Mafiascum.net

In post 5417, Bulbazak wrote:All I'm trying to do is understand your thought process, especially since you've been coasting since d2. However, all you're doing is trying to squelch discussion, which is a humongous scumtell for me.

Seriously, what is it with people lately not wanting to discuss their motivations?

I'd hardly call accusing you of lying a "squelching of discussion" as you put it.

In post 5417, Bulbazak wrote:I don't like this at all. You'd have to go out of your way to misunderstand what CTD said. There is no way you could have gotten this out of that, especially since a simple ISO would show you you're wrong. This is just a way to softly manipulate people into thinking I'm scummy, that way you don't have to work as hard to push my wagon.

My bad. I have a bad habit of expecting people to mean what they say so when CTD said that you never tried to lynch Sean I assumed that you never tried to lynch him.

So why are you more upset at me than CTD over this?

In fact, I'm not really sure why people are ignoring the fact that Bulbazak is outright lying about his intentions.
I'm going to point this out for those of you that might have missed this exchange:

Bulbazak: "Do you think ThAd-scum claiming I was his kill target is relevant to my alignment?"
Me: "No."
Bulbazak: "But you must have related to that that is relevant to my alignment!"
Me: "No. Why are you trying to subtly imply you're town on this nonsensical line of reasoning?"
Bulbazak: "I'm not, I'm scumhunting!!!!"
Me: "No, you're doing what I just said you were."
Bulbazak: "You're quashing discussion, you're scum!"
Me: ":neutral:"

I apologize. Most weekends for me are semi v/la. Will resume Monday with full report!

Ah, did not know that, Baezu. Now I do!








Seanald - 2 (penguin_alien, Baezu)
Nero Cain - 1 (Bulbazak)
Amethyst Kitty - 1 (PeregrineV)

All votes are in play.



Last votecount was page 217, post 5400.

In post 5415, Amethyst Kitty wrote:Bulbie really shouldn't be getting lynched

I know you want Rena lynched over Bulbazak, but where does your presumed town read on him come from? Since (almost) no one wants to join me on Seanald, and I don't know that things are clearcut enough on Rena, Bulbazak's the only other major wagon, and I don't see what your arguments are for town-Bulbazak.

In post 5424, Amethyst Kitty wrote:and the game isn't run on logic

In post 5424, Amethyst Kitty wrote: what do you think of Nacho's "Rena claimed, but is still not doing any contribution and doesn't have any information yet" case because I think it's a good reason

I think the contribution/activity point is null, and I think it makes sense that she doesn't have any information, since as I said before, she'd have to be watching the right person in the first place. Her not getting any results last night makes sense given what little information we do have on the night points to it being a gigantic tangle of WIFOM. I'd say if you would want to look at any of her results as suspicious, it would be the HD results, but only because she tried to say that made him auto-town, when all it did was say that no one visited him.

In post 5425, Human Destroyer wrote:

In post 5417, Bulbazak wrote:All I'm trying to do is understand your thought process, especially since you've been coasting since d2. However, all you're doing is trying to squelch discussion, which is a humongous scumtell for me.

Seriously, what is it with people lately not wanting to discuss their motivations?

I'd hardly call accusing you of lying a "squelching of discussion" as you put it.

How am I lying? Asking for your reasoning is not lying, just like disagreeing with you is not misrepping.

In post 5426, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 5417, Bulbazak wrote:I don't like this at all. You'd have to go out of your way to misunderstand what CTD said. There is no way you could have gotten this out of that, especially since a simple ISO would show you you're wrong. This is just a way to softly manipulate people into thinking I'm scummy, that way you don't have to work as hard to push my wagon.

My bad. I have a bad habit of expecting people to mean what they say so when CTD said that you never tried to lynch Sean I assumed that you never tried to lynch him.

Sorry, I don't buy this for a second. Especially since you tried to use my unvoting Sean, which was done in an effort to give CTD time to post final thoughts, against me yesterday.

