Mafiascum.net

In post 611, PeregrineV wrote:

In post 607, Mister Rogers wrote:@Pere: Your organizational skills. Are we going to pressure a lurker or are we going to lynch an active poster. At this point its becoming concerning because deadline is approaching and I don't think we can afford to waffle about. Scum I think would love a divided town to waste more time towards the deadline.

Activescum- posters are easier to catch as scum later. Pless-mod is on top of prods, etc., so lurkers will most likely be replaced.

Scummy lurkers should be hung

/vigged. Town lurkers should nut it up and get in here anyway.

I would rather lynch bjc, but would consider Luca, maybe Aptil, maybe Snow. Probably not 4nxiety or DV or BiPolar out of the low posters.

Out of the high posters, cases require more validity. Only ones I'd really consider at this point are talah and pisskop.

In post 624, Damon_Gant wrote:

In post 605, projectmatt wrote:I understand being annoyed by BJC's play but I think we both know there's a lot more bigger fish to fry.

With all this uncertainty I have about those who are active among us, I feel like there are quite possibly 3 or more scum hiding among the lurkers. That is where I currently see the game being played. To those who do not like this, I want to be convinced. So convince me that someone else is scum.

In post 625, Mister Rogers wrote:

In post 611, PeregrineV wrote:

In post 607, Mister Rogers wrote:@Pere: Your organizational skills. Are we going to pressure a lurker or are we going to lynch an active poster. At this point its becoming concerning because deadline is approaching and I don't think we can afford to waffle about. Scum I think would love a divided town to waste more time towards the deadline.

Activescum- posters are easier to catch as scum later. Pless-mod is on top of prods, etc., so lurkers will most likely be replaced.

Scummy lurkers should be hung

/vigged. Town lurkers should nut it up and get in here anyway.

I would rather lynch bjc, but would consider Luca, maybe Aptil, maybe Snow. Probably not 4nxiety or DV or BiPolar out of the low posters.

Out of the high posters, cases require more validity. Only ones I'd really consider at this point are talah and pisskop.

Ok well this is some meat and potatoes, thank you.

At first I thought these was a contradiction but not because you consider BJC a scummy lurker?

In post 612, talah wrote:Pidgeon - Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Luca said he had some intense real life issues happening and arranged V/LA with a view to replacing out if he was unable to play the game. What's that? He actually apologised for not providing content and promised content and then fucked off to 'scum iz intense'-land? Oh my. Well I suppose we should wait for LUCA TO RESPOND THEN, don't you think?

In post 534, talah wrote: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.

In post 629, projectmatt wrote:I feel as though there's been a pretty clear misinterpretation on what I've said versus what you guys are trying to make it look like I'm saying.

Can lurkers be scum?

Absolutely.

If someone is lurking, does this mean they are scum?

No.

Currently, the way I see it - there is no logical justification to vote BJC other than for the idea of a liability lynch (which I disagree with strongly) or because he is lurking. Lynching someone solely on the basis of lurking is not a good idea. I am not, nor have I ever implied that because certain people (like Aptil!) are lurking, that they are town. This shouldn't be hard logic to follow, thank you.

And in terms of the bigger fish I mean that literally as I have indicated, I think that BJC is very likely to be town and there

are

better things to do than vote someone out of policy. As for the mafia? Dunno, I'm working on it.

In post 630, projectmatt wrote:And to be clear, "lynch all lurkers" is a horrible strategy, in my opinion. I think that in this case the lurker I'm voting has scumtold, which is me lynching somebody for scumtelling and not for lurking.

In post 603, Mister Rogers wrote:I am a closet lynch all lurkers fanatic but I have repressed that impulse due to site meta

In post 606, pisskop wrote:Just going to put this out there

vote: Mister Rogers

In post 611, PeregrineV wrote:I would rather lynch bjc, but would consider Luca, maybe Aptil, maybe Snow. Probably not 4nxiety or DV or BiPolar out of the low posters.

Out of the high posters, cases require more validity. Only ones I'd really consider at this point are talah and pisskop.

In post 612, talah wrote:so I'll be back around my prod timer because you fucks obviously need time to work things out between yourselves anyway. Did I mention that I'm an excellent wagon for those of you that want to

push a policy/information

scum lynch? Probably.

In post 628, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 612, talah wrote:Pidgeon - Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Luca said he had some intense real life issues happening and arranged V/LA with a view to replacing out if he was unable to play the game. What's that? He actually apologised for not providing content and promised content and then fucked off to 'scum iz intense'-land? Oh my. Well I suppose we should wait for LUCA TO RESPOND THEN, don't you think?

Yes that sure is what happened. And then you made an obscure-ass case on him for it:

In post 534, talah wrote: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.

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.

In post 633, projectmatt wrote:

In post 573, projectmatt wrote: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,

lynchbait

. However, this doesn't make them mafia.

is the basis for my townread along with me feeling that his tone and reaction to getting pushed on was a fairly natural way of reacting that I read as town. To me, voting BJC for the reasoning of saying "I'm scum" on page 1 is fairly ridiculous, and I have failed to see any other logical case towards BJC, which leads me to believe that he's either being lynched for liability purposes or because he is currently lurking. In Mr. Rodgers case, it appears to be both. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, then go beyond "his reaction to people voting him for claiming scum".

I'll give you those additional posts.

