Mafiascum.net

In post 290, RachMarie wrote:I cant remember if I played with scum Bulder before or not?

We played before =)

- b

In post 294, syndromeofatown wrote:

In post 289, ² wrote:Rach's posts so far this game have been terrible. buldermar and I have both brought her up in our convos. our experience (more bulder's than mine - I have played one completed game with her) is that she posts like this regardless of alignment, but it's still terrible

If her posts so far have been completely terrible why did you have her as a null read?

She's probably not more likely to be making terrible posts as scum than as town - we aren't entirely sure, though.

- b

In post 296, RedCoyote wrote:

In post 277, ² wrote:

In post 276, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:This post indicates otherwise, to bring up just one example (of many).

I never claimed every single one of my posts lives up to these criteria.

Why shouldn't they?

I can say that about each and every one of my posts, why can't you?

Because unlike you I'm not completely delusional?

- b

In post 301, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:*sigh*...

I think I'm having trouble because the slot is a hydra... but f's posts are much better than b's, and after re-reading the thread, i think b's abrasiveness just gives me scumvibes. i know that's not a scumtell, and I'm just not sure since giving the thread another look over.

so,
UNVOTE:

I'd be willing to vote A_Stone as my second top read at the moment.

I like ETL for town based on this post because I think it's accurate and not a post scum-ETL would be motivated to make. I think scum ETL would continue the line of thought he already began.

- b

In post 302, ² wrote:buldermar is *slightly* more abrasive than me though I have my moments. The questions that are about his tone/banter he'll have to answer. Questions about our reads or about my posts, I'll field.

- f

Lol "slightly"... You're so diplomatic that if you were in Syria there wouldn't be a conflict ;D

- b

In post 319, goodmorning wrote:PEDIT @2: As I said, I'd rather wait. Keeping the other in the dark is something that's worked out well for me in the past.

Fair enough.

- b

A_Stone


Mr E, ETL


SoaT


I didn't like Rach's post 290. Instead of insisting that she did contribute, she willingly admits to not having done much and makes excuses such as "I suck on day 1" and "it takes me a while to figure people out". I'd think that town-Rach would think she actually already did some scumhunting or contributed with something, but she's immediately defending why she didn't. That doesn't seem like a town mindset to me, but I don't know if that's just her playstyle.

I'm undecided with respect to RC. f thinks RC is maybe town, but I'm not as convinced.

Dunno about goodmorning and thenewearth.

^^ - b

In post 331, ² wrote:I'm undecided with respect to RC. f thinks RC is maybe town, but I'm not as convinced.

I was giving RC pretty much full credit for his reads list in 308. But, on review, that was a response to Mr E Roll's call out in 303. And that slips my town read on him toward null.

- f

Who else thinks we should policy lynch ^2 for spamming?

In post 334, syndromeofatown wrote:Who else thinks we should policy lynch ^2 for spamming?

Okay, I'll attempt to compile the content of my posts into fewer posts in the future.

- b

Uh... No

Vote Count 1.13

RedCoyote

( 0 )

²

( 1 ) RedCoyote

A_Stone

( 2 ) ² , RachMarie

thenewearth

( 1 ) Mr E Roll

syndromeofatown

( 1 ) goodmorning

Mr E Roll

( 1 ) thenewearth

goodmorning

( 0 )

RachMarie

( 1 ) syndromeofatown

EspeciallyTheLies

( 0 )

Not voting:

A_Stone , EspeciallyTheLies

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.

Deadline is in

thenewearth is temporarily V/LA.

In post 334, syndromeofatown wrote:Who else thinks we should policy lynch ^2 for spamming?

Is this another reaction test? Or are you seriously proposing a policy lynch over your scum read?

I find it troubling that you are willing to explain the reasons for your proposed policy vote but not the reasons for your scum votes. You did it initially with A_Stone and now with Rach. I’m beginning to think you don’t actually want to lynch your scum reads.

As far as 2’s(b’s in particular) posting style I initially disliked the rapid fire method he is employing but decided I actually like it better than the walls he would need to post otherwise to articulate all of his impressions.

I'm beginning to think he doesn't have any scum reads (hint: he is scum)

Yeah well see you next tuesday.

In post 318, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:Yes, yes it was.

Too late to answer this one now - for obvious reasons.