In post 5426, Nero Cain wrote: So why are you more upset at me than CTD over this?

Because CTD never said that I didn't vote Seanald yesterday.

In post 5006, CrashTextDummie wrote:[
We are in agreement that Bulba adjusted his reads in a way that doesn't feel kosher, but your deductions don't make much sense at all. Specifically, I don't see any reason why you're not considering Seanald/Despo as Bulba-buddies. The fact that he's not trying to get Seanald lynched despite having him as a scumread along with you strikes me as odd because it would give him further insight into the validity of his theory. This could mean that he's scum with Seanald, but it also makes sense if he's scum with Despo (not wanting to lynch into his neighborhood because it reduces his breathing room).

The fact that you don't even consider this tells me that a)you are not actually thinking things through in a pro-town manner and b)you are going out of your way to tie people to Bulba.

Furthermore, Bulba's play is pretty obviously designed to keep me lynchable down the road (or rather make me lynchable in the first place), making it even more dubious that you'd zero in on me as a Bulba-buddy.

He's clearly talking about me voting/pursuing you over Seanald today, which I've explained my reasoning for multiple times. There is no way you should have confused that with "Bulba didn't vote Seanald yesterday.". You were trying to twist CTD's words to fit your purpose and trying to manipulate town into thinking that happened so that my lynch would go through.

In post 5427, Human Destroyer wrote:In fact, I'm not really sure why people are ignoring the fact that Bulbazak is outright lying about his intentions.
I'm going to point this out for those of you that might have missed this exchange:

Bulbazak: "Do you think ThAd-scum claiming I was his kill target is relevant to my alignment?"
Me: "No."
Bulbazak: "But you must have

something

related to that that is relevant to my alignment!"
Me: "No. Why are you trying to subtly imply you're town on this nonsensical line of reasoning?"
Bulbazak: "I'm not, I'm scumhunting!!!!"
Me: "No, you're doing what I just said you were."
Bulbazak: "You're quashing discussion, you're scum!"
Me: ":neutral:"

Actually, it was more like this:

Me: You claim that ThAd is lying, both about his role and targetting me. For what purpose would he do so, and how does that effect your read on me?
You: It tells me nothing.
Me: So you think he's lying, and it does not inform your read whatsoever?
You: No.
Me: Walk me through it. You must have some line of reasoning that led to your conclusions. What were they?
You: I'm not scum! Quit trying to push me! You are trying to influence me! Scum! Scum!
Me: I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just trying to understand your thought processes and motivation, especially since you have been in the background since d2.
You: I'm not telling you anything.
Me: I just want to understand your thought process. Why don't you want to discuss your motivation?
You: Liar!

Again, walk me through your thought process.

In post 3995, Amethyst Kitty wrote:

Town:

Bulb

: Easily one of the most engaged people in the game I think. Stronger read for me, a weaker one for Mala. I really like his questions and him trying to understand the mindset of others. the fact that he keeps returning to his original reads, to me reads that he trusts his reads more than he trusts others and is constantly re-finding his center in the game.

along with that, all his emotions, and his fustration especially regarding us is genuine as fuck.

In post 5367, Cephrir wrote:CTD, is Rena paying you for acting as her defense attorney? Or is is a pro bono case?

I'm acting as the town's defense attorney. I'll accept non-terrible lynches as payment.

I don't have an awful lot of faith left in my Rena read, but that doesn't change the fact that lynching her is a strategic mistake. I'm perfectly fine with lynching her if we find ourselves in a similar situation tomorrow. Might even be fine with lynching her tomorrow regardless.

In post 5369, Nero Cain wrote:I'm pretty sure I said that I didn't really care who dies. Is this one of those "y u no vote my buddy?!?" 'cause I've seen those from scum before.

