Mafiascum.net

First off, I am sorry about my comments. I'll explain why Chaos's case makes no sense. I'll get to the rest of the post sometime later. I don't really know what to make of Chaos's affiliation based on this case: I just feel that it is a bad one. I think scum are among {Chaos, Bulb, Sangres, TPR, and TIP} but I don't know who and I doubt I'll make more headway at this point without extensive meta-dives which I might start next week.

In post 337, ChaosOmega wrote:Alright, my gut instinct says that the scum are The Purple Rose and pitoli, with pitoli being a godfather. The godfather thing is from this quote:

pitoli wrote:At this point I welcome any daycop (or night cop) to have their way with me

It's not pro-town to want to be investigated by cops. If you know you're town, it's a wasted investigation that won't hit scum. A godfather would love to be "cleared" in such a manner, though.

This is Chaos's interpretation of mafia theory. If he is town, that is merely his own opinion. There is certainly town motivation in wanting to be cleared as Pitoli expressed. It frees the townie from having to defend themselves constantly, and allows them to focus on scumhunting. Chaos here is forcing his opinions on mafia theory onto Pitoli.

In post 337, ChaosOmega wrote:Your 3 votes this game were on TIP (RVS), Sangres, and TIP again. So 2 votes of any real merit.

This is not even relevant. Vote hopping (or the lack of it) is null. It depends more on the player's personality than their affiliation. For example, I sometimes vote hop a lot as town, sometimes I hold back on voting partly just based on whims. The most important thing to consider is the gamestate. VCA can be useful if you are nearing deadline and have competing wagons. Then the votes (or lack of them) will give alignment-indicative analysis. At this point in the game, nobody has seriously decided who they are going to lynch. Wagons are forming and dismantling (primarily for pressure). Voting or not voting isn't alignment indicative. People will vote when they want to vote and at this stage of the game, it really doesn't matter. Even if you feel that it does, you can't uniformly apply to this tell to every player. The above quote attempts to make Pitoli look bad by saying she doesn't have "votes of real merit" but is actually a completely meaningless statement with regards to whether she is scum or town.

In post 337, ChaosOmega wrote:The Sangres vote came 20 minutes after Sangres voted for pitoli. You can say it's not OMGUS, but it certainly looks like it.

pitoli wrote:VOTE: Sangres

Not exceptionally scummy but that vote's timing kind of was.

pitoli wrote:idk, just, third vote on a wagon? Im always watching if that shit looks like an opportunity to cement momentum on a mislynch

Nacho it just didnt feel like you even gave it that much thought

Wow, your third vote on a wagon reasoning sounds super confident in that second post. The first post says the vote timing is "exceptionally scummy". When asked to explain it, you act like you were called on in class and aren't sure of the answer. Also, you said you watch those votes to see if people are trying to cement mislynches, and then say that he didn't give the vote much thought. Those ideas seem contradictory to me. If he was trying to cement momentum on a mislynch, wouldn't he have given thought to the vote?

I disagree that Pitoli has contradicted herself. Her definition of "thoughtless" could be "without genuine townish reasoning" or "without caring about my affiliation." Chaos basically defines "thoughtless" literally and assumes it means "without any thoughts." He then points out that "cementing momentum" is a thought and hence Pitoli contradicted herself. This is a very uncharitable interpretation. I find that interpreting people's posts by applying the principle of charity is much more helpful than trying to nail "contradictions" which really are non-existent.

In post 337, ChaosOmega wrote:Hmmm...this conversation doesn't strike me as scummy for pitoli. TIP, you said that your vote-switch to F16 was OMGUS, but he wasn't voting you when you placed that vote. I'm grabbing some food, post about TPR in a few hours.

Now he says that Pitoli's exchange with TIP isn't scummy. I agree. I am unsure about Chaos's affiliation at this point and you are right that the last part where he basically undermines his case rings townish. But I really don't like that he is ignoring my opposition despite saying that he thinks I am town. How is he going to lynch his scumreads without town support? And by stating a townread on me, I expect him to attempt to persuade me that he is right. He only focussing on specific players and that is something I need to think more in-depth. I also dislike that he is already stating that he might have to abandon his reads before deadline when then is plenty of time left to push his own reads.

; The case against Pitoli is bad because the supposed "contradiction" relies on interpreting her statements in an extremely uncharitable way.

