Mafiascum.net

It's very unusual for me to claim without someone's intent to hammer me first. (And claiming on a "large wagon" alone would be utter idiocy.) In this case it is due to the looming deadline and my focus on casemaking.

I'm guessing your indignant tone is due to disappointment at being the likely lynch, it seems natural that everyone becomes idiots besides yourself under such circumstances. In terms of the claim, I thought it was important to get one due to all the factors in game (ie. large wagon, looming deadline, passivity etc. etc.), I don't often rely solely on the standard way things should be done.

But you've claimed so all good. And no great loss, since you may flip VT or scum and we'll just be one less tunnel-y person down and I could use a break from the vitriol and having to decide whether I should or shouldn't answer to it.

I could, for example, go through the entirety of your "case" and point for point shut it down. For the most part it is not a case at all, just a horribly slanted opinion that everything I have said and done has been wrong. A lot of it is grossly inaccurate. A lot of it is biased misrepresentation. A lot of it is complete fabrication or your inability to read my posts, only reading . For example:

↑ goodmorning wrote:
279: says he's not going to move the Safety wagon and moves it in the same post

I said I'm not going to the Safety wagon (ie. move it ), so I moved it.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:Alright, so Safety's wagon isn't really moving and I'm not going to be the one to move it.

I'll craft a full explanation of why later today.

UNVOTE:

Should I really be obligated to do this for each and every predisposed "point" you've made? Or can I just slap you in the face with your own style of "specific" critique and say it's all a bunch of hogwash?

↑ goodmorning wrote:
347: deliberately, blatantly, and dickishly misrepresents implosion to the nth degree. Can any of you look at this post and the post it responds to and claim that ppp is Town? Because if you can you are completely fucking delusional and I intend to avoid games with you in in future.

Okay, it's hard to judge how serious you are with any of your post/case. But the tone is the same throughout, and it looks like you probably need to take a break from the forum if this is how you're going to be.

Here's a point from the general forum rules and guidelines:

Do not bring outside influences into the game - this includes threats, bribes, wagers, promises, alliances, etc. Using knowledge from previous games is perfectly acceptable, but try not to carry grudges from one game to another.

I liked 347. *shrug*

I'm not going to comment on the claim right now other than to say I'm glad we have a claim to evaluate and it doesn't change my vote.

It would not be a grudge. It would be an assumption that any such player have a fundamental difference in thought processes and therefore probably shouldn't play in the same games.

Hmm. If you were to answer any of my points, I'd like you to answer 327, and also the actual argument presented on 347 and 356.

complete fabrication or your inability to read my posts, only reading what you want to see in my posts.

I hardly need to state how ridiculous this is coming from you.

For the record, I wouldn't be disappointed if I were lynched. The main source of my indignation and frustration is your blatant scumminess and people's complete lack of caring about it.

P-Edit: See? Fundamental differences (unless you flip Scum, in which case there may be mitigating circumstances). I didn't expect my claim to affect anyone's votes. I do, however, hope for my case to.

Ughhhh I want everyone to come backkk

That argument between implosion and PPP was nothing but subjectivity and perception, and I found it pretty boring for the most part, but 347 was particularly entertaining.

goodmorning (5) Cub Diagoro, Zaicon, Cheery Dog, Edosurist, Apozzle
Apozzle (3) ac1983fan, Human Destroyer, Nobody Special
pieceofpecanpie (2) implosion, goodmorning
Nobody Special (1) SafetyDance
SafetyDance (1) Belisarius
Cub Diagoro (0)
Belisarius (0)
Cheery Dog (0)
implosion (0)
Zaicon (0)
Edosurist (0)
ac1983fan (0)
Human Destroyer(0)
Not Voting: pieceofpecanpie

↑ goodmorning wrote:It would not be a grudge. It would be an assumption that any such player have a fundamental difference in thought processes and therefore probably shouldn't play in the same games.

Bahahahahahaha, cool story Hansel.

Their "difference in thought processes" to your own would be they are "completely fucking delusional" according to yourself. You are a piece of work. By the way, are you going to admit that you completely misread my #279?

↑ goodmorning wrote:Hmm. If you were to answer any of my points, I'd like you to answer 327, and also the actual argument presented on 347 and 356.

#327 is my own post, I can't answer that. I find it debatable that there is any actual argument presented in those other two, but if you believe there is then let me know exactly what it is you want me to reply to (see end of this post).

↑ goodmorning wrote:

complete fabrication or your inability to read my posts, only reading what you want to see in my posts.

I hardly need to state how ridiculous this is coming from you.

So rediculous that I immediately followed it with an example of your misrepresentation and misreading of my #279?

