Mafiascum.net

haha its amazing how having a few drinks in me makes me understand quick's posting more. maybe his nonsense posting is just cuz hes always drunk.

In post 281, Blair wrote:I subscribe to the bizarre notion that I can hold opinions now and actually adjust them later as the game progresses and I acquire new information.

You seem to be implying that we shouldn't be making any serious pushes now because we don't have enough information yet. I am sympathetic to that view, because we certainly don't have much information yet, but it's a bit of a catch-22 situation because... we need the serious pushes to elicit the serious reactions that procure the information we need to make more serious pushes in the first place.

So unless you're suggesting we wait until Day 2 and hope there are power roles that can solve for us, I'm going to carry on.

im not saying we shouldnt push or pressure. where did i say that? didnt i point out a number of silly things people said? here comes the hard hedge of "im sympathetic to you, but i also agree with you, but im also gonna vote for you (because you werent mean to me). if you want me to be abusive, pls slide in my dms, and i can give you what you want .

In post 290, CantHateAPuppy wrote:

In post 280, votato wrote:Or more likely, i saw it as candid and not a dig. Like i said, its too early to have the game solved. If you think you do, youre probably wrong and should reevaluate. If you still think so after reevaluating, please let me know so i can ignore your reads for the rest of the game.

"Ur looking pretty scummy"
"Hah! you haven't solved the entire game so u're wrong!"

this is not the slam dunk counter argument u seem to think it is.

hang on. let me see if i have this right.
my argument is: "no one has slam dunk arguments. its way too early."
you reply (unironically): "that isnt a slam dunk argument."


and then theres this wonderful progression:

In post 301, votato wrote:haha its amazing how having a few drinks in me makes me understand quick's posting more. maybe his nonsense posting is just cuz hes always drunk.

In post 281, Blair wrote:I subscribe to the bizarre notion that I can hold opinions now and actually adjust them later as the game progresses and I acquire new information.

You seem to be implying that we shouldn't be making any serious pushes now because we don't have enough information yet. I am sympathetic to that view, because we certainly don't have much information yet, but it's a bit of a catch-22 situation because... we need the serious pushes to elicit the serious reactions that procure the information we need to make more serious pushes in the first place.

So unless you're suggesting we wait until Day 2 and hope there are power roles that can solve for us, I'm going to carry on.

im not saying we shouldnt push or pressure. where did i say that? didnt i point out a number of silly things people said? here comes the hard hedge of "im sympathetic to you, but i also agree with you, but im also gonna vote for you (because you werent mean to me). if you want me to be abusive, pls slide in my dms, and i can give you what you want .

In post 290, CantHateAPuppy wrote:

In post 280, votato wrote:Or more likely, i saw it as candid and not a dig. Like i said, its too early to have the game solved. If you think you do, youre probably wrong and should reevaluate. If you still think so after reevaluating, please let me know so i can ignore your reads for the rest of the game.

"Ur looking pretty scummy"
"Hah! you haven't solved the entire game so u're wrong!"

this is not the slam dunk counter argument u seem to think it is.

hang on. let me see if i have this right.
my argument is: "no one has slam dunk arguments. its way too early."
you reply (unironically): "that isnt a slam dunk argument."

Spoiler: can you guess my reply to you?

that isnt a slam dunk argument.

and then theres this wonderful progression:

Spoiler:

In post 291, Nauci wrote:

In post 262, Blair wrote:

In post 261, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 259, Blair wrote:I had Votato in my low hanging fruit farmer pile as null.

Reason or gut?

When I look through his ISO, I see him jumping on lots of easy "gotchas" in all directions, all the way back to RVS, so I don't think him pushing two weak scumtells that don't fit together especially well in this particular case means he's up to something, so to speak - I think it's just how he interacts with the thread.

This was my read on it as well, and I'm thankful you articulated it better than I could have

summary: ok im gonna sheep.

In post 294, Nauci wrote:

In post 290, CantHateAPuppy wrote:

In post 280, votato wrote:Or more likely, i saw it as candid and not a dig. Like i said, its too early to have the game solved. If you think you do, youre probably wrong and should reevaluate. If you still think so after reevaluating, please let me know so i can ignore your reads for the rest of the game.

"Ur looking pretty scummy"
"Hah! you haven't solved the entire game so u're wrong!"

this is not the slam dunk counter argument u seem to think it is.

I've decided from the last 2 pages that Puppy is a good boi

And that votato is not one, but not for that whole "he didn't lash out at Blair for the extremely-mild-sort-of-criticism!" argument some people were making

Need to evaluate—is votato dismissing all of the reads contributed to this game thus far just as a knee jerk reaction to people scum reading

him alone

, or was there a major push against a 2nd scum as well?

summary: let me offer a hedge saying im not sure whether to sheep

In post 296, Nauci wrote:VOTE: votato

I think I've got my math right and this is L-2

summary: ok, ive decided to sheep but im not gonna explain why. that way if im wrong i can backtrack and say "heyyyyyyy i wasnt sure. no, ur backtracking."

for the record, the push on me is the biggest wagon so far, but it isnt the only wagon. my comment was largely directed at me, telling you all that you shouldnt put too much stock in my early game reads. it also applies to you all though, see my signature. my meta is to throw a lot of shit at the wall to see if any of it tastes good. quick can confirm.

