Mafiascum.net

After rereading BBTs ISO, there's really not as much scumminess as I was expecting.

The worse of it is how he hasn't said very much about his scumreads (mumbles especially) and how his behavior arouid the hammer felt contrived.

Will prob be voting elsewhere but he remains a scumlean.

In post 489, Jodaxq wrote:

In post 429, havingfitz wrote:Garuga should not have claimed. Even though I was pushing his wagon it wasn't getting a lot of support so I was leaving it as well. Don't get his early (L-4?) claim.

Still like my vote from eod yesterday.

VOTE: Shoshin

v/LA till Tuesday morning

for holiday weekend in US.

I really don't like this. It's very active lurker-like.

Why vote now instead of waiting until you come back?

gross

but otherwise i think Jodaxq is town

JJD, is there a reason you don't think that it could be BBT/Inivs/Mumbles?

VOTE: Invisibility

Double post for emphasis.

In post 546, JarJarDrinks wrote:

In post 545, Shoshin wrote:JJD, what's your read on Mumble?

As I said, it's possible that BBT is bussing but Invisibility seems more likely.

Apart from that I think I lean town.

How is he leaning town? Why do you disagree with my reasons for suspecting Mumble?

I don't understand why everyone is so hesitant to vote Mumble... I laid out exactly why he's scum here... His response to 311 isn't a natural reading of Garuga's post; it shows that Mumble's interacting with town (i.e. Garuga) with a defensive mindset, as if Garuga is after him when Garuga indicated no such thing.

this could be a good start to get back into the game. where is this post about mumble?

Look at 511.

man I really wish there was a way to click the person's name on the VC and it takes you to the post of the vote. That would make looking at the reasons for rampage easier. brb

p.edit - k thanks

In post 511, Shoshin wrote:I keep coming back to this:

In post 311, Garuga wrote:

In post 309, Mumble wrote:

In post 308, Garuga wrote:He's not providing clear arguments for his reads. His "what?" trilogy (151 153 155) is probably the best example, along with the (19 23 28) trio early on.

So why naked vote him (essentially doing what you are scum reading him for) instead of asking him to clarify?

Because I see an alternative reason for your vote...

I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF.

The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful.

Garuga doesn't cast any suspicion towards Mumble.

In post 312, Mumble wrote:Um...I'm not new? The re-vote is ridiculous and confusing (especially since I'm having a time differentiating you and Gustavo).

However, you didn't answer my question about clarification, and instead try to throw shade on me for a really weak reason.

VOTE: Garuga

But Mumble feels attacked? And then votes Garuga? I'm having trouble picturing a townie interpret 311 as an attack.

ok I read this. I also read mumble's response to you about this. I also clicked the link mumble provided that showed there was a misunderstanding that garuga clarified and mumble promptly changed his vote.

so now that was previously determined, why are you still using this as a reason to vote mumble?

In post 556, Shoshin wrote:I don't understand why everyone is so hesitant to vote Mumble... I laid out exactly why he's scum here... His response to 311 isn't a natural reading of Garuga's post; it shows that Mumble's interacting with town (i.e. Garuga) with a defensive mindset, as if Garuga is after him when Garuga indicated no such thing.

In post 539, Mumble wrote:

In post 511, Shoshin wrote:But Mumble feels attacked? And then votes Garuga? I'm having trouble picturing a townie interpret 311 as an attack.

Then read 316 to see I thought the post was directed at me, not Invis, and then stop trying to shade me for made up reasons.

Hi.

You want to keep ignoring my response? Makes it easier for you to push me, right.

(note: the original pointed to 314, when I meant to point to 316. I've edited it here)

Gus, I made a post on the last page with a collection of the Rampage votes.

When I get on my laptop I'm to look a little deeper into the reasoning behind them.

In post 560, Gustavo wrote:

In post 511, Shoshin wrote:I keep coming back to this:

In post 311, Garuga wrote:

In post 309, Mumble wrote:

In post 308, Garuga wrote:He's not providing clear arguments for his reads. His "what?" trilogy (151 153 155) is probably the best example, along with the (19 23 28) trio early on.

So why naked vote him (essentially doing what you are scum reading him for) instead of asking him to clarify?

Because I see an alternative reason for your vote...

I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF.

The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful.

Garuga doesn't cast any suspicion towards Mumble.

In post 312, Mumble wrote:Um...I'm not new? The re-vote is ridiculous and confusing (especially since I'm having a time differentiating you and Gustavo).

However, you didn't answer my question about clarification, and instead try to throw shade on me for a really weak reason.

VOTE: Garuga

But Mumble feels attacked? And then votes Garuga? I'm having trouble picturing a townie interpret 311 as an attack.

ok I read this. I also read mumble's response to you about this. I also clicked the link mumble provided that showed there was a misunderstanding that garuga clarified and mumble promptly changed his vote.

so now that was previously determined, why are you still using this as a reason to vote mumble?

Lol I just came here to make this exact post.

^Oh i'll check that out thanks.

One thing I noticed looking at the VCs. How does the invisibility wagon hold steady with just 3 votes and never gains any traction? I'll have to look into that later.

In post 562, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:When I get on my laptop I'm to look a little deeper into the reasoning behind them.

