Mafiascum.net

In post 297, navigatorv wrote:

In post 272, NinjaStore wrote:

In post 258, navigatorv wrote:What I can do though is put my money where my mouth is. I have a proposition that I'd like to make. I understand if you don't want to risk potentially falling into a mafia trap, so I'll stay silent on it if you'd prefer not to hear it, but if you're willing to hear me out, I'd gladly share, even if the consensus turns out to be a "no".

I'm curious. Shoot.

So we have about 3 days until the deadline for voting. While it seems like things have been narrowed down, we still don't have a consensus on who to vote for. My proposition is this: if we can't narrow it down so that the majority of town agrees on one person by 12 hours before the deadline, everyone eliminates me. Even though you wouldn't be eliminating scum, you'd still have a higher chance of finding scum on later days which is still a net gain.
Now obviously if I'm scum I could use this opportunity to try and convince everyone to vote for one of the three prime suspects, so if town agrees to this, I'll stop posting unless someone specifically requests a response from me.

I'm not doing this.
Why are you so willing to get yourself killed?

In post 297, navigatorv wrote:So we have about 3 days until the deadline for voting. While it seems like things have been narrowed down, we still don't have a consensus on who to vote for. My proposition is this: if we can't narrow it down so that the majority of town agrees on one person by 12 hours before the deadline, everyone eliminates me. Even though you wouldn't be eliminating scum, you'd still have a higher chance of finding scum on later days which is still a net gain.
Now obviously if I'm scum I could use this opportunity to try and convince everyone to vote for one of the three prime suspects, so if town agrees to this, I'll stop posting unless someone specifically requests a response from me.

i'd rather the day closes to where it naturally would be. it's in these self-motivated choices that gives us the most information. no arranged eliminations please. there's no information gained from that.

can you please explain the motivation for this post? Is it only "Even though you wouldn't be eliminating scum, you'd still have a higher chance of finding scum on later days which is still a net gain" ?

I'd prefer a no elim over killing off a neutral. A certain person is giving me Neighbour/Cop vibes

Responses in green
[quote="In post 283, JamesTheNames"]


~~~~~~~




~~~~~~~

Her back and forth with HEM continued for some time and when he asked her what she thought was a scum move, she basically described his playing style yet didn't vote for him implying either that she still found Micc more suspicious or that who she votes for doesn't truly matter to her.


~~~~~~~~





~~~~~~~~

-His read on Dum has him begin with saying he understood the reason for Dum's gambit, but then he got confused as to why he voted for Micc during it (despite voting for Micc literally being the key point of the trap, without which it wouldn't have worked in any capacity).


~~~~~~~~




