Mafiascum.net

In post 323, TheIrishPope wrote:"Anyone who scumreads me is scum"
K

Anyone who has even skimmed the game would know this isn't true. Now you are just lying.

VOTE: TheIrishPope

In post 318, TheIrishPope wrote:Oh, to f16? That was just omgus

So at that point F-16 was more scummy than me?

The moment I raised suspicion on you, you freaked out.
Who's lying now?

In post 326, pitoli wrote:

In post 318, TheIrishPope wrote:Oh, to f16? That was just omgus

So at that point F-16 was more scummy than me?

I thought you were talking about the Purple Rose vote

I don't remember freaking out. Quotes?

That was to F-16.

In post 328, TheIrishPope wrote:

In post 326, pitoli wrote:

In post 318, TheIrishPope wrote:Oh, to f16? That was just omgus

So at that point F-16 was more scummy than me?

I thought you were talking about the Purple Rose vote

TIP, are you half asleep or scum or both gdi

If you stopped voting me to vote F-16 in 174, then the reason "TPR was scummier" does not count. IT CAN'T COUNT BC SHE HADN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE THREAD. Since you stopped voting me to vote F-16, he must have seemed scummier than me at that point, correct?

Saying "that was just omgus" does not justify the vote switch. If you legitimately were/are scumreading me why did you ever stop voting me? To place a stupid omgus vote that makes no sense?

To make a point.

Here's my point. VOTE: TheIrishPope

goodnight.

Wut
You guys are so high

In post 27, Bulbazak wrote:

Unvote

Vote Pitoli

This is reverse style trajectory, voting and then discussing the rationale. It's a little different from your usual approach.

In post 31, Bulbazak wrote:I think it's more likely to be Pitoli, rather than F-16. F-16 looks like he's trying to figure things out, while all Pitoli wanted to do was wagon.

First indication of vote rationale.

In post 33, Bulbazak wrote:I dislike wagoning purely just to wagon. It's a great way for scum to hide in RVS.

Reiteration.

In post 45, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 38, pitoli wrote:

In post 33, Bulbazak wrote:I dislike wagoning purely just to wagon. It's a great way for scum to hide in RVS.

So do you always vote the first person to wagon in RVS?

No. It depends on why they are wagoning.

In post 39, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:Bulb that is silly. Wagons are one of the strongest way to get D1 info.

I never said they weren't. My point is that why a wagon is formed should be questioned, as well as the reasoning of those on the wagon. For instance, I didn't mind F-16's reasoning for being on the wagon, but I did not like Pitoli's.

More about the vote reasoning (and why not F16) though the specifics are ambiguous.

In post 57, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 54, pitoli wrote:Bulb it's like you've never seen an arbitrary page 1 vote before?

But we're not talking about RVS. We're talking about wagons. Why are you trying to make it about RVS now?

Reiteration.

In post 71, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 68, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:BTW is there something I should know about this setup

There is no doctor. Also, Pitoli drew scum.

And more.

In post 74, Bulbazak wrote:I'm a daycop. I scanned Pitoli and got a guilty.

Now joking while pushing the same wagon.

In post 78, Bulbazak wrote:Neither do I. It's exciting, isn't it? But I'm pretty sure that Pitoli is scum. Vote her with me.

And more pushing.

In post 82, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 79, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:Why don't you wanna vote F-16?

I'm not entirely convinced he's scum.

In post 81, Lastsurvivor wrote: Why do you think pit is scum, bulb?

I didn't like her vote or her reasons for it. Then, she tries to change the topic of the discussion and say that I'm voting her for an RVS vote, when I stated it was for the reasoning of wanting to wagon for the sake of wagoning. There's no way that trying to sidestep the issue like that is town.

Did I ask you what your read of F16 is last night? If not, I'm asking now.

In post 84, Bulbazak wrote:What do you expect, ETL? We're on page 4. I never said it was a brilliant case.

Looks a little like you are distancing from the vote.

In post 88, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 87, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

In post 82, Bulbazak wrote: I'm not entirely convinced he's scum.

What do you mean "not entirely convinced?"

I have a hard time believing both scum would jump on the TIP wagon. And seeing as how I think Pitoli is scum, I think it is unlikely that you are as well.

bulba, if you are wrong about pitoli, does that do anything to your F16 read?

