Mafiascum.net

In post 420, Doublade wrote:"i'm making reads on people with not even a single post to back them up, but i'm going to attack other people for having scumreads on me and get all butthurt because you're not supposed to scumread me so soon".

Not quite, but not as inaccurate as you'd expect me to answer. I'm making some reads with no backing. I've made other reads with plenty of backing, which the majority of my posting is. And it's again you thinking I'm the chicken when I'm the egg, in that I scumread a fair majority of those players...well before they so much as remotely had a scumread on me. And even on those that did, it wasn't because of a player scumreading me, but because it was scumreading me in .

And there really shouldn't be a wagon on us. Not coming from town. The wagon can have town on it, yeah, sure. But it's still ridiculously scumdriven.

not town "but i'm town so that doesn't apply" sorts of rebuttals i think

Except both Anti and I's points are, quite explicitly, exactly that? Saying it doesn't apply is basically the majority of what Antihero's done, and demonstrating it I know has made a large part of my play.

In post 419, Antihero wrote:

In post 414, Sharpest-knife-on-tree wrote:this is a strawman argument. Followed by time to go bye bye. Set up the strawman and retreat.
No, I poked at the quick reads without basis. I think I made a jab at that before reacting to TipDeath's stuff.

this is confirmation bias.
this is "i won't listen to a goddamn thing you have to say because i've made up my mind"

my hypothesis is that you are dangerous as mafia.
Your games support that you dangerous as mafia as you won 2 games, all be it micro.
Please tell me how I am dismissing facts to support a hypothesis. Or please tell me how I am interpreting evidence contrary to facts.

In post 424, Fear wrote:

In post 418, Antihero wrote:

In post 415, Fear wrote:there is a difference between engaging in arguments that might prove not worthwhile and engaging in arguments knowing jackshit will come from it

oh please, don't give specifics. just be as vague and unhelpful as possible.

do I really have to quote every single quote strips

I'm accusing your slot of empty reads, hollow posts, fruitless engagements

got anything you wanna veto in that list I'm game

all of them

game on

hello marquis. i see that you think i'm too mean. i don't want to be this mean. but the logical acrobatics of this thread piss me off.

In post 426, Sharpest-knife-on-tree wrote:my hypothesis is that you are dangerous as mafia.
Your games support that you dangerous as mafia as you won 2 games, all be it micro.
Please tell me how I am dismissing facts to support a hypothesis. Or please tell me how I am interpreting evidence contrary to facts.

getting a scum win hardly qualifies someone as "dangerous"
your hypothesis remains woefully inadequately supported

In post 421, mastin2 wrote:

In post 415, Fear wrote:there is a difference between engaging in arguments that might prove not worthwhile and engaging in arguments knowing jackshit will come from it

Yes, well, I'm engaging in arguments I quite explicitly am seeing productive results from, sooooooooooo....

but of course!

how am I being hypocrite again?

Your reasoning on clutter in the thread was extraneous, you have given basically no reads and no reasoning behind it (you're saying these things about our slot but not really elaborating on them) as you accused us of, and as mentioned, you've lacked engagement until just now.

so i have done the exact opposite of what I'm accusing you of, so how in the hell is that being hypocrite

if you don't like quote stripes, link posts

In post 427, Antihero wrote:

In post 424, Fear wrote:

In post 418, Antihero wrote:

In post 415, Fear wrote:there is a difference between engaging in arguments that might prove not worthwhile and engaging in arguments knowing jackshit will come from it

oh please, don't give specifics. just be as vague and unhelpful as possible.

do I really have to quote every single quote strips

I'm accusing your slot of empty reads, hollow posts, fruitless engagements

got anything you wanna veto in that list I'm game

all of them

game on

to start off: why dont you give me a person or two in mastin's scumslot of which he has given valid reasons

nonono that's not how this goes

you're the one making the case. you go link stuff and make your case.

i dont make cases

i fuck scum

i'm just going to

go and watch some teen wolf now

ok bye

[marquis]

In post 433, Fear wrote:i dont make cases

i fuck scum

...

ok... i'm not going to make the really obvious snappy comeback

i'm going to go eat a burger

In post 416, mastin2 wrote:You claim Antihero wins as scum a lot.Antihero says that he doesn't really, and thinks himself obvscum.Antihero provides his most recent scumgames, where this is demonstrated.They do not match your version but match his.You post "you have more games than that" as an accusation against him that he's selectively showing games.And you are also saying our reaction to seeing this train of thought is expected. (Of scum, presumably.)

I made an error in saying he draws scum a lot. I misread one of his columns. But let us look at that facts of his games played.
25 total complete games.
Drew scum role 8 total times. He won as scum a total of 6 times. He lost 1 time in a multi-ball game. He lost once as a SK. That is a high win percentage as scum.
Scum won 16 of the games he played. So 8 games scum won when he was not-scum. 9 times town won when town.
So tell me how the facts do not support that he is dangerous scum. Now the #s may differ when you factor out micro games or not but I am not a math guy either. I do skim and make errors.
Now, what I said was that the "reaction" to me is what is expected. The quick scum read on non-sense. Go look at all the completed PB games. Go back to the completed game we were both in Mastin. I did replace into that one though, so this is first game you had with me cold.

