Mafiascum.net

In post 3815, Kate Bishop wrote:We're townreading SSBM, Luke and Wheme.

If we're right on all three, there's one more town in {Cabd, Dunn, LLD, Gamma}

Are these the only players in the game?

In post 3822, Kate Bishop wrote:

In post 3819, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 3817, Kate Bishop wrote:

In post 3816, Gamma Emerald wrote:You’re fucking insane if you think all of those posts are defending Cabd. You literally quoted posts where my read on him FLIPPED.
Why should I not take this as you bullshitting me?

Or maybe you should take it as your posts about Cabd were at best VERY ambigous, given we read them as defense.

Cabd wasn’t even a topic of conversation in 3484 and 3491. That was me taking offense that you deemed kyouko more trustworthy than me. Stop. Lying.

Misunderstanding (if we did) is not lying.

But, I'll take your assertion about your meaning at face value.

Why would you expect us to think you're more trustworthy than SSBM?

I misphrased my point. I’m not concerned you picked kyouko over me, but over EVERYONE ELSE. How did you manage to land on the ONE PERSON who also should have known better than to push S_S but did anyway? It felt like nepotism within your scumteam, and I couldn’t stomach that. If I had my pick I probably would have selected Luke and LLD to determine claim order.

In post 3825, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3815, Kate Bishop wrote:We're townreading SSBM, Luke and Wheme.

If we're right on all three, there's one more town in {Cabd, Dunn, LLD, Gamma}

Are these the only players in the game?

And GIF, but I’m hard pressed to believe that role is scum.

In post 3824, Kate Bishop wrote:

In post 3823, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m offended because you’re starting to go down that road of questioning things that are established issues for me.

I have no idea what this means.

I’m pretty sure I’ve talked on this site before about how I dislike unwarranted authority, and will actively decry it when confronted with it. It feels like you’re trying to suggest my feelings in that regard are fake, and that drives me up the wall to an even greater degree than the misplaced authority thing.

Gamma, what do you think of that looking back with what I pointed out about her meta?

Picking her eas my suggestion, and iirc we also mentioned LLDin this discussion as well

Ninja-
Fwiw we are equally as surprised we have thread control right now.

It’s also weird, because I feel like my posts in FGO in the slot you came to occupy had a sense of authority as well?

In post 3827, Kate Bishop wrote:

In post 3825, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3815, Kate Bishop wrote:We're townreading SSBM, Luke and Wheme.

If we're right on all three, there's one more town in {Cabd, Dunn, LLD, Gamma}

Are these the only players in the game?

And GIF, but I’m hard pressed to believe that role is scum.

I think you're reading into it too much because I think they come back after 1 day.

From my point of view it looks like they placed that vote on Manatee.

Idk, I’m not trying to say it’s invalid I’m just having trouble swallowing it in terms of game context, if that makes sense

Ninja-
Illicit had a silencer role, I’m viewing this role similarly.

In post 3829, Kate Bishop wrote:Gamma, what do you think of that looking back with what I pointed out about her meta?

Picking her eas my suggestion, and iirc we also mentioned LLDin this discussion as well

Ninja-
Fwiw we are equally as surprised we have thread control right now.

It’s also weird, because I feel like my posts in FGO in the slot you came to occupy had a sense of authority as well?

You were conftown in FGO2, you didn’t need to earn authority anymore once that happened
And yeah the kyouko stuff was somewhat convincing but that doesn’t retroactively negate what I initially felt. And I’m aware LLD was also chosen and I had no qualms with her being chosen.

I feel like I had a certain level of authority prior to it. @Luke, please weigh in upon catch-up.

We’re chewing on this some, can you look for the Cabd-town posts now?

In post 3831, Kate Bishop wrote:Idk, I’m not trying to say it’s invalid I’m just having trouble swallowing it in terms of game context, if that makes sense

Ninja-
Illicit had a silencer role, I’m viewing this role similarly.

What was the silencer role?

Sure gimme a sec
I wanna do this on PC vs. mobile

In post 3828, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 3824, Kate Bishop wrote:

In post 3823, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m offended because you’re starting to go down that road of questioning things that are established issues for me.

I have no idea what this means.