Quick, it would be enormously helpful if you would spend less time trying to cultivate your "WoOoOo I'm SuCh A mYsTeRiOuS eNiGmA" meta for future games and more time trying to help us find scum in this one.

In post 303, Blair wrote:Quick, it would be enormously helpful if you would spend less time trying to cultivate your "WoOoOo I'm SuCh A mYsTeRiOuS eNiGmA" meta for future games and more time trying to help us find scum in this one.

Or you can just be Scum. That too.

In post 303, Blair wrote:Quick, it would be enormously helpful if you would spend less time trying to cultivate your "WoOoOo I'm SuCh A mYsTeRiOuS eNiGmA" meta for future games and more time trying to help us find scum in this one.

^Agree

votato, you still pretty solid in that Atarashi vote?

sum up for me what you've learned in terms of reads from the wagon on you.

In post 305, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 303, Blair wrote:Quick, it would be enormously helpful if you would spend less time trying to cultivate your "WoOoOo I'm SuCh A mYsTeRiOuS eNiGmA" meta for future games and more time trying to help us find scum in this one.

^Agree

It's okay because the lynchbait you are voting understands me.

I am not trying to be cryptic, I just see what I post as obvious.

Basically, VP voting for votato tells us nothing and I don't know why he is pushing that. That should be pretty clear at this point if you ISO + votato.

In post 264, Quick wrote:@VP, how do we know you are not pushing miss lynch bait?

In post 266, Quick wrote:Just for donkey:

In post 270, Quick wrote:

In post 269, Blair wrote:Ok, so... I antagonized him in 258 and 259 and he chose to see past that and agree with a more nuanced interpretation of what I said as a defense of himself.

Honestly, I expected him to lash out at me the way he lashed out at Puppy.

VOTE: Votato

Now that you've demonstrated you only reach for low hanging fruit sometimes, I'm liking Puppy's case more.

Thoughts?

Okay...

VOTE: Blair

Feel free to ask me for my reasoning.

Cuz I hate this vote more than VP's.

In post 306, VP Baltar wrote:votato, you still pretty solid in that Atarashi vote?

sum up for me what you've learned in terms of reads from the wagon on you.

i've learned that i dont care for your playstyle. you havent really contributed any thoughts of your own so far. but meh, maybe you will later. like i say, its a bit early for original thoughts.
ive learned that blair shifts her vote with wherever she anticipates the wind blowing next. very opportunistic, very wishy-washy.
ive learned that atarashi disappears when the pressure is on.

my atarashi vote stays at least until atarashi reappears in thread and starts talking. unless something really fun happens.

In post 297, Quick wrote:I low key want to TR Nauci for being active.

Does this not apply to the other people who have been active for ~reasons~?

It's amusing that Blair has different levels of helpfulness.

In post 301, votato wrote:summary: ok, ive decided to sheep but im not gonna explain why. that way if im wrong i can backtrack and say "heyyyyyyy i wasnt sure. no, ur backtracking."

My reasoning was explained in the comment which you did NOT quote; I didn't vote until I had time to go back and count the votes to figure out what the vote totals were since the last count.

NoPowerOverMe wrote:It's amusing that Blair has different levels of helpfulness.

I suppose you're referring to my "enormously helpful" comment?

I find it equally amusing that other people might not.

In post 311, Nauci wrote:

In post 297, Quick wrote:I low key want to TR Nauci for being active.

Does this not apply to the other people who have been active for ~reasons~?

I don't think I know those reasons. If you are talking about Blair, then I can buy that, but I cannot buy that for donkey at this point.

In post 301, votato wrote:summary: ok im gonna sheep.

summary: let me offer a hedge saying im not sure whether to sheep

summary: ok, ive decided to sheep but im not gonna explain why. that way if im wrong i can backtrack and say "heyyyyyyy i wasnt sure. no, ur backtracking."

This is such a wrong take on my train of thought, intentionally or not.

I had the same reaction as Blair did to your interactions which led to the fuck you moment, but I clearly had a very bad reaction to your response to Blair where you really latched onto her excuse for you. My post about whether or not there was a second scum was outright saying that if that post makes you scum, then are your posts implying that you were trying to dismiss a legitimate push against your scum partner.

-50 DKP for this post as well

In post 307, Quick wrote:I am not trying to be cryptic, I just see what I post as obvious.

Basically, VP voting for votato tells us nothing and I don't know why he is pushing that. That should be pretty clear at this point if you ISO + votato.

I can understand holding some cards back at times. Nothing wrong with that as town. In fact, I do think you're town. My point is more about don't let the gamesmanship get in the way of the game.

As far as why I'm voting votato. I think I've been fairly clear actually. The flailing under pressure and jumping to unfounded conclusions feels more novice scum to me than town. (though admittedly, this is a gut based on experience. if I had to quantify, I'd say I'm 65% sure he's scum). I strongly believe there is also merit in creating an issue where people have to take sides. Yesterday, there was like 9 pages of fairly inconclusive scum hunting...so I thought I'd step in and offer something that focuses the conversation more.

p-edit

votato wrote:i've learned that i dont care for your playstyle.

and previously on....

