Mafiascum.net

Rather obvious here: MOAR BJC VOTES.

Reading now .

In post 542, Damon_Gant wrote:Oh, and I definitely agree with this post by talah.

-Shrug-, I prefer to vote actually scummy people and either investigate lurkers or have them replaced by someone who WILL contribute.

In post 546, Zdenek wrote:Also there's one of my favourite things, he asks me to get a case on him. That's just him telling us that he's scum.

Ya, this sounded an awful lot like scumlogic. Hes sort of acknowledging that there IS a case on him by complaining about how hes being voted for one thing and not others and then says there actually is no case and your suspicious for sheeping me. It looks like scum caught for the wrong reasons and upset about it. And his point about you being "Silly" for scumreading Talah but voting him for waffling on Talah is

In post 553, AngryPidgeon wrote:Hes sort of acknowledging that there IS a case on him by complaining about how hes being voted for one thing and not others and then says there actually is no case and your suspicious for sheeping me

I suggest you explain this bit better.

Also @Rogers

Did you look at the game in question - newbie1462 - yetor are you content pushing from the bavkgroud without verifying for yourself? Itsnot like its hard to do so the only reason not to is scummy.

[quote="Ketchup Covered Pigeon]-Shrug-, I prefer to vote actually scummy people and either investigate lurkers or have them replaced by someone who WILL contribute.[/quote]

In post 530, bjc wrote:And if I'm content with lurking?

C'mon, this guy? He just needs votes like nao?

Ok:

In post 528, pisskop wrote:Im unsure whats sillier -

-that you have a solid enough scumread on talah to vote me for (quite) publicly waffling on him and yet still vote me

This doesn't actually make any sense. It just looks like an attempt to discredit the vote on you

-that of all the content Ive put forth my read on Talah is your focus. nevermind my 'flip' on thad or my interactions with yates or my refusal to judge the absence of content.

This is what I meant specifically. You having done other things that you consider scummy is irrelevant? Your opinion on Talah made no sense and could certainly be from scum. That you've done other scummy things (in your opinion) doesn't make Zdenek scummy or his vote less valid?

-that you responded to a quote of APs to vote me

So? Your Talah read was a contradiction followed by a hard townread on him over a mostly throwaway post with a couple question in it that he never followed up on or drew any conclusions from. You buddying up to that post is pretty bizarre. Just because I pointed it out, doesn't make it a less valid point.

in short, get bent or get a case.

This is just scummy defensive. Scum like to have cases to refute. Sure this is a point thats harder for me to expliain, but this attitude comes from scum a LOT.

In post 555, pisskop wrote:Also @Rogers

Did you look at the game in question - newbie1462 - yetor are you content pushing from the bavkgroud without verifying for yourself? Itsnot like its hard to do so the only reason not to is scummy.

I just was clarifying an in-thread inconsistency to see your response. Since I think the actual issue surrounding Luca is like inane, no, I didn't go look. It doesn't mean I can't at any time if I feel it makes sense for me to do it.

This was your response:

In post 508, pisskop wrote:

In post 466, Damon_Gant wrote:Checked Luca's meta - Luca pretty much doesn't have a meta, with as far as I could see, only 1 finished game to speak of. None of Luca's posts from that one game read as scummy as the one post Luca has here. I reiterate - I'm happy with my vote.

In post 410, pisskop wrote:Luca - aside from my one game with him where he was a dead tortoise until day02 (where he became very active) I have no reason to townread him. He doesn't have enough completed games to meta. So Newbie 1462.

You.

Which didn't address the point. Why didn't you respond to DG's follow-up to you about it?

In post 556, Mister Rogers wrote:C'mon, this guy? He just needs votes like nao?

Why am I covered in ketchup ><

I might entertain a bjc policy wagon.

In post 530, bjc wrote:And if I'm content with lurking?

Then...we vote you until you generate content. I dont get whts so hard to understand about this.

Talah actually trying to make a case on Luca over his "Im going to be busy IRL" post makes me queasy.

