Mafiascum.net

EBWOP Clarification: - comment was directed at the part.

EBWOP
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.

Well i never got to this. I will tomorrow if the day isn't over, but from the cursory read i've done so far, i'd probably vote apozzle over goodmorning.

↑ goodmorning wrote:Oh, fuck, deadline is in less than 2 days?
GROSS

Lynch me if you have to, I'm only VT so it's no big loss to Town, but honestly ppp is obvScum and you guys are idiots. I'll try and do the rest of the case now if you'll hold off lynching me for a bit.

I see town in this post, but the battle with GM and POPP is making the game rather unreadable in terms of everyone else, but as someone that would like to see a scum lynch day 1 (and perferrbly every othe day as well), I think I'll still unvote and hope these rivaliers don't distract tomorrow.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Apozzle

*facedesk*

*ahem* GM is at L-1.

My intention to vote her to L-1 is now an intention to hammer.

*cough*

But I am aware of the deadline if I need to move my vote back

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:*ahem* GM is at L-1.

My intention to vote her to L-1 is now an intention to hammer.

With Cheery Dog's unvote, it's L-2

What implosion said that I agree with and you butchered:
"you misrepresented my points completely and entirely and your responses bear absolutely no link to reality"
So maybe he should have said "bear just one tenuous link to reality" but the point still applies.
You quoted ad nauseum the fact that he said one point kinda sorta addresses what he said (conveniently excising the part where he mentions that it clearly does not refute anything), ignoring the rest of his case.

As to your tennis argument... Well, let's just say that in tennis, the ball is a ball. The other player can't just substitute a cupcake or a brick, it's always a tennis ball.

EBWODP: Keep forgetting to mention this, but as has been the case for the past while, that was directed at ppp.

Okay, so I was being devious and his case had merit to you.

I like your play on my tennis analogy, I think you've got a good point.

So is it my deviousness in #347 that makes me scummy or do you agree with implosion's case? If it's the latter, any particular points?

Now you initially jumped on me after my #327, so how does that tie into it? And do you have a response to my rebuttal in #439 of that case?

Yes, 343 has merit to me.

Thank you. (I don't pull myself to maximum coherency often, but when I do it usually involves baked goods .)

347 made me feel more confident in my read of you, for deviousness/boyish attitude/etc.
Well, implosion has stated cases multiple times, so I'm not sure which in particular you're referring to.
In 320 I agree with his third point and much of the second as well. I've stated my reasoning on the third already. As to the second... it's kind of subjective, but I agree that that particular feeling is there. The first and fourth I can personally take or leave.

As to your 327, I found it scummy, and that is how it ties into it. To your rebuttal (points numbered to avoid quotewall):
1. Maybe tunneling is the wrong word, what I meant there was "pushing really quite hard with little attention paid to anything else"
2. That's fine. I feel you fabricated it. Others may not.
3. Also fine that you disagree. I am not trying to imply that you are/were no longer suspicious of Safety, that's actually sort of my point.
4. Also sort of the point.
5. I meant "relating of agreement/disagreement", I should probably double-check stuff before I post it.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Apozzle

Susan vs. gm is almost town v. town; that type of frustration is difficult to feign and we need an alternative.

That was L-1, yes?

This is exactly what I expected. Disgustingly predictable.

L-2 actually; there are now 2 players at L-2.

Nice AtE, though.

I'm counting L-3:

AC, HD, Cheery & Bel.

Who am I missing?

Oh, nobody special.

EBWOP NVM, I missed NS's revote in my private tally.

I was hoping that we would lynch GM before it happened. I expected a push on my wagon closer to the end. No appeal, just pissed.

Wondering whether I should claim now or wait until someone declares intent to whatever?

I think you should only claim now if we can't gauge enough willingness to lynch GM by deadline.

Here's the willingness to lynch GM as I read it:

Cub: yes
Apozzle: yes
NS: yes
PPP: yes

Zaicon: yes?
Edos: yes?
Cheery: yes?

Bel: no

Implosion: no?
AC: no?

HD: ???
Safety: ???

If we don't get seven firm yeses in the next couple hours, then claim regardless of your vote count.

I am in class for the next 3.5 hours but I will try to check back in ~2.

↑ Apozzle wrote:I was hoping that we would lynch GM before it happened. I expected a push on my wagon closer to the end. No appeal, just pissed.

Wondering whether I should claim now or wait until someone declares intent to whatever?

You sound awfully certain you're to be lynched when you're L-3 and GM is L-1.

↑ Apozzle wrote:I am in class for the next 3.5 hours but I will try to check back in ~2.

After class probably leaves plenty of time still and gives people like (who is also in classes, I believe) a chance to weigh in.

. Deadline. 9 hours. Anything?

At least answer this easy yes or no question:

Are you willing to lynch goodmorning by deadline if the Apozzle wagon doesn't work out?