That's the most honest sounding statement you've made all game. Of course, not caring who dies is generally a scum trait (unless you truly think there's an equal chance of two players flipping scum, which I frankly don't buy in your case based on the reasoning you've given to suspect them). You having this mindset makes it less likely you're scum with Bulba though, so at least there's that.

In post 5388, Nachomamma8 wrote:And I suppose there's also the possibility that there is no scum roleblocker and ThAd/Bulbazak got jailkept [...]

So when I suggest that ThAd missed his action because of KK interference and Rena missed her action because of a scum roleblock, you throw it out the window because "KK wouldn't have targeted Bulba", but now you happily speculate that KK had a hand in last night's result yourself in another attempt to implicate Rena.

You are using awfully twisted reasoning to push a lynch you claim you'd rather not have happen today.

In post 5431, Bulbazak wrote:Me: You claim that ThAd is lying, both about his role and targetting me. For what purpose would he do so, and how does that effect your read on me?
You: It tells me nothing.
Me: So you think he's lying, and it does not inform your read whatsoever?
You: No.
Me: Walk me through it. You must have some line of reasoning that led to your conclusions. What were they?
You: I'm not scum! Quit trying to push me! You are trying to influence me! Scum! Scum!
Me: I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just trying to understand your thought processes and motivation, especially since you have been in the background since d2.
You: I'm not telling you anything.
Me: I just want to understand your thought process. Why don't you want to discuss your motivation?
You: Liar!

Really? Let's check the quotes on this.

In post 5138, Bulbazak wrote:HD, if you don't think that ThAd is the vig., are you saying that he's lying about targetting me, and if so, for what purpose? What does that tell you about my alignment?

Bulbazak: "What does ThAd-scum claiming to target me tell you about my alignment?"

In post 5180, Human Destroyer wrote:

In post 5138, Bulbazak wrote:HD, if you don't think that ThAd is the vig., are you saying that he's lying about targetting me, and if so, for what purpose? What does that tell you about my alignment?

1. Yes.
2. To pretend he's a vig. Duh.
3. Nothing.

Me: "Nothing."

That part you got right. But here's where you start to twist the truth:

In post 5245, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 5180, Human Destroyer wrote:

In post 5138, Bulbazak wrote:HD, if you don't think that ThAd is the vig., are you saying that he's lying about targetting me, and if so, for what purpose? What does that tell you about my alignment?

1. Yes.
2. To pretend he's a vig. Duh.
3. Nothing.

So you're saying that you think ThAd is lying about being the vig (i.e. scum) and is therefore lying about who he targetted,

yet that tells you absolutely NOTHING about his target? I understand we're in multiball and everything, but you should still be able to come to some conclusion via PoE.

What you said you said: "So you think he's lying, and it does not inform your read whatsoever?"

What you actually said: "You be able to come to some conclusion about my alignment using this!"

That's called "implying you must be town on nonsensical reasoning".

In post 5322, Human Destroyer wrote:

In post 5245, Bulbazak wrote:So you're saying that you think ThAd is lying about being the vig (i.e. scum) and is therefore lying about who he targetted, yet that tells you absolutely NOTHING about his target? I understand we're in multiball and everything, but you should still be able to come to some conclusion via PoE.

Yes, that tells me actually nothing about the target. I'm not sure why you're so set on the fact that it does.

"Why are you so set on the fact that it affects your alignment?"

In post 5328, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 5322, Human Destroyer wrote:

In post 5245, Bulbazak wrote:So you're saying that you think ThAd is lying about being the vig (i.e. scum) and is therefore lying about who he targetted, yet that tells you absolutely NOTHING about his target? I understand we're in multiball and everything, but you should still be able to come to some conclusion via PoE.

Yes, that tells me actually nothing about the target. I'm not sure why you're so set on the fact that it does.

Because I'm trying to understand your thought process. I would think there would be some line of reasoning that would allow you to reach one conclusion or the other,but you're claiming that

your line of reasoning would lead to no conclusion whatsoever. Essentially, you threw something out there that would lead to, you claim, no reasonable set of conclusions.