Ya that point didn't make sense to me about how it means he's scum that doesn't want to contribute -- that's like a generic lurker label that applies to any lurker regardless of what they say.

In post 511, Mister Rogers wrote:Too tired must sleep.

The one thing that is burning in my mind is:

Pere should not be allowed to sideline, posting helpful read guidelines & screaming about BJC. This without actual scum hunting is scummy.

PEDIT: @ZD -- I want to puke.

Am I on the sideline? I think I've been pretty clear. And you are just as clearly agreeing with me while chastising me about it.

In post 514, AngryPidgeon wrote:Hes engaging in things that are interesting to him (imo)

I do sort of do that, but if I engage in things that don't interest me, then it's probably fake. Maybe a judgment thing that comes with experience.

In post 518, Yates wrote:Fair enough. I kinda like it, actually. What do you think about pisskop's replace in?

First read was kind of glad, although I didn't clikcback everything.

But then I looked more closely, and a lot of extraneous crap was thrown in where it probably didn't need to be. I've both seen and used post-by-post posting as scum and as town, so now I tend to look for a more conclusive summary or salient points raised in the PBP. I didn't really see that with Pisskop. I did see it more with Angry.

Right now I have him as a scum lean, and like some of the votes he has so far.

In post 520, ThAdmiral wrote:Yeah I think next time I'm scum I'm going to claim scum at the start of the game and then just ride the townread wave all the way to victory.

Same here. And it makes my laugh and cry at the same time.

In post 533, talah wrote:

In post 504, Mister Rogers wrote:

In post 495, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 494, Mister Rogers wrote:I think the PK issue needs addressing though.

Pisskop? Did I miss something specific?
Do you think aptil votes are just as useless/bad as luca votes? I mean I guess aptil has slightly more content, but I see a slew of people voting both of these players who, imo, are lurking and nullville.

Ya I mean holy crap unless we decide we are going to wagon these prod dodgers to lynch unless they contribute. Odds are there is scum in that lurker list (if you count ALL of the lurkers) but its really a crap shoot.

But its not like the wagon will be helpful because its on a lurker and our D2 will lack a beneficial wagon to analyze.

Aptil is not any better than Luca.

We should be able to do better than a crap shoot and I bet we have better odds in the lurker voters.

I feel like Larry David here.

"Can't vote the LURKERS, oh no, don't vote the LURKERS, the LURKERS are SACRED, no voting the LURKERS"

That's just horseshit. How do you propose that lurkers *ever* get read, then? Cover our ears with our hands, look elsewhere, and hope they work it out between themselves in a few game days?

No - you wagon lurkers and if they refuse to provide content and opinions you lynch the living shit out of them.

And you do it *early* so it doesn't become an emergency deadline lynch and so there's time to think clearly about what's occurring.

In post 481, aptil wrote:Will finish work and get to this today .

Sure you will. No pressure from us.

In post 287, Luca Blight wrote:Apologies for my lack of activity thus far, I will commit a bit of time later to going through this thread and will post my reads then.

No worries mate. Take it easy, you've got a free ride into Day 2 if Rogers has anything to do with it.

In post 534, talah wrote:Actually Luca's a much better vote than aptil. There's that scum-cerity where he's expressing that he's sorry he can't post (because making a scum post he's happy with is so draining and unsatisfying). I've known the feeling.

VOTE: Luca

In post 536, talah wrote:Why not Luca then? He's due for a prod if he doesn't post and I saw him logged in yesterday where he didn't bother posting. You should be asking pisskop (or potentially aptil if you want double the value given aptil is more likely scum) about bjc if you haven't played with him before.

Luca kind of randomly called out bjc as something to say in RVS so it's not so likely that bjc is scum if Luca is, but is says pretty much nothing about Luca if bjc's scum. If you're considering one or the other on a coinflip, Luca's your man.

(I'll just gloss over the fact you voted me for essentially advocating wagonning lurkers and seem to be as switchy as a diode in your opinions... )

Talah,
Can't help but notice your distinct lack of mentioning bjc at all in a post about lurkers. Nor about his attitude about the pressure being applied to him. Nor about the fact he finally posted.
Please help me to understand.
Sincerely,
~P

In post 537, RachMarie wrote:Still working on getting in this game, but one thing I DO know about Nero is he is far more active as town and lurks a lot as scum, he has even admitted this to people.