~~~~~~~~~
After this Jackson pointed out a very important detail (that he made no comment about them voting for his slot) which he responded to by more or less dodging the question and asking why Jackson hadn't voted for me or Dum instead.


~~~~~~~~

The next notable post was his analysis which defended me, but put focus on Micc and HEM for his "not so townie" (the closest he had to scum) reads. Despite putting Micc there, he proceeded to defend him to some extent, but then proceeded to vote for him as part of a trap. My guess would be that he didn't actually believe most of the scum related things he said about Micc and was more trying to distance himself to help his gambit work out better.

+2 town points to navgatorv for the post above.

In post 303, humaneatingmonkey wrote:can you please explain the motivation for this post? Is it only "Even though you wouldn't be eliminating scum, you'd still have a higher chance of finding scum on later days which is still a net gain" ?

I was thinking of ways to convince NS that I'm town and noticed that people still thought I was afraid to be eliminated. So I thought this might be the best way to do that. It wouldn't be beneficial for scum to try (unless it was some sort of WIFOM which doesn't seem super useful in a game with so many newcomers) and still avoids no-elim which most here (plus the wiki) agrees is worse than eliminating town.

In post 301, JamesTheNames wrote: I'm not doing this.
Why are you so willing to get yourself killed?

That's fine, like I said, everyone's free to say no.
As for why I'm so willing, it's not that I actively want to be eliminated. Quite the opposite actually. I just know that this is a game of information and trust. Since our information is limited and there's few ways to gain more at this stage, gaining trust is the best I could think to do to help us.

i really think navigatorv is town

In post 251, Fizz Raab wrote:And you are wrong if you think I'm scum when I've been way more helpful than HumanEatingMonkey has.

what's your big contribution

22
Random Vote
27
Random enquiry as to whether someone has played on a different site
36
Votes Micc for what she believed to be stretching in the first 2 pages of the game.
37
Grammar Correction
53
Giving town cred to Navigatorv for a post she liked
82
Sarcastic comment, explains idleness, asking why agreeing beckons suspicion.

83
JacksonVirgo says why they sus Salsabil.

I am not sussing you because you responded/town-read someone that has the same thoughts, I am just saying that's ALL you're responding to.

306
Dum does the same thing. It'll be interesting to see how JacksonVirgo explains how that is any different to what Salsabil did, considering Dum had a 151 post gap, with more than 4 days worth of content, compared to Salsabil with a 16 post gap, and less than 12 hours. We already know they won't answer this and will avoid it because they've been doing it all game and Dum is their scum buddy. We move on.

83

That sarcasm doesn't help your case, in fact it makes me more confident.

In terms of sarcasm or tone, 251, 89 and 248.

In post 202, JacksonVirgo wrote:For fuck sake you can't be this dense. I am voting because of the intentions/tone behind their content not the content itself. Now stop fucking misrepresenting me I swear to fucking god

Oof look at that edginess.

Salsabil's first post, not scummy it is just RVS. Salsabil's second post, not scummy, just a random enquiry. Salsabil's third post, voting for RVSing too hard, not scummy. Salsabil's fourth post, EBWOP. Salsabil's fifth post, agreeing with someone, also not scummy. Salsabil's sixth post, sarcasm and saying agreeing isn't scummy, this is also not scummy unless if you're JacksonVirgo, then it is very scummy.
Let's say the issue was agreeing with someone, 42. 271. 306
These are all with the idea of "town points".
You also have all of the instances of HumanEatingMonkey saying they agree with things or disagree with things. Dum also blindly said they agreed with Navigatorv.
So clearly saying you agree isn't an issue, unless JacksonVirgo is a hypocrite but I don't think they are.
The issue is that it is all they responded to then.
Between her 3rd/4th and 5th posts, 16 posts had been made.
She responded to 1 of them, a bunch of them were fluff such as 49.
I wonder how many JacksonVirgo responded to, considering they're being picky on how much Salsabil responded to.
It is 2 if you were wondering.
Their response to 51 is trivial.
Their response to 38 is same as what Salsabil did in 53, but disagreeing.

It is almost like what I said here:

In post 189, JamesTheNames wrote:All of the pressure from a vote with no sustanence or logic forces me to respond to it.

is correct.

So NavigatorV considering:

In post 305, navigatorv wrote:Again, just because you will vote because you find someone suspicious doesn't mean others will do the same; it's pretty clear that Jackson only votes on who they think is scum, not just anyone they find suspicious.

How about you try and justify how a single instance of sarcasm, agreeing with somebody, and not replying much whilst being busy, would justify JacksonVirgo seeing Salsabil as a scum read instead of just a gut feel.
Additionally, what would you do NavigatorV?
