Mafiascum.net

Right now Cosca is scummier than MoI.

MoI is making very good points while Cosca is just defeating some arguments. That's the way I see it.

I wish scumhunter dead today, but if the people want Cosca more I'll happily agree if I'm executioner again.

Cosca wrote:So you're arguing that they are going to skim over your post, but read your quotes in our post in-depth, and are therefore going to misled because we removed a part that had nothing to do with the "argument" we were refuting?

No, I’m arguing that most people are not going to notice that you cropped an incrediblely relevant part of the quote to form a crappy attack. And my scum-dar went crazy because only scum have a motivation to do that.

Cosca wrote:So you're stating there was no Town motivation for you to remove the part about the no-win situation?

And now we have typical scum play. Rather than answering the question you attempt to turn it back on the accuser. Scumtastic.

There were two seperate issues – one being the reasons I suspected you and the second being your assertion that there was a no win situation. The two are NOT related.

You removed a part of a quote that was directly related to the reasons I suspected you when making your attack about my ‘OMGUS’. That’s scumtastic.

Cosca wrote:You did not call me out after I admitted I made a mistake (I thought about majority voting, not about plurality voting).

Um, whut? I called you out for taking a scummy stance. You eventually back-tracked when I called you on it. It was still scummy when I questioned you about it originally. How many times am I required to attack a scummy premise?

Cosca wrote:You posted between our leaning scum read on Vezok and your post where you called us scummy. Why didn't you call us out immediately?

Give me some relevant post numbers and I'll see what the hell you are talking about.

Cosca wrote:Your theory simply does not add up. There is absolutely no scum motivation in anything we've done.

We’ve done nothing scummy!!!!! This is pure, unadulterated rhetoric that you are falling back to when you can’t attack the arguments against you successfully.

Cosca wrote:We were considered town or leaning town until you expressed suspicions. People are simply sheeping you - and you know that people tend to do this.

Oh, so when I suspect you for your crappy attack suddenly I turn scum? Isn't that what you are trying to sell as a scum-tell coming from me again?

Cosca wrote:So your argument is: Vezok is town because he doesn't post good arguments for his scum cases, but Cosca is scum because he doesn't post good arguments for his scum cases. Right then.

Nice twisting as I said nothing of the sort.

Vezok is Town IMO because you can read his motivation in his play.

Cosca wrote:What problem do you have with this quote?

I don’t have a problem with it. I’m directly calling you out for doing exactly what you call scummy – taking a weak player (Vezok) and calling them scum.

Cosca wrote:Just so everybody can follow the discussion, here is a short version of MoI's "case" against us:
1. IceGuy made a mistake and thought the night executioner was elected by majority voting, not plurality voting. He therefore thought up a scheme which would have lead to the exposure of at least one scum player.
2. Vezok posted fluff and we called him out on that.
3. MoI was showing much less activity then he usually was, and we called him out on that. After he made a content post, we retracted our suspicion and agreed this post was enough to satisfy our activity requirements.

Oh look Cosca has tried to summarize the situation in a manner slanted completely to favour him since he’s losing the direct discussion. Scumtastic.

1. What plan to expose a scum are you talking about? Post numbers please because I don’t remember anything like that at all.
2. Vezok’s posting was hardly fluff.
3. Lulz … MoI active lurked during a 24 hour period. Then when we got called out repeatedly on that scummy stance we retracted it. Oh wait, we didn’t because it was a no-win situation, right!

Cosca wrote:I know you like to follow MoI, but ask yourself what the hell MoI is trying to accomplish here, especially since he never called us out on 1. and 2. before we suspected him.

Another lie since I called you out on the first point Day 1. Way to stick to the script even when it’s been exposed as faulty.

People we are willing to vote for executioner (day or night):
implosion
Quilford

People we want to see executed:
jason
Scumhunter, MoI
vezok
Tragedy

Order is most wanted -> least wanted.

VOTE: implosion

vezokpiraka wrote:Right now Cosca is scummier than MoI.

MoI is making very good points while Cosca is just defeating some arguments. That's the way I see it.

I wish scumhunter dead today, but if the people want Cosca more I'll happily agree if I'm executioner again.

MoI made accusations which we quickly picked apart, I suppose that if we just simply ignored them then you'd be more pleased? Or perhaps you didn't notice all the very good points we made against Jason which he is still dodging?

Cosca wrote:
MoI made accusations which we quickly picked apart, I suppose that if we just simply ignored them then you'd be more pleased? Or perhaps you didn't notice all the very good points we made against Jason which he is still dodging?

Actually no I've pretty much beaten in your faces on the facts of the case.

