Mafiascum.net

damnit

Why Flubber over Sephiroth

why do you care

i could go with either

In post 52, Internecine wrote:Why Flubber over Sephiroth

scumreads n_m for inaccurate meta and his UCV read is weird in light of the game’s context

seph is empty and bad too but I instinctively vote for the person who posted more content

Larger wagon is more useful then it split up imo

I wouldn't mind Flubber either though

lol. Y'all are cute.

We have 3 good candidates already

Are you going to answer sheep’s question?

pedit: @seph

In post 58, Not_Mafia wrote:We have 3 good candidates already

i have 4 actually !!!

Sure, I voted UC because wagons are inherently a good thing. Its neither a RVS vote or a serious vote, its a vote to further a wagon.

Which is what makes is a false dichotomy.

Eh

I guess that’s reasonable then, but do you feel that sheep putting you in such a false dichotomy is scummy?

i guess early day wagons are good for pressure/reactions
im fine with that now
seph reacts good under some pressure
what even is a dichotomy

“Di” means two

He’s saying you lead him to choose between two options with your question when his answer was a third

Honestly in that position I would have just said my third option lmao

In post 47, Katyusha wrote:is it still posturing if he genuinely believes in it though?

Nobody cares about uvc posturing about their beliefs

Posturing about their alignment on the other hand...

how is he posturing about being any alignment...?

Sheep's vote on me for a "bad entrance" after calling the votes on my wagon opportunistic is hypocritical and incredibly careless, at the very least.

Last time I played with Sephiroph, they were scum. I recall them having a better entrance there than they do here.

---

Pedit:

I am saying UCV is posturing by acting in a way that on the surface, looks like they are town, but has a true intent of deceiving others wrt to their alignment. Does that clarify?

again, if he genuinely believes this (which he does) he's going to do it as either alignment which means the action itself is nai

i dont understand why you'd insinuate it's LAMIST when he will do this regardless - pushing your own beliefs in the thread isn't townie, it's just pushing your own personal opinion onto the thread

Is there something specific that'd make you want to contradict sheep's meta read wrt UCV? Like my take on it is that it didn't matter but like if I was scumreading him for it i'd be thinking about it if someone said he exclusively did this as town

Uhhh, you can't scumhunt without expressing an opinion. If you could, there would be an objective way to find scum.

There's two issues with UCV's belief. 1) It's obvious enough that it can typically go without saying (and this lead to sheep being scum too, but I am not a fan of pre flip associatives), and 2) they offered nothing after their gripe with rvs to, yakno, actually end rvs. This makes it more likely that they are faking their intent to end rvs early.

That's not what I mean - UCV genuinely believes towns should force their way out of RVS as soon as possible rather than let it move naturally. When I say personal opinion I'm referring to non-game related matters - which is why I don't think your point 1 is scummy for UCV, it's just a UCV tell.

Point 2, which in a vacuum I'd agree actually makes UCV scummy here, is mostly why I wanted to ask about his vote because it genuinely seems possible that he thought that he was voting for someone scummy and want that thought process clarified.

Have you played with UCV before in a game you're allowed to talk about?

VOTE: Flub

I want mulch to sub in

no thoughts on anything that's been said

I don't really understand why the UC wagon isn't still going tbh.