In post 475, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

In post 337, ChaosOmega wrote:Alright, my gut instinct says that the scum are The Purple Rose and pitoli, with pitoli being a godfather. The godfather thing is from this quote:

pitoli wrote:At this point I welcome any daycop (or night cop) to have their way with me

It's not pro-town to want to be investigated by cops. If you know you're town, it's a wasted investigation that won't hit scum. A godfather would love to be "cleared" in such a manner, though.

This is Chaos's interpretation of mafia theory. If he is town, that is merely his own opinion. There is certainly town motivation in wanting to be cleared as Pitoli expressed. It frees the townie from having to defend themselves constantly, and allows them to focus on scumhunting. Chaos here is forcing his opinions on mafia theory onto Pitoli.

I feel I have to back chaos up here, he's getting too much flak for a correct application of a less well known tell. This does have the advantage that scum might not avoid it. This is godfather tell, and enough have fallen for it.

Now, you come with a reasoning that say he might be a townie that wants to be cleared. You and I both know, that's not the first thing on your mind if you are a townie. We both are rather busy figuring out who's the scum, not making sure we get seen as town by investigations. Now, I wonder what role does have that as his first thought (and since this popped up with pitoli very quickly)... Indeed, the godfather. Because, wouldn't you love it if you got investigated if you were a godfather. Now that would be brilliant.

Also, which kind of people make a lone post solely for that purpose, on page 6, that is entirely about a particular role that might or might not be in the game? It reeks to me that pitoli knows too much about this setup. Another reason why she'd be the godfather, she'd have a good idea that there might be a cop in the game called "there is no doctor".

As such, this is not a vote I made with my heart, I can logically explain you how pitoli showed that she had different interests and perhaps different knowledge then we do.

Did you seriously say vote hopping is null?

In post 475, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:I think scum are among {Chaos, Bulb, Sangres, TPR, and TIP}

So half the game, then? That's everybody except LS, who is confirmed town, ETL, who is obv. town, and Pitoli, who you are WKing like crazy. I also love how you're not allowing yourself any strong stances on who is scum in that group. You'll push hard on somebody and then go "Oh, I don't know if they're scum, though.". It's way to convenient and safe.

In post 475, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: Chaos here is forcing his opinions on mafia theory onto Pitoli.

You said yourself that Chaos has a certain (widely held) theory when it comes to mafia. In that case, he's not forcing it on Pitoli, he's applying said theory to find scum.

In post 475, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: I find that interpreting people's posts by applying the principle of charity is much more helpful than trying to nail "contradictions" which really are non-existent.

You really don't want to find scum, do you?

In post 475, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

Tl,dr

; The case against Pitoli is bad because the supposed "contradiction" relies on interpreting her statements in an extremely uncharitable way.

That's not even the entirety of the case. You just said "The entire case on Pitoli is bad, because of one point that might not be an actual contradiction, because Chaos didn't consider that she may not be scum.". Bull crap.

pitoli - after what I thought was a shaky start, pitoli looks pretty damn town. I think post 459 would convince me of her alignment on it's own. Sooo been there, done that in other games. I think I actually got FoSed for expressing that sentiment (to/about someone who turned out to be scum :/) in the Amnesiac game.

EspeciallyTheLies - the reaction to being buddied and the reaction to TPR's push. I like the way she maintains a guarded suspicion while working with players.


F-16_Fighting_Falcon - Experiential meta says something's off, but with 2 games (one of which was a relatively short interaction due to our both of us replacing in on day 3 of a newbie game, I'm not sure "off" translates to something alignment indicative. He's meta'd the crap out of me for both prior games, so I feel like he should be aware of the variance in both my solo and hydra play. I also don't think I've ever been BoP'ed to this extent in a game. OTOH with or without my presence in a hydra, Nacho is not an easy mislynch, so I have doubts that scum F-16 would push us/me to the extent he has as scum.

The Purple Rose - I don't like the way he/she faded after the argument with ETL. The characterization of F-16 as all but a VI looked seriously off. But, the push on a player who was close to (if not actually) universally town-read makes no sense from a scum-motivation perspective.

TheIrishPope - I scumread him by default, can't detect his town game, so I'm going with Nacho's read.