Nice work pretending that's not what happened though.

Oh wait ... why is Scum-hunter scum. You called him Town before retracting that read?

And you didn't provide reasoning for the change ... isn't that a scum-tell?

Yes, you should be reading that as dripping with sarcasm. My guess ... you realized calling Scumhunter Town with his play would link you two together in an uncomfortable fashion once one of you flipped scum.

Before we go through all these shenanigans, we would most likely elect a town player which we all agree to not execute for the Day, right?
Then I doubt that implosion would most likely be executed today, I guess.



@Vezok: I want my question towards you answered by you.

Cosca wrote:3. MoI was showing much less activity then he usually was, and we called him out on that. After he made a content post, we retracted our suspicion and agreed this post was enough to satisfy our activity requirements.

Did you guys ever played with MOI before? I haven't. Your suspicion was solemnly based on MoI was lurking, which I usually find terrible as one.

Having major ISP issues right now. V/LA until I can get sorted

MagnaofIllusion wrote:

Cosca wrote:So you're arguing that they are going to skim over your post, but read your quotes in our post in-depth, and are therefore going to misled because we removed a part that had nothing to do with the "argument" we were refuting?

No, I’m arguing that most people are not going to notice that you cropped an incrediblely relevant part of the quote to form a crappy attack. And my scum-dar went crazy because only scum have a motivation to do that.

I don't think that you understand what we retorted with. We said that do you believe, that while the town will obviously skim over your posts, they'll read our posts in detail including the quote of your post in our post? You see why we find this hard to believe correct?

Cosca wrote:So you're stating there was no Town motivation for you to remove the part about the no-win situation?

And now we have typical scum play. Rather than answering the question you attempt to turn it back on the accuser. Scumtastic.

I now see what you meant when you talked about "cropping quotes". If you would've left your quote inside our quote intact, people could see that . So now we're scum, no, wait "scumtastic", for not answering a question that isn't even there.

There were two seperate issues – one being the reasons I suspected you and the second being your assertion that there was a no win situation. The two are NOT related.

You removed a part of a quote that was directly related to the reasons I suspected you when making your attack about my ‘OMGUS’. That’s scumtastic.

Again, you write "scumtastic". Again, you show that you don't actually have any arguments - you just take our posts apart and write "OMG SCUM" under quotes. How about responding to our arguments instead?

Cosca wrote:You did not call me out after I admitted I made a mistake (I thought about majority voting, not about plurality voting).

Um, whut? I called you out for taking a scummy stance. You eventually back-tracked when I called you on it. It was still scummy when I questioned you about it originally. How many times am I required to attack a scummy premise?

No, we said that we were no longer dis-satisfied with your content/activity when you made that long post here. Changing the cause and effects from your own perception I see?

Cosca wrote:You posted between our leaning scum read on Vezok and your post where you called us scummy. Why didn't you call us out immediately?

Give me some relevant post numbers and I'll see what the hell you are talking about.

#565: We call vezok "leaning scum".
#576: You post, not even mentioning our vezok read.
#635: You call us scummy for the vezok read.

I rest my case.

Cosca wrote:Your theory simply does not add up. There is absolutely no scum motivation in anything we've done.

We’ve done nothing scummy!!!!! This is pure, unadulterated rhetoric that you are falling back to when you can’t attack the arguments against you successfully.

We believe the correct term is "There is absolutely no scum motivation in anything we've done". But feel free to paraphrase things to make yourself look scummy if you wish.

Cosca wrote:We were considered town or leaning town until you expressed suspicions. People are simply sheeping you - and you know that people tend to do this.

Oh, so when I suspect you for your crappy attack suddenly I turn scum? Isn't that what you are trying to sell as a scum-tell coming from me again?

No we're saying that you are trying hard to form an unstable case against us in hopes that town will follow you as they normally do. And it is partially working.

Cosca wrote:So your argument is: Vezok is town because he doesn't post good arguments for his scum cases, but Cosca is scum because he doesn't post good arguments for his scum cases. Right then.

Nice twisting as I said nothing of the sort.

Vezok is Town IMO because you can read his motivation in his play.

It's interesting that you can "read his motivation in his play" and yet come to the conclusion he's town, since what he's doing is mostly lurking and posting only the bare minimum to not get prodded - and that's scum behavior right out of the Big Red Book of Scumtells. Hell, that's how I played when I drew scum in my first game on site.

Cosca wrote:What problem do you have with this quote?

I don’t have a problem with it. I’m directly calling you out for doing exactly what you call scummy – taking a weak player (Vezok) and calling them scum.

