Mafiascum.net

In post 295, Wimpy wrote:I don't see anyone else being asked where else they have played.

that's because the rest of us don't have an account that's 2 weeks old while also claiming 200+ games under our belt

@Mena eli5 the perspective slips because I'm not seeing it rn
also that's a terrible fucking guess

In post 293, Datisi wrote:

In post 285, Datisi wrote:And like
it's not like it's just Mena BuLlYiNg you, other people are asking about your past experience as well
it's something that helps with a read on you

why are you so adamant in ignoring us about it?

In post 299, Wimpy wrote:

In post 290, Menalque wrote:Bolded what I think are the perspective slips

I thought you were able to detect tone in mafia games? how did you miss the obvious sarcasm?

wait those bolded parts were sarcasm?
oh my

In post 302, Datisi wrote:

In post 299, Wimpy wrote:

In post 290, Menalque wrote:Bolded what I think are the perspective slips

I thought you were able to detect tone in mafia games? how did you miss the obvious sarcasm?

wait those bolded parts were sarcasm?
oh my

he was accusing me of being certain when I clearly said I wasn't. of course there was some sarcasm in there.

in reality when I say somebody is probably scum, it really means the same as possibly. When I say somebody is scum, it doesn't mean I am completely certain of it. Menal has made this part of his talking points against me though so yes, those were heavily sarcastic responses and those apologies were insincere.

i mean in 53 he said "is scummy"
but right next to Mena's post is also 217 which is whooooo boy bad

and like
Meta on players isn't irrelevant
and it's broght up quite a lot on this site
like you claim you've read/played games here?

In post 304, Datisi wrote:Meta on players isn't irrelevant
and it's broght up quite a lot on this site
like you claim you've read/played games here?

yes I have heard of meta. I am not a fan of people using it and I honestly think it's a lazy way to play. There are players who can adjust they way they play. They know how to manipulate their meta to fool people. I don't endorse the use of meta

In post 304, Datisi wrote:i mean in 53 he said "is scummy"
but right next to Mena's post is also 217 which is whooooo boy bad

I don't understand why you linked these posts. There isn't anything wrong with either them imo.

i linked them so if anyone who doesn't know every post word by word in this game can click and go read them

no I got why you added the hyperlink part. what is bad about those posts?

Because you did legit say "is scummy" in 53 and like for that point I can maybe if I squint see this shitshow as a TvT pissing match

but there's also post by Mena (232) that you called misrepping

but you made post 217 which I feel is more of a misrep

hold on i'll make a meme

like I can't tell anymore
it seems like a shouting match that leads nowhere
but I can't get over the tone being off

post 53 is referring to you
mena's post 232 is a complete misrep of what has actually transpired imo
post 217 is me being asked my opinion of mena and not you so how is that a misrep?

In post 310, Datisi wrote:but I can't get over the tone being off

I still don't understand

1. how you can even detect my tone if you couldn't detect sarcasam in my tone earlier
2. what exactly about my "tone" are you having a problem with?

In post 312, Wimpy wrote:

In post 310, Datisi wrote:but I can't get over the tone being off

I still don't understand

1. how you can even detect my tone if you couldn't detect sarcasam in my tone earlier
2. what exactly about my "tone" are you having a problem with?

1) I mean you can't "not" detect tone? plus me disliking your tone when you're geneally speaking vs missing the sarcasm are two kinda different things
2) it's just the general "i have done nothing scummy" "he has no reason to SR me" "he seems to ..." way you speak keeps rubbing me the wrong way

In post 311, Wimpy wrote:post 217 is me being asked my opinion of mena and not you so how is that a misrep?

I mean just because it's not about me doesn't mean I can't say "hey i get the feeling this is misrepping"

In post 313, Datisi wrote:I mean just because it's not about me doesn't mean I can't say "hey i get the feeling this is misrepping

but 217 isn't a misrep. Not by me anyway.

In post 217, Wimpy wrote:He thinks it is weird to have a serious vote and also not be certain the person I am voting for is scum and that is not a town thought process

He basically accuses me of lying because of it. If he thinks I am lying, that is actually way worse than him thinking it is weird. So please show me where I misrepped? cause this quote really does support me.