Bulbazak - Pitoli case was weak, and his push and continued development of the case seemed kinda anemic especially early on. His switch to F-16 actually kind of echoes his earlier talk about how there's more going on than the votes suggest in a game. Sentiment changes before votes do, and he (IMO) correctly identified that F-16 was becoming somewhat vulnerable due to his buddying of his townreads. And then he votes...F-16 when the pitoli wagon becomes unsustainable. This reminds me of the Donnor Party game, where his stances were less conviction-filled and more tactical, especially in the early game (iirc he replaced in at the end of day 1). Due to the size of this game and the web of mutual reads that are coming together, mislynches will be difficult for scum to make happen. I feel like bulba is making tactical adjustments to that situation.

ChaosOmega - This is a weaker read than the bulba one. I feel like some of what is coming off scummy in his play is attributable to changes in site meta over time. But not all. I don't like his continued push on pitoli. His case for his 2nd scum read, TPR is perfunctory and extremely sketchy detail-wise. I think he actually had more to say about TiP, who he's apparently not scumreading. 381 makes me doubt a bulba/ChaosOmega scum team makes sense.

In post 478, Bulbazak wrote:So half the game, then? That's everybody except LS, who is confirmed town, ETL, who is obv. town, and Pitoli, who you are WKing like crazy. I also love how you're not allowing yourself any strong stances on who is scum in that group. You'll push hard on somebody and then go "Oh, I don't know if they're scum, though.". It's way to convenient and safe.

Changing my mind isn't scummy. If anything, your lack of doing so is. Tunneling is a heck of a lot more convenient than constant re-evaluation of reads.

In post 478, Bulbazak wrote:You really don't want to find scum, do you?

You can't find scum by misrepping what they say. You find scum by genuinely trying to understand their intent and from there figuring out if it is scum-motivated. Twisting words in a way that makes the other person looks bad isn't scumhunting.

In post 478, Bulbazak wrote:That's not even the entirety of the case. You just said "The entire case on Pitoli is bad, because of one point that might not be an actual contradiction, because Chaos didn't consider that she may not be scum.". Bull crap.

I refuted the entirety of the case in my post. Are you complaining that I haven't posted the entire refutation in a tl,dr; summary? If I did, I would merely be repeating myself.

In post 479, sangres wrote: F-16_Fighting_Falcon - Experiential meta says something's off

Trust your gut. He's scum.

In post 479, sangres wrote: And then he votes...F-16 when the pitoli wagon becomes unsustainable.

If I voted F-16 when the Pitoli wagon became unsustainable, I would have done so long before I did.

In post 479, sangres wrote: This reminds me of the Donnor Party game, where his stances were less conviction-filled and more tactical, especially in the early game (iirc he replaced in at the end of day 1).

I replaced in during n1. Also, I spent most of my time actually trying to get Goodmorning lynched. I was actually scumhunting in that game. A lot of the tactical decisions happened at night.

In post 480, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Tunneling is a heck of a lot more convenient than constant re-evaluation of reads.

In order to reevaluate your reads, you have to take a stand in the first place.

In post 480, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: You can't find scum by misrepping what they say. You find scum by genuinely trying to understand their intent and from there figuring out if it is scum-motivated. Twisting words in a way that makes the other person looks bad isn't scumhunting.

Except that's not what you're advocating. You're advocating always trying to see an argument in it's strongest sense, whether it was made that way or not, essentially forcing yourself to see every argument as town. There's no way you're going to catch scum that way. If you do, it's only going to be incredibly stupid scum.

In post 480, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: I refuted the entirety of the case in my post. Are you complaining that I haven't posted the entire refutation in a tl,dr; summary? If I did, I would merely be repeating myself.

A tl;dr is a summary of what's been said. You only mentioned one point, which wasn't really the strongest point, essentially summarizing the entire argument with that point. That's essentially a strawman.

In post 481, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 479, sangres wrote: F-16_Fighting_Falcon - Experiential meta says something's off

Trust your gut. He's scum.

My gut is precisely what I don't trust after some recent games.

In post 479, sangres wrote: And then he votes...F-16 when the pitoli wagon becomes unsustainable.

If I voted F-16 when the Pitoli wagon became unsustainable, I would have done so long before I did.

Has it become unsustainable? I thought I saw her pick up another vote when I read the last couple of pages. Momentum has changed, though, and that's my point.

In post 479, sangres wrote: This reminds me of the Donnor Party game, where his stances were less conviction-filled and more tactical, especially in the early game (iirc he replaced in at the end of day 1).