Look, I'm not going to engage in a snipe war. You're welcome to your opinion, however I'm not going to answer to it or try to change it. If you've got specific critique or points that you want me to answer then let me know.

Hold the phone...

↑ goodmorning wrote:Hmm. If you were to answer any of my points, I'd like you to answer 327, and also the actual argument presented on 347 and 356.

What on earth do you want me to answer? They aren't points their my posts. I guess you want me to look over your case on them and comment on that?

EBWOP: Should read "They aren't points they're posts."

I have read enough of GM and related that I am willing to move my vote.



That's L-1.

I want you to answer my points on your posts then. Quit dicking around with semantics, you know precisely what I mean.

I'm currently typing out a big response, so no need to fret.

In the meantime, quit dicking around and answer my #432.

My personal "misreading" of 279 may or may not have been a big "fuck you" to your own "misreading" of literally everything else in the game.

But since I said "may or may not" I guess we'll never know.

Eh I can make a start on this, since I believe it's what you want to hear.

↑ goodmorning wrote:327: We want a breakdown of the desperation in the points?
"- Apart from finding his #105 scummy and nonsensical his subsequent posts either haven't seemed scummy or been negligible"
Then why tunnel him for so long? (Unless you were trying for a mislynch and realised you wouldn't get one, that is.)

Tunnel? Where was I tunneling? I took Safety's #105 as scummy, made that clear and voted him. Also, he went flakey for a while and I can't find the part where I was whining "Where's Safety? Safety's scum. Lynch Safety".

↑ goodmorning wrote:"- I don't want to jump the gun, but his aggressive defence has read more town than scum"
This point is stupid/fabricated, Scum tend to have to play a more defensive game because offense makes slips more likely to happen and more obvious when they do.

"Stupid/fabricated" is your opinion of it and not an alignment tell. It can't be fabricated because that's how viewed it, so you're accusing me of fabricating my own thought process. I know what I thought, I also thought that so although view his defensive tone as more town than scum, it could easily be argued that it's the other way around. Again, how does this give you a scum-read on me or bolster your case?

↑ goodmorning wrote:"- The main thing that sticks in my craw is his stubbornness towards NS given there are much more interesting target and avenues to explore Day 1"
NS would be a reasonably decent lynch; there was hella discussion about him which is always good with associative types of tells. This point is simply a way to jump back on the wagon should it re-form.

"Reasonably decent lynch" is your opinion of NS and I disagree. You second point actually makes sense, my answer to that would be that I've made it clear that I'm still suspicious of Safety and am not prepared to call him town. I haven't tried to hide that in any way.

↑ goodmorning wrote:"- I really didn't like implosion zealously coming in to defend Safety in #109 when he admits that he hasn't read Safety in #119, this of course generates a lot of potential speculation over why this happened at all, but for now that has to go in the backburner. As a consequence however, it leaves some uncertainties over Safety (along with implosion)"
Hey presto, another target, another reason to jump back on the wagon at will.

Sure, but again I haven't said I am no longer suspicious of Safety and I haven't changed my opinion of implosions #109. So you're correct, I could see myself voting for them in the future.

↑ goodmorning wrote:"- On the whole Safety is a null tell (and thus not good voting fodder), I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent. Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now. He remains on my watch list."
AND ANOTHER
Also what in the fuck is going on with this equating of agreement with Townishness? Again, really?

I don't know what you mean by "equating of agreement with Townishness". Did you misread ?

↑ goodmorning wrote:I can do the Apozzle points too if you really want, but I think that's enough of that post for now. Perhaps "desperate" is not quite the word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment, except "scummy as fuck".

So far in your case I cannot see one part where you logically explain how I am being scummy, except that it's a feeling you have and somehow my tone is contributing to that.

↑ goodmorning wrote:347: deliberately, blatantly, and dickishly misrepresents implosion to the nth degree. Can any of you look at this post and the post it responds to and claim that ppp is Town? Because if you can you are completely fucking delusional and I intend to avoid games with you in in future.

My #427 and #432 respond to part of this. Let's break down the other part. I found implosion's #343 confusing. To use an analogy, several times he appeared to exclaim the equivalent of "you haven't even told me what music you like", yet in another section admitted "although you did mention you liked The Beatles". So I took that and theatrically posted the one after the other as a form of rebuttal. "deliberately" - yes, it was deliberate, I was putting on a show. "blatantly" - well I was hardly being sneaky about it. "dickishly" - hey that's your opinion, however I wasn't picking on implosion I was picking on what he said.

