Mafiascum.net

Very last thing, I love N_M.

Guy is hilarious.

And, yeah, that was a pagetop. oops.

In post 341, Beefster wrote:I'm not sure whether that hammer was ballsy scum or town. Only time will tell, I suppose.

In post 342, Beefster wrote:We probably could have used more time to hear his defense, but we'll see how important that is after the flip.

In post 344, Beefster wrote:Oh. Didn't realize that was a reparked vote.

This feels like a fake reaction.

Do you have any thoughts on other players? Namely, you are currently voting RedFlavor so for you to pick out this one thing seems odd.

~
Sort of a prod dogge, I'm expecting to do a better catch up in the next 12 hours or so.

In post 353, Kop wrote:

In post 341, Beefster wrote:I'm not sure whether that hammer was ballsy scum or town. Only time will tell, I suppose.

In post 342, Beefster wrote:We probably could have used more time to hear his defense, but we'll see how important that is after the flip.

In post 344, Beefster wrote:Oh. Didn't realize that was a reparked vote.

This feels like a fake reaction.

It wasn't. I legitimately was not paying attention to that detail.

In post 338, Hawk wrote:

In post 337, Sesq wrote:

In post 300, Hawk wrote:Sesq makes no fucking sense ever but I have mislynched her more times than I can count so it's nothing that isn't par for the course.

also please calm down this is game, it will be better for your case

here's my vote

VOTE: hawk

l-1

i am ready... for action

reads:

hawk: until today, i did not think him to be scum, it seemed like everyone was on him without explaining why but thats because of fucking cloudposting

thanks GiF. you are great

now i think he's scum for reasons previously ascribed. way too mad. not very productive, misleads. etc.

Mikan Tsukimi: stop. Stop.

Kop: lurky man, scummy man? maybe

THATS THREE i can go back to playing bonks adventure

Sesq was already voting me so that's l-2 not l-1. States that she wasn't thinking I was actually scum until today yet was like the 3rd on my wagon... Like I said before never makes any sense but I've mislynched this before so I don't think faulty logic is AI for Sesq from what I've played with before.

Also I'm a lot calmer and in a better mindset today. Sorry to anyone who took any offense to my anger yesterday.

i really don't remember voting you, but if I did it was out of desperation to park my vote somewhere. Now, I actually think you are scum

also: posts 345-347 are the funniest thing in mafia

In post 355, Beefster wrote:

In post 353, Kop wrote:

In post 341, Beefster wrote:I'm not sure whether that hammer was ballsy scum or town. Only time will tell, I suppose.

In post 342, Beefster wrote:We probably could have used more time to hear his defense, but we'll see how important that is after the flip.

In post 344, Beefster wrote:Oh. Didn't realize that was a reparked vote.

This feels like a fake reaction.

It wasn't. I legitimately was not paying attention to that detail.

And apparently neither was Sesq

Ok y'all had some cooldown? Great.

Now let's get back to the business.

VOTE: RF

In post 358, GuyInFreezer wrote:Now let's get back to the business.

T-To defeat, the huns!


I'm sorry! I-I had to! Please tie me up and throw me into the basement!

And to those who have problem with Mikan's self-imposed post restriction

At least she's not Gundham Tanaka.
Trust me, it CAN get worse.

(sorry, was traveling)

In post 297, Hawk wrote:Also it regarding the slot I was basically asking why you think the slot is scummy independent of TD since well you said the slot is still scum...

In post 296, Hawk wrote:Because I didn't think it was alignment indicative. I'm not meaning to sound like I'm attacking him? I'm just paranoid I guess... I agree that we can probably do better than a policy lynch with 5 days left. I disagree with his logic that NM is town and that we shouldn't policy lynch him because of that "fact"/"confidence" he's spouting.

OK, so do you want to lynch NM as policy or because you legimately scumread him?

If you actually scumread him, I don't understand why you backed off when GIF said a PL is bad in this setup. If it's policy, I don't understand why you agreed with GIF that policy is bad and unvoted and then got into a whole debate about whether or not it's bad while also accusing him of being NM's scumpartner.

TLDR: I don't really get the vibe that you *want* a NM lynch, between how you joined it and how you were willing to back off it pretty easily, so I don't really understand why you got into a whole argument with GIF later about it, wherein you were shading him and arguing about the efficacy of a pl in this setup.