I replaced in during n1. Also, I spent most of my time actually trying to get Goodmorning lynched. I was actually scumhunting in that game. A lot of the tactical decisions happened at night.

Day 2 ended abruptly and crazily. If you had your vote on GM that day, it couldn't have been for long. Day 3 you moved around IIRC but settled on a Syryana lynch.

In post 482, sangres wrote: Has it become unsustainable? I thought I saw her pick up another vote when I read the last couple of pages. Momentum has changed, though, and that's my point.

She's picked up 2 votes, but neither of them are mine. Riddle me this, Sangres, if I was pushing wagons like you say I have, why am I not on Pitoli again?

In post 482, sangres wrote: Day 3 you moved around IIRC but settled on a Syryana lynch.

Believe it or not, Mala screwed with my head that game. I seriously thought Syry was scum and only figured out Mala was scum due to PoE during the night.

In post 479, sangres wrote: Experiential meta says something's off, but with 2 games (one of which was a relatively short interaction due to our both of us replacing in on day 3 of a newbie game, I'm not sure "off" translates to something alignment indicative. He's meta'd the crap out of me for both prior games, so I feel like he should be aware of the variance in both my solo and hydra play. I also don't think I've ever been BoP'ed to this extent in a game. OTOH with or without my presence in a hydra, Nacho is not an easy mislynch, so I have doubts that scum F-16 would push us/me to the extent he has as scum.

I can guess what you would say is "off" since my play is different from both games we played together. I don't like that you can't actually describe it. It is more like I have to make the connections myself, and figure out what it is that was different from this game compared to games we played together, and deduce that those differences are the ones you are picking up on.

You are also BoP'ing me to a large extent expecting me to know how you operate in a hydra etc. I meta'd most people in the HPCOS game and I don't think I'd be able to pin down differences in individual play vs hydra play for everyone in the game. I do remember reading two games as town where you hydra'd with Buldermar and Orcinus and in both of them, your behavior was similar to your town behavior. And the Xenologue game, your behavior was similar to here (where you let your partner take the lead).

What is throwing me off is that your scum-game actually improved to the point since Newbie 1415 to where it would difficult to determine your affiliation based on rudimentary things like activity level, pro-activeness, making cases, and whether you spend time questioning and sorting people. You can clearly do all those things as scum. The fact that you aren't doing it is throwing me off and making me wonder if I am scumhunting the wrong way entirely. I find it hard to buy that it is just the fact that you are in a hydra.

I am also confused about why you are not explaining what it was that you intended to get with your conversation with Bulbazak earlier, and also your lack of interaction with me (or actually every player in the game). Most of the times where you interacted with a player were responses to interactions that the other player initiated.

In post 484, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

In post 479, sangres wrote: Experiential meta says something's off, but with 2 games (one of which was a relatively short interaction due to our both of us replacing in on day 3 of a newbie game, I'm not sure "off" translates to something alignment indicative. He's meta'd the crap out of me for both prior games, so I feel like he should be aware of the variance in both my solo and hydra play. I also don't think I've ever been BoP'ed to this extent in a game. OTOH with or without my presence in a hydra, Nacho is not an easy mislynch, so I have doubts that scum F-16 would push us/me to the extent he has as scum.

I can guess what you would say is "off" since my play is different from both games we played together. I don't like that you can't actually describe it. It is more like I have to make the connections myself, and figure out what it is that was different from this game compared to games we played together, and deduce that those differences are the ones you are picking up on.

You are also BoP'ing me to a large extent expecting me to know how you operate in a hydra etc. I meta'd most people in the HPCOS game and I don't think I'd be able to pin down differences in individual play vs hydra play for everyone in the game. I do remember reading two games as town where you hydra'd with Buldermar and Orcinus and in both of them, your behavior was similar to your town behavior. And the Xenologue game, your behavior was similar to here (where you let your partner take the lead).

What is throwing me off is that your scum-game actually improved to the point since Newbie 1415 to where it would difficult to determine your affiliation based on rudimentary things like activity level, pro-activeness, making cases, and whether you spend time questioning and sorting people. You can clearly do all those things as scum. The fact that you aren't doing it is throwing me off and making me wonder if I am scumhunting the wrong way entirely. I find it hard to buy that it is just the fact that you are in a hydra.

I am also confused about why you are not explaining what it was that you intended to get with your conversation with Bulbazak earlier, and also your lack of interaction with me (or actually every player in the game). Most of the times where you interacted with a player were responses to interactions that the other player initiated.

