Mafiascum.net

So, why not correct the misconception right at the beginning instead of blowing up the thread? Or maybe I'm mis-interpreting this?

Hello, old friends and new friends.

In post 425, ProHawk wrote:So, why not correct the misconception right at the beginning instead of blowing up the thread? Or maybe I'm mis-interpreting this?

I have done so repeatedly, and immediately from the moment you made the claim.

The spoilered provides sample posts but they are often only a small slice of a much larger, 20-70 page back and forth, and I link to the games directly underneath the screenshots. Sample 3, Replica in Undertale, is a sterling example.

In post 422, ProHawk wrote:

In post 358, Prism wrote:defensiveness is NAI

Would like to address this for the class though...

Caught for the wrong reasons is a syndrome of scum-not town.

Defensiveness is NAI, however OTT defensiveness I've found comes from scum-more than town.

What even is OTT defensiveness?

Also in response to #402 , That's also probably the rarest case, and why no one ever quick hammers as town (especially in my past games). Even then it still doesn't ever look good, and always warrants attention to the person who quickhammered.

OTT defensiveness=over the top defensiveness

Also, hey Cabd.

Okay, so.... going through StrangeMatter's ISO -

It wasn't terribly long or hard. I liked that they kinda went to bat for me against Prism but I think that's just me wanting validation more so than anything concrete.

I did notice that there wasn't and STILL isn't a clear vote for pressure or scum or anything really. There are a few reads put out there and a few comments, but honestly I don't see any or very little scum-hunting here. A lot of it is just sitting back and commenting.

This wouldn't be a bad vote for today and I could get behind it.

In post 427, Cabd wrote:Hello, old friends and new friends.

Old friends is right!! Glad to see you're still kickin.

You've got a lot to catch up on...

In post 428, Prism wrote:

In post 425, ProHawk wrote:So, why not correct the misconception right at the beginning instead of blowing up the thread? Or maybe I'm mis-interpreting this?

I have done so repeatedly, and immediately from the moment you made the claim.

Wasn't that like after blowing up the thread? Saying something like maybe you missed this? What do you think my post here and here are doing?

And actually reading the room... I'm thinking about going here.

It was my second post after you made the defensiveness claim, 15 minutes afterwards because I had to screenshot and dig up links. What the fuck are you talking about by saying I should have done it sooner?

Go look for yourself instead of outsourcing it to me 24/7 holy shit dude

Imagine a world where you have a question about when something was posted and could just click the link that takes you to the time it was posted

In post 433, ProHawk wrote:Okay, so.... going through StrangeMatter's ISO -

It wasn't terribly long or hard. I liked that they kinda went to bat for me against Prism but I think that's just me wanting validation more so than anything concrete.

I did notice that there wasn't and STILL isn't a clear vote for pressure or scum or anything really. There are a few reads put out there and a few comments, but honestly I don't see any or very little scum-hunting here. A lot of it is just sitting back and commenting.

This wouldn't be a bad vote for today and I could get behind it.

Two people (Greeting, Implosion), in the last game I just played, said a very, very similar thing to this.

In post 437, Prism wrote:Imagine a world where you have a question about when something was posted and could just click the link that takes you to the time it was posted

OMFG

I voted you in post #306 8:21PM

You posted...

18 posts until

#343 (which is the one you linked to) at 10:30PM

Imagine theres no country.... no religion too....

Apparently I walked into a bar, and by bar, I mean a heated back and forth between Hawkie and Prism.

I'm going to set that aside for now and start reading from the start.

In post 438, StrangeMatter wrote: Two people (Greeting, Implosion), in the last game I just played, said a very, very similar thing to this.

Please don't make me assume what your point is here??

I'm not moving my vote. I will explain this one more time but I refuse to go anywhere else.

In post 435, ProHawk wrote:

VOTE: StrangeMatter

- -

strangematter do u have more reads yet..?
ur one of the people im debating between tbh

In post 425, ProHawk wrote:So, why not correct the misconception right at the beginning instead of blowing up the thread? Or maybe I'm mis-interpreting this?

We are talking about my level of defensiveness and hyperaggression in response to bad pushes on me,

You imply that my defensiveness is scum indicative in Post 336. I ask you to make it explicit in 337. You do so in 339. I respond with 343

This entire sequence takes place in 22 minutes.

I refuse to believe that ProHawk is not literate. I'm not moving my vote.

In case you somehow directly responded to this post without understanding what misconception I was asserting, I will make it extremely large for you.

In post 424, Prism wrote:You"re adamant I should have read your games looking for nothing in particular. Perhaps you should peruse the samples I linked and look for a very specific behavior.

This hyperaggression in response to inadequate or contradictory pushes on me is my bread and butter.

I am aware of my meta and can fake it accordingly, but this is a trivial misconception to fix, and you would be powering down the same doomed and easily preventable path as many players before you in pursuing it.

If you interpreted this as a response to the meta claim, rather than a suggestion to do a minimal amount of work, I again addressed this other claim immediately but am tired of doing your work for you. 343 is blatantly about my hyperaggression and not how I meta other players, and it is literally impossible to interpret it as anything else.

I just can't believe that ProHawk actually takes the time to think about any of the things he says or responds to. He does not read linked posts, he does not read for context, he does not do basic research. I am 100% fine voting him out for it.

Sorry I rushed that post.

My point is that that’s just how I play right now, and multiple people have pointed that out. Though those two were both Town (actually there’s another game where people literally accused me several times doing nothing), I feel like it’s something people constantly say about my slot and is very easy to latch onto.

Alright, time to take a lap

My vote isn't moving, I can get overruled but yeah, end of story. I will vote him all the way to ELo without remorse.