Mafiascum.net

In post 396, flow trap wrote:I could see salsa being one of those who like to purposefully put wolf tells to make them not wolf tells

I didn't say you *were* doing that

In post 401, flow trap wrote:I didn't say you *were* doing that

In post 402, Salsabil Faria wrote:

In post 401, flow trap wrote:I didn't say you *were* doing that

You said 'being' and was shading me again. Either you're a scum or a town who is so full of themselves!

Future tense

In post 403, flow trap wrote:

In post 402, Salsabil Faria wrote:

In post 401, flow trap wrote:I didn't say you *were* doing that

You said 'being' and was shading me again. Either you're a scum or a town who is so full of themselves!

Future tense

Ad hominem fallacy is not a defense, not that it required a defense

In post 405, flow trap wrote:Ad hominem fallacy is not a defense, not that it required a defense

Well, they kinda fine with each other.

Only times when they interact is explaining terms and agreeing that Flow is suspicious.

Though only Zoomer placed vote, when all i want is answers. Maybe they are trying distance, but not so obvious and so he coach her on public.

But... Aren't mafia then suppose to imitate different thoughs, to give expression like they dislike each other or think in opposite direction? Push from both mafia can bite later.


So i may bet, they are most likely not both mafia.

... i messed up with message? So you see spoiler?

In post 408, Enchant wrote: So i may bet, they are most likely not both mafia.

Who said there's any?

I don't know. You looking like more likely mafia than him though. Your picks like suspection of people for changing mind is like you search for excuses for accuse.

Also, while you agreed and not voted, he agreed and voted. May be agressive maf, but... Eh. Too early to decide.

In post 412, Enchant wrote:Who said there's any?

In post 412, Enchant wrote:I don't know. You looking like more likely mafia than him though. Your picks like suspection of people for changing mind is like you search for excuses for accuse.

I don't like this playing the victim tone you have

Yes. I said exactly that, not "They probably not maf both, but one of them surely there".

In post 414, flow trap wrote:I don't like this playing the victim tone you have

Fine Salsa.

Do you changed your suspects from last time?

In post 397, flow trap wrote:

In post 395, Enchant wrote:Maybe you should give some ways/ask me questions, and my head start working, otherwise i will just blindly walk here.

What do you think of Salsa+Zoomer interactions?

there is none

In post 417, Enchant wrote:Fine Salsa.

Do you changed your suspects from last time?

I'm only talking from a game standpoint, you being dismissive only makes me suspect you more

Spartan, re: 339 I agree that these interactions are good for Salsa and questionable at best from flow. I think there's a big difference between that and the interaction being necessarily TvS, though. At this point with flow trap I don't really think I'd be surprised if he flipped either way.

VOTE: Frederick

Concur that the vote hop wasn't great. Safebet's posting the last few pages was okay.

floo's explanations have been like, . I want to townread the slot but can't really say they've done anything strongly AI.

I really hate to be blunt but it's better I do it now than later.

flow trap, you need to put your ego aside this game. It's getting in the way of you being effective and are making you elim bait.

You've taken the exact same dismissive attitude to players repeatedly throughout the game. Your explanations for why range from lackluster to promises of galaxy brain plans. Stating that you're not vulnerable to bias due to experience misses the entire point of bias.

I support you pressuring for a read but I don't support you continuing to be evasive/dismissive of concerns and questions under the guise of big brain. It forces me to guess whether you're being egotistical, malicious, or both.

Esoteric, do you have any reads besides safebet?

allez