I’m pretty sure I’ve talked on this site before about how I dislike unwarranted authority, and will actively decry it when confronted with it. It feels like you’re trying to suggest my feelings in that regard are fake, and that drives me up the wall to an even greater degree than the misplaced authority thing.

I haven't played with you often enough to know that's an issue. I don't usually set out to gain authority in games, but I am assertive about my POV, and nature abhors a vacuum.

I'm surprised you'd join a game with a bunch of assertive players, many of whom do jockey for thread control.

In post 3834, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3831, Kate Bishop wrote:Idk, I’m not trying to say it’s invalid I’m just having trouble swallowing it in terms of game context, if that makes sense

Ninja-
Illicit had a silencer role, I’m viewing this role similarly.

What was the silencer role?

It was a scum role that was a combination of Alien and in-thread silence that kept Maria/Beeboy out of the game for a month.

A common thought we had there that in applying here is a role that allows scum to be removed from elimination seems like a bad game design sense. Particularly if it could self target. It essentially would give scum the chance to stall the day.

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:seems like a bad game design sense.

I'm pretty assertive myself, and I also kinda joined because I felt incensed by what I originally thought was mocking marci

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:A common thought we had there that in applying here is a role that allows scum to be removed from elimination seems like a bad game design sense.

What if I told you I inherit a weaker version of that role if he dies?

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:It was a scum role that was a combination of Alien and in-thread silence that kept Maria/Beeboy out of the game for a month.

well clearly scum knew what the fuck they were doing with that role
if there's someone whose posting I'd want to suppress as town when I'm scum, it'd be beeboy

In post 3834, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3831, Kate Bishop wrote:Idk, I’m not trying to say it’s invalid I’m just having trouble swallowing it in terms of game context, if that makes sense

Ninja-
Illicit had a silencer role, I’m viewing this role similarly.

What was the silencer role?

other head answering this.

This is not the same, since GiF said that his role did a compulsive self-yeet.

In Illicit Substances mini, scum-Bork could yeet a player out of the game for an entire game day and they weren't allowed to post or vote, and couldn't be targeted for other night actions the same night iirc.

I really, really dislike that kind of role in a game, but I guess it's slightly better as an attribute of one's own role than being targeted by that kind of ability.

And I don't truly believe that his role is that he is never in the game and can never die, that would be silly, he'll be back

In post 3840, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:A common thought we had there that in applying here is a role that allows scum to be removed from elimination seems like a bad game design sense.

What if I told you I inherit a weaker version of that role if he dies?

what if I told you I'm pretty sure the only way GiF dies is by scum killing him?

In post 3840, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:A common thought we had there that in applying here is a role that allows scum to be removed from elimination seems like a bad game design sense.

What if I told you I inherit a weaker version of that role if he dies?

What's your current solve?

In post 3845, Kate Bishop wrote:

In post 3840, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:A common thought we had there that in applying here is a role that allows scum to be removed from elimination seems like a bad game design sense.

What if I told you I inherit a weaker version of that role if he dies?

What's your current solve?

Gamma/Gif/(Cabd/SSBM)

Not 100% locked

In post 3844, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 3840, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:A common thought we had there that in applying here is a role that allows scum to be removed from elimination seems like a bad game design sense.

What if I told you I inherit a weaker version of that role if he dies?

what if I told you I'm pretty sure the only way GiF dies is by scum killing him?

My point is that Kate's argument is failing to account for my role

I think you have ignored the multitude of vig flips/claims this game in assuming that only scum could kill gif

I am finding it hard to believe that GiF has no idea what his role does, that he just disappears for an undetermined amount of time

I think the vote was placed by him and doesn't match his stances.

And he quick hammered before heading out.

In post 3847, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3844, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 3840, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 3837, Kate Bishop wrote:A common thought we had there that in applying here is a role that allows scum to be removed from elimination seems like a bad game design sense.

What if I told you I inherit a weaker version of that role if he dies?

what if I told you I'm pretty sure the only way GiF dies is by scum killing him?

My point is that Kate's argument is failing to account for my role

I think you have ignored the multitude of vig flips/claims this game in assuming that only scum could kill gif

I should have been more specific, at this stage in the game scum are likely the only ones who can kill GiF