Mafiascum.net

I couldn’t be more obviously town.

repeating that over and over does not make it true

Arrrrggghhhh <rips out own eyes and throat, bleeds to death>

In post 389, Not_Mafia wrote:The number had to be between 0 and 14, it's in the rules

Honestly, I wouldn’t call this too out-there

In post 390, PenguinPower wrote:

In post 389, Not_Mafia wrote:The number had to be between 0 and 14, it's in the rules

Could you point out for me where it says that?

In post 2, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:once alignments have been dealt out, each player must send a (whole, positive) number back to the mod, with the lowest unique number winning the draft.

Google: Positive numbers are greater than 0 and located to the right of 0 on a number line. Negative numbers are less than 0 and located to the left of 0 on a number line. The number zero is neither positive nor negative.

Idk man this is either a stupid scum slip or a stupid Town "play"

Thinking about it i don't think the mod would say 0-14

I mean, that would be lying to one of the players about the rules

Johnny’s reads leave something to be desired imo

In post 404, JunkoChan wrote:

In post 390, PenguinPower wrote:

In post 389, Not_Mafia wrote:The number had to be between 0 and 14, it's in the rules

Could you point out for me where it says that?

In post 2, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:once alignments have been dealt out, each player must send a (whole, positive) number back to the mod, with the lowest unique number winning the draft.

Google: Positive numbers are greater than 0 and located to the right of 0 on a number line. Negative numbers are less than 0 and located to the left of 0 on a number line. The number zero is neither positive nor negative.

Idk man this is either a stupid scum slip or a stupid Town "play"

In post 405, JunkoChan wrote:Thinking about it i don't think the mod would say 0-14

In post 406, JunkoChan wrote:I mean, that would be lying to one of the players about the rules

NM is a renowned troll
Not sure what to make of this frankly

In post 407, Gamma Emerald wrote:Johnny’s reads leave something to be desired imo

He thinks i didn't notice he didn't mention me.

Home boy got his e-feelings hurt

The way porkens jumped on not_math for that so hastily makes me feel my vote stronger, feels like mafia looking for a hanging fruit

In post 407, Gamma Emerald wrote:Johnny’s reads leave something to be desired imo

what about them do you take issue with?

In post 410, JunkoChan wrote:The way porkens jumped on not_math for that so hastily makes me feel my vote stronger, feels like mafia looking for a hanging fruit

VOTE: JunkoChan
That’s two-for-two on taking comedic posts seriously, think there’s a cognitive load issue here

In post 411, PenguinPower wrote:

In post 407, Gamma Emerald wrote:Johnny’s reads leave something to be desired imo

what about them do you take issue with?

Partly how the conclusions are presented
Will or will not vote is a murky way to present overall reads

In post 412, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 410, JunkoChan wrote:The way porkens jumped on not_math for that so hastily makes me feel my vote stronger, feels like mafia looking for a hanging fruit

VOTE: JunkoChan
That’s two-for-two on taking comedic posts seriously, think there’s a cognitive load issue here

How is a non-rvs vote not serious? Buddy

I also just think his reads are not in line with mine in much of any way, but idk how much that means for his alignment

In post 414, JunkoChan wrote:

In post 412, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 410, JunkoChan wrote:The way porkens jumped on not_math for that so hastily makes me feel my vote stronger, feels like mafia looking for a hanging fruit

VOTE: JunkoChan
That’s two-for-two on taking comedic posts seriously, think there’s a cognitive load issue here

How is a non-rvs vote not serious? Buddy

I don’t believe Porkens actually believes scum got different instructions, that would be a serious modding offense
It follows that Porkens is doing a little trolling of his own

In post 416, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 414, JunkoChan wrote:

In post 412, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 410, JunkoChan wrote:The way porkens jumped on not_math for that so hastily makes me feel my vote stronger, feels like mafia looking for a hanging fruit

VOTE: JunkoChan
That’s two-for-two on taking comedic posts seriously, think there’s a cognitive load issue here

How is a non-rvs vote not serious? Buddy

I don’t believe Porkens actually believes scum got different instructions, that would be a serious modding offense
It follows that Porkens is doing a little trolling of his own

How are You so sure about this?

Iirc Porkens also like fosed You But didn't vote You before, are You actually porkens partner and You know she si trolling because You got the mafia private chat and You know not_mafia is just being silly?

In post 409, JunkoChan wrote:He thinks i didn't notice he didn't mention me.

:3c

I have a certain rating of Porkens’ experience that makes me think he’d not expect “straight-up mod interference” to be a factor in this game
Sorry I actually expect the people I play with to have standards?

I mean - I read his comment as funny but the vote as serious...

In post 420, Gamma Emerald wrote:Sorry I actually expect the people I play with to have standards?

It's time to lower your expectations

In post 421, PenguinPower wrote:I mean - I read his comment as funny but the vote as serious...

Tbf, Porkens is absolutely free to elaborate