Mafiascum.net

In post 425, Roden wrote:Makes me think there's definitely scum between the four of us.

In post 426, excallq wrote:

In post 425, Roden wrote:Makes me think there's definitely scum between the four of us.

I kinda agree with the post from awhile back that say they thought the interaction between you and Ranny looked a bit s/s-ish but I'm comfortable keeping my vote on Ranny.

In post 69, T3 wrote:I lowkey don't like ramy or rodens shading of each other.

In post 70, Roden wrote:Are we giving you scum vs scum vibes?

In post 71, T3 wrote:No, but I independently don't like the shading.

In post 72, Jake The Wolfie wrote:Do you think one of them could be town?

In post 74, T3 wrote:It's more that I think they're both slightly scummy for that.

In post 424, Roden wrote:

In post 415, cw357 wrote:

In post 395, Roden wrote:Also, we only have three days left and the wagons all feel like they're losing steam. Are we looking at pursuing a wagon against one of DGB, Ranny, Excallq,

or myself

? Or is there interest on someone else?

uhhhhhhh

It's because we're the only ones with votes atm. It seems like no one wants to draw attention and heavily push one of these potential wagons over another.

In post 83, T3 wrote:I don't think the interactions signify either s/s or t/t or t/s.

In post 433, excallq wrote:It went on a bit further and this was basically the last post on it:

In post 83, T3 wrote:I don't think the interactions signify either s/s or t/t or t/s.

So no I don't think a consensus was formed. I think the heat came off you and onto others. Your interpretation of this as a consensus vindication though which you offered in response to some fairly mild pressure is a bit off IMO.

In post 432, Rannygazoo wrote:

In post 424, Roden wrote:

In post 415, cw357 wrote:

In post 395, Roden wrote:Also, we only have three days left and the wagons all feel like they're losing steam. Are we looking at pursuing a wagon against one of DGB, Ranny, Excallq,

or myself

? Or is there interest on someone else?

uhhhhhhh

It's because we're the only ones with votes atm. It seems like no one wants to draw attention and heavily push one of these potential wagons over another.

I feel like I could make a case against bugthey but y’all are probably tired of me after cw.

Do you want to hear it, though?

In post 435, Roden wrote:

In post 432, Rannygazoo wrote:

In post 424, Roden wrote:

In post 415, cw357 wrote:

In post 395, Roden wrote:Also, we only have three days left and the wagons all feel like they're losing steam. Are we looking at pursuing a wagon against one of DGB, Ranny, Excallq,

or myself

? Or is there interest on someone else?

uhhhhhhh

It's because we're the only ones with votes atm. It seems like no one wants to draw attention and heavily push one of these potential wagons over another.

I feel like I could make a case against bugthey but y’all are probably tired of me after cw.

Do you want to hear it, though?

It can't hurt, so I don't see why not.

In post 438, DrippingGoofball wrote:I am digging cw's recent posting streak.

In post 436, excallq wrote:Answer me this: What's your current read of Ranny?

Rannygazoo wrote:That’s me, perpetual exasperated townie

In post 438, DrippingGoofball wrote:I am digging cw's recent posting streak.

In post 439, Rannygazoo wrote:

In post 435, Roden wrote:

In post 432, Rannygazoo wrote:

In post 424, Roden wrote:

In post 415, cw357 wrote:

In post 395, Roden wrote:Also, we only have three days left and the wagons all feel like they're losing steam. Are we looking at pursuing a wagon against one of DGB, Ranny, Excallq,

or myself

? Or is there interest on someone else?

uhhhhhhh

It's because we're the only ones with votes atm. It seems like no one wants to draw attention and heavily push one of these potential wagons over another.

I feel like I could make a case against bugthey but y’all are probably tired of me after cw.

Do you want to hear it, though?

It can't hurt, so I don't see why not.

I’ll ISO dive later, but the short answer is they were hyperagressive to begin with and then dropped off once someone (DGB) picked up heat. This feels like a scum mindset— as long as the attention is on someone else, they can coast.