You have suspicions of 2 people, one of them is afk one of them isn't. You can get pressure from one of them, get content from one of them, further develop your reads on one of them, if you end up thinking this person is town, you can go back to the original person. Would you waste time voting on the busy not responding person, or the one you get content from?
Furthermore, if you were suspicious of 2 people, and you decided to stay on the one you got no content from, wasting time and pressure in a very effective manner, would you then try and convince other people to do the voting for you?
Let's say you did this ^. Why would you do this? Distancing? To stay off the wagon? To pretend like you're having an impact and to hide so you don't get spotlight on you?
Of course this is entirely hypothetical and nobody has done this this game.

I don't understand why I actually have to explain how a read off of tone, sarcasm, lack of responding due to life, and the act of agreeing with a single statement is a valid Scum read.
I look forward to your explanation NavigatorV.
If you can somehow explain how any of that makes sense, and isn't hypocritical, I'll admit I'm wrong, and I'll stop chasing after JacksonVirgo.
Until then.

My. Vote. Is. Not. Moving.

Ugh, being placed as scum for no reason whatsoever is pretty stupid if you ask me with no clear evidence of my posts at all. What do I see is scum is someone doing one line posts without any contribution and it seems like the only time he has made more than one line posts is when I called humaneatingmonkey on it. Let's see you do more than that dude. Obviously, I don't see Jackson scum at all with his helpful posts. I don't know if you noticed humaneatingmonkey, but I'm not good at understanding posts sometimes. It takes me a while to fully get it. I have nobody else apart from you that speaks out as scum just at this minute. I have to go through all the posts to clarify a few more posts that aren't scum posts to me.

In post 297, navigatorv wrote:

In post 272, NinjaStore wrote:

In post 258, navigatorv wrote:What I can do though is put my money where my mouth is. I have a proposition that I'd like to make. I understand if you don't want to risk potentially falling into a mafia trap, so I'll stay silent on it if you'd prefer not to hear it, but if you're willing to hear me out, I'd gladly share, even if the consensus turns out to be a "no".

I'm curious. Shoot.

So we have about 3 days until the deadline for voting. While it seems like things have been narrowed down, we still don't have a consensus on who to vote for. My proposition is this: if we can't narrow it down so that the majority of town agrees on one person by 12 hours before the deadline, everyone eliminates me. Even though you wouldn't be eliminating scum, you'd still have a higher chance of finding scum on later days which is still a net gain.
Now obviously if I'm scum I could use this opportunity to try and convince everyone to vote for one of the three prime suspects, so if town agrees to this, I'll stop posting unless someone specifically requests a response from me.

Hm this post right here changes everything. Why would you admit about everyone eliminating you just because you think people will agree on you being scum. But it's funny you claim me as scum when you have no evidence of it. This right here speaks complete volumes with how nobody is speaking scum from this post and even hinting if you are scum. I don't know why you're coming out with this post that isn't something any player would say. So maybe I'll put you in the scum list as well just from this post alone.

In post 310, JamesTheNames wrote:22
Random Vote
27
Random enquiry as to whether someone has played on a different site
36
Votes Micc for what she believed to be stretching in the first 2 pages of the game.
37
Grammar Correction
53
Giving town cred to Navigatorv for a post she liked
82
Sarcastic comment, explains idleness, asking why agreeing beckons suspicion.

83
JacksonVirgo says why they sus Salsabil.

I am not sussing you because you responded/town-read someone that has the same thoughts, I am just saying that's ALL you're responding to.

306
Dum does the same thing. It'll be interesting to see how JacksonVirgo explains how that is any different to what Salsabil did, considering Dum had a 151 post gap, with more than 4 days worth of content, compared to Salsabil with a 16 post gap, and less than 12 hours. We already know they won't answer this and will avoid it because they've been doing it all game and Dum is their scum buddy. We move on.

83

That sarcasm doesn't help your case, in fact it makes me more confident.

In terms of sarcasm or tone, 251, 89 and 248.

In post 202, JacksonVirgo wrote:For fuck sake you can't be this dense. I am voting because of the intentions/tone behind their content not the content itself. Now stop fucking misrepresenting me I swear to fucking god

Oof look at that edginess.

Salsabil's first post, not scummy it is just RVS. Salsabil's second post, not scummy, just a random enquiry. Salsabil's third post, voting for RVSing too hard, not scummy. Salsabil's fourth post, EBWOP. Salsabil's fifth post, agreeing with someone, also not scummy. Salsabil's sixth post, sarcasm and saying agreeing isn't scummy, this is also not scummy unless if you're JacksonVirgo, then it is very scummy.
Let's say the issue was agreeing with someone, 42. 271. 306
These are all with the idea of "town points".
You also have all of the instances of HumanEatingMonkey saying they agree with things or disagree with things. Dum also blindly said they agreed with Navigatorv.