Like given you don't actually seem to *want* an NM lynch, your argument with GIF kinda looks like it happened for the sake of having an argument.

--------

In post 297, Hawk wrote:Also it regarding the slot I was basically asking why you think the slot is scummy independent of TD since well you said the slot is still scum...

Oh yeah, by that I just meant that just because there's a replacement doesn't mean that TD's scumminess should be forgotten.

-------

In post 307, Beefster wrote:OMGUS?

I'm afraid deflecting and calling attentions to other viable wagons does not count as a legitimate defense. Try again, scum.

Why is this OMGUS or deflecting to other viable wagons? He's going through the votes on his wagon.

Given 258 and 260, you've became a lot more confident about hawk!scum. Can you walk me through why?

--------

In post 316, Hawk wrote:

In post 311, GuyInFreezer wrote:Thank you for your confession.

VOTE: Hawk

YOU'RE FUCKING RETARDED IT'S THE QUOTE NM POSTED WORD FOR WORD EADLIER THAT EVERYONE IGNORED AND DECIDED WAS NAI!!

Always serious remember to announce L-1

pedit:... maybe I'm just to strung up. Guys please forgive me if I'm coming off as an insane o right now.

In post 322, Hawk wrote:

In post 319, Not_Mafia wrote:I agree, anyone who claims scum is scum

.... i... I know this has to be joking... you claimed scum...

pedit: okay I'm getting off I'm not in the right mindset for this trolling...

These actually feel kinda town to me?

-------

In post 342, Beefster wrote:We probably could have used more time to hear his defense, but we'll see how important that is after the flip.

Again, given how confidentally you were calling him scum above, why do you want to hear more of his defense? In the posts I quoted above, you kinda seemed like you were convinced he was scum and you were ready for a lynch already.

In post 353, Kop wrote:This feels like a fake reaction.

This basically.

-------

I'm not really into Hawk anymore. I don't really like how Beef has interacted with the Hawk wagon, so

VOTE: Beef

In post 360, GuyInFreezer wrote:And to those who have problem with Mikan's self-imposed post restriction

At least she's not Gundham Tanaka.
Trust me, it CAN get worse.

brb making a Hiyoko alt

In post 361, skitter30 wrote:

In post 307, Beefster wrote:OMGUS?

I'm afraid deflecting and calling attentions to other viable wagons does not count as a legitimate defense. Try again, scum.

Why is this OMGUS or deflecting to other viable wagons? He's going through the votes on his wagon.

Whoa. Apparently I wasn't reading very closely because none of that was actually deflecting. I can't say I liked the Mikan vote though.

skitter30 wrote:Given 258 and 260, you've became a lot more confident about hawk!scum. Can you walk me through why?

Confirmation bias, probably.

I'll get back to you after I ISO Hawk.

Yeah. I got nothing as far as progression goes. All I can really say that makes him look scummy is the NM vote and the Mikan vote.

As for that post, I think my train of thought was more along the lines of lampshading his wagon and then singling out one of them for a totally arbitrary reason.

So basically I think Hawk's scum because his votes are based on arbitrary reasons.

T&T's really my only other alternative right now. Everyone else is null to me.

I voted NM because it seemed like progress on mumble and RedFlavor wasn't going anywhere... No one seemed to agree with the thought Mumbles sudden defense of Beefster was odd. And Redflavor was meeting some kind of invisible resistance. he never hit l-1 to push a claim.

Also if my reasons seem shallow or arbitrary it's because I really don't have a strong sense of scum this game. Mikan could be scum but I didn't think TDs stuff was alignment indicative. I do think that if I'm incorrect about that the case looks a lot better because I basically had that slot as null not as town or as scum so if I'm wrong it's a scumlean.

Mikans recent play hasn't inspired a townlean but it's not super scummy. The scummiest thing I feel was the vote on me felt oppurtunistic but she's also following the last read list of her predecessor so... idk...

I-I'm sorry but I don't think I'm doing any of the things you're saying I'm doing.

About Hawk:

The good:

61 feels like a big overreaction for that stage of the game, but more likely to come from town then scum.
73 and 98 feel like town to me.
192 def a town-motivated post.

The bad:

240 'others want this slot lynched so that's ok for me'
274 instant vote change as he gets called out for voting NM.
284 disagreeing with GiF logic but Hawk changed his vote after following said logic.
The entire Hawk-GiF duel that follows is not in favour of Hawk.

