Mafiascum.net

In post 346, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

Why is this phrased in such a way to imply that you would be expected to take issue with me?

because jarjar was like " ya my reads are good" and then he voted you

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

This is a scummy post by Zach by the way

Willing to believe Mathblade is incompetant for now

VOTE: Zachstral

In post 346, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 334, Gamma Emerald wrote:I actually like Dong's posting style.
UNVOTE:

Was your vote ever serious?

When he decided to not read the thread, it became serious.

In post 348, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 343, Gamma Emerald wrote:What's so funny?

Posts I quoted can't be real...

Why not?

LMFAOOOOOO pagetop jacked

Dunnstral wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

This is a scummy post by Zach by the way

Willing to believe Mathblade is incompetant for now

VOTE: Zachstral

Of course it is, I love you buddy but your inability to think sometimes upsets me











.........................but I'm the one who's really stupid

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

Looks like whiteknighting.

yep stating my read on ss is whiteknighting

looks like opportunism there bud

In post 349, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 345, Infinity 324 wrote:

In post 340, Gamma Emerald wrote:The post directly above that comment; are you really that dense?

Ima side with dunn here

What's dense is the comment dunn was referencing

I can see what is being said; scum would try to coordinate who gets wagoned.

Oh I thought you were talking about where dunn quoted the ira post

I disagree that scum would state their plans for coordinating the wagon in-thread, though. That would be a whole new level of stupid.

In post 352, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

This is a scummy post by Zach by the way

VOTE: Zachstral

why

In post 356, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

Looks like whiteknighting.

why??

I mean, I'm far from a townread on zach

But I think that's a bit of a stretch

In post 357, Zachstralkita wrote:yep stating my read on ss is whiteknighting

looks like opportunism there bud

Well I didn't see any signs of townreading him before in your ISO.

VOTE: Gamma


sure lets start here

Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 357, Zachstralkita wrote:yep stating my read on ss is whiteknighting

looks like opportunism there bud

Well I didn't see any signs of townreading him before in your ISO.

Like you genuinely expected to? Yeah, ok.

Well can you tell me when you started townreading him then?

Because he's not contributing but is defusing wagons early

He does that as scum

when i looked at his posts

does not explicitly mentioning you townread someone on post 3 of your ISO mean you scumread them by default?

In post 350, Zachstralkita wrote:

In post 346, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

Why is this phrased in such a way to imply that you would be expected to take issue with me?

because jarjar was like " ya my reads are good" and then he voted you

Do you disagree w/ what I'm saying or just dont think it makes S_S look scummy?


To recap:

I ask him why he posted reads that weren't really that serious and he responds

In post 266, Something_Smart wrote:Why mention it initially? I got some interesting reactions.

Like how is that not him saying that he did it as a reaction test. He even re-asked the question he was responding to.

This sentence reads: "The reason I didn't mention it initially is because I got some interesting reactions."

Like how is that not a direct contradiction when he later says this?

In post 305, Something_Smart wrote:

I never said it was a reaction test.

Every single thing anyone says produces reactions; doesn't mean everything is a reaction test.

not to mention misdirection since he's now implying I'M the one who brought up the reaction test.

In post 363, Dunnstral wrote:he [Zachstralkita]

contributing

JarJarDrinks wrote:

In post 350, Zachstralkita wrote:

In post 346, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

Why is this phrased in such a way to imply that you would be expected to take issue with me?

because jarjar was like " ya my reads are good" and then he voted you

Do you disagree w/ what I'm saying or just dont think it makes S_S look scummy?

I do not believe he is scum in this arrangement. Do with that what you will.

In post 365, JarJarDrinks wrote:

In post 350, Zachstralkita wrote:

In post 346, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

Why is this phrased in such a way to imply that you would be expected to take issue with me?

because jarjar was like " ya my reads are good" and then he voted you

Do you disagree w/ what I'm saying or just dont think it makes S_S look scummy?


To recap:

I ask him why he posted reads that weren't really that serious and he responds

In post 266, Something_Smart wrote:Why mention it initially? I got some interesting reactions.

Like how is that not him saying that he did it as a reaction test. He even re-asked the question he was responding to.

This sentence reads: "The reason I didn't mention it initially is because I got some interesting reactions."

Like how is that not a direct contradiction when he later says this?

In post 305, Something_Smart wrote:

I never said it was a reaction test.

Every single thing anyone says produces reactions; doesn't mean everything is a reaction test.

not to mention misdirection since he's now implying I'M the one who brought up the reaction test.

Stating my reads was not a reaction test. In asking myself whether I should say that they were weak in the same post and I thought, "there might be some interesting reactions if I don't". So I didn't.

I think I understood 266.

In post 365, JarJarDrinks wrote:

In post 350, Zachstralkita wrote:

In post 346, Something_Smart wrote:

In post 333, Zachstralkita wrote:I don't take a whole lot of issue with Something_Smart at all, actually.

Why is this phrased in such a way to imply that you would be expected to take issue with me?

because jarjar was like " ya my reads are good" and then he voted you

Do you disagree w/ what I'm saying or just dont think it makes S_S look scummy?


To recap:

I ask him why he posted reads that weren't really that serious and he responds

In post 266, Something_Smart wrote:Why mention it initially? I got some interesting reactions.

Like how is that not him saying that he did it as a reaction test. He even re-asked the question he was responding to.

This sentence reads: "The reason I didn't mention it initially is because I got some interesting reactions."

Like how is that not a direct contradiction when he later says this?

In post 305, Something_Smart wrote:

I never said it was a reaction test.

Every single thing anyone says produces reactions; doesn't mean everything is a reaction test.

not to mention misdirection since he's now implying I'M the one who brought up the reaction test.

It looks like you're trying here, but this is once again, extraordinarily shallow.

You're implying here that scum would be careless enough to directly contradict themselves and town wouldn't, first of all, which doesn't seem true to me.

I'll let smart explain his side of it, but I don't think it's a contradiction at all tbh.

It's something like:

P1: I have a weak meta read on P2
P2: Why are you townreading me?

*P2 townread solidifies*

UNVOTE: Zachstral

This is actually a dumb vote and I'm not sure who to vote atm.

Maybe something scummy

Dammit Dunn please stop saying S_S's name like that