So clearly saying you agree isn't an issue, unless JacksonVirgo is a hypocrite but I don't think they are.
The issue is that it is all they responded to then.
Between her 3rd/4th and 5th posts, 16 posts had been made.
She responded to 1 of them, a bunch of them were fluff such as 49.
I wonder how many JacksonVirgo responded to, considering they're being picky on how much Salsabil responded to.
It is 2 if you were wondering.
Their response to 51 is trivial.
Their response to 38 is same as what Salsabil did in 53, but disagreeing.

It is almost like what I said here:

In post 189, JamesTheNames wrote:All of the pressure from a vote with no sustanence or logic forces me to respond to it.

is correct.

So NavigatorV considering:

In post 305, navigatorv wrote:Again, just because you will vote because you find someone suspicious doesn't mean others will do the same; it's pretty clear that Jackson only votes on who they think is scum, not just anyone they find suspicious.

How about you try and justify how a single instance of sarcasm, agreeing with somebody, and not replying much whilst being busy, would justify JacksonVirgo seeing Salsabil as a scum read instead of just a gut feel.
Additionally, what would you do NavigatorV?
You have suspicions of 2 people, one of them is afk one of them isn't. You can get pressure from one of them, get content from one of them, further develop your reads on one of them, if you end up thinking this person is town, you can go back to the original person. Would you waste time voting on the busy not responding person, or the one you get content from?
Furthermore, if you were suspicious of 2 people, and you decided to stay on the one you got no content from, wasting time and pressure in a very effective manner, would you then try and convince other people to do the voting for you?
Let's say you did this ^. Why would you do this? Distancing? To stay off the wagon? To pretend like you're having an impact and to hide so you don't get spotlight on you?
Of course this is entirely hypothetical and nobody has done this this game.

I don't understand why I actually have to explain how a read off of tone, sarcasm, lack of responding due to life, and the act of agreeing with a single statement is a valid Scum read.
I look forward to your explanation NavigatorV.
If you can somehow explain how any of that makes sense, and isn't hypocritical, I'll admit I'm wrong, and I'll stop chasing after JacksonVirgo.
Until then.

My. Vote. Is. Not. Moving.

This feels like you're trying very hard, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to look at this through the lens of a townie.

In regards to Jackson's reason for voting Salsa, it's important to note that while yes, many people have just posted that they've agreed or disagreed, Salsa's focuses exclusively on a post that backs up the vote she just made. That in and of itself isn't necessarily scum, but makes more sense to follow than someone just being overly apologetic. On top of that, their question

In post 74, JacksonVirgo wrote:You don't have anythign else to post about other than those which is "backing up" your own vote in a sense?

really isn't sarcastic like you seem to think. Asking if a post has anything else aside from aiding the wagon you're apart of seems like a perfectly legitimate question to me.
In addition, Salsa posted six times before quitting. Of those six times, only two of them actually offered something of value for the game (her vote for Micc based on finding his post a stretch and her asking for clarification from Jackson). Considering that of those two, one of them was jumping onto a bandwagon and the other showed what is, in my opinion, unreasonable hostility over a single vote, it's not hard to see why Jackson saw them as potential scum.
As for whether or not they'll respond to Dum, I can't really say, considering they live in Australia according to their bio and as such there are a number of posts that may grab their attention more before they're available. I'd appreciate if they did, but I won't act like them missing one post in a sea of many means anything.

Can you explain why you suddenly switched to focusing on Fizz Raab out of nowhere then immediately switched back to Jackson? I assume you're trying to point out a place where Jackson could've tone-read someone as scum, but I can't really tell because you offered no explanation before or after.

Also, care to explain how you went from "unless JacksonVirgo is a hypocrite but I don't think they are" to "If you can somehow explain how any of that makes sense, and isn't hypocritical, I'll admit I'm wrong, and I'll stop chasing after JacksonVirgo" in one post? Do you think they're a hypocrite or don't you?

As for making sense of their decision to keep their vote on Salsa rather than moving to Dum, you're asking the person who voted once and then didn't move their vote until four days later after requiring a lot of convincing. Some people just require more evidence to change their minds than others. As for "convincing others vote for them" thing, that would imply that they encouraged others to vote for their choice, yet not once did they try to direct anyone towards Salsa. They encouraged orctin and I to vote if we felt as strongly as we did, but even then they didn't seem intent on trying to get us to go in a specific direction, they just explained that voicing intent without doing anything about it was no different than just staying silent.