- b

This just shows you misunderstood the post 2, although it's not like I expected you not to.

In post 323, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:3. It's just something I do, I like to see activity from everyone.

You started doing this immediately after I called you out for tunneling on me and making a shit case on why I'd be scum.

- b

Nah, I started doing it when I wanted to see more activity from everyone, I see you're attempting to make it into a scumtell though.

In post 321, ² wrote: This kind of phrasing is scummy. You didn't unvote when you

wanted

the RVS to be over or when you had made up your mind, or when someone better came along to vote,

or when you thought your vote was no longer of use.

You

waited

and unvoted when doing so would be in accordance with the general consensus. That's exactly what scum does: stays in accordance with consensus without worrying about progressing the game or making reads.

- b

Isn't my vote no longer of use when RVS is over? Yeah, umm. That made a lot of sense 2.

If you want further understanding of my reasoning, I see RVS as a phase that the town is in, and that it can only be left by all players when the reasoning for a vote is no longer random; I see it as a general consensus kind of thing.

In post 322, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:I'm still checking out who I'd like to vote right now, I'm thinking about 2 but I'd like to see a bit more, it's pretty much just gut and a bad feeling right now. I'd just like to step back and look at everyone a bit more before I make my decision.

This is fencesitting.

- b

Well I guess you could put it like that, if you wanted to put a scummy spin on everything I say,

In post 319, goodmorning wrote: Stone has been an early-replace out in two of my games.

I forgot about 1 and didn't have time for the other, :/

In post 334, syndromeofatown wrote:Who else thinks we should policy lynch ^2 for spamming?

I feel that you're poking fun at people for wanting to vote 2 for his posting.

So yeah...

Anyone else find it troubling that Syndrome has time to write why he unvoted me, and yet doesn't have enough time to write why he voted someone else :/

And even if he'd found me as less scummy than Rach, why would he follow a lynch that didn't have support instead of one that was a viable lynch option, it just doesn't sit right with me.

In post 313, syndromeofatown wrote:he didnt seem as scummy as I once thought.

Does this mean you find me town, if so, at what post did this happen, and why did you not unvote me then. If you still find me as scummy, why jump off a wagon with support?

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:Does this mean you find me town, if so, at what post did this happen, and why did you not unvote me then. If you still find me as scummy, why jump off a wagon with support?

my previous scumread on you was like barely anything dude, and now now its gone so i unvoted you. I want nothing to do with your wagon anymore. get over it. I've given my vote to someone else. I don't like you like that anymore. you have to move on

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 318, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:Yes, yes it was.

Too late to answer this one now - for obvious reasons.

- b

Spoiler:

This just shows you misunderstood the post 2, although it's not like I expected you not to.

How does it supposedly show that I misunderstood the post?

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 323, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:3. It's just something I do, I like to see activity from everyone.

You started doing this immediately after I called you out for tunneling on me and making a shit case on why I'd be scum.

- b

Nah, I started doing it when I wanted to see more activity from everyone, I see you're attempting to make it into a scumtell though.

I don't see how your statement is in conflict with mine. You're making a statement about the reason whereas I'm making a statement about the timing.

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 321, ² wrote: This kind of phrasing is scummy. You didn't unvote when you

wanted

the RVS to be over or when you had made up your mind, or when someone better came along to vote,

or when you thought your vote was no longer of use.

You

waited

and unvoted when doing so would be in accordance with the general consensus. That's exactly what scum does: stays in accordance with consensus without worrying about progressing the game or making reads.

- b

Isn't my vote no longer of use when RVS is over? Yeah, umm. That made a lot of sense 2.

If you want further understanding of my reasoning, I see RVS as a phase that the town is in, and that it can only be left by all players when the reasoning for a vote is no longer random; I see it as a general consensus kind of thing.

Do I need to highlight the fact that the sentence starts with "you didn't", i.e., a negation of the following "or when you thought your vote was no longer of use"?

You're avoiding the point I'm making. This time I actually trust that it's because you fail to comprehend it, though.

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 322, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:I'm still checking out who I'd like to vote right now, I'm thinking about 2 but I'd like to see a bit more, it's pretty much just gut and a bad feeling right now. I'd just like to step back and look at everyone a bit more before I make my decision.

This is fencesitting.

