Mafiascum.net

You are a massive wimp when it comes to discussions.
Last game, when you were town, you debated stuff with me till you were blue in the face.
Whassup?

I didn't have as much confidence in my argument last game considering I literally fakeclaimed PR to draw a cc

The Mets are on, I'm not about to go searching for the latest vote count while the Mets are playing. Scum read that if you want, I just really am out of fucks to give in this game right now. I guess I'll be back later.

Brass I'm not reading into your effort, just your methodology/reasoning

You've clearly put as much effort into this game as usual

If you're Town it's the best thing to do, so we won't be wasting the whole day on you and you alone.
If you're Scum though it would still be best if you do (albeit risky) because otherwise you are likely to end up the deadline lynch anyway.
Claiming now would probably dissipate the wagon on you.

@Math - That is actually a strong amount of confidence.
You're being very namby pamby here.
You literally come across scared to engage me, and distancing from past statements when I back you into corners, while all your posts not interacting directly with me ooze confidence.
why am I getting that do you think?

@JJD - pretty sure I'm at L-1, who is offering hammer intent?

In post 379, Judge Joseph Dredd wrote:Claiming now would probably dissipate the wagon on you.

Then there shouldn't be a wagon on me.

In post 380, Thor665 wrote:You literally come across scared to engage me, and distancing from past statements when I back you into corners, while all your posts not interacting directly with me ooze confidence.

If you're town, then shit like this is further proof you have 0 idea how to read my motivation, thought processes, emotions, etc, and you're wasting 75% of your ISO talking to someone who not only doesn't wanna talk
But who the majority of the rest of the game wants to stop from talking about setup spec

So why the fuck SHOULD I engage with you in this shit
It's predatory questioning

@JJD - you're one of my scummier readsand it occurs to me I've been letting you sit in the weeds. A few quick questions.

1. What is your take on Math backing off his previous BG claim stance here? Do you agree with me it's a back off? Why/why not?
2. If I became sudden mod confirmed town, who do you think is scum on my wagon and why? (if you refuse to do the exercise despite saying my claim would disapate my wagon - why not tell me who you think my buddy is and why?)
3. Why do you think I am advocating for a BG claim when I have openly said the opposite repeatedly, and even Math is admitting as much despite being the primary starter of the claim?

In post 378, Mathdino wrote:Brass I'm not reading into your effort, just your methodology/reasoning

You've clearly put as much effort into this game as usual

I don't even know what your read is on me.

Like I have 2 other scumreads I'm ready to go on
You're spending all your time walling up the thread on this one topic
You have no interest in working with me

Edit: scumlean, getting different feels from your thought processes

In post 373, Thor665 wrote:@Nauci - I'd sill like you to explain the strawman you called me on.

I called you out on making it but assumed the person you straw manned would handle the explanation without me putting words in his mouth. He did.

In post 304, Thor665 wrote:

In post 302, Mathdino wrote:this is not a useful conversation to be having. i don't know how

you got the impression that i would choose to lie as scum in an open setup about correct PR play

. i've said EVERYWHERE that i would never do

that

, because that's suicidal in an open setup when everyone else has the same amount of information i have

How is the

BG claim

suicide?
You and I both know the BG's job is to die tonight.
What does it affect negative utility for town?

.

Also, that finishing question has been answered like 7 times and asking it again isn't going to refute logic.

In post 311, Mathdino wrote:

In post 309, Nauci wrote:Accusing him of saying bg claim is suicidal is a gross straw man.

oh yeah i'm ignoring those posts now

what i said is that lying about what good strategy is in open setups is suicidal, because everyone can see the setup with the same information i have

it's part of why i enjoy open setups, there's no "DOES SCUM HAVE INFORMATION THAT CAN FUCK US OVER HERE"

In post 373, Thor665 wrote:@Nauci

I feel like I'm one of the most sorted players in the game right now, so there's less value in seeing the timing and opportunity of my vote on you versus the half of the game that I'm getting null on.

I also haven't decided which lynch I want yet.

In post 382, Mathdino wrote:

In post 380, Thor665 wrote:You literally come across scared to engage me, and distancing from past statements when I back you into corners, while all your posts not interacting directly with me ooze confidence.

If you're town, then Smurf like this is further proof you have 0 idea how to read my motivation, thought processes, emotions, etc, and you're wasting 75% of your ISO talking to someone who not only doesn't wanna talk
But who the majority of the rest of the game wants to stop from talking about setup spec

List this majority.
It doesn't exist and you're using it as a shield.
Also, this ignores that I've asked you multiple non-setup questions you're also hiding from.
Once again you're twisting reality on me, I don't like it.

In post 382, Mathdino wrote:So why the Smurf SHOULD I engage with you in this Smurf
It's predatory questioning

I'm sorry that my questions seem like hunting wolves to you (I like that visual).
What sort of safe question about your reads would you like me to ask you?
I can't ask you about meta.
I can't ask you to analyze a wagon.
I can't ask you to explain your motivations or attitude shift.
I can't ask about your reads on me based on openly admitted zero research on my town game that you continue to not research.

