Mafiascum.net

In post 395, votato wrote:

In post 244, votato wrote:also, its page fucking 10. no one has the game solved. im probably wrong about atarashi. im just spitballing here and point out something i noticed. if you agree with me, why arent you voting atarashi? if you disagree, why not tell me what you disagree with? puppy and VP, what are your reads? what do you think of atarashi? you're both asking questions without actually offering up any thoughts of your own.

explain your thoughts about atarashi. you now have said you townread him right? but why? like someone else said, it seems premature since a case was made, and then he disappeared. if i suddenly disappeared for a day would you suddenly townread me, too?

are u talking to me?

atarashi town because i like how he cozied up with blair, the two of them make a cute couple.

scum often start the game without full confidence, i think blair + atarashi was too un-self-conscious to be scum for either

In post 394, CantHateAPuppy wrote:Quick, bruh, u definiteyl know exactly what u did and how u contradicted urself

Blair's vote is lame imo, "Lynch all liars" is lame in this context, but u did it to urself and u have to know that

So did u do a reaction test? Because if u just think it's OMGUS then it's just null to u right? So why keep making a thing about something that's null?

If people cannot read my jokes as jokes then I am pretty sure reacting to them is Scummy - especially when you think I am Scum for lying. I don't buy that Blair actually thought I was lying for a second. That's the problem and that's why it's OMGUS.

In post 399, Blair wrote:

In post 391, Quick wrote:I know what Blair is claiming. It's just an excuse to OMGUS tbh.

It's interesting to me how you knew what I was claiming yet chose to blatantly misrepresent it as something else ("You're voting me for townreading votato? omg is this real?")

In post 387, Nauci wrote:But also it is the most Stereoquickipal behavior I've ever seen. It's one of his top 3 schticks to aggressively misinterpret someone and then make a whole truck load of posts with that misinterpretation as the premise.

I find that schtick violently anti-town, and that's being generous.

What are the other two schticks? I do not wish to be caught unawares.

i understand where youre coming from with quick. but you're not necessarily right. he does that as town.

OK hey everyone

-Overall thoughts on votato are that I don't love some of the things he's saying, for instance, I find it kind of amusing how in post 80 he's talking about how there's "so many votes to place" and that he's suspicious of a ton of people, then a few pages later keeps repeatedly insisting that it's way too early to determine anything. Also not a fan of 301 when he misinterprets what puppy is saying. On the other hand, his overall style and tone feels too abrasive and overly defensive, which I feel like would be really bad for scum to do this early. Not sure what to make of him atm.

-Agreed on Quick v Blair being TvT

-Do agree that more scum may be hiding among the more inactive, and yes I realize that's coming from me leave me alone it's been a long day and I'm tired

-Among active people, I think my biggest suspicion is on VP, as he seems to be trying to jump on minor more obvious things people say

pedit: OK was about to vote and wanted to look for the last vote count first and 2 new votes on VP happened, brb gonna go count

BTW, Blair is a Lawyer IIRC which means they really should be able to read between the lines.

Quick wrote:

In post 394, CantHateAPuppy wrote:Quick, bruh, u definiteyl know exactly what u did and how u contradicted urself

Blair's vote is lame imo, "Lynch all liars" is lame in this context, but u did it to urself and u have to know that

So did u do a reaction test? Because if u just think it's OMGUS then it's just null to u right? So why keep making a thing about something that's null?

If people cannot read my jokes as jokes then I am pretty sure reacting to them is Scummy - especially when you think I am Scum for lying. I don't buy that Blair actually thought I was lying for a second. That's the problem and that's why it's OMGUS.

If they were jokes, then why didn't you double back later and provide non-joke answers to those questions?

In post 380, CantHateAPuppy wrote:Hi Nauci! Hi Dany!

Please convince us u are not scum doing a dastard bus on ur obvious partner votato. What do u think of the wagon now that it's been a few pages?

If all of my contribution and efforts thus far weren't sufficient data then I don't really know what to say to you tbqh

I said I wasn't going to but I'm currently skimming votato games to maybe back up or debunk a hunch

Pedits: 394 and 396 were good and I continue to support the idea that Puppy is a good boi

@NPOM: what was that statement directed at?

@Blair yeah no violently-anti-town is totally fair; I'd say at least one other one is hard-tunneling someone for like an entire game day, regardless of what anyone else is thinking or doing, but I don't know if I can precisely say what a 3rd one is because the top 3 comment was mostly just a phrase to emphasize how typical it is of him

@Puppy I think he was piggybacking my question earlier and asking that of VPB

Oh my god there are so many more posts coming in I'm quitting with these Pedits

In post 401, Quick wrote:

In post 394, CantHateAPuppy wrote:Quick, bruh, u definiteyl know exactly what u did and how u contradicted urself

Blair's vote is lame imo, "Lynch all liars" is lame in this context, but u did it to urself and u have to know that

So did u do a reaction test? Because if u just think it's OMGUS then it's just null to u right? So why keep making a thing about something that's null?

If people cannot read my jokes as jokes then I am pretty sure reacting to them is Scummy - especially when you think I am Scum for lying. I don't buy that Blair actually thought I was lying for a second. That's the problem and that's why it's OMGUS.