I'll come back to this post tomorrow, when I have more time. But, to answer your question about what is off, what's different is mostly attitudinal, and like I said, I'm not sure it's alignment indicative for you. You've come off extemely irritable and impatient, and it's been progressive. I've written some of it off as due to the defense vs buddying arguments and the fact that you picked up some scumreads for it. I had a similar experience in the Death's Diner game, where some players I was convinced were town were offput by my declaring them town or by my defending them against FoSes. It took a couple game days to work through the backlash, and on day 2 I wasn't able to prevent a lynch that I was sure would flip town. I was right about the player. :/

In post 483, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 482, sangres wrote: Has it become unsustainable? I thought I saw her pick up another vote when I read the last couple of pages.

Momentum has changed, though, and that's my point.

She's picked up 2 votes, but neither of them are mine. Riddle me this, Sangres, if I was pushing wagons like you say I have, why am I not on Pitoli again?

because momentum.

In post 482, sangres wrote: Day 3 you moved around IIRC but settled on a Syryana lynch.

Believe it or not, Mala screwed with my head that game. I seriously thought Syry was scum and only figured out Mala was scum due to PoE during the night.

So what was that stuff about tactically working toward a GM lynch?

In post 487, sangres wrote:

In post 483, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 482, sangres wrote: Has it become unsustainable? I thought I saw her pick up another vote when I read the last couple of pages.

Momentum has changed, though, and that's my point.

She's picked up 2 votes, but neither of them are mine. Riddle me this, Sangres, if I was pushing wagons like you say I have, why am I not on Pitoli again?

because momentum.

Explain this for me, because I don't get where you're heading with this.

In post 487, sangres wrote: So what was that stuff about tactically working toward a GM lynch?

I said I was trying to get GM lynched, because I was actually scumhunting in that game. You seem to be trying to imply that I was more subtle in that regard than I really was.

My god the walls are killing me yall. 5 pages becomes 20.

I'm going to do this in chunks, so it's more manageable.

In post 490, EspeciallyTheLies wrote:

In post 372, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 357, TheIrishPope wrote:

In post 354, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Bulbazak, I can't believe that you have no read on me - at all. I have made plenty of posts, pushed at scumreads, defended townreads really hard and have been one of the most active players in the game.

Did anyone else find this odd?

Yes. It makes me think I was wrong. I definitely hear a chainsaw revving up.

Bulbazak, can you explain this a bit to me? My understanding of a chainsaw defense is when one scum attacks his partner's attacker. I guess the quotes are out of context and I can't remember, but the quote from F-16 is asking you about him (which you responded to earlier in this post, and I actually really liked the responses), then TIP pipes in throwing suspicion on F-16. So, my only guess would be that F-16 was pushing on someone you feel is TIP's partner, which would indicate, by this post, that you think TIP is scum. Is that a correct assessment or do I have this wrong? (No snark intended but I don't know how else to word this.)[/spoiler]

You have a correct understanding of the terminology. The chainsaw defense reference wasn't in response to that quote in particular, but rather the vibes I was getting from F-16's sudden attack on me in order to defend Pitoli. If you read that entire post, you can see where I'm struggling with my read on him in light of this attack. I finally concluded that he was chainsaw defending Pitoli. This had nothing to do with my read on TIP.

In post 371, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

He pretty much says that he will think I am scum if Pitoli flips town (and I am pretty sure she will) so it looks like he is setting up a lynch for D2.

This was my interpretation of his claim that Pitoli and I are unlikely to be partners and this:

In post 336, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 335, sangres wrote: bulba, if you are wrong about pitoli, does that do anything to your F16 read?

He's more likely to be scum in that event.

Even more than my early FOS, the reason I am now thinking Bulbazak is likely scum is that his thought process is very hard to get through to. Most of his responses are snarky misrepresentations of events. I don't feel that he is trying to scumhunt but rather walling up the game with a lot of meaningless content. His push on Pitoli was bad and basically started in RVS. His push on me came after I pushed him and he realized I'd never vote Pitoli but she might vote me. An attempt to interact with him ends up in a wall war of correcting misreps as opposed to productive discussion which was how I felt after talking with Nacho. I don't know how much of this is player-dependent (perhaps Sangres are simply more skilled at communicating?) and how much is actually alignment relevant. I don't like later posts by Bulbazak especially his 466, 478, and 481. There is no actual intent to understand another player's motivation. This is mostly what I was talking about regarding "snarky responses." I responded to 478. 481 is really devoid of any actual content, picking on things that are completely irrelevant like what is written in a tl;dr summary.

