Mafiascum.net

I've given up trying to convince you of logic. You're asking me why I did a 180 that doesn't exist.

You meanwhile want to hold to your theory and avoid proving it. That benefits NanceFloor scum if all the scum are in the group of 3. Failing hurts town you. Fypov, there should be zero reason not to confirm or dispel but for ego and scum!NF.

Ego this bad makes you agency captured, meaning a townie working for scum.

In post 5824, NanceFloor wrote:If you strenuously object to my vote, I am not opposed to RC’s blind coalition which like Succinct, I much prefer to yours.

Let me be Frank here. I am voting for one coalition and one only. That coalition is the outsiders plus Succinct. That's why we did the veto the way we did it.

I will hammer any coalition if desperate as something is better than nothing. The only reason to have voted coalition today is to trap scum, not glory hunt. Although with the resistance,it might just be.

In post 5821, Titus wrote:

In post 5818, Titus wrote:

If you have nothing to hide, why not prove scum exist outside the first coalition? Is it because you know outside is clean?

Merely trying to paint Moongrass as scummy for agreeing with logic makes no sense. Why would scum moongrass want to confirm scum over here?

No, I am not thinking he’s scummy for that? Do you intend to misconstrue all of my posts in this game or just those two?

I have made it crystal clear that I’m not tr Moon, so why would it surprise you at all that I’m not going to enthusiasticly jump on anything he supports? How does that even make any sense to you at all?

He is in my POE, yet you find it illogical even maybe scum indicative, that I’m not sheeping him? Seriously?

I need a nap. I feel like garbage.

In post 5827, NanceFloor wrote:

In post 5821, Titus wrote:

In post 5818, Titus wrote:

If you have nothing to hide, why not prove scum exist outside the first coalition? Is it because you know outside is clean?

Merely trying to paint Moongrass as scummy for agreeing with logic makes no sense. Why would scum moongrass want to confirm scum over here?

No, I am not thinking he’s scummy for that? Do you intend to misconstrue all of my posts in this game or just those two?

I have made it crystal clear that I’m not tr Moon, so why would it surprise you at all that I’m not going to enthusiasticly jump on anything he supports? How does that even make any sense to you at all?

He is in my POE, yet you find it illogical even maybe scum indicative, that I’m not sheeping him? Seriously?

Yes. Because town you sees my logic if playing well. Town you would call Moongras's bluff and trap him.

Moongrass confirming scum in that pool makes it more likely he dies which is townie as fuck.

it just seems extremely wasteful to confirm something that should be obvious

- dann

In post 5825, Titus wrote:I've given up trying to convince you of logic. You're asking me why I did a 180 that doesn't exist.

You meanwhile want to hold to your theory and avoid proving it. That benefits NanceFloor scum if all the scum are in the group of 3. Failing hurts town you. Fypov, there should be zero reason not to confirm or dispel but for ego and scum!NF.

Ego this bad makes you agency captured, meaning a townie working for scum.

You don’t believe that it makes complete logical sense that my reads aren’t that terrible as to think I was wrong on more than one original coalition spot? And why does scum pair two teammates together? Wouldn’t have that been extremely risky, since they Creature/Chemist could have easily been lynched over Oka/BEF?

So, no I think Chemist/Creature being scum is highly unlikely since neither one was a strong consensus tr at the time of pairings. I also hard townread RC and Sky, so I bet money on there being at least 1 but far more likely 2 scum outside of failed coalition.

I am not even alone in my opinion or Moon would not be the sole vote other than you for your coalition. If my thinking about this, is so severely flawed, than why am is no one else sheeping your coalition?

In post 5826, Titus wrote:

In post 5824, NanceFloor wrote:If you strenuously object to my vote, I am not opposed to RC’s blind coalition which like Succinct, I much prefer to yours.

Let me be Frank here. I am voting for one coalition and one only. That coalition is the outsiders plus Succinct. That's why we did the veto the way we did it.

I will hammer any coalition if desperate as something is better than nothing. The only reason to have voted coalition today is to trap scum, not glory hunt. Although with the resistance,it might just be.

The basic difference between coalition 1 and 2, is that I obviously wasn’t expecting it to fail, where as I am 100% expecting YOURS to fail and we don’t get another shot at at, so why not try to get one that actually has better than a snowball’s chance in hell of actually succeeding?

In post 5832, NanceFloor wrote:

In post 5826, Titus wrote:

In post 5824, NanceFloor wrote:If you strenuously object to my vote, I am not opposed to RC’s blind coalition which like Succinct, I much prefer to yours.

Let me be Frank here. I am voting for one coalition and one only. That coalition is the outsiders plus Succinct. That's why we did the veto the way we did it.

I will hammer any coalition if desperate as something is better than nothing. The only reason to have voted coalition today is to trap scum, not glory hunt. Although with the resistance,it might just be.

The basic difference between coalition 1 and 2, is that I obviously wasn’t expecting it to fail, where as I am 100% expecting YOURS to fail and we don’t get another shot at at, so why not try to get one that actually has better than a snowball’s chance in hell of actually succeeding?

Because your 100% confidence is a fiction. That's your ego talking. A 100% failure rate means mod info. Town you doesn't have it.