Obviously, just calling a weak player scum is not automatically scummy, but I assume you know we meant that. You just didn't want to miss another opportunity to shout "OMG SCUM" without actually having an argument for that.

Cosca wrote:Just so everybody can follow the discussion, here is a short version of MoI's "case" against us:
1. IceGuy made a mistake and thought the night executioner was elected by majority voting, not plurality voting. He therefore thought up a scheme which would have lead to the exposure of at least one scum player.
2. Vezok posted fluff and we called him out on that.
3. MoI was showing much less activity then he usually was, and we called him out on that. After he made a content post, we retracted our suspicion and agreed this post was enough to satisfy our activity requirements.

Oh look Cosca has tried to summarize the situation in a manner slanted completely to favour him since he’s losing the direct discussion. Scumtastic.

Again, you're calling us "scumtastic" for no reason at all. How about more arguments and less "OMG SCUM"?

1. What plan to expose a scum are you talking about? Post numbers please because I don’t remember anything like that at all.
2. Vezok’s posting was hardly fluff.
3. Lulz … MoI active lurked during a 24 hour period. Then when we got called out repeatedly on that scummy stance we retracted it. Oh wait, we didn’t because it was a no-win situation, right!

1. #371.
2. OK, let's pick apart his posts from the time he became executioner. That's ISO #20 through #38.
ISO #20: Top two scum reads without justification. Codfish is already most of the town's scumread.
ISO #21 states he's not going to execute just now.
ISO #22 is a third scumread, again without justification, and a question why somebody else doesn't have a second scumread.
In ISO #23, he posted about one power role that was present in the last Execution Mafia game.
ISO #24 just repeats Codfish's going to die and suggests what most of the town has already been suggesting regarding night executioner.
ISO #25: "You are scummy", no justification, again after others expressed suspicions.
ISO #26: Ridiculing a breadcrumb, after others of course, and pronouncing CC town because there was a similar role in the last game. Oh and calling me retarded.
ISO #27: Suggests CC shouldn't have claimed - after other people did the same. Also makes up an example which doesn't help anybody.
ISO #28: Fullquote, no content.
ISO #29: Again, referring to the last game.
ISO #30: EBWOP of #29
ISO #31-#37: "I'm going to hammer real soon now!"
ISO #38: Hammer.


You know what I'm missing here? Original content. Cases. Full, justified reads. Also, if you had been reading our posts carefully, you would have noticed this.
3. We didn't retract our stance. We said "he was lurking, that was suspicious, now he isn't, so it's off the table for us". That was it.

And I think it's very ironic you actually clipped that part with our fourth point, where we were talking about clipping quotes.

Another lie since I called you out on the first point Day 1. Way to stick to the script even when it’s been exposed as faulty.

You stated my plan wouldn't work. I re-thought it, noticed I made a mistake, and retracted it in #406. Since then, you haven't cared about that; you only brought it up again when we suspected you.

We were saying nothing else from the beginning:

Cosca wrote:
You NEVER before called us out on the N1 voting discussion after I noted I made a mistake

MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Actually no I've pretty much beaten in your faces on the facts of the case.

Nice work pretending that's not what happened though.

You have shown an unbelievable devotion to claiming things which are simply not true and can be disproven just by looking at earlier posts.

Oh wait ... why is Scum-hunter scum. You called him Town before retracting that read?

And you didn't provide reasoning for the change ... isn't that a scum-tell?

Yes, you should be reading that as dripping with sarcasm. My guess ... you realized calling Scumhunter Town with his play would link you two together in an uncomfortable fashion once one of you flipped scum.

He committed a scum-tell. We wanted to see SK's case first so we didn't immediately post it. For now, we were busy responding to your walls of "OMG SCUM OMG SCUM OMG SCUM" and mostly forgot about the Scumhunter read, but since we don't think SK is going to provide anything useful in the near future, we've decided to post it.

---

The post that made us rethink our read was this one:

Scumhunter wrote:Cosca, no actually I didn't read fatlikepig's iso. I read through the entire thread and noted his opinions before proceeding to iso every slot but my own. Of course I was influenced by the fact that I know I'm town when reading fat's posts. If there is something that he did that rubs you the wrong way I will try my best to explain what I think he was getting at.

Essentially Scumhunter said that he noted his replacee's opinions first before ISO'ing every other slot. Scum want to know what the opinions are of the person they're replacing so that they don't differ too much and cause a ruckus. They also want to know the case on them and why they're suspected. Town want to scumhunt, so they ignore their replacee's stances as the slot confirmed town.

Scum want to know if they are under any pressure and why, they don't want to make mistakes.