- b

Well I guess you could put it like that, if you wanted to put a scummy spin on everything I say,

No, not everything, but you do say a lot of scummy things. I'm surprised that nobody else is noticing it - perhaps people fail to do so because they dislike me for my posting style and/or behavior. I trust they'll realize how scummy you are soon enough, though.

- b

In post 342, syndromeofatown wrote:

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:Does this mean you find me town, if so, at what post did this happen, and why did you not unvote me then. If you still find me as scummy, why jump off a wagon with support?

my previous scumread on you was like barely anything dude, and now now its gone so i unvoted you. I want nothing to do with your wagon anymore. get over it. I've given my vote to someone else. I don't like you like that anymore. you have to move on

</3 I can't believe I trusted you

Yeah, I get it. Thanks for the clarification

In post 343, ² wrote:

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 318, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:Yes, yes it was.

Too late to answer this one now - for obvious reasons.

- b

Spoiler:

This just shows you misunderstood the post 2, although it's not like I expected you not to.

How does it supposedly show that I misunderstood the post?

~Sarcasm~

In post 343, ² wrote:

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 323, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:3. It's just something I do, I like to see activity from everyone.

You started doing this immediately after I called you out for tunneling on me and making a shit case on why I'd be scum.

- b

Nah, I started doing it when I wanted to see more activity from everyone, I see you're attempting to make it into a scumtell though.

I don't see how your statement is in conflict with mine. You're making a statement about the reason whereas I'm making a statement about the timing.

And yet the timing of the question has everything to do with the reasoning?
I just asked it because I wanted to see more activity, nothing less, nothing more.

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 321, ² wrote: This kind of phrasing is scummy. You didn't unvote when you

wanted

the RVS to be over or when you had made up your mind, or when someone better came along to vote,

or when you thought your vote was no longer of use.

You

waited

and unvoted when doing so would be in accordance with the general consensus. That's exactly what scum does: stays in accordance with consensus without worrying about progressing the game or making reads.

- b

Isn't my vote no longer of use when RVS is over? Yeah, umm. That made a lot of sense 2.

If you want further understanding of my reasoning, I see RVS as a phase that the town is in, and that it can only be left by all players when the reasoning for a vote is no longer random; I see it as a general consensus kind of thing.

In post 321, ² wrote:Do I need to highlight the fact that the sentence starts with "you didn't", i.e., a negation of the following "or when you thought your vote was no longer of use"?

You're avoiding the point I'm making. This time I actually trust that it's because you fail to comprehend it, though.

Yes I did notice that, and my statement was that I thought my vote was no longer of use when RVS was over, unless you had a different meaning for my vote no longer being of use?

In post 321, ² wrote:

In post 341, A_Stone wrote:

In post 322, ² wrote:

In post 288, A_Stone wrote:I'm still checking out who I'd like to vote right now, I'm thinking about 2 but I'd like to see a bit more, it's pretty much just gut and a bad feeling right now. I'd just like to step back and look at everyone a bit more before I make my decision.

This is fencesitting.

- b

Well I guess you could put it like that, if you wanted to put a scummy spin on everything I say,

No, not everything, but you do say a lot of scummy things. I'm surprised that nobody else is noticing it - perhaps people fail to do so because they dislike me for my posting style and/or behavior. I trust they'll realize how scummy you are soon enough, though.

- b

Nah, it's because I'm just town.

-----------------------

I'm still here. I'm gonna be candid - right now I'm lurking. Let's just say the player I need posting is not posting. Trying to devise some suitable reaction test at the moment, whether I'll manage one and it'll work remains to be seen.

I'm not going to continue responding to A_Stone unless others insist that I do. I'm already convinced that he's scum, so conversations with him has limited utility to me.

- b

It's been good for the rest of us I think. In your exchange I have found reinforcement of my suspicion of him, specifically his precedent of "non-answers".

VOTE: A_Stone

I personally found it fairly useless after the first couple responses, but that's because it's Stone you're arguing with and I have a light Townread on him for meta reasons.

In post 348, goodmorning wrote:I personally found it fairly useless after the first couple responses, but that's because it's Stone you're arguing with and I have a light Townread on him for meta reasons.

without explaining the meta reasons, your light town read is meaningless to other players and unpersuasive.

I'm finding your play pretty obfuscatory so far, GM.

- f