Mafiascum.net

In post 298, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 296, Slaxx wrote:I'm not going to manufacture a damn read on you. If it's that scum-indicative, shouldn't you be voting me?

I am voting you?

Do you still have no read on me?

In post 143, Kanna wrote:Did agree with this though.

In post 136, Luca Blight wrote:

Slaxx

Posts 59 - 61 all seem like reads for the sake of reads. I don't relate to any of them at all and it seems contrived.

78 is a bit weird - I thought Ame was joking about the answer key? Although I can't tell if Slaxx is being serious here himself, but he certainly seems to be taking what Ame said at face value.

In post 58, Slaxx wrote:

In post 35, DrDolittle wrote:Why is no one questioning my commitment to voting compath

Hey Ddl.

Slight town points for what seems like genuine frustration people aren’t engaging with him.

In post 60, Slaxx wrote:Icon slight town for being the first to mKe an actual substantial push

In post 61, Slaxx wrote:Don’t like #8 and #9 from compath, looks like someone who is trying to look like they want to generate content without actually putting forth effort to generate any.

In post 223, Slaxx wrote:To specify a bit, the logic doesn't feel revisionist.

I'm not for sure if I agree with it, but I believe they believe it.

I don't know if scum-DDl pushes on me out of the gate though. The most memorable game I had with him was on my lolwagons alt where I stomped scum out early, and I know was scum I wouldn't immediately push on someone the way he did. Not saying he wouldn't push on me at all,

just not for sure he goes this ham with it out the gate as scum

. So I think I feel alright about DDL now as well.

In post 225, Slaxx wrote:

In post 126, clidd wrote:

@Slaxx

What is your actual read about me, considering that I didn't put you on my list ?

VOTE: Clidd

For one, whoever said that his reads post felt wordy to obfuscate motivations, I agree.

I also don't like holding off on a read of me until I give my read on him. I feel like town would just give the read here, because I obviously had enough content to make a read on

(I think literally every on of yall scum read me by this post), or at least list as null. To me this is scum waiting for my read on them to determine how they play their next move. I'm also not for sure why my read is contingent upon him excluding me from the list, unless I cam connecting two things that aren't connected.

But what I don't like most about the ISO is 3 scum reads this early, with another person "going either way" (isnt that just null?) this along with holding off a read on me seems like someone who is really playing to keep their options open and not sort.

In post 209, Hectic wrote:trainee "trainee" trainee again!

Knight Luca's suspicious on Conniver Kanna actually have good grounds with what he can see, and is a good look for him! but Luca, the coffee questions and "Wow" are almost definitely NAI in this context

Wyvern Icon! what do you think of Demon Slayer Ame's 196? i'm surprised you had nothing to say it about it considering your earlier push and suspicion on Ame regarding her Compath read (◕ﬦ ◕✿)

In post 237, clidd wrote:

In post 231, Slaxx wrote:Also can't really describe it but Icon is giving me decent town feelz. I think my list is probably

(Ame, Compath, DDL, Icon)-Slight Town
(Luca, Kanna)-Null
(Hectic)- Slight Scum
(Clidd)- Scum

You remind me a lot of a player called Espeonage from a past game (he was

scum

).

In post 257, clidd wrote:

In post 104, Compath wrote:Clidd feels like he's trying too hard to be honest.

@Clidd - How is your Iconeum read different from the null reads you have on Luca and DDL?

Why did you basically completely ignore slaxx?

Why do you need something to "radically" change your opinion in order to not scumread Ame, despite stating that you only find them to be slightly suspicious?

Why is playing a character town-indicative for Hectic? In my opinion, it'd be scum-indicative because he gets to hide behind the character that he's playing.

What specifically did you find scummy in Kanna/my RQS answers? Did you find the fact that we quickly complied with RQS to be scummy, or something else?

1. It depends on whether I can differentiate the questioning between

Iconeum

and

Ame

, considering that it could be the beginning of a possible death tunnel, or just a different line of thought. I have seen this kind of attitude before, so I wanted to confirm that the intention, too, would be the same. Based on that, it is like a ''

Joker

'', as it can take both sides depending on the interpretation of a specific attitude, post or action.

2. There is no specific reason, considering that I forgot about him during the reasoning. I have been overloading myself recently, so it's not uncommon for this to happen. As I saw that it had happened, I thought about directing a question to him, so that I didn't have to rewrite my post and read his ISO.

3. Because it is a progressive sensation, that starts small and intensifies as the interactions happen. Already predicting this, I used the term to justify if, later, I changed my mind, through some significant post or event.

4. Well, that would mean talking about games in progress, which is forbidden, but basically it's not something normal coming from

scum!Hectic

that I expect. And, also, it seems like an activity that he is enjoying doing and demands editing time, so I believe that, in this context, it would not be used in bad faith. But, of course, it would make sense if he sought to switch to narration in order to disrupt the behavioral read of his posts, in that case, it would be up to you to judge it as bad or not.

5. In a simple way, it would be the parallel that I drew with one of my two games as scum. It was not conclusive, but intigative to promote an interaction between us, like the one that is happening right now.

In post 259, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 231, Slaxx wrote:Also can't really describe it but Icon is giving me decent town feelz. I think my list is probably

(Ame, Compath, DDL, Icon)-Slight Town
(Luca, Kanna)-Null
(Hectic)- Slight Scum
(Clidd)- Scum

It's interesting how Slaxx ignores mine and Kanna's suspicion of him and just plants us both as 'null'.

I think it's very unlikely Clidd is scum this game btw based on meta.

In post 267, Compath wrote:

In post 264, Luca Blight wrote:I played against scum!Clidd twice and he replaced out both times right at the start

Yikes...

In post 316, Luca Blight wrote:It seems a little odd how I ask you a question about Slaxx and you turn the attention onto Clidd lol

Why aren’t you voting Clidd?

In post 316, Luca Blight wrote:Why aren’t you voting Clidd?

In post 319, Luca Blight wrote:I’m fine talking about anything, it just seemed an abrupt change in direction.

Did you look at Clidd’s meta? What do you think?

In post 320, Iconeum wrote:

In post 319, Luca Blight wrote:I’m fine talking about anything, it just seemed an abrupt change in direction.

Did you look at Clidd’s meta? What do you think?

You see abrubt change, I see relevant opinion on a slot that's being talked about.

I didn't validate his meta if that's what you mean. Using something like 'player x always reps out if he's scum' is bad for a myriad of reasons:

-trust tell (explicitely against the rules)
-it ignores actual play
-it goes against what I consider to be the spirit of the game