Thank u! Quick ngl u're kind of cute/fresh, u keep keeping secrets but then explaining as soon as u get asked, u could just not keep the secret in the first place to begin with!

but this is also a lame scumread, u know u're being a little secret-ish and then u blame other people for reacting negative to that. i think both u and blair are tunneling a little here for no particular good reason

like, it feels like u just don't like each other, and that's the real reason for the suspicion more than either of u doing scum

In post 405, Blair wrote:

Quick wrote:

In post 394, CantHateAPuppy wrote:Quick, bruh, u definiteyl know exactly what u did and how u contradicted urself

Blair's vote is lame imo, "Lynch all liars" is lame in this context, but u did it to urself and u have to know that

So did u do a reaction test? Because if u just think it's OMGUS then it's just null to u right? So why keep making a thing about something that's null?

If people cannot read my jokes as jokes then I am pretty sure reacting to them is Scummy - especially when you think I am Scum for lying. I don't buy that Blair actually thought I was lying for a second. That's the problem and that's why it's OMGUS.

If they were jokes, then why didn't you double back later and provide non-joke answers to those questions?

Pretty sure me saying I was joking was the first thing I did AFTER I said you should probably prove that I was lying.

OK so I can't read today and there's only 1 vote on VP, so let's make it 2

VOTE: VP Baltar

In post 404, Quick wrote:BTW, Blair is a Lawyer IIRC which means they really should be able to read between the lines.

ahahhahaha I think you should adjust your assumptions about lawyers

... The posts that I'm calling lies...

... were responses to direct questions people asked you...

.. you claim your answers were jokes now...

... so why didn't you ever answer those questions sincerely...?

I sincerely hope that clears up your evident confusion.

In post 411, Blair wrote:... The posts that I'm calling lies...

... were responses to direct questions people asked you...

.. you claim your answers were jokes now...

... so why didn't you ever answer those questions sincerely...?

I sincerely hope that clears up your evident confusion.

You should really start reading Nauci's posts on me because they are a literal gold mine of info for you guys. But go ahead and ignore more info, I guess.

VOTE: ready2rock

vote r2r

Your non-answer is noted.

I am reading Nauci's posts, but it's just meta info on your playstyle. It's helpful, but meta is mostly garbage. If your meta is violently anti-town, that doesn't really persuade me to keep you around anyway.

In post 339, Quick wrote:

In post 336, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 331, Quick wrote:Okay, Effort for donkey just means he is Town. That is all I am saying.

I'll bite. Give me the case on Blair.

Read my ISO, that's all I have. Or you are just Scum with Blair. That could work here.

Just quoting myself here for emphasis.

In post 414, Blair wrote:If your meta is violently anti-town, that doesn't really persuade me to keep you around anyway.

okay that's fair but can it persuade you into pursuing investigations into things that are less shallow and more productive instead of litigating "Quick sometimes says he's mysterious and sometimes admits he's not intentionally mysterious" ad nauseum

Vpb is now a town read.

In post 414, Blair wrote:Your non-answer is noted.

I am reading Nauci's posts, but it's just meta info on your playstyle. It's helpful, but meta is mostly garbage. If your meta is violently anti-town, that doesn't really persuade me to keep you around anyway.

What part of my play is Anti-Town? Is it Anti-Town to get people to think about what I am saying?

VOTE: NPOM

This is Scummy as shit. His reads make no sense.

If you say so.

In post 416, Nauci wrote:

In post 414, Blair wrote:If your meta is violently anti-town, that doesn't really persuade me to keep you around anyway.

okay that's fair but can it persuade you into pursuing investigations into things that are less shallow and more productive instead of litigating "Quick sometimes says he's mysterious and sometimes admits he's not intentionally mysterious" ad nauseum

Digging deeper was my intention, but now I fear this schtick is going to continue to influence all of his posts for the rest of the game. It isn't looking like there will ever be anything deeper to look at (short of a claim or investigative result).

If he'd cut it out, quit being deliberately obtuse and obscure, I could dig deeper. Right now, I'm digging as deep as his posts allow.

Blair, why does Quick's surface-level-contradiction make you think that it's more important to vote Lynch All Liars than to keep pressure on votato? Can you explain why votato's interactions with his wagon reduce your scum read of him by so much? Do you no longer agree with Puppy's assessment of his "scum hunting"? What did you think of my reason for voting votato?

In post 418, Quick wrote:

In post 414, Blair wrote:Your non-answer is noted.

I am reading Nauci's posts, but it's just meta info on your playstyle. It's helpful, but meta is mostly garbage. If your meta is violently anti-town, that doesn't really persuade me to keep you around anyway.

What part of my play is Anti-Town? Is it Anti-Town to get people to think about what I am saying?

The part where you deliberately misinterpreted my case (you have since admitted you knew what I meant) and then unleashed a smokescreen flurry of posts based on that false premise.

In post 423, Blair wrote:

In post 418, Quick wrote:

In post 414, Blair wrote:Your non-answer is noted.

I am reading Nauci's posts, but it's just meta info on your playstyle. It's helpful, but meta is mostly garbage. If your meta is violently anti-town, that doesn't really persuade me to keep you around anyway.

What part of my play is Anti-Town? Is it Anti-Town to get people to think about what I am saying?

The part where you deliberately misinterpreted my case (you have since admitted you knew what I meant) and then unleashed a smokescreen flurry of posts based on that false premise.

Where is my vote love?