@Cosca

Exactly, I didn't care too much about fat's comments enough to read them closely because obviously they were coming from town. I considered that confirmed town pov to me, but I was more focused on other people's posts, aka scumhunting.

For those people who do not want to read pages of back-and-forth between who I consider to be two distracted townies.

Who do you think should be elected as Night Executioner?
Would you prefer vezok or implosion as Day Executioner?
Who should be executed today (PLEASE do not waffle about how you're indecisive. ONE PERSON ONLY)?
Who should be executed at night (see above)?

For me it's implosion, no preference as long as they execute who they're told, SK (recent posts of his are looking more and more scummy), Tragedy.

SleepyKrew wrote:Can we do Cosca first?
UNVOTE:
VOTE: vezok
MoI for NightExec again hooah.

This is just... wut. Opportunistic scum claim.

K so, I'd like one of these three to be killed today (no particular order):
Cosca
Tragedy
Scumhunter

What a coincidence that he happens to pick the three people who are considered scummiest and/or are generating most debate.

SleepyKrew wrote:TOWN
MagnaofIllusion
jasonT1981
Captain Corporal
------------------Willing to Execute anyone below this line.
vezokpiraka
Scumhunter
Zang
Quilford
implosion
Cosca
Tragedy
SCUM

Holy shit my reads are terrible this game. I have 0 townreads and a ton of scumreads.

These reads give him a pass to go with the flow considering that all potential execution candidates (excepting Jason) are listed under his execution line. And then he pre-emptively admits that they're poor reads.


I most want to see SKrew executed today, followed by Tragedy and then Scumhunter or jason.

Quilford, why do you want me executed?

MoI, I'm willing to think its possible we are having a communication issue here. Firstly, I was aware your choice of night kill had been brought up. When I said "it hadn't been brought up" what I really meant was I didn't think it had been mentioned enough. I was aware of your response to it but it didn't really quell my suspicions and I'm still incredibly skeptical of you because we are 2 town down here and it very much appears to me you are leading town to slaughter here.

As for "fence-sitting" I thought I was pretty clear in that I was explaining what your scum motivation . I wasn't saying that that is your motivation, I was sharing my suspicions. Thinking outloud if you will. Plus I wanted to see how you would respond.

MagnaofIllusion wrote:
I've removed Tragedy due to the buddying displayed by Scumhunter. I can't see them as scum together and I have a stronger read on Scumhunter at this juncture than Tragedy.

I'm not buddying. I'm defending someone I think is town, who has a history of getting ML'd often. I've given sufficient reasons for why I'm pretty confident Tragedy is town. I can post examples from Tragedy's town and scum games but honestly I'm starting to think it would be a waste of my time.

lol
Remind me to do some stuff when I get on a computer.

I don't feel comfortable with vezok executioner.

Fuck it I'm tired of waiting for more activity.

.

I wanted to gauge reactions more about people's opinions on MoI before I outted my report, but I'm getting pretty fucking annoyed that my town reads are mostly inactive and I'm sitting here arguing semantics with someone who is like 90%+ scum.



Let's go people, WAKE UP. I don't get the slobbering reverance for MoI to begin with, but hey guess what he very likely drew scum this game. Time to man up and kill off your beloved hero to save yourselves from slaughter. If you care about your own win conditions that is.

scumhunter, you are not a cop.



Ill be able to post in short posts like this but no walls.

Zang, I assure you I am.

Scumhunter wrote:Fuck it I'm tired of waiting for more activity.

I'm a cop with a guilty on MagnaofIllusion

.

I wanted to gauge reactions more about people's opinions on MoI before I outted my report, but I'm getting pretty fucking annoyed that my town reads are mostly inactive and I'm sitting here arguing semantics with someone who is like 90%+ scum.

unvote, vote Scumhunter

Let's go people, WAKE UP. I don't get the slobbering reverance for MoI to begin with, but hey guess what he very likely drew scum this game. Time to man up and kill off your beloved hero to save yourselves from slaughter. If you care about your own win conditions that is.

Ok, Scumhunter is confirmed scum.

UNVOTE: Vezok
VOTE: MoI

I'll execute Scumhunter today. I have no problem being in a 1 v 1 with him since I know I am Town.

Oh, so you have guilty on me but pretty much spent that last round of posts saying that 'I might not be scum'? Doesn't add up to someone with an actual cop result. Your "I was feeling out the Town' doesn't hold water either. I don't know why you thought you could get away with faking a result on me but it is pretty much the worst move you could have made.

- It is him or me today. Not other Executioner votes are going to be acceptable at this juncture.

Captain Corporal (1)-Captain Corporal
Implosion (4)-Quilford, Implosion, Cosca, Tragedy
Zