Mafiascum.net

In post 398, Deacon Blues wrote:How did you interpret my request that (someone) unvote prohawk? Furthermore, what is your current read on him?

You seemed concerned that someone might quick hammer Prohawk and end the day prematurely.

My current thoughts on Prohawk: Unengaged with the game. Does not care if he is lynched or not. Pressure will not work on him. I do not expect any meaningful contributions from him. Null. (Although, if he's town and has no intention of playing, he really should do the honorable thing and replace out).

In post 396, ProHawk wrote:

In post 394, Mac wrote:

In post 389, ProHawk wrote: You want to kill me for not being super-active? Do it, but make sure you kill the scum taking the cop-out-excuse to lynch someone for it.

VOTE: Nacho

this implies to me you're not scumreading nacho, yet the vote says different.

Nope. Scum-Nacho.

I have stuff I want to discuss with you, but it needs to wait on some things.

In post 227, The Rufflig wrote:

In post 218, orcinus_theoriginal wrote:I am voting with you in spirit, tammy.

That's discouraging. I was town reading you.

Specifically what was discouraging?

In post 392, Mac wrote: this is the problem i'm having with ffery's meta-dive. i do actually have a slight town-lean on kaze now for his nonchalance about the thread so far, but i feel his scum game probably isn't going to be similar to his original scum games.

Mmm town-brand paranoia.

Mac might be town.

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:I don't like his use of his "reknown" to get people to work with him.

This was the case before I reaffirmed my suspicion on you. Why wasn't I a suspect before that? What does this have to do with anything?

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:He is voting me on lack of conviction and a poor reaction to my being run up... ok.

And your response to that is OK...?

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:(My diatribes) were not what anyone in the games I had played in considered to be "good play".

Who gives a shit? Your reads were generally better than anyone else's. People understand that you're a generally competent player; I don't see why you would change your playstyle in an effort to spare our feelings.

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:Oh and Nacho, get over yourself. I have yet to see any game-changing moves from you. You are overrated.

Well there's no denying that! This vote is kind of objectively bad though :/

In post 397, ProHawk wrote:Why would town-nacho need to poison the well?

How am I poisoning a well by attacking you?

In post 400, The Rufflig wrote:My current thoughts on Prohawk: Unengaged with the game. Does not care if he is lynched or not. Pressure will not work on him. I do not expect any meaningful contributions from him. Null. (Although, if he's town and has no intention of playing, he really should do the honorable thing and replace out).

Could you get a better read on him?

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:I don't like his use of his "reknown" to get people to work with him.

This was the case before I reaffirmed my suspicion on you. Why wasn't I a suspect before that? What does this have to do with anything?

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:He is voting me on lack of conviction and a poor reaction to my being run up... ok.

And your response to that is OK...?

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:(My diatribes) were not what anyone in the games I had played in considered to be "good play".

Who gives a shit? Your reads were generally better than anyone else's. People understand that you're a generally competent player; I don't see why you would change your playstyle in an effort to spare our feelings.

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:Oh and Nacho, get over yourself. I have yet to see any game-changing moves from you. You are overrated.

Well there's no denying that! This vote is kind of objectively bad though :/

In post 397, ProHawk wrote:Why would town-nacho need to poison the well?

How am I poisoning a well by attacking you?

In post 400, The Rufflig wrote:My current thoughts on Prohawk: Unengaged with the game. Does not care if he is lynched or not. Pressure will not work on him. I do not expect any meaningful contributions from him. Null. (Although, if he's town and has no intention of playing, he really should do the honorable thing and replace out).

Could you get a better read on him?

In post 400, The Rufflig wrote: My current thoughts on Prohawk: Unengaged with the game. Does not care if he is lynched or not. Pressure will not work on him. I do not expect any meaningful contributions from him. Null. (Although, if he's town and has no intention of playing, he really should do the honorable thing and replace out).

This is the biggest crock of crap I have read yet. I didn't sign up for a marathon game... Don't expect me to be here 24/7, but I am reading and keeping up with the game.

The game started on Monday. Today is Thursday. The deadline is in 13 days. I am super "unengaged" for sure.