I want to see more from you Nero.

Also feeling better about Pere.


VOTE: Nero

If BJC is lynched, then Nero will probably be vigged.

In post 535, Mister Rogers wrote: BJC is the worst of them and we gain good info from their wagon. At least the others sound repentant.

Unvote, Vote BJC

Tell me some of the good info we'll get from his lynch.

In post 538, Mister Rogers wrote:I just noted you you did that. The reason I am voting for you is a lackluster approach to scum suspects & a bizarre cog-dis in your approach to the game. It just appears like you are trying to skate through by simply commenting combined with a "lynch me or lump it" attitude.

With that being said, I don't like how ZD is being so mysterious with his reads either. Pere's ISO reads: BJC is the entire scum team, you all are town and everyone else bleh.

Nah, but he is the most obvious, and it'll be informative to match townreads to his scumflip.

[/quote]I got a couple of town reads lurking like Snow & Matt too.[/quote] I'd put both at null-scum.

[/quote]Luca fencesat BJC, he didn't call him out. He town postured the issue which is like barfable but at least he's not saying "I'm lurking deliberately".[/quote] I'd vote Luca too.

EBWOP:

In post 538, Mister Rogers wrote:I just noted you you did that. The reason I am voting for you is a lackluster approach to scum suspects & a bizarre cog-dis in your approach to the game. It just appears like you are trying to skate through by simply commenting combined with a "lynch me or lump it" attitude.

With that being said, I don't like how ZD is being so mysterious with his reads either. Pere's ISO reads: BJC is the entire scum team, you all are town and everyone else bleh.

Nah, but he is the most obvious, and it'll be informative to match townreads to his scumflip.

I got a couple of town reads lurking like Snow & Matt too.

I'd put both at null-scum.

Luca fencesat BJC, he didn't call him out. He town postured the issue which is like barfable but at least he's not saying "I'm lurking deliberately".

I'd vote Luca too.

In post 562, PeregrineV wrote:

In post 511, Mister Rogers wrote:Too tired must sleep.

The one thing that is burning in my mind is:

Pere should not be allowed to sideline, posting helpful read guidelines & screaming about BJC. This without actual scum hunting is scummy.

PEDIT: @ZD -- I want to puke.

Am I on the sideline? I think I've been pretty clear. And you are just as clearly agreeing with me while chastising me about it.

C'mon, He didn't start this game out lurking AND being defiant about it.

Most people have a wait and see attitude regarding your play but well that thought was literally burning in my mind.

In post 552, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 542, Damon_Gant wrote:Oh, and I definitely agree with this post by talah.

-Shrug-, I prefer to vote actually scummy people and either investigate lurkers or have them replaced by someone who WILL contribute.

Scummy lurkers.

Anyway, I don't like the wagon on BJC at all. No, claiming mafia is not objectively a towntell or anything but the way I see it, it looks like he got put as an easy target pretty early in the game and the amount of people jumping on something that is absolutely not a tell at all makes me worried. You can say that BJC is scum for not contributing but of course that fails to account for your reads on literally 40% of the other players who are also not contributing. I might be off the mark here, but there's usually a player like BJC in every large normal game that's, well, . However, this doesn't make them mafia.

Right now, my vote is currently placed on Aptil due to the fact that I really disliked his second post that basically just pointed the finger at everybody in sight without actually taking a stance or attempting to find the mafia, but his lack of content since then has made it pretty difficult to get a solid read on him. I'm hoping further content will generate soon.

I'm having trouble finding a real scumread here, and I'm continually re-reading.

In post 568, projectmatt wrote:

In post 535, Mister Rogers wrote: BJC is the worst of them and we gain good info from their wagon. At least the others sound repentant.

Unvote, Vote BJC

Tell me some of the good info we'll get from his lynch.

The best info we will get is his alignment. The reason why its good is because he has been a very popular push.