↑ goodmorning wrote:356: Let me explain to you what is wrong with your argument in 347.
What you did to implosion would be like me as a police officer taking your torrid love affair (You said, in this case: "I stole her heart within a week. I went to the bank for some cash and we eloped.") and arresting you for saying this ("I went to the bank and I stole some cash.").
The first rule of quoting: DON'T BE A DICK (the second rule: try not to change the meaning or intent of the original statement) (I learnt these in fourth grade, so I'm guessing you are aware of them)

I never rewrote what implosion said, I didn't scramble his words and fit them together in a different way. Your analogy is bunk. I quoted lines of his verbatim. It was my way of representing "I'm confused, what you wrote doesn't make sense".

Speaking of those things you learnt in the fourth grade. *cough cough* #389 and #426 (explaining my #279) for starters. Are they justifiable changes to the meaning or intent of the original statement because it helps you build a case on how scummy I am? Your reading of #279 is just plain wrong, and your 6-word interpretation of #389 is one of the main reasons you're getting lynched. See me after class please.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:I never rewrote what implosion said, I didn't scramble his words and fit them together in a different way. Your analogy is bunk. I quoted lines of his verbatim. It was my way of representing "I'm confused, what you wrote doesn't make sense".

You were also the accused, not the accuser, which I think is an important distinction.

Building a case and refuting a case are very different activities.

I wrote a rather long and ranty post bitching about your bullshit, but I deleted it and am writing this instead.

I am stepping back from this discussion. It isn't worth it to me to continue it.

Actually I'll respond to one thing because I can't resist, but that's it.
"I didn't scramble his words and fit them together in a different way."
No, you scrambled his lines and fit them together in a different way.

I'm pretty much resigned to being today's lynch. That's fine.
BUT
Town, if we lose because of this guy, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. And endgame will be nothing but me writing "I TOLD YOU SO" on endless loop.

P-Edit: Cub. Why do you appear to be coaching?

↑ goodmorning wrote:Cub. Why do you appear to be coaching?

↑ goodmorning wrote:I wrote a rather long and ranty post bitching about your bullshit, but I deleted it and am writing this instead.

I am stepping back from this discussion. It isn't worth it to me to continue it.

Actually I'll respond to one thing because I can't resist, but that's it.
"I didn't scramble his words and fit them together in a different way."
No, you scrambled his lines and fit them together in a different way.

I'm pretty much resigned to being today's lynch. That's fine.
BUT
Town, if we lose because of this guy, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. And endgame will be nothing but me writing "I TOLD YOU SO" on endless loop.

P-Edit: Cub. Why do you appear to be coaching?

Wow, sour grapes? Geez your tone is toxic.

When you say is it because you can't defend your own words, which are based on feeling and fabrication rather than fact?

What was the point of me even responding to your baloney then? It was never a "case", it was never "case closed", and now when you're faced with something to respond to - which you asked for - you're off to have a sulk instead?

- Absolutely, as I said . And you've just rewritten of the situation and . What's your point?

↑ Nobody Special wrote:I have read enough of GM and related that I am willing to move my vote.

unvote

Vote: goodmorning

That's L-1.

" - ?!?

You've done that how? By voting her? What have you read?

Could you add something further before the day is through? Anything...

Pretty sure it means "... enough of GM and [the] related [discussion thereof] ..."

Yes, what Cub said.

That makes sense.

Curse NS for using so few words to "involve" himself in the game.

Looks like I could use some coaching from you after all Cub.

Basically:
1. It would piss me off to continue, and this is a game which I'd like to enjoy rather than hate.
2. I am not going to convince you, nor you me.
3. Enough has been said that people are capable of judging for themselves.
4. Continuing to clog the thread with a slapfest will only serve to distract.
5. You remind me of someone I used to argue with frequently, and the only recourse for both of us was ending in "Shut up." That's particularly useless in a game like this.

Also, my point with that analogy was to use simple words to stand in place of implosion's lines and demonstrate that by taking them out of context one could (and did) get a drastically different result. If I said you were Strawmanning any harder I'd lose my voice (figuratively, of course).

1. That's unfortunate.

2. Well perhaps, but it's more for the benefit of others.

3. They haven't seen a point by point rebuke from you to my #439, instead they've only seen you throw up your hands in disgust. If that's good enough for you then I can't change that.

4. & 5. I see the mafia game a bit more like a tennis match, we trade shots back and forth and although not all of them are winners some are. Others watch and judge accordingly and I suppose everyone is their own umpire of the match (don't ask me where the mods fits in, but whatever this is abstract and on the fly). But what you've done to me twice now this game is clam up and refuse to play, just a moment ago and previously when you told me to "go ask a debate team or an English teacher". I don't think you have any right to declare a loss for town to be all because of "this guy", because if you flip VT then "this guy" certainly won't be taking pointers from your VT rulebook or your thoughts on this game.

Also, if that was your point then I suggest you tell me - and everyone else - what implosion said that you agree with and how I butchered it with my #347. But I suppose you're too pissed off to do so.