There's a few more posts that follow where he goes cookoo against players who are voting him, actually I read them as frustrated town and not as caught scum.

I'd say revisit Hawk D2/3 if he's still alive.

About RedFlavour:

65 'Hey guys i'm reading this slot as scum but i don't want to pressure it so I'll just vote elsewhere'.
66 feels like a defense of what I originally read as a joke.
85 'Oh it wouldn't be as much pressure as I thought and i'm being called out for it, so i'd better switch there now'.

110 Yo Red, if you thought I made weird looking posts, why didn't you call me out yourself?

113 is a lie: Red didn't think NM was at L-1, he literally said he didn't want to bring NM to L-1. See 65.

I'd vote Red over Hawk 100% of the time here.

In post 365, Hawk wrote:I voted NM because it seemed like progress on mumble and RedFlavor wasn't going anywhere... No one seemed to agree with the thought Mumbles sudden defense of Beefster was odd. And Redflavor was meeting some kind of invisible resistance. he never hit l-1 to push a claim.

Also if my reasons seem shallow or arbitrary it's because I really don't have a strong sense of scum this game. Mikan could be scum but I didn't think TDs stuff was alignment indicative. I do think that if I'm incorrect about that the case looks a lot better because I basically had that slot as null not as town or as scum so if I'm wrong it's a scumlean.

Mikans recent play hasn't inspired a townlean but it's not super scummy. The scummiest thing I feel was the vote on me felt oppurtunistic but she's also following the last read list of her predecessor so... idk...

Yeah... No. Not buying this explanation.

Voting on someone you don't think is super scummy? Look I know I'm not one to talk here, but do you have scum leads, or is it just this weaksauce Mikan case?

I'm not liking Mikan's ISO one bit, and it has nothing to do with that PR. It's even less meaningfull then NM and that is saying something...

Still not liking Beefster, and his 364 is kinda weird: he looked through Hawk ISO but didn't find anything except the voting pattern. Yet the vote that pinged Beefster wasn't made until 2 days AFTER Beefster votes Hawk.
So what was your Original vote based on there, Beefster?

Yeah it's between Beefster and Red for me, today.

fp'd by Beefster

In post 369, Beefster wrote:

In post 365, Hawk wrote:I voted NM because it seemed like progress on mumble and RedFlavor wasn't going anywhere... No one seemed to agree with the thought Mumbles sudden defense of Beefster was odd. And Redflavor was meeting some kind of invisible resistance. he never hit l-1 to push a claim.

Also if my reasons seem shallow or arbitrary it's because I really don't have a strong sense of scum this game. Mikan could be scum but I didn't think TDs stuff was alignment indicative. I do think that if I'm incorrect about that the case looks a lot better because I basically had that slot as null not as town or as scum so if I'm wrong it's a scumlean.

Mikans recent play hasn't inspired a townlean but it's not super scummy. The scummiest thing I feel was the vote on me felt oppurtunistic but she's also following the last read list of her predecessor so... idk...

Yeah... No. Not buying this explanation.

Voting on someone you don't think is super scummy? Look I know I'm not one to talk here, but do you have

any

scum leads, or is it just this weaksauce Mikan case?

Yo Beefster, you don't get to play that response. Here's your 'reasoning' for voting Hawk:

In post 244, Beefster wrote:VOTE: Tatl and Tael

Something just seems off about this slot and I don't think it's the hydra.

Not_Mafia gives nothing to work with for analysis, so is an understandable policy lynch, but I think it's too early in the discussion to be policy lynching.

You didn't get to explaining the vote later, and the reasons you mentioned only happened AFTER you voted Hawk.
Please explain what part you are not buying?
Also why are you giving Hawk crap about his vote on NM, while you were voting NP too for similarly crappy reasons before?

In post 370, Iconeum wrote: Still not liking Beefster, and his 364 is kinda weird: he looked through Hawk ISO but didn't find anything except the voting pattern. Yet the vote that pinged Beefster wasn't made until 2 days AFTER Beefster votes Hawk.
So what was your Original vote based on there, Beefster?

Uhhm. I think I voted after Hawk threw a vote on NM. Even if I didn't I was probably sheeping Sesq and going off gut somewhat.

Okay

VOTE: mikan

let's consolidate here.

annoying and non-contributive. let's pile em up boys

VOTE: mikan


I am just bored and this player's tone is suspicious so I'm voting her