In post 521, bjc wrote:

In post 517, pisskop wrote: I think I agree with this.
You're a terrible person.

List why you think this.

And you're a moron.

I also have no clue why you're calling me a terrible person.

In post 518, Yates wrote:

In post 516, bjc wrote:I think I agree with this.

VOTE: bjc

@bjc

- Is voting for you the only way to extract content?

No... Not at all.

Are you voting me because you think I'm scummy or just to be stupid?

In post 527, bjc wrote:Well, I did claim my role before getting voted on so there's that.

And lol at that fucking question. I claimed scum and drew like three votes pretty quickly. So of course the content generated after that was in response to being voted on. Le'sigh.

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

In post 633, projectmatt wrote:

In post 573, projectmatt wrote: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,

lynchbait

. However, this doesn't make them mafia.

is the basis for my townread along with me feeling that his tone and reaction to getting pushed on was a fairly natural way of reacting that I read as town. To me, voting BJC for the reasoning of saying "I'm scum" on page 1 is fairly ridiculous, and I have failed to see any other logical case towards BJC, which leads me to believe that he's either being lynched for liability purposes or because he is currently lurking. In Mr. Rodgers case, it appears to be both. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In post 521, bjc wrote:

In post 517, pisskop wrote: I think I agree with this.
You're a terrible person.

List why you think this.

And you're a moron.

I also have no clue why you're calling me a terrible person.

In post 518, Yates wrote:

In post 516, bjc wrote:I think I agree with this.

VOTE: bjc

@bjc

- Is voting for you the only way to extract content?

No... Not at all.

Are you voting me because you think I'm scummy or just to be stupid?

In post 527, bjc wrote:Well, I did claim my role before getting voted on so there's that.

And lol at that fucking question. I claimed scum and drew like three votes pretty quickly. So of course the content generated after that was in response to being voted on. Le'sigh.

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

In post 638, talah wrote:

In post 628, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 612, talah wrote:Pidgeon - Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Luca said he had some intense real life issues happening and arranged V/LA with a view to replacing out if he was unable to play the game. What's that? He actually apologised for not providing content and promised content and then fucked off to 'scum iz intense'-land? Oh my. Well I suppose we should wait for LUCA TO RESPOND THEN, don't you think?

Yes that sure is what happened. And then you made an obscure-ass case on him for it:

In post 534, talah wrote: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.

And what, to you, indicates that this "obscure-ass case" isn't 100% accurate? Do you have information that Luca really *is* having RL issues which are affecting his ability to post - anything at all?
Here's the post:

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.

And anyway like I say I saw him logged in about a day ago, and he posted nothing. Not another prod dodge, not general comments or an indication about how he was going to go about catching up - nothing.

If he was *really* apologetic and had RL issues, perhaps he'd flag a V/LA or replace out or something.
But the fact is, I'm seeing this as more likely a case of newb-scum who has no idea what initial angle to take to further his wincon. And without further information to dispute that likelihood, why would anyone give him a free pass to not be voted for not playing the game?

Why are you defending him?

(anyway back later, so I waive my right of reply for a couple of days)

In post 595, aptil wrote:Yates : 7 posts : Has only 7 posts but all of them have content . Reads town to me .

In post 547, Mister Rogers wrote:I did notice that his sudden switch on Talah looked poorly done, based on his own expressed logic.

In post 550, Mister Rogers wrote:Rather obvious here: MOAR BJC VOTES.

In post 573, projectmatt wrote:I'm having trouble finding a real scumread here, and I'm continually re-reading.

In post 591, pisskop wrote:And when I call it out he sits back and instead of elaboration let's you swoop in.

In post 591, pisskop wrote:I'm not talking about my talah read because nobody is asking about it.

In post 591, pisskop wrote:His reason for voting me is weak, and his support poor and wifomy.

In post 591, pisskop wrote:Is this a style of his?

In post 453, Damon_Gant wrote:

In post 335, pisskop wrote: 202 is a terrible Luca vote and a Doc gutfeel dressed in logic. Why would he need to dress it up? also, for a player who says this:

In post 118, Damon_Gant wrote:Mastin's play continues to be very bleh. Giving garbage reads, and now trying to spoonfeed us what his meta is. That's not going to work - when I have time tonight I'll be looking at Mastin's meta for myself. It does need doing, because of the unorthodox playstyle - but I'm not going to be told by the player himself what his meta is, and essentially that his meta this game corresponds with his meta for town.

And then doesn't meta Luca. My experience with Luca is as a lurker/very unhelpful player until later and additionally there are better fish in the sea to eyeball.

Perhaps you believe there are "better fish in the sea to eyeball" - and

trust me, I'm eyeballing everyone

In post 644, Zdenek wrote:Maybe, but my new reasons - your response to my vote - are bodacious.

In post 31, bjc wrote:Yeah there is nothing town about a joke early in the game. Sheesh.

In post 33, bjc wrote:I have nothing so far considering I made one comment right before I left for home, just got home when I made the other comment while skimming the game.

So yeah... I have no "take" on this game so far at all, lol. Except for the usual people that are too uptight.

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

In post 636, Mister Rogers wrote:@Matt: Yes you are wrong on your assertion as to why I am voting BJC. It is because he is deliberately lurking (as opposed to Aptil who is simply lurking) and because of the bizarre attention that he got for his simple "I'm scum" post.

I think moar people should be voting him.