This bothers me, because you are one of the few in the game that I'm still trying to figure out what your motivation is. You were very active on d1 and were at least able to voice your reasoning for your thoughts. You dropped a little on d2, but still, you were making well crafted arguments. However, you've seemed to be coasting since then. I'm just trying to make sense of all of this, hence why I'm asking about your line of reasoning.

Now here's where it gets really twisted.

What you said you said: "Walk me through it. You must have some line of reasoning that led to your conclusions. What were they?"

What you actually said: "You threw out that ThAd was a vig without saying it had something to do with my alignment? It must have to do with it! BTW this is totally to try and understand your thought process I'm not implying anything at all!"

And it's weird because you called it line of reasoning when I never said that was my line of reasoning for calling you scum, ever. Wassup?

In post 5330, Human Destroyer wrote:

In post 5328, Bulbazak wrote:

In post 5322, Human Destroyer wrote:

In post 5245, Bulbazak wrote:So you're saying that you think ThAd is lying about being the vig (i.e. scum) and is therefore lying about who he targetted, yet that tells you absolutely NOTHING about his target? I understand we're in multiball and everything, but you should still be able to come to some conclusion via PoE.

Yes, that tells me actually nothing about the target. I'm not sure why you're so set on the fact that it does.

Because I'm trying to understand your thought process. I would think there would be some line of reasoning that would allow you to reach one conclusion or the other, but you're claiming that your line of reasoning would lead to no conclusion whatsoever. Essentially, you threw something out there that would lead to, you claim, no reasonable set of conclusions. This bothers me, because you are one of the few in the game that I'm still trying to figure out what your motivation is. You were very active on d1 and were at least able to voice your reasoning for your thoughts. You dropped a little on d2, but still, you were making well crafted arguments. However, you've seemed to be coasting since then. I'm just trying to make sense of all of this, hence why I'm asking about your line of reasoning.

Translation: I am trying to distract you from lynching me by subtly hinting that scum-ThAd saying he targeted me means that I am town even though it is multiball and inherent WIFOM.

In post 5331, Human Destroyer wrote:like that is the weakest thing you could possibly push me on right now

also, saying you were going for "my thought process" is sorta nullified by the fact that you were trying to push me to say it

did

affect something

that's not trying to understand my thought process, that's trying to influence it

I accuse you of lying and trying to force me to call you town using a nonsensical line of reasoning.

In post 5336, Bulbazak wrote:@HD: I'm not trying to push anything. I'm just saying that you should have some line of reasoning behind your actions.

Whether you think I'm town or scum, you should have some line of thought that led you to that conclusion in conjunction with ThAd's actions, who you are claiming is scum.

I'm just curious about your thought process, because you have been hiding in the background since d2.

This trying to influence me again, despite your claims that you're not trying to influence me. If I had already given you an answer of no, no town player would expect me to change the answer. It doesn't make any sense.

In post 5417, Bulbazak wrote:All I'm trying to do is understand your thought process, especially since you've been coasting since d2. However, all you're doing is trying to squelch discussion, which is a humongous scumtell for me.

Seriously, what is it with people lately not wanting to discuss their motivations?

"You're squelching discussion! Scum!"

Let's not forget that the only thing you've actually asked me about was how ThAd's actions affected your alignment, which I specifically said they didn't. So y'know.

To bring up your post again:

In post 5431, Bulbazak wrote:Me: You claim that ThAd is lying, both about his role and targetting me. For what purpose would he do so, and how does that effect your read on me?
You: It tells me nothing.
Me: So you think he's lying, and it does not inform your read whatsoever?
You: No.

Me: Walk me through it. You must have some line of reasoning that led to your conclusions. What were they?

You: I'm not scum! Quit trying to push me!

You are trying to influence me! Scum! Scum!

Me: I'm not accusing you of anything.

