Mafiascum.net

In post 649, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 647, NoPowerOverMe wrote:We are 26 pages in no reason to get too serious about reads yet.

Why should page counts of all things decide how serious we are?

etymonline.org wrote:

wagon (n.)

"four-wheeled vehicle to carry heavy loads," late 15c., from Middle Dutch

wagen

,

waghen

, from Proto-Germanic

*wagna-

(source also of Old English

wægn

, Modern English

wain

, Old Saxon and Old High German

wagan

, Old Norse

vagn

, Old Frisian

wein

, German

Wagen

), from PIE

*wogh-no-

, suffixed form of root

*wegh-

"to go, move, transport in a vehicle" (source also of Latin

vehiculum

). It is thus related to

way

.

In Dutch and German, it is the general word for "a wheel vehicle;" its use in English is a result of contact through Flemish immigration, Dutch trade, or the Continental wars. It has largely displaced the native cognate,

wain

. Spelling preference varied randomly between

-g-

and

-gg-

from mid-18c., until American English settled on the etymological

wagon

, while

waggon

remained common in Great Britain.

Wagon-train

is attested from 1810. Phrase

on the wagon

"abstaining from alcohol" is attested by 1904, originally

on the water cart

.

In post 651, Norfolk Boy1 wrote:

In post 649, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 647, NoPowerOverMe wrote:We are 26 pages in no reason to get too serious about reads yet.

Why should page counts of all things decide how serious we are?

Are you okay Norway?

In post 577, chkflip wrote:You misunderstand. I meant elaborate so people understand where you're coming from (which is why I quoted your vote).

In post 597, quiet wrote:

In post 575, Gamma Emerald wrote:the key elements of her play seems to be shading others and useless commentary. That’s not what I expect from Cheeky nor what I expect from town. And her post announcing her leaving is a sign that she’s meeting some nebulous quota of content and then buggering off. Scum do that so they are seen as giving content but also have more wanted from them, keeping themselves just beyond the threshold of being voted by seeming useful.

I think this is kind of my point, just from the other direction. It’s not what you expect from Cheeky is the part of the read I don’t have the info for. It’s not what you’d expect of town? I don’t think that’s as conclusive. If anything, the “oh don’t worry about me I’ll be back see ya” play calls a lot of unwanted attention, as your sus kinda shows. Seems easier just to...not say anything. Or throw less shade. Or do something else.

Now if this is atypical of cheeky, I like the read more. I’m actually decently interested in exploring it. Just don’t see the point when they aren’t here to chime in. Sure, we get to hear from other people, but I like it when my wagons get to experience the pressure in person. Much more satisfying imo.

Maybe I’m stupid, but I liked Mini’s most recent wall of questions, and saw them as towny. Was kinda sad I didn’t get one.

In post 584, MiniMegabyte wrote:

In post 535, Momrangal wrote:I read, I think my vote on DBG is wrong but I don't wanna remove it.

Thats a weird statement.. Explain?

In post 585, MiniMegabyte wrote:

In post 535, Momrangal wrote:Not liking gamma

What dont you like about them?

In post 650, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I'm just saying how sure can you be that someone is scum at this point?

In post 634, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 592, Luca Blight wrote:A possibility that entered my mind when I read the above posts:

Mini: does nothing

In post 158, NorwegianboyEE wrote:VOTE: MiniMegabyte
Mini, i distinctly remember your meta as scum is to do literally nothing.

Mini in scum pt: I’m being scumread for doing nothing, what should I do

Scum partner: just look interested by asking questions

Mini: ok.

i could see it. good scum play if u r scum, Luca.

In post 642, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 636, Vaxkiller wrote:

In post 634, Nero Cain wrote:i could see it. good scum play if u r scum, Luca.

?

I think its a highly manipulative argument and could see Luca making that argument to preserve that status quo. OTOH scum do react like that so it could just decent analysis. I know thats kinda fence sitting but idk what's going on.

In post 643, Nero Cain wrote:though on 2nd thought Luca saying that while sitting on a vanity wagon does kinda make me worry that it's just scum trying to push 4 a mini elimination while not getting his hands dirty.

In post 640, NorwegianboyEE wrote:

In post 639, Rannygazoo wrote:I’m starting to understand Binatog’s posting pattern. The game can be hard to break into, and there’s lots of little threads that lead nowhere.

Quiet’s defense of mini by asking for references and notarized forms feels like sealioning.

What?
Can you explain in more detail everything you just said?

In post 641, Nero Cain wrote:I assume that some silly off-site term?

In post 606, quiet wrote:

In post 600, BBmolla wrote:you're not scumhunting you're just trying to look like you are

Genuine question, now applied to both cheeky and mini

Is this really scummy? Like can someone give me a game or three where scum did this? It gets read as scummy, but to me it seems really bad for that exact reason.

In post 608, quiet wrote:Ah so we are still in RVS then after all. Vote first questions later got it. I’ll fall in line.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Cheeky

So now that I did the thing, can someone answer my question? Seems like a fair trade. Link me any examples where scum actually behaved like either a) “I need to take a vacation, throw shade, see you later” or b) filler content, such as asking lots of questions, “not actually scumhunting”, etc. I want to see some of it in action. My bad pet theory is that reports of such scummy behavior by actual scum are grossly overstated.

In post 639, Rannygazoo wrote:I’m starting to understand Binatog’s posting pattern. The game can be hard to break into, and there’s lots of little threads that lead nowhere.

Quiet’s defense of mini by asking for references and notarized forms feels like sealioning.

In post 673, Bypasser Catcher wrote:silence scum