In post 392, Mac wrote:

In post 354, pitoli wrote:^ When I played with Scum-Kaze he was very conscientious of addressing stuff like that and in general played a pretty clean game, always providing a rationale for voting with cases and such. Then again that was his first game on site, so I don't really know if I'd expect that now.

this is the problem i'm having with ffery's meta-dive. i do actually have a slight town-lean on kaze now for his nonchalance about the thread so far, but i feel his scum game probably isn't going to be similar to his original scum games.

Newbie 1436 is quite recent history, though. That was my first link. His older scum game was the 2nd link.

Also:

In post 292, fferyllt wrote:

In post 291, Mac wrote:

In post 289, Deacon Blues wrote:

In post 285, Mac wrote:

In post 280, Deacon Blues wrote:

In post 277, Mac wrote:aaaand possibly orcinus

Talk to me about this.

his play feels off this game. he doesn't feel town. gut perhaps.

meanwhile, you can talk to me about kaze?

Scum Kaze:

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

He was scum with me, replaced in partway through day 1. This game was the basis for his accusation that I could be manipulating my meta results, because I handwaved the hell out of his meta to call him null-town.


His first scum game (also his first MS game)

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

I can go through a detailed analysis if I really need to, but I think the differences are pretty obvious

so he's more serious as scum? i really briefly skimmed that iso but that was the main thing i gathered.

More serious, softer stances, and more non-scumhunting content. Note particularly all the complaining about meta and discussion prior games in the first link. I did a read of all his completed games for the first game I played with him because he was getting FoSed and somewhat run-up. I had a town read, but wasn't listened to as much as I liked, so I threw some meta reasons to go with the in-thread stuff I thought made him town.

Anyway, his playstyle has evolved since that first game,

and it appears to be taking another turn. But, the fundamentals are still there wrt to his town game

.

I don't think you're misrepresenting what I've said about Kaze. But, I'm not sure you really followed what I was trying to communicate.

I actually kinda hope that Kaze can fool me as scum in a game, at least for a while. It would be an indication that I've been right about what is changing about his play style, and that it's intentional. And also an indication that playing mafia at MS is going to continue to grow more challenging.

In post 366, Ms Marangal wrote:GIF is in the flower hydra?

And I'm here too.

Is this the part where I get to yell at you for not reading me correctly on Monks and Masons despite saying that you can read me like a book?

In post 405, Nachomamma8 wrote: This was the case before I reaffirmed my suspicion on you. Why wasn't I a suspect before that? What does this have to do with anything?

It has to do with why I think you are scum. You are trying to discredit me by implying my read on you is fabricated, when it isn't. Who said you weren't a suspect before that?

My response of "OK" was sarcasm as in your reasoning for me being scum isn't really a scum-tell.

In post 405, Nachomamma8 wrote:

In post 389, ProHawk wrote:(My diatribes) were not what anyone in the games I had played in considered to be "good play".

Who gives a shit?

Me. Look at the logic of your post.

In post 251, Nachomamma8 wrote:THIS is your reaction to the flashwagon on you? No diatribes on why everyone sheeping me is a bad idea and shows incredible scum motivation, no rage and anger on how you can't believe that the town is this lazy and horrible? And hell, even lacking that, no analysis and instead easy obvious scumreads? Come on, hawkie. You're a much better player than this.

Your final statement "You're a much better player than this" is showing that you think all of the things that I "am not doing" equates to good play. Therefore it should be clear that you feel like diatribes on people sheeping you/theory on scum sheeping/rage/anger about a lazy-horrible town all is good play.

MY POINT: I don't believe you believe any of that makes me town/is good play based on past experience with how you acted towards my town-play.

In post 251, Nachomamma8 wrote: How am I poisoning a well by attacking you?

You aren't attacking things I have done so much as my character/play. When you say "I thought you were a better player than this" implies that I am a poor player. Which also implies that my reads/cases are poor and that people shouldn't listen to me. And then you re-iterate your point again:

In post 251, Nachomamma8 wrote: People understand that you're a generally competent player; I don't see why you would change your playstyle in an effort to spare our feelings.

I can only imagine that is a contributing factor to Rufflig's post on me. So congrats on that accomplishment I suppose.

In post 409, ProHawk wrote:You are trying to discredit me by implying my read on you is fabricated, when it isn't.

I think your read on me is fabricated because I think you are scum. That's fairly straightforward, isn't it? I don't know where discrediting came into the picture.

In post 409, ProHawk wrote:Who said you weren't a suspect before that?