In post 428, Antihero wrote:getting a scum win hardly qualifies someone as "dangerous"your hypothesis remains woefully inadequately supported

sure, your scum play does not pose risk of physical harm, so if you are referring to that definition of dangerous, then no.

Do you win a lot as scum, yes. Does that make you dangerous scum, yes. Can you pull out a great game as town. Yes.
Basically you have managed to win if scum outside of a multiball and a serial killer. Yes, that makes you dangerous as scum. I find it really eyebrow raising that you are even making an issue out of this and do not understand what the town motivation would be for making a big deal out of it. It is vexing if you are town. No where did I ever say that scum won solely on the basis of your play. I made a quick determination with some facts which are a lot stronger than the empty "scumread" voiced my your slot. So please explain to me why not dangerous. In fact, someone who is "obviscum" by their own opinion but still manages to win and convince others not to string them up is in my book dangerous scum. This is support by the #s and your own self perception of your own play.

Wow, this is crazy!! Anyway, Mastin and Antihero. Your unique responses to being the main wagon right now are intriguing, but now is not the time to get angry and arrogant. To be honest, you two sound a little too desperate to be normal. Plus, the raging kinda hurts my brain.

Mastin, what is your readslist based off of? What warrants Zdenek and me, among others, at the top of your list? What warrants SKOT and JD, among others, at the bottom of the list? I think that's the real problem -- having reads, but publishing them without thinking them through enough.

[caled]

PEDIT: darn it marquis teen wolf isnt even that cool

Oh, and I did have one premise that proved faulty anti. I had a premise that your reactions would not be interesting. I was wrong. That premise proved false.

For mastin and others. Where I come from this is what a typical day one is where I come from.
Schtick, more schtick, voting for silly reasons. At some point a wagon starts and sometimes a counter wagon. It builds or moves. Folks are brought to a claim. Claim evaluated and either move on for another claim or a decision to lynch. Generally the longer the day one the better things have tended to be for finding scum. You would not find the kind of stuff you see over here. Entirely different style of play. I am working to adapt but the "reactions" I am talking about are the ones I got from TipDeath and Mastin. Interestingly enough there has been less reaction here than I have been getting. Do not know what to make of that. So, I decided to start picking at someone that was among the 4 wagons to see if that was a direction to go. And here I am. Playing with what I know to do, coming from an entirely different day one perspective.

caled:

the reason this is so soul-suckingly infuriating is the nature of the jabs. i feel like the majority of the thrust is "OMG mastin has reads on people who didn't post or unexplained reads. burn the witch!" (not a scumtell) and "policy lynch because i don't like antihero or mastin or both" (which is thinly veiled behind "no good reads" or some arguments that's just transparently crap).

yes, there are scum on this wagon, but knowing there are town that are on this wagon for all the wrong reasons (wanting to "clean up" the thread) is taxing and it actually kind of hurts.

In post 441, Sharpest-knife-on-tree wrote:Oh, and I did have one premise that proved faulty anti. I had a premise that your reactions would not be interesting. I was wrong. That premise proved false.

you didn't capitalize "anti" in the first sentence.

interesting.

seriously, that's how i feel like you're talking to me, peacebringer.

In post 445, Antihero wrote:seriously, that's how i feel like you're talking to me, peacebringer.

yes, I am purposefully picking at things. There is no malice here though, no ill will, just trying to gauge the slot. I can get very aggressive in my picking at things. However, it is not really about the "minor" details with me but the overall picture. Right now I sense some evasion, this in turn results in more picking. Sorry if it is frustrating. It is one of the things I do.

In post 444, Antihero wrote:

In post 441, Sharpest-knife-on-tree wrote:Oh, and I did have one premise that proved faulty anti. I had a premise that your reactions would not be interesting. I was wrong. That premise proved false.

you didn't capitalize "anti" in the first sentence.

interesting.

btw, my response to such a statement is "and, so what." the reactions that I get from you are quite different than that. Now granted I don't know you or mastin for that matter. I have no baseline on your reactions and reading past games does not give them to me. I do know there is an evasive feel. Now not all evasion feels are scum driven and can be "hyper-survival" reactions or other factors. I have no information other than what mastin has said and taught compared to what she is doing here. Your reactions became a side-note.

In post 444, Antihero wrote:

In post 441, Sharpest-knife-on-tree wrote:Oh, and I did have one premise that proved faulty anti. I had a premise that your reactions would not be interesting. I was wrong. That premise proved false.

you didn't capitalize "anti" in the first sentence.

interesting.

to help you understand my perspective a little better. The response I tend to get around here is "you didn't capitalize 'anti' in first sentence. Only scum do that, you must be scum"

In post 448, Sharpest-knife-on-tree wrote:

In post 444, Antihero wrote:

In post 441, Sharpest-knife-on-tree wrote:Oh, and I did have one premise that proved faulty anti. I had a premise that your reactions would not be interesting. I was wrong. That premise proved false.

you didn't capitalize "anti" in the first sentence.

interesting.

to help you understand my perspective a little better. The response I tend to get around here is "you didn't capitalize 'anti' in first sentence. Only scum do that, you must be scum"

and that is how I "felt" about TipDeath and mastin's reactions to me. I decided to pick and mastin preciously because she would react and was one of the current wagons. I have no information on the other 3 on way or another.