Now then, let's go into your hypothetical situation. Right off the bat there's a problem because it assumes that the suspicions on both people are equal. Jackson made it very clear that they found Salsa scummy while Dum was merely potentially suspicious. Going off of what I did do in a similar situation (100), I likely wouldn't have voted for any of them and waited to see (I should note that there is a difference in that Jackson only had to pick between two while I had three and my suspicion was much more even between them than Jackson's implied about theirs). In that case, am I just waiting for others to do the vote so I don't have to or distancing myself? Or am I just playing cautiously?
Maybe they were waiting to see if Salsa would post and wanted to see if their vote still left any pressure on her. Maybe Dum never crossed into full on scum territory for them for whatever reason. Maybe they just plain didn't even think to change their vote since they were focused on reading people. Any of these could be just as possible as them and Dum being scum buddies.

I don't know if any of this has convinced you and I only bring it up because you asked for a response from me directly. However, assuming you are, in fact, town, I'd definitely encourage you to try more flexible thinking. Never allowing yourself any doubt in your own theories is more than likely to lead you down the wrong trail eventually.

In post 311, Fizz Raab wrote:Ugh, being placed as scum for no reason whatsoever is pretty stupid if you ask me with no clear evidence of my posts at all. What do I see is scum is someone doing one line posts without any contribution and it seems like the only time he has made more than one line posts is when I called humaneatingmonkey on it. Let's see you do more than that dude. Obviously, I don't see Jackson scum at all with his helpful posts. I don't know if you noticed humaneatingmonkey, but I'm not good at understanding posts sometimes. It takes me a while to fully get it. I have nobody else apart from you that speaks out as scum just at this minute. I have to go through all the posts to clarify a few more posts that aren't scum posts to me.

There's actually quite a bit against you imo. I've already outlined how and why your posts could be construed as scummy and the only defense you have for it is "but look at HEM!". If you really think HEM is scum, explain exactly how their posts are scummy besides them being short.
(Also, HEM has actually made several posts that were more than one line, it sounds like you need to go back and re-read the parts of the thread that don't just involve you because this is factually wrong)

In post 312, Fizz Raab wrote:

In post 297, navigatorv wrote:

In post 272, NinjaStore wrote:

In post 258, navigatorv wrote:What I can do though is put my money where my mouth is. I have a proposition that I'd like to make. I understand if you don't want to risk potentially falling into a mafia trap, so I'll stay silent on it if you'd prefer not to hear it, but if you're willing to hear me out, I'd gladly share, even if the consensus turns out to be a "no".

I'm curious. Shoot.

So we have about 3 days until the deadline for voting. While it seems like things have been narrowed down, we still don't have a consensus on who to vote for. My proposition is this: if we can't narrow it down so that the majority of town agrees on one person by 12 hours before the deadline, everyone eliminates me. Even though you wouldn't be eliminating scum, you'd still have a higher chance of finding scum on later days which is still a net gain.
Now obviously if I'm scum I could use this opportunity to try and convince everyone to vote for one of the three prime suspects, so if town agrees to this, I'll stop posting unless someone specifically requests a response from me.

Hm this post right here changes everything. Why would you admit about everyone eliminating you just because you think people will agree on you being scum. But it's funny you claim me as scum when you have no evidence of it. This right here speaks complete volumes with how nobody is speaking scum from this post and even hinting if you are scum. I don't know why you're coming out with this post that isn't something any player would say. So maybe I'll put you in the scum list as well just from this post alone.

I never said everyone agreed on me being scum. I admitted there was a place where potential scum might use this to their benefit and offered ways to prevent that from being used.
Again, you completely ignored the numerous places where your behavior read as potentially scummy to me and only deflect rather than offer a legitimate defense.
I do ask why you say that this post is something town would never write? What makes you so certain?
Additionally, if I'm scummy enough for you to tell me this, why not vote for me? We've gone through multiple times in this thread how intent without voting is meaningless, so why avoid putting pressure on me?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to see town from your posts, I really am, but you aren't helping your case at all Fizz.

Ayyyy ima read now

Should be a relatively quick catchup post.

Hi I'm Johnny I'm an SE (which stands for sexy endividual) and I'm here to just play like regular. If I come off a preachy or condescending please know I mean no offense, I love this game and wanna help you enjoy it.

