Mafiascum.net

In post 370, Gentleman 4 wrote:

In post 369, Gentleman 6 wrote:I'm a watt?

This is just too good. Well played, both of you.

Control yourself ladies, for I am the master of blep.

:p

In post 384, Gentleman 4 wrote:

Spoiler: Full names and Nicknames

Gentleman 1
Gentleman 2 - Tom Riddle
Gentleman 3 - Link
Gentleman 4 - Rick
Gentleman 5 - Izaya
Gentleman 6 - Harry
Gentleman 7 - Winston
Gentleman 8

Lady 1 - Mala
Lady 2 - Zatanna
Lady 3 - Misty
Lady 4 - Carol
Lady 5 - Dawn
Lady 6
Lady 7 - Eureka
Lady 8 - Kitten
Lady 9 - Robin

This was important.

In post 425, Gentleman 2 wrote:I will be having a cute puppy. You can call me Bestest Boi.

From now on you shall be dubbed Doggo by me.

In post 430, Lady 8 wrote:The only Gentleman I'd accept at this point is the Doctor aka Gentleman 6. All the other gentlemen have been lack luster, even Gentleman 2, the IC.

Oh my, don’t tell me you still feel this way about me?

Outside of some small concerns about Celeste I have practically no solid suspicions at this moment.

Hello. I am glad to arrive at this ball. Will a smashing gentleman steal my heart?

In post 475, Gentleman 1 wrote:

In post 370, Gentleman 4 wrote:

In post 369, Gentleman 6 wrote:I'm a watt?

This is just too good. Well played, both of you.

I'm afraid not. Older Harry is a Joule of my eye.

In post 454, Gentleman 6 wrote:

In post 452, Lady 3 wrote:Gent 6 are you thinking of pairing with Lady 8?

May I ask why you're asking this question?

“69”

Lady 3 is now confirmed Town.

In post 481, Lady 6 wrote:Hello. I am glad to arrive at this ball. Will a smashing gentleman steal my heart?

Not if your ashamed to hide your face.
Where’s your avatar?

It’s almost 3 AM.
I’ll take my beauty sleep now.
If anyone has any questions for me just do @Dawn.
I think someone asked for my reads so, Most Towny Gentleman other then 2 would be 3.
Most Townie lady would be Lady 3.
Now Good Night! ^_^

G4 - for wood I’m meaning a stiff, measured, lifeless tone. Also the game I was referring to was on a different site like 7 years ago so I doubt we’re thinking of the same game.

I like lady 3 for the g6/l8 reads. I don’t really understand what she’s going for there, but it felt good.

In post 487, Lady 7 wrote:G4 - for wood I’m meaning a stiff, measured, lifeless tone. Also the game I was referring to was on a different site like 7 years ago so I doubt we’re thinking of the same game.

I like lady 3 for the g6/l8 reads. I don’t really understand what she’s going for there, but it felt good.

I meant that to g1 not g4.

In post 397, Lady 2 wrote:Okay thanks L4, your thinking is starting to fit and make sense as a cohesive thing.

L7, you want a pseudo-vote, make one yourself. At the very least, if you think that type of vote is a good strategy, tell us which of the ladies you would like to see left out. Otherwise all I'm seeing is setup stuff from you, and it's like busy work. Talking about voting a lady to ditch but not doing it. Talking about basically the same IC-pairing approach that's been most favored. Talking about a pairing strategy L1 has focused most of her energy on. It's not getting much done.

And like hell should G4 retract his invite to L3 (not that I think he can legally?). Talk about muddying waters. L3 is being quite sensible about the invitation, too.

I've actually changed my mind on voting. First of all, no one else seems to want to play along. Secondly, I've realized making town-pairs is more important.

But the IC-pairing approach is a good one. Because we just need 2 T/T pairs who are universally townread in order to win. More helps, of course, but I really want to get 2 solidly town pairs.

Right now, the people who I'm considering for those positions are G2 (ofc), G6, and L9. G1, L1 and L5 also seem townish to me, but less than those 3 (and I have weird paranoid about L5). Although I don't want to push things on that yet, because I don't feel too confident and it's just the start of the game.

As for why I'm against the G4/L3 pairing:
1. I don't see any reason as to why it should happen.
2. I see reasons as to why it shouldn't happen yet:
- G2 has not made a pair and I think he should get first priority.
- I don't want people making pairs too early and G4's style has felt more spontaneous and not too thought out

I'd rather have a few really solid pairs than having everyone just go and quickly find their partner, otherwise we're going to wind up with a bunch of T/T pairs getting paranoid and leaving later on.

Anyways, I'm busy for now, I'll have more time later today to actually start doing stuff.

In post 395, Lady 4 wrote:I can easily think of a way G3 could be coming from a scum mindset here.

I mean, that post was in reference to me saying that "I'm no longer sure" isn't a common phrasing, so unless you think I knowingly lied about that to make G6 look bad and thought nobody would call me on it, then that interaction would go exactly the same way regardless of my alignment.

In post 450, Gentleman 1 wrote:What irks me about this is someone’s continuity of opinion has been cut off without any clear indication of whose it was.

Yeah, it really ought to be revealed which slot was replaced.

Oh I liked the way g6 went about his l4 scumread then uncertainty actually. Might be approaching an actual town read rather than a general like his thread presence read.

Just did a full reread, my town pool is {L4, L5, L7, G5, G6}. Maybe G4.

In post 480, Gentleman 1 wrote:Outside of some small concerns about Celeste I have practically no solid suspicions at this moment.

Interesting. Want to talk about this?

In post 490, Gentleman 3 wrote:

In post 395, Lady 4 wrote:I can easily think of a way G3 could be coming from a scum mindset here.

I mean, that post was in reference to me saying that "I'm no longer sure" isn't a common phrasing, so unless you think I knowingly lied about that to make G6 look bad and thought nobody would call me on it, then that interaction would go exactly the same way regardless of my alignment.

I was suggesting that it's possible scum might be looking to attack on points that are not significant. Don't take this as me suspecting you, merely pointing out that G4's posts on the subject were nonsense.

It wasn't an attack, though. I was confused, asked for a clarification, got one, and moved on.

I feel that 362 constitutes an attack.

362 was me being annoyed about G6 getting on my case for asking for clarification. Had nothing to do with the actual thing I asked clarification on.

If any part of that exchange was an attack, it was 356. That's pretty pointedly implying that there's something bad about my question.