The coalition I am proposing will actually let us get that mod information and solve things unifying town.

In post 5829, Titus wrote:

In post 5827, NanceFloor wrote:

In post 5821, Titus wrote:

In post 5818, Titus wrote:

If you have nothing to hide, why not prove scum exist outside the first coalition? Is it because you know outside is clean?

Merely trying to paint Moongrass as scummy for agreeing with logic makes no sense. Why would scum moongrass want to confirm scum over here?

No, I am not thinking he’s scummy for that? Do you intend to misconstrue all of my posts in this game or just those two?

I have made it crystal clear that I’m not tr Moon, so why would it surprise you at all that I’m not going to enthusiasticly jump on anything he supports? How does that even make any sense to you at all?

He is in my POE, yet you find it illogical even maybe scum indicative, that I’m not sheeping him? Seriously?

Yes. Because town you sees my logic if playing well. Town you would call Moongras's bluff and trap him.

Moongrass confirming scum in that pool makes it more likely he dies which is townie as fuck.

How? Only if your theory about there being more than one scum in failed coalition is accurate? If there’s 2, like I believe there is, then no it’s not townie if he has a partner.

And let’s be clear here. There are at least 4 slots on your coalition that are not being widely obvtown read. Now otoh, if Moon had enthusiastically jumped on Maria’s initial coalition vote, which had Moon instead of Chenn in it, then I’d actually agree with you, because it would have made 0 sense for scum!Moon to have sheeped that. Had he actually done that, I’d probably be offering him a huge mea culpa rn for wrongly sr him, because I would have viewed that as a potential town claim but on your coalition with 4 not widely read strong tr, not in the slightest.

You know what would make me reconsider your coalition? Succinct not only enthusiasticly jumping on it but encouraging other people to do so as well but so far, she has done the exact opposite of that.

In post 5830, NanceFloor wrote:it just seems extremely wasteful to confirm something that should be obvious

- dann

+1

In post 5834, NanceFloor wrote:You know what would make me reconsider your coalition? Succinct not only enthusiasticly jumping on it but encouraging other people to do so as well but so far, she has done the exact opposite of that.

That has to be scum influence then. Succinct picked coalition KNOWING the intended purpose of it. That's why we did the 4 man veto in the first place.

Yet someone keeps spamming nonsense about we already know it to be true when we don't.

In post 5834, NanceFloor wrote:How? Only if your theory about there being more than one scum in failed coalition is accurate? If there’s 2, like I believe there is, then no it’s not townie if he has a partner.

If there's two scum in his coalition, guess what happens, we lynch Moongrass scum, we find the original scum, then Moongras's partner in the second coalition is stuck in a 1 v 4.

Moongrass dies for what? To confirm the possibility of him being scum?

I stand by my moongrass and TD reads.

I’ll tell you what Titus, if you can actually convince enough people to sheep it, especially Succinct, I will vote it too, rather than waste it but I honestly don’t see that happening because I’m far from the only one not seeing the logic of how your coalition is best?

It’s not like your coalition is at L-1 and I am the only holdout. Why are you and Moon the only ones who thinks it’s a good idea?

However, even more important than being correct on Moongrass and TD is the reads and data.

If we do my coalition NanceFloor, I am willing to vote whatever stupid idea on day 6 and beyond exists as long as it is not autoloss. We need that confirmation that badly with how skilled coalition A is.

I'm dying of boredom rn

Have we decided on a coalition?

In post 5837, Titus wrote:

In post 5834, NanceFloor wrote:How? Only if your theory about there being more than one scum in failed coalition is accurate? If there’s 2, like I believe there is, then no it’s not townie if he has a partner.

If there's two scum in his coalition, guess what happens, we lynch Moongrass scum, we find the original scum, then Moongras's partner in the second coalition is stuck in a 1 v 4.

Moongrass dies for what? To confirm the possibility of him being scum?

I stand by my moongrass and TD reads.

TD isn’t sheeping your coalition. And what if you’re wrong and we could actually win with this coalition? What would be so terrible about trying to do that, especially when I bet money that there’s at least one scum, probably two outside of failed coalition? Because I just think it’s just incomprehensible to to me that your 3 scum on failed coalition makes any sense.

A) Creature/Chemist pairing could have easily been lynched over Oka/BEF, so I can’t imagine what boneheaded scumteam would ever make of their buddies this vulnerable.

B) I hard townread both RC and Sky.

I think scum paired chemist with creature thinking that creatures general obvtown plot armor would keep him alive not considering the actual gamestate

In post 5843, RadiantCowbells wrote:I think scum paired chemist with creature thinking that creatures general obvtown plot armor would keep him alive not considering the actual gamestate

If that's the case, I'll need your weight on my coalition.

I'm on strike due to poor working conditions

In post 5841, Creature wrote:Have we decided on a coalition?

Who do you think should be in 2nd coalition?

Let's put Maria in the coalition 8 times

In post 5845, RadiantCowbells wrote:I'm on strike due to poor working conditions

In post 5847, RadiantCowbells wrote:Let's put Maria in the coalition 8 times

That works.