I find she is reasonable and level-headed as town, and I see the same kind of attitude here. I have not experienced her scum game so I have nothing to compare, but so far I feel she is pretty town.

I am null on Sangres at this point. I don't believe ffery as scum would be unreasonable and un-level-headed so I am not reading her as town for being reasonable and level-headed. There were a few things I was actually looking for but I'll get to that a little later when ffery addresses my post. What do you think of the fact that both heads are reading Bulbazak and Chaos as scum and TIP as town?

@bulb: Understood.

@F-16: I haven't gotten that far yet.

In post 492, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Most of his responses are snarky misrepresentations of events.

Looking over your argument, I'd say this is the misrep. I argue with you and say why X is wrong, and now, instead of dealing with me directly, you're just dismissing it as a misrep? Heck no. You don't get to just discredit me and walk away. Plus, if I was being snarky with you, you'd know it.

In post 492, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: I don't feel that he is trying to scumhunt but rather walling up the game with a lot of meaningless content.

To call it meaningless means that you're not paying attention. Oh, wait... This was just you trying to dismiss and discredit me again. (Btw, that was snark.)

In post 492, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: His push on Pitoli was bad and basically started in RVS.

Oh no, an RVS push was bad! It must be scum!

In post 492, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: His push on me came after I pushed him and he realized I'd never vote Pitoli but she might vote me.

You must have an exaggerated sense of self worth if you think I care what you think or if you think that's why I'm voting you.

In post 492, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: An attempt to interact with him ends up in a wall war of correcting misreps as opposed to productive discussion which was how I felt after talking with Nacho.

I felt our discussion was very productive. It revealed you to be scum.

In post 492, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: There is no actual intent to understand another player's motivation.

"Waa! He's not reading me as town! I want to be read as town! Why aren't you reading me as town?!"

In post 492, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote: 481 is really devoid of any actual content, picking on things that are completely irrelevant like what is written in a tl;dr summary.

That post has some good stuff in it. Also, I wouldn't call that tl;dr point irrelevant, especially since you were using that tl;dr to strongman Chaos.

EBWOP: Strawman, not strongman.

I find a lot of Bulbazak's accusations similar to this game: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p4728159

Your response of "liking it" is also eerily similar: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p4728303

Bulbazak's posts as scum can be "likable" at a first glance but if you think about it more, his misreps etc will become more apparent.

I've nailed your scummy little feet to the floor, haven't I?

Every F-16 post: "everything I do is correct and if you don't do it, you're scum."

In post 373, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Bulbazak, I am not going to quote again so I'll use numbered points:

1) Why am I not an easy person to develop a read on? I find it a rather odd comment considering my scum play and town play are very different.

I'm going to answer because you bug the hell out of me. You are a weirdo. You have a weird style. You are very concerned with other people's reads on you rather than their reads on others. You like a townie but you look like scum. It's very confusing.

F-16 wrote:2) You are using a very weak RVS-POE reason this late into the game. It was an RVS-wagon. I don't think scum would particularly care that they are on the same wagon.

I also don't think scum would keep pounding on it even after people's reads on Pitoli have changed. So why do you think Bulb is scum for thinking Pitoli's RVS post is a good place to start?

F-16 wrote:3) It bothers me that you are hedging on me. You seem to be aware that I might end up being a "default" wagon for everyone to move their votes to, and so you decline to give a read on me in order to later vote me as a compromise. This lets other players like ETL take the brunt of the responsbility for my lynch absolving you of any.

I disagree. I have only read up to this post but it seems to me that most people have the same consideration of you that I do, that I mentioned after #1 above.

F-16 wrote:4) Your discussion with Sangres is one that they have initiated. It wasn't a pro-active effort from you to determine my affiliation. They asked you questions and pressed you for answers and you answered them.

What is the point here? Other than the fact that Sangres asked him questions that he answered.

F-16 wrote:5) Why do you not care to read me or pay attention to me? I am a player in this game just like any other with just as much chance of being scum or town as any other player.

This is what I'm talking about. Why are you so concerned about people's reads on you?