I'm just trying to understand your thought processes and motivation, especially since you have been in the background since d2.

You: I'm not telling you anything.

Me: I just want to understand your thought process. Why don't you want to discuss your motivation?

You: Liar!

The bolded are twists of the truth or don't actually exist. Mostly the latter except for the first bolded line.

after reading that wall, everyone should be voting bulbazak

In post 5410, Rena wrote:

In post 5393, Desperado wrote:

In post 5383, Baezu wrote:Desp, why not vote for Sean today?

Because everything Rena has said today has d fake/like she isn't reading the thread, despite her having an extremely powerful role that entirely depends on her ability to read the game and predict the scum's behavior. Her posts don't give any indication that she's capable of that, or even interested in doing so...which means she's faking it.

A role is only as good as the player. This player has no clue how to play this role, so she's playing it as vanilla. As I have said already.

To be fair if you are telling the truth about your role watching me was the right play.






Anyone up for lynching human destroyer instead?

Nope.

In post 5410, Rena wrote:

In post 5393, Desperado wrote:

In post 5383, Baezu wrote:Desp, why not vote for Sean today?

Because everything Rena has said today has d fake/like she isn't reading the thread, despite her having an extremely powerful role that entirely depends on her ability to read the game and predict the scum's behavior. Her posts don't give any indication that she's capable of that, or even interested in doing so...which means she's faking it.

A role is only as good as the player. This player has no clue how to play this role, so she's playing it as vanilla. As I have said already.

Okay, I'm convinced. This is definitely coming from scum! I'm new too. I don't know how to play half the time either, but at least I don't play my PRs as VT. That's the point of having a PR. and it's fun to use your abilities. If you can't see that - you must not be a PR.

VOTE: Rena

back on a monday. still sad.

You've been putting in a lot of work on this game desp, keep up the good work.

Because of CTD's argument, I assume?

I have to admit, he does have a point.

Yeah. I can let Rena go until tomorrow and I'm starting to have paranoid flashes of her being herpaderp town.

So we're going all the way back around to seanald?

Yes. CTD provided a solid point that I am going full circle into crazy town in order to get a lynch that isn't even my #1. Although to be honest, I see Bulbazak's paranoia in Rena getting lynched and fighting against it versus me who has been his knight in shining armor for a little while now is looking pretty fucking town at this point, considering that if she's on his team defending the fuck out of her is going to make her look horrible and if she isn't he's just bringing himself closer to the grave by not pushing the only viable bandwagon by miles.

On my phone.

Hey Baezu. Do you have boobs?
By any chance are you laid on my sofa with my puppy asleep on your stomach?
Do you have a shittonne of butterfingers on the floor beside you?

Cause I have all three. Unless I am mistaken, you are not me. I play how I want to play and if that means using a vanilla meta rather than a PR meta, so be it. I think in around the 200 games Ive played on site, I have drawn town PR about 3 times, none recent.

Also, I'm not a newbie.

In post 5438, Baezu wrote:

In post 5410, Rena wrote:

In post 5393, Desperado wrote:

In post 5383, Baezu wrote:Desp, why not vote for Sean today?

Because everything Rena has said today has d fake/like she isn't reading the thread, despite her having an extremely powerful role that entirely depends on her ability to read the game and predict the scum's behavior. Her posts don't give any indication that she's capable of that, or even interested in doing so...which means she's faking it.

A role is only as good as the player. This player has no clue how to play this role, so she's playing it as vanilla. As I have said already.

Okay, I'm convinced. This is definitely coming from scum! I'm new too. I don't know how to play half the time either, but at least I don't play my PRs as VT. That's the point of having a PR. and it's fun to use your abilities. If you can't see that - you must not be a PR.

VOTE: Rena

Scrap the first question.

You do have boobs.

In post 5448, Cephrir wrote:VOTE: Seanald

Why are you sheeping Nacho when you've been trying to lynch me for yonks?