Hi JV!

Ok maybe not I have to cook dinner. Here's pages 1 and 2

In post 15, Micc wrote:

In post 12, navigatorv wrote:Not a lot of info to go on. From the brief look around the forum, it seems like most people aren't a fan of RQS and I get the feeling no vote is a good way to be the first elimination lol I guess if I have to pick, I'll go for the first voter (sorry, but I agree with your guess at least)

VOTE: Micc

This reads pretty awkward.

If you find RQS useful, then give it a try. Even if people ignore it that’s something you can read into.

More significant imo: you imply that not putting a vote down would you look suspicious, but you ignore another player who did that and instead vote for me. Is my vote coming down first even more suspicious than orctin not voting in their first post?

Hard agree here

In post 23, NinjaStore wrote:VOTE: orctin He's being suspiciously helpful...

Eh? He's posted two jokes?

In post 29, NinjaStore wrote:I played a few times on SA, and I'm not all that familiar with how things are different here. But I haven't played any mafia in a few years.

What does SA stand for? I also played on a SA, wondering if it's the same one

In post 38, orctin wrote:

In post 35, Micc wrote: I think orctin is at least somewhat responsible for our game’s underwhelming start since he demonstrated understanding that a certain amount of aggressiveness is good for moving the game along, but still chose to make a second RVS vote instead of being aggressive.

Actually no, it created a very tense and unpleasant game as the main antagonist was singular minded, and didn't listen to much in counter discussions but just called most people scum who went against them, the attacked the player more after they claimed a PR role basically being forced to out themselves in frustration, and after 8 days of day 1, when we finally ended the day - the player was wrong and cost us one of our town PR day 1 - Luckily a few of us managed to play our own game, and town won day 2. Jackson knows, he was part of the game.

I am not an aggressive player, i prefer to watch more, see where people go and look for connections - and right now Micc you seem to just be throwing a vote out there so you can basically say you did, no real reason behind it except to vote for me because i'm not aggressive enough for you? Seems pretty weak logic there. That is the fun part of this game, so many different personalities all come together.

Was it rationalmadman in your other game?

In post 44, NinjaStore wrote:

In post 41, Micc wrote:

In post 39, NinjaStore wrote:Micc taking orctin to E-2 this early on day 1, when he already has two joke votes, is fishy. All it would take to eliminate orctin at this point is one inexperienced player following his example and one other scum vote.

I’m going to stop you right there, and ask you to think about what our goal as a Town is and how we win the game.

In this scenario, wouldn’t you have just found scum? You did confidently name someone scum without any clarifier. Sure, its trading town lives for scum, but it’s a good trade in the grand scheme of things, especially if any Town PRs survive the exchange.

I don’t think it’s strong play to be worried about E-2 wagons in a game of this size. As long as everyone has the understanding that Town never hammers without a claim under any circumstance, nothing can go wrong.

This entire post is scummy. It sounds like you're advocating for eliminating someone at random and that it will probably work out.

Is having a scumread on someone worth nothing? I hardly call it "at random"

In post 46, Dum wrote:I dont like anything about that Bandwagon, i dont think the scumread is solid enought to have 3 votes being put on it that fast, especially considering the first vote was a reaction test. I REALLY dislike how fast votes 2 and 3 hopped on that, and i think at least 1 scum voted that. Also ther person i voted for still hasant talked so either they are unaware the game start, unable to play the game yesterday for whatever reason, or just mega scummy for coasting along a entire day

So the first two votes are jokes and that means vote number three, not a joke, is the problem? If anything the real vote is the good one imo

Moving to a fast and loose catchup style so I can post while cooking

P3:
I like monkey entrance.

Fizz expecting logic or if everyone is going to cause you frustration on this site. There are some top notch gut players. There are also some people who use logic that goes wayyyyyyy over my head

Orc not getting up in arms about me being at e-1 is interesting

JV here got my heart all aflutter

P4:
I agree with monkeys fizz vote, though am less confident about it. Still would have sheeped at the time.

And then fizz gets SUPER defensive. Wild.

Jacko and Monkey going back and forth did nothing for me

P5:
Navy coming at JV with a baby associative is really neat to see. It's wrong, but I like where their head's at. Doesn't comment on fizz, tho.

Dum muses the idea that micc is a pr, among other things, then votes him anyway. I think this vote is both well thought out and weak, which to me sounds like town. @dum in the future, don't call out if you think someone's a PR, we don't want to tip scum off

Oh Orc tried to hammer

Stopping here for a minute.