In post 440, Roden wrote:

In post 436, excallq wrote:Answer me this: What's your current read of Ranny?

...Is this a serious question? I've put pressure on him twice now, and the only person I'm reading as scummier is DGB. I've been pretty open about not trusting Ranny. I'm not full scum reading since he does sound like an exasperated townie, and I could just be making awful reads.

In post 442, Roden wrote:If I wasn't so tunneled on DGB right now, and if I was more liable to make OMGUS votes, I'd probably jump on the Excall wagon. His line of posts doesn't look good and relies on a situation he essentially made up in his head to make work.

If you think I'm scum buddies with Ranny, I'd rather you just make a case than plant seeds for Day 2.

Rannygazoo wrote:That’s me, perpetual exasperated townie

I genuinely do believe this

In post 412, excallq wrote:

In post 385, Jessica Rabbit wrote:

In post 373, excallq wrote:

In post 365, Jessica Rabbit wrote:

In post 348, excallq wrote:Random early (probably more than half wrong) reads on some folks.

cw: Can't really get a sense of whether or not the inactivity is tactical but the vote for me feels like it was a "safe" one in that he could just point to my earlier less-than-supremely-serious posts without having to provide much in the way of explanation or logic behind the vote, and since there wasn't any momentum behind eliminating me it wouldn't garner so much attention.

T3: Leaning towards believing the roleclaim

Jessica Rabbit: Feels like she's trying to project helpful

Ranny: Think he's been happier just getting in minor spats since attention has shifted to DGB and CW. Keeping my vote on him.

Roden: Kind of agreed with whoever said the tiff with Ranny seemed staged but he's been feeling more town lately.

DGB: Has been pushing back in a lot of directions and kinda flailing. To me it reads more purely aggressive than overtly scummy but I don't have a read on him as town either.

Anyone I didn't list I don't have a solid read on at all (insofar as any of these are remotely solid)

I’m not a fan of this. If your take on me is that I’m being helpful then where is the shade coming from? It’s akin to claiming a player who is very clearly doing townie things is trying to look like they are but not really.

I said my read on you was that you were trying to project the image of being helpful. This is different from and independent of actually being helpful.

The only thing I actually don’t hate about these posts is your take on T3. Why because these takes with the sole exception of the T3 read don’t make a lot of sense as a whole.

Considering that one of the “spats” Ranny got into was with me, why would you shade both of us here? It seems really clear that you’re scumreading Ranny and don’t think we’re aligned, so I don’t understand the thought process behind any of it besides the T3 thing.

I said nothing about you being aligned with Ranny or not. Curious why it seems to clear to you think I have that opinion.

Yes and it’s an extremely bizarre take. It looks like you want to shade me without any basis that makes any sense. What does that even mean? How is it even possible to “project helpfulness” and not actually be helpful? Why are you curious? you were shading both of us.

The bizarre takes are that me getting vaguely evil whiffs off two people means I am positively asserting those two are aligned and that stating you're trying to project helpfulness is some unfathomable concept.

Is there a language barrier? You come off like you're trying to feign being an active pro-town scum-hunter but that you aren't actually helping at all and just stirring up smoke. Which is exactly what you're doing.

In post 414, cw357 wrote:ok so strategy idea: idk if i get killed tonight but i can just doc the vig target
so the target dies if they're scum and lives if they aren't

maybe there's an issue with that so pls point it out if there is
I saw something about there being a strongman (idk if it's true i just saw it while scrolling through the thread; forgive me if i took it out of context) so my role isn't even useful against scum kills

In post 447, Roden wrote:Then vote me and get a wagon going. See if you can get me to reveal if I have a PR or not. If you're not intent on doing this, then I'm comfortable in believing you just want to plant seeds for Day 2.

You're also blatantly trying to get around the fact you fucked up with the scum vs scum claim. If you could honestly deny it, a townie absolutely would by now. Or at the very least, a townie would admit they made a mistake. Why do you keep trying to talk around it?