In post 106, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 89, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Why no comment on my behavior individually?

Because I haven't felt that your behavior was telling one way or the other, and I don't feel the need to get bent out of shape over it.

In post 103, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:I don't think it is improbable for scum to fake a day-cop ability and Bulbazak is certainly competent enough to do it.

It was a joke! ETL asks how I KNOW Pitoli is scum, even though it should be obvious that I can't know for sure one way or the other. She should have asked, "Why do you think Pitoli is scum.". However, she didn't, so I responded with a quick one liner. I never expected anyone to take it seriously.

I didn't take it seriously!

In post 111, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 107, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:K well I think you think less than you should think on pitoli. And we need more.

Agreed, but it's good enough for now.

More distancing vibe.

In post 161, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 158, pitoli wrote:His push on me started out fine but I don't like how he won't even

entertain

the thought of town-me

Scum never do like not being thought of as town.

Are town different about this?

In post 163, Bulbazak wrote:You know, you could actually be doing something, like, say, scumhunting, during this time instead of being all "Woe is me.".

In post 278, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 275, sangres wrote:Who are you and what have you done with Bulbazak?

I decided to try something different this game.

P-edit: ETL, settle down. You take this too seriously sometimes. Loosen up and have fun.

I noticed.

In post 335, sangres wrote:

In post 27, Bulbazak wrote:

Unvote

Vote Pitoli

This is reverse style trajectory, voting and then discussing the rationale. It's a little different from your usual approach.

And that means what exactly? Am I town for it? Scum? Why are you so nervous about me playing differently than I normally do?

In post 335, sangres wrote: Did I ask you what your read of F16 is last night? If not, I'm asking now.

You did. I have a null/town read on him. Mainly because I can't see him being scum with Pitoli.

In post 335, sangres wrote:

In post 84, Bulbazak wrote:What do you expect, ETL? We're on page 4. I never said it was a brilliant case.

Looks a little like you are distancing from the vote.

Nope. I stand by my vote 100%.

In post 335, sangres wrote: bulba, if you are wrong about pitoli, does that do anything to your F16 read?

He's more likely to be scum in that event.

In post 335, sangres wrote: I didn't take it seriously!

I never said you did. Why do you feel the need to respond to that quote?

In post 335, sangres wrote:

In post 161, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 158, pitoli wrote:His push on me started out fine but I don't like how he won't even

entertain

the thought of town-me

Scum never do like not being thought of as town.

Are town different about this?

Depends on the player. Normally it might distress a town player that they're not being thought of as town, but they're not going to worry about it as much as a scum player might. Normally, they just continue scum hunting.

Alright, my gut instinct says that the scum are The Purple Rose and pitoli, with pitoli being a godfather. The godfather thing is from this quote:

pitoli wrote:At this point I welcome any daycop (or night cop) to have their way with me

It's not pro-town to want to be investigated by cops. If you know you're town, it's a wasted investigation that won't hit scum. A godfather would love to be "cleared" in such a manner, though.

Your 3 votes this game were on TIP (RVS), Sangres, and TIP again. So 2 votes of any real merit.

The Sangres vote came 20 minutes after Sangres voted for pitoli. You can say it's not OMGUS, but it certainly looks like it.

pitoli wrote:VOTE: Sangres

Not exceptionally scummy but that vote's timing kind of was.

pitoli wrote:idk, just, third vote on a wagon? Im always watching if that shit looks like an opportunity to cement momentum on a mislynch

Nacho it just didnt feel like you even gave it that much thought

Wow, your third vote on a wagon reasoning sounds super confident in that second post. The first post says the vote timing is "exceptionally scummy". When asked to explain it, you act like you were called on in class and aren't sure of the answer. Also, you said you watch those votes to see if people are trying to cement mislynches, and then say that he didn't give the vote much thought. Those ideas seem contradictory to me. If he was trying to cement momentum on a mislynch, wouldn't he have given thought to the vote?

And finally, your most recent vote, jumping back onto TIP. I'm gonna condense the whole back-and-forth into a spoiler tag:

Hmmm...this conversation doesn't strike me as scummy for pitoli. TIP, you said that your vote-switch to F16 was OMGUS, but he wasn't voting you when you placed that vote.

I'm grabbing some food, post about TPR in a few hours.

In post 336, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 335, sangres wrote:

In post 27, Bulbazak wrote:

Unvote

Vote Pitoli

This is reverse style trajectory, voting and then discussing the rationale. It's a little different from your usual approach.

And that means what exactly? Am I town for it? Scum? Why are you so nervous about me playing differently than I normally do?

The playing a little differently stuff makes me lean a little town. The distancing and "for now" and "it's only page 4" stuff not so much.

In post 335, sangres wrote: Did I ask you what your read of F16 is last night? If not, I'm asking now.

You did. I have a null/town read on him. Mainly because I can't see him being scum with Pitoli.

Ok.

In post 335, sangres wrote:

In post 84, Bulbazak wrote:What do you expect, ETL? We're on page 4. I never said it was a brilliant case.

Looks a little like you are distancing from the vote.

Nope. I stand by my vote 100%.

Noted.

In post 335, sangres wrote: bulba, if you are wrong about pitoli, does that do anything to your F16 read?

He's more likely to be scum in that event.

Ok. Thoughts on other wagons that may have drawn a scum vote?

In post 335, sangres wrote: I didn't take it seriously!

I never said you did. Why do you feel the need to respond to that quote?

Just about any time I post in mafia with an exclamation point, I'm actually laughing out loud IRL.

In post 335, sangres wrote:

In post 161, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 158, pitoli wrote:His push on me started out fine but I don't like how he won't even

entertain

the thought of town-me

Scum never do like not being thought of as town.

Are town different about this?

Depends on the player. Normally it might distress a town player that they're not being thought of as town, but they're not going to worry about it as much as a scum player might. Normally, they just continue scum hunting.

So, you think pitoli is worrying more than a town player would.

Did sangres just post a case with no conclusion?

In post 339, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:Did sangres just post a case with no conclusion?

I initiated a conversation.

ffery, I don't even understand what you are going for with your "attack" on Bulbazak and that's not a good thing. Do you find him scummy?

Would you guys kindly back off for a little while and let this conversation happen?

ChaosOmega, your case on Pitoli is bad and you should feel bad. OMGUS is not a scumtell. It is null. Town and scum can both OMGUS (or not). Pitoli asking to be investigated may have been suboptimal play but it doesn't indicate her being GF any more than her being town. I find your theory far-fetched. Pitoli could just as well be town being frustrated with Bulbazak's attack on her and wanting to be cleared.

Your school of thought (town should not care about being mislynched, only focus on scumhunting) is something I disagree with. Town do care about being lynched. Nobody wants to be lynched regardless of their affiliation - this is against their wincon. Attempting to avoid a lynch is null not to mention being mislynched is somewhat frustrating.

Pitoli's reasoning for her Sangres vote wasn't exceptionally strong, yet it is reasoning that I can see from town. Consider a hypothetical: if two people voted you and a third player (perhaps the best player in the game) comes on and joins the wagon, would you not be paranoid at the wagoning? Regardless, I can see that paranoia coming from a townie despite Pitoli's reasoning not being absolutely stellar.

TIP is blatantly lying. I don't blame Pitoli for voting him. I think Pitoli is town. In fact, I am massively certain that that is the case.

Lying about...?

In post 343, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:I think Pitoli is town.

I am leaning this direction as well.

In post 334, TheIrishPope wrote:Wut
You guys are so high

Yes, calling me high instead of explaining this blatant contradiction is a good use of your time right now.

In post 338, sangres wrote: Thoughts on other wagons that may have drawn a scum vote?

Besides the TIP wagon composition, there really haven't been any other wagon compositions that have caught my eye. Was there one in particular you were concerned about?

In post 338, sangres wrote: So, you think pitoli is worrying more than a town player would.

Yes.

In post 343, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:ChaosOmega, your case on Pitoli is bad and you should feel bad.

In post 343, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: TIP is blatantly lying. I don't blame Pitoli for voting him. I think Pitoli is town. In fact, I am massively certain that that is the case.

How are you massively certain Pitoli is town?

I didnt contradict myself though
You're voting me because you think I did?

Bulbazak do you have a gun