I've caught up on reading the recent activity but still need to parse it a bit. As for questions directed at me:

In post 319, JohnnyFarrar wrote: What does SA stand for? I also played on a SA, wondering if it's the same one

In post 288, JamesTheNames wrote: First thing, this one is just entirely out of curiosity. What don't you like about early E-2s?

A few years ago I played a few games on Something Awful. They were usually larger games with 24-48 hour days. I'm trying to adjust to much longer days, and figured we're best off playing out most of the time limit we have so enough discussion can happen to get reads on people. Putting someone at E-2 when barely any of that time has elapsed yet and we're still in a semi-joke phase seemed dangerous to me - it could have ended the day very early and denied us information. Seems like something scum would want to happen.

In post 288, JamesTheNames wrote: Second thing, can you point out between 241 and 271 what post or argument made you switch from Nav to Micc?

It was simply because Nav made an effortpost analyzing people in a lot of detail. We're supposed to be scumhunting, after all. Micc and Dum were already on my radar, and it was a tossup which one to put a vote on. I went with Micc since I still don't like his early E-2 vote.

In post 319, JohnnyFarrar wrote:

In post 23, NinjaStore wrote:VOTE: orctin He's being suspiciously helpful...

Eh? He's posted two jokes?

That was my initial joke vote with appropriately flimsy justification. I hoping that having some people at two votes would get some discussion going. I wasn't expecting anyone to drop a third vote on Orctin so quickly, so it got my attention when Micc did that.

In post 321, NinjaStore wrote:I've caught up on reading the recent activity but still need to parse it a bit. As for questions directed at me:

In post 319, JohnnyFarrar wrote: What does SA stand for? I also played on a SA, wondering if it's the same one

In post 288, JamesTheNames wrote: First thing, this one is just entirely out of curiosity. What don't you like about early E-2s?

A few years ago I played a few games on Something Awful. They were usually larger games with 24-48 hour days. I'm trying to adjust to much longer days, and figured we're best off playing out most of the time limit we have so enough discussion can happen to get reads on people. Putting someone at E-2 when barely any of that time has elapsed yet and we're still in a semi-joke phase seemed dangerous to me - it could have ended the day very early and denied us information. Seems like something scum would want to happen.

In post 288, JamesTheNames wrote: Second thing, can you point out between 241 and 271 what post or argument made you switch from Nav to Micc?

It was simply because Nav made an effortpost analyzing people in a lot of detail. We're supposed to be scumhunting, after all. Micc and Dum were already on my radar, and it was a tossup which one to put a vote on. I went with Micc since I still don't like his early E-2 vote.

In post 319, JohnnyFarrar wrote:

In post 23, NinjaStore wrote:VOTE: orctin He's being suspiciously helpful...

Eh? He's posted two jokes?

That was my initial joke vote with appropriately flimsy justification. I

was

hoping that having some people at two votes would get some discussion going. I wasn't expecting anyone to drop a third vote on Orctin so quickly, so it got my attention when Micc did that.

Town vibes.

In post 320, JohnnyFarrar wrote:Moving to a fast and loose catchup style so I can post while cooking

P3:
I like monkey entrance.

Fizz expecting logic or if everyone is going to cause you frustration on this site. There are some top notch gut players. There are also some people who use logic that goes wayyyyyyy over my head

Orc not getting up in arms about me being at e-1 is interesting

JV here got my heart all aflutter

P4:
I agree with monkeys fizz vote, though am less confident about it. Still would have sheeped at the time.

And then fizz gets SUPER defensive. Wild.

Jacko and Monkey going back and forth did nothing for me

P5:
Navy coming at JV with a baby associative is really neat to see. It's wrong, but I like where their head's at. Doesn't comment on fizz, tho.

Dum muses the idea that micc is a pr, among other things, then votes him anyway. I think this vote is both well thought out and weak, which to me sounds like town. @dum in the future, don't call out if you think someone's a PR, we don't want to tip scum off

Oh Orc tried to hammer

Stopping here for a minute.

why did you stop baby I want you full caught up

In post 311, Fizz Raab wrote:Ugh, being placed as scum for no reason whatsoever is pretty stupid if you ask me with no clear evidence of my posts at all. What do I see is scum is someone doing one line posts without any contribution and it seems like the only time he has made more than one line posts is when I called humaneatingmonkey on it. Let's see you do more than that dude. Obviously, I don't see Jackson scum at all with his helpful posts. I don't know if you noticed humaneatingmonkey, but I'm not good at understanding posts sometimes. It takes me a while to fully get it. I have nobody else apart from you that speaks out as scum just at this minute. I have to go through all the posts to clarify a few more posts that aren't scum posts to me.

Fizz Raab is scum. Sheep me. This is what it looks like when you're scum and you don't know how to scumhunt.