog/unwnd would be the duelists, then gamma moves the second duelist off of toogeloo while asking unwnd who second duelist should be?? which just doesn't make any sense when we are trying to have two mafias in the duel,

In post 2884, Saber wrote:I see what ulyana means. If we're aiming to get 2 stagehands inside the duel, we shouldn't be allowing 1 duelist to pick the other since a stagehand isn't going to pick another stagehand to include.

I don’t want to put someone unwnd has no desire to flip in there with him, because as I see things he feels like town but it’s hard to justify not putting him in the duel with how he’s acted. So my philosophy is to make the move that gives him the best opportunity to reveal his own alignment if he survives. The way to do that is clearly to give him a chance at a flip he wants.

In post 2935, ulyana wrote:

In post 2934, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2932, ulyana wrote:

In post 2930, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2868, ulyana wrote:unwnd still at e-1 and infinity moving the default second duelist off herself onto saber

Pretty sure my vote had already moved it?

nope your vote moved it from toogeloo onto infinity

I don’t recall infinity having 2 votes when I did that

all of the non-unwnd parties with votes had 1 and the one on infinity was oldest

In post 2935, ulyana wrote:all of the non-unwnd parties with votes had 1 and the one on infinity was oldest

In post 2940, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2935, ulyana wrote:all of the non-unwnd parties with votes had 1 and the one on infinity was oldest

Toog had 2 though before I switched, so it was still set to Toog I think?

In post 2943, Gamma Emerald wrote:iirc how it's determined is tied wagons are resolved by which had more votes more recently
Toog going from leading at 2 to tied at 1 would still make Toog the runner-up in that scenario

how do you read unwnd/toog, anyway?

In post 2926, Morning Tweet wrote:

Plurality and seniority are in effect for both nominations.

In post 2943, Gamma Emerald wrote:iirc how it's determined is tied wagons are resolved by which had more votes more recently
Toog going from leading at 2 to tied at 1 would still make Toog the runner-up in that scenario

In post 2930, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2868, ulyana wrote:unwnd still at e-1 and infinity moving the default second duelist off herself onto saber

Pretty sure my vote had already moved it?

In post 2946, ulyana wrote:

In post 2943, Gamma Emerald wrote:iirc how it's determined is tied wagons are resolved by which had more votes more recently
Toog going from leading at 2 to tied at 1 would still make Toog the runner-up in that scenario

but also if you thought it worked this way, why did you think your vote moved it here:

In post 2930, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 2868, ulyana wrote:unwnd still at e-1 and infinity moving the default second duelist off herself onto saber

Pretty sure my vote had already moved it?

??

In post 2941, Gamma Emerald wrote:I knew what I was doing, I think you're the one who's confused about how plurality works