Puppy wrote:VP looks a little prickly

It's hard for a playa out here.

In post 303, Blair wrote:Quick, it would be enormously helpful if you would spend less time trying to cultivate your "WoOoOo I'm SuCh A mYsTeRiOuS eNiGmA" meta for future games and more time trying to help us find scum in this one.

In my experience with Quick and trying to read his past games to figure out his meta for said previous game with Quick, he's never really intentionally being enigmatic. It's more like his trains of thought are very different from any that I've ever had, they make total sense to him, but he only ever says such a small portion of his thoughts out loud that all I ever surmise about his theories is ?????

In post 317, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 307, Quick wrote:I am not trying to be cryptic, I just see what I post as obvious.

Basically, VP voting for votato tells us nothing and I don't know why he is pushing that. That should be pretty clear at this point if you ISO + votato.

I can understand holding some cards back at times. Nothing wrong with that as town. In fact, I do think you're town. My point is more about don't let the gamesmanship get in the way of the game.

As far as why I'm voting votato. I think I've been fairly clear actually. The flailing under pressure and jumping to unfounded conclusions feels more novice scum to me than town. (though admittedly, this is a gut based on experience. if I had to quantify, I'd say I'm 65% sure he's scum). I strongly believe there is also merit in creating an issue where people have to take sides. Yesterday, there was like 9 pages of fairly inconclusive scum hunting...so I thought I'd step in and offer something that focuses the conversation more.

Ur votato vote was originall from RVS, now it sounds like it's semi-serious and based off some of the case i made

Can u elaborate on the exact moment when u decided this was for u a serious vote?

In post 317, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 307, Quick wrote:I am not trying to be cryptic, I just see what I post as obvious.

Basically, VP voting for votato tells us nothing and I don't know why he is pushing that. That should be pretty clear at this point if you ISO + votato.

I can understand holding some cards back at times. Nothing wrong with that as town. In fact, I do think you're town. My point is more about don't let the gamesmanship get in the way of the game.

As far as why I'm voting votato. I think I've been fairly clear actually. The flailing under pressure and jumping to unfounded conclusions feels more novice scum to me than town. (though admittedly, this is a gut based on experience. if I had to quantify, I'd say I'm 65% sure he's scum). I strongly believe there is also merit in creating an issue where people have to take sides. Yesterday, there was like 9 pages of fairly inconclusive scum hunting...so I thought I'd step in and offer something that focuses the conversation more.

p-edit

votato wrote:i've learned that i dont care for your playstyle.

and previously on....

Puppy wrote:VP looks a little prickly

It's hard for a playa out here.

which is it? are you 65% sure that I'm scum, or were you just trying to generate discussion? i dont think it can be both in terms of the reasoning in your head. if you think im scum then you wouldnt need to try to generate discussion, because the discussion would come naturally from your genuine push on me.

In post 318, Nauci wrote:

In post 303, Blair wrote:Quick, it would be enormously helpful if you would spend less time trying to cultivate your "WoOoOo I'm SuCh A mYsTeRiOuS eNiGmA" meta for future games and more time trying to help us find scum in this one.

In my experience with Quick and trying to read his past games to figure out his meta for said previous game with Quick, he's never really intentionally being enigmatic. It's more like his trains of thought are very different from any that I've ever had, they make total sense to him, but he only ever says such a small portion of his thoughts out loud that all I ever surmise about his theories is ?????

Good read, well played. Still noting the pocket attempt though.

Quick you should rename to Quicksotic

In post 322, Nauci wrote:Quick you should rename to Quicksotic

Too many characters to refer to myself in the 3rd person.

In post 319, CantHateAPuppy wrote:Ur votato vote was originall from RVS

Well that's not true. You were my RVS vote.

Can u elaborate on the exact moment when u decided this was for u a serious vote?

I have, but happy to repeat myself. My vote on him happened here:

In post 74, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 59, votato wrote:

In post 58, Blair wrote:VOTE: Puppy

Be advised, I have exited RVS.

in that case: justification? hopping on a wagon without justification post RVS seems bad

*Checks vote count before this*

A wagon you say?

unvote: puppy
Vote: votato

And my reasoning was him accusing Blair of jumping on a Puppy "wagon"...which was just my RVS vote (see above). It wasn't a wagon. Felt like a scummy way to characterize it at the time, so I moved my vote. Since then, I've gained some good reads by continuing push people and votato to take more concrete positions.

p-edit:

votato wrote:are you 65% sure that I'm scum, or were you just trying to generate discussion?

both

if you think im scum then you wouldnt need to try to generate discussion, because the discussion would come naturally from your genuine push on me.

If I just barreled for your lynch as fast as possible, I certainly gain less information about where people stand than if I methodically ask people for their positions on you.

Would you, or anyone, disagree that the votato wagon has created more concrete information in this game than other wagons to this point?