Can I ask you about the misrep claim you made about how I'd never clarified that I wasn't pushing for a BG push?
Is that a non predatory question?

In post 380, Thor665 wrote:@Math - That is actually a strong amount of confidence.
You're being very namby pamby here.
You literally come across scared to engage me, and distancing from past statements when I back you into corners, while all your posts not interacting directly with me ooze confidence.
why am I getting that do you think?

@JJD - pretty sure I'm at L-1, who is offering hammer intent?

You don't trust that I flipped through every page and double-checked that he's in fact at -2?

Okay I'm done engaging with these dumb ploys. Who would've guessed that Wisdom is wise.

@Nauci, sorry for being short with you. It's easy to look over your inexperience fwiw.

Typos are not scumslips. Look for slips that indicates a higher level of factual knowledge, or appear inconsistent with player attitude/narrative bla bla bla.

Basically when you think you have a scumslip try to think about what part of being scum made the slip happen. In this instance IMO it was a clear typing error. There's maybe stuff we can learn from the typo but it seems a far reach to call it a scumslip.

IME a genuine scumslip is very rare.

In post 385, Mathdino wrote:You have no interest in working with me

Last I checked you were stonewalling me and haven't asked me to do anything towards anyone else - you've just complained that I should leave you alone.

In post 389, the worst wrote:@Nauci, sorry for being short with you. It's easy to look over your inexperience fwiw.

Typos are not scumslips. Look for slips that indicates a higher level of factual knowledge, or appear inconsistent with player attitude/narrative bla bla bla.

Basically when you think you have a scumslip try to think about what part of being scum made the slip happen. In this instance IMO it was a clear typing error. There's maybe stuff we can learn from the typo but it seems a far reach to call it a scumslip.

IME a genuine scumslip is very rare.

I'm not putting enough weight on it to hammer but IMO, "rolecop" and "gooncop" are different enough that it's not just any typo like "RC" vs "GC." I think there's a chance he typed rolecop because he had already been typing rolecop.

In post 386, Nauci wrote:

In post 373, Thor665 wrote:@Nauci - I'd sill like you to explain the strawman you called me on.

I called you out on making it but assumed the person you straw manned would handle the explanation without me putting words in his mouth. He did.

In post 304, Thor665 wrote:

In post 302, Mathdino wrote:this is not a useful conversation to be having. i don't know how

you got the impression that i would choose to lie as scum in an open setup about correct PR play

. i've said EVERYWHERE that i would never do

that

, because that's suicidal in an open setup when everyone else has the same amount of information i have

How is the

BG claim

suicide?
You and I both know the BG's job is to die tonight.
What does it affect negative utility for town?

.

Yeah - you're right. My bad.
Good thing I didn't call him scum over it, which would actually be scummy a scummy straw man.

In post 388, Nauci wrote:

In post 380, Thor665 wrote:@Math - That is actually a strong amount of confidence.
You're being very namby pamby here.
You literally come across scared to engage me, and distancing from past statements when I back you into corners, while all your posts not interacting directly with me ooze confidence.
why am I getting that do you think?

@JJD - pretty sure I'm at L-1, who is offering hammer intent?

You don't trust that I flipped through every page and double-checked that he's in fact at -2?

Okay I'm done engaging with these dumb ploys. Who would've guessed that Wisdom is wise.

You are then aware that JJD is asking me to claim at L-2 then?
Yet *I'm* the dick? How does that work?

Cool. Now you're straw manning my "gross straw man" comment as "scummy straw man."

In post 381, Thor665 wrote:

In post 379, Judge Joseph Dredd wrote:Claiming now would probably dissipate the wagon on you.

Then there shouldn't be a wagon on me.

Not true. If you're not claiming there is every reason in the world for me to assume your scum and stalling and/or trying to figure our which fake claim is more suitable. The longer you delay your claim the less likely I'll believe you when you eventually have to claim. Tic Toc.

And if you're not complying to my request I don't see why I should bow down to yours. Give me a claim and then ask me about what I think of this and that. I asked first y'know.

Also, regarding the matter of me being a SR of yours here.. that's hilariously funny, seeing as how totally different my play here is from the game where I was scum with Aris and you were on the other team, and we shared the win.

I fail to see the logic of the playground "I asked you first" especially when it's a claim at L-2 request.

How do you think you're playing so differently from your scum game that I should notice it?

That was a weird self meta.

OK.. I changed my mind. Thor is the lynch with or without a claim. Even if he claims to be Mith himself I'm still lynching him.

@TW: Put Thor @L-1 now, please.

VOTE: Thor L-1

Phoneposting sneakily at work. More to follow.

Cool. And now we wait for Beef/jmo/Nauci/UD to declare intent.

@Thor: Still don't want to claim? Because now if you claim VT you'd still get lynched. There is absolutely no reason for a VT to hold a game hostage like this, so I'm not accepting a VT claim. You had better not have picked too many abilities, my friend. If you did, you're in a true debacle already.

inb4 Thor's actually the traitor and doesn't even know what his pals have chosen to do.