The whole "I think Tammy and Rufflig are the scum on my wagon" implied that when I started the wagon on you in the first place. Why didn't you mention my name if I was a suspect?

In post 409, ProHawk wrote:Your final statement "You're a much better player than this" is showing that you think all of the things that I "am not doing" equates to good play. Therefore it should be clear that you feel like diatribes on people sheeping you/theory on scum sheeping/rage/anger about a lazy-horrible town all is good play.

MY POINT: I don't believe you believe any of that makes me town/is good play based on past experience with how you acted towards my town-play.

The GOOD things that you generally do is your analysis. Your diatribes are amusing, but they also reflect your commitment to a game that you feel frustrated with thanks to shitty town play. In this specific scenario, you were brought to L-1 because I had a gut scumread on you. That is absolute bullshit and should be something that bothers you especially since you're a little sensitive about things like that. When you came in the thread, you didn't miss a beat, and that felt very very wrong.

In post 409, ProHawk wrote:You aren't attacking things I have done so much as my character/play. When you say "I thought you were a better player than this" implies that I am a poor player. Which also implies that my reads/cases are poor and that people shouldn't listen to me. And then you re-iterate your point again:

As in I think your play this game is shit. My comments on your actual play were generally good reads, competent player, so unless we're in some crazy bullshit world I'm actually complimenting you, not discrediting you.

In post 409, ProHawk wrote:MY POINT: I don't believe you believe any of that makes me town/is good play based on past experience with how you acted towards my town-play.

I appreciated your townplay every time I played with you. Xenologue is where I sort of freaked out on you when I thought you were being an idiot because I was knee-deep in KoolAid. I don't understand what your case on me is. I'm saying you're a good player when I don't actually think you're a good player? (Hint: If I thought you were a shit player, I would call you a shit player. I don't manipulate shitty players as scum because either they will vote town and not be a threat or they will vote scum and give an easy case to rebut). I'm discrediting you by saying "I thought you were a better player than this", by calling you ?

In post 340, Nachomamma8 wrote:

In post 338, Tammy wrote:we'll see.

What do you think of my push on Prohawk?

Based on those couple posts? I figured it was a reaction test. It that regard I don't think much of it as it regards you as it's something you'd easily fake to make it look like you needed to sort people.

It's evolved past that by now.

In post 368, Ms Marangal wrote:

In post 158, Tammy wrote:Just so you all know, there are too many quote stripers here. I mean I guess it's a nice balance to the spam posting ala moi but dayum, my eyes glazes over.

I will actually read the game when not skimming on my phone later, just wanted to whine. Oh and I want to give fuzzy a hug, which means he's town.

This is coming from you?

Is this sarcasm?

In post 413, Nachomamma8 wrote:It's evolved past that by now.

Ok now you're worrying me.

Why?

In post 416, Nachomamma8 wrote:Why?

Because you appear to be reaching a different opinion about ProHawk's posts than I am.

And I feel like you've missed some stuff in the sideline interactions.

I think you're pulling the plug too early.

In post 413, Nachomamma8 wrote:It's evolved past that by now.

I was also expecting to get a response to this bit, Tammy.

In post 418, Nachomamma8 wrote:I think you're pulling the plug too early.

Prohawk had some nice conviction in his push on me, but there are still a few weird bits, namely the whole discrediting him by complimenting him thing. Am I missing something with this? What would you sum up his case on me as?

In post 418, Nachomamma8 wrote:I think you're pulling the plug too early.

Maybe.

My approach to reading and working with ProHawk's been seriously influenced by your observations in the cash cabd game neighborhood. I feel like you're not walking your talk.

In post 420, Nachomamma8 wrote:

In post 418, Nachomamma8 wrote:I think you're pulling the plug too early.

Prohawk had some nice conviction in his push on me, but there are still a few weird bits, namely the whole discrediting him by complimenting him thing. Am I missing something with this? What would you sum up his case on me as?

I felt like your reaction to that looked a little disingenuous.

Why did you choose Tammy to push on in your opening post?

In post 419, Nachomamma8 wrote:

In post 413, Nachomamma8 wrote:It's evolved past that by now.

I was also expecting to get a response to this bit, Tammy.

You have to actually wait until I read your interaction, which is actually just got to.

I don't know though. At the moment I'm going to take a nap because I feel like shit and can't concentrate. I'll get to this later.