Mafiascum.net

In post 49, Leaven wrote:I would assume vanilla with caramel refers to vanilla with caramel topping, although it is a bit ambiguous and could be mistaken for vanilla with a caramel swirl.

Nah, It's ambiguous because it has to be to make the clue work. If he meant "Vanilla with caramel topping" he would have said "Vanilla with caramel topping", but then that is entirely different clue; in that case you add the "topping" of the word caramel ie: the letters L or 'EL' to the anagram fodder, and you don't get the footballer playing in a red shirt anymore.

This is exactly what I meant when I said it pinged me. Maybe "not vanilla anymore" was overstating the issue, but if Clark meant any of Vanilla with caramel topping, or Vanilla with a caramel swirl, or any other variation, there was no reason you couldn't say that. Unless, of course, he had to speicfically construct your sentence the way he did for reasons.

Interesting you would try and fudge the issue like this, though. Wouldn't happen to be Clarks' scumbuddy, would you?

@Val89 I just haven't decided who I want to death-tunnel yet.

I would recommend Val89 actually

Why?

In post 47, Val89 wrote:Hello all,

YOOOOOOOOOOO ITS VAL89 :cowGasm:

HOLY SHIT I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN
UNVOTE: Val89
mark it in the charts that 4 people in my ambiguous "want to play with" list are gaming with me (but 1 replaced out, making it back to 3 currently playing)

In post 43, StrangeMatter wrote:VOTE: Salsabil Faria

this vote is built on really shaky grounds, how serious is it?

In post 54, StrangeMatter wrote:Why?

a player with that level of verbosity and apparent dedication to analysis can spare a few words to at least attempt to get some sort of conversation going on a useful game level

In this case, the amount of words read to me as a nervous cover for rolling scum

In post 57, Dannflor wrote:

In post 54, StrangeMatter wrote:Why?

a player with that level of verbosity and apparent dedication to analysis can spare a few words to at least attempt to get some sort of conversation going on a useful game level

In this case, the amount of words read to me as a nervous cover for rolling scum

Compared to 3 votes with no initial justifications?

In post 56, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:

In post 43, StrangeMatter wrote:VOTE: Salsabil Faria

this vote is built on really shaky grounds, how serious is it?

More or less is here to make them talk, so somewhat serious but not really. See post #41 please.

In post 59, StrangeMatter wrote:

In post 56, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:

In post 43, StrangeMatter wrote:VOTE: Salsabil Faria

this vote is built on really shaky grounds, how serious is it?

More or less is here to make them talk, so somewhat serious but not really. See post #41 please.

i read it, it's what pinged me originally because it was an assumption/interpretation of their thought process when they had, at that point only responded in quotes and pictures

In post 58, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 57, Dannflor wrote:

In post 54, StrangeMatter wrote:Why?

a player with that level of verbosity and apparent dedication to analysis can spare a few words to at least attempt to get some sort of conversation going on a useful game level

In this case, the amount of words read to me as a nervous cover for rolling scum

Compared to 3 votes with no initial justifications?

I honestly don’t know what this post is trying to say

In post 57, Dannflor wrote:In this case, the amount of words read to me as a nervous cover for rolling scum

I thought it was pretty funny. Yes, putting up big walls where you say a lot without really saying anything is noteworthy, but that is not the spirit in which I took 49.

In post 61, Dannflor wrote:

In post 58, JamesTheNames wrote:

In post 57, Dannflor wrote:

In post 54, StrangeMatter wrote:Why?

a player with that level of verbosity and apparent dedication to analysis can spare a few words to at least attempt to get some sort of conversation going on a useful game level

In this case, the amount of words read to me as a nervous cover for rolling scum

Compared to 3 votes with no initial justifications?

I honestly don’t know what this post is trying to say

Not to put words in another player's mouth, but I'll guess that the question comes from a point of view that the Salsa wagon and how it formed is maybe more worthy of conversation "on a useful game level" than what seems to me to be an elaborate RV.

In post 23, Leaven wrote:

In post 21, ClarkBar wrote: My avatar backs up my story.

My avatar quacks up my story.

(I thought this was pretty funny)

In post 27, cowsloveSushirolls wrote:snip

Idk your time zone but happy birthday to ur mom.

I want to sheep Dann but I don't want to deincentivize funny posts hmmm.

In post 66, Ythan wrote:I want to sheep Dann but I don't want to deincentivize funny posts hmmm.

The funny (and it quacked me up) post came from Leaven. Dann is voting Val. Why do you want to sheep that vote? How would putting a vote on Val disincentivize funny posts?

In post 66 I am talking about post 47.

Val should keep being funny

he should be towny while he's being funny

In post 68, Ythan wrote:In post 66 I am talking about post 47.

Ok, but you want to sheep a vote on Val but you aren’t. Why do you want to sheep it? And why aren’t you, besides preventing humorous posts?

I think Dann's good at Mafia. Plus his posts are most of the not fluff so far, and sound.

In post 70, ClarkBar wrote:And why aren’t you, besides preventing humorous posts?

There's no besides that's the reason.

do it ythan, for the memes

Okay sure.

VOTE: Val89