I find it interesting you are doing this considering you gave no reason for your vote on rampage and your iso is lacking explanation for it.

care to share with the class what about rampage you found scummy? The post you made you claim you caught up and then naked voted. That isn't very helpful especially given rampage was town.

looking at bbt's post, there was almost no reasoning given in the votes itself which means I have to iso each person. The only one who kind of explains a reason (jarjar) the were just kind of meh.

In post 525, Havo wrote:after we had a quick hammer Day 1?

1. that certainly wasn't a quick hammer so I am curious why you thought there was one? Shoshin said he would hammer, others were calling for hammers and one player asked for a self hammer.

2. aren't you the same person who made this post?

In post 527, Havo wrote:

In post 480, Lovebird wrote:Doesn't havo do day one quickhammer thing

What happened to that

Are you an Alt?

Yes I will quick hammer Day 1 if I feel like it.

This makes me think you are ok with quick hammers...

In post 560, Gustavo wrote:

In post 511, Shoshin wrote:I keep coming back to this:

In post 311, Garuga wrote:

In post 309, Mumble wrote:

In post 308, Garuga wrote:He's not providing clear arguments for his reads. His "what?" trilogy (151 153 155) is probably the best example, along with the (19 23 28) trio early on.

So why naked vote him (essentially doing what you are scum reading him for) instead of asking him to clarify?

Because I see an alternative reason for your vote...

I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF.

The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful.

Garuga doesn't cast any suspicion towards Mumble.

In post 312, Mumble wrote:Um...I'm not new? The re-vote is ridiculous and confusing (especially since I'm having a time differentiating you and Gustavo).

However, you didn't answer my question about clarification, and instead try to throw shade on me for a really weak reason.

VOTE: Garuga

But Mumble feels attacked? And then votes Garuga? I'm having trouble picturing a townie interpret 311 as an attack.

ok I read this. I also read mumble's response to you about this. I also clicked the link mumble provided that showed there was a misunderstanding that garuga clarified and mumble promptly changed his vote.

so now that was previously determined, why are you still using this as a reason to vote mumble?

The misunderstanding is the point... it's an unnatural reading of Garuga's language and reveals a scum perspective. Scum tend to think townies are after them even when they're not, and that's precisely the mindset that Mumble's misunderstanding exhibits. So it doesn't matter if Garuga clarified and Mumble changed his vote. The misunderstanding is the point.

In post 568, Shoshin wrote:The misunderstanding is the point... it's an unnatural reading of Garuga's language and reveals a scum perspective. Scum tend to think townies are after them even when they're not, and that's precisely the mindset that Mumble's misunderstanding exhibits. So it doesn't matter if Garuga clarified and Mumble changed his vote. The misunderstanding is the point.

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in a while. Mistakes happen. People misreading things happen. I almost always end up scum reading the people who scum read me and I do it as town. Your original point has been disproven and now spinning it to something else isn’t going to fly.

VOTE: shoshin

In post 311, Garuga wrote:

In post 309, Mumble wrote:

In post 308, Garuga wrote:He's not providing clear arguments for his reads. His "what?" trilogy (151 153 155) is probably the best example, along with the (19 23 28) trio early on.

So why naked vote him (essentially doing what you are scum reading him for) instead of asking him to clarify?

Because I see an alternative reason for your vote...

I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF.

The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful.

I think it's completely reasonable to think that Garuga is referring to Mumbles here.

In post 570, JarJarDrinks wrote:

In post 311, Garuga wrote:

In post 309, Mumble wrote:

In post 308, Garuga wrote:He's not providing clear arguments for his reads. His "what?" trilogy (151 153 155) is probably the best example, along with the (19 23 28) trio early on.

So why naked vote him (essentially doing what you are scum reading him for) instead of asking him to clarify?

Because I see an alternative reason for your vote...

I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF.

The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful.

I think it's completely reasonable to think that Garuga is referring to Mumbles here.

are you saying that it's completely reasonable for someone to misunderstand it?

In post 569, Gustavo wrote:That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in a while. Mistakes happen. People misreading things happen. I almost always end up scum reading the people who scum read me and I do it as town. Your original point has been disproven and now spinning it to something else isn’t going to fly.

Why are you assuming that mistakes aren't indicative of alignment? Haven't you ever heard of something called a "scum slip"? As cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics teaches, mistakes are almost always the result of a cognitive bias. So rather than assume a mistake is nothing more than a mistake, I ask questions about the mistake. I look at what the mistake tells us about a player's unconscious thought patterns and biases. You need to ask what the mistake tells us about Mumble's perspective (is it informed or uninformed? defensive or offensive? directed towards pro-scum or pro-town objectives?), and the answer to that question strongly suggests that Mumble is scum who knows (consciously or unconsciously) that townies are after him.

In post 570, JarJarDrinks wrote:I think it's completely reasonable to think that Garuga is referring to Mumbles here.

I agree. I feel after that explanation, shoshin should have just admitted his mistake and moved on.

In post 571, Invisibility wrote:

In post 570, JarJarDrinks wrote:

In post 311, Garuga wrote:

In post 309, Mumble wrote:

In post 308, Garuga wrote:He's not providing clear arguments for his reads. His "what?" trilogy (151 153 155) is probably the best example, along with the (19 23 28) trio early on.

So why naked vote him (essentially doing what you are scum reading him for) instead of asking him to clarify?

Because I see an alternative reason for your vote...

I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF.

The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful.

I think it's completely reasonable to think that Garuga is referring to Mumbles here.

are you saying that it's completely reasonable for someone to misunderstand it?

sure