In post 143, Menalque wrote:“Guys. It was a page 2 vote. There’s not enough evidence to suggest anyone was actually scum.”

So which time were you telling the truth?

Menal has straight up lied many times. Probably in a way to twist my words. I never said or implied the reason for my Datsi vote was because i thought she was scum. Me thinking she was possible scum came in post 67 but that was because additional things were posted that i didn't care for.



I know I can definitely find more lies but I don't really need to. Part of me wonders if he originally misunderstood what i said, but I would think after i corrected him many times he would have gone back and actually read what i said. I never ever ever ever ever ever ever said I voted datisi because I thought she was scum and menal pushing that point is deceitful and scummy.

In post 313, Datisi wrote:it's just the general "i have done nothing scummy" "he has no reason to SR me" "he seems to ..." way you speak keeps rubbing me the wrong way

but I haven't done anything scummy.

is voting you for something I perceive as scummy a scummy act in the game of mafia?

is defending myself from menal's lies scummy?

what else am I missing?

oh yeah, is me talking about burgers while scum hunting really scummy?

I say no to all of those.

btw 1993 Jack in the Box had a huge e-coli breakout and some people still to this day, myself included will never eat there because of it.

In post 94, Menalque wrote:

In post 92, Wimpy wrote:

In post 88, Menalque wrote:Oh actually maybe they are but the problem is that like the reasons don’t make any sense

That’s not my problem.

This is very much your problem bc it looks a lot like you’re calling scum with no logical reason to do so

In post 80, Menalque wrote:Yeah I think wimpy is actually scum

Let's also not overlook this.

he has a problem with me thinking Datsi is possibly and later probably scum because he doesn't think I have logical reasons for it. (Scummy entrance and scummy posts)

but he straight up calls me scum and he has not provided any reason what so ever.

In post 113, Menalque wrote:So it wasn’t serious just bc he wanted to policy dats but because he thought there was actual scum motivation there from her

This is also a lie, and putting words into my mouth. I didn't want to policy anyone and I did not say anything about scum motivation.

In post 123, Menalque wrote:So wimpy explained his thoughts but not in a way that explained why he was making a serious vote on page 2 for dats. When pushed on the logic he makes up something about her play being against the rules, when he gets closed on that he’s evasive.

He’s generally over defensive in response to being pushed, and his explanations don’t make sense.

This is also a lie.

1. I never made anything up
2. I have never once been evasive

the rest of it is just his opinion but I could easily call both of those lies.

I'll overlook the jumbled mess above tomorrow when I get some sleep

but the first part of your og reasoning for my vote was "violating site rules" - and if that why you're voting someone over, what is that if not a policy?

In post 143, Menalque wrote:“Guys. It was a page 2 vote. There’s not enough evidence to suggest anyone was actually scum.”

So which time were you telling the truth?

My take away from this, and somebody not menal correct me if I am wrong, but according to him I am not allowed to vote somebody on page 2 for being scummy AND not be sure if they are scum or not. One of those has to be a lie according to him.

In post 319, Datisi wrote:but the first part of your og reasoning for my vote was "violating site rules" - and if that why you're voting someone over, what is that if not a policy?

Policy would be - Datsi violated site rules and I am voting him

There are two additional reasons that make it not policy though.

1. I dislike when people come in and reference past games and vote them for it
2. and is scummy

I clarify later different reasons I perceive it as scummy.

I mean if you want to say i policy voted you, that's fine say I policy voted you but so what? Would that change the course of what happened? no

did I still think you were scummy for it? yes

did i think your reactions to it were scummy? yes


would menal still have lied at least 5 times? yes

This was Mena's original post, with the quote being from your 140


"there's not enough evidence to suggest anyone was scum [on page 2]" implies you cannot have a serious vote on page 2

You were also saying your page 2 vote was serious

Sorry chief the math checks out

In post 321, Wimpy wrote:1. I dislike when people come in and reference past games and vote them for it

This is still a *gasp*

And it changes things because you accuse Mena of lying when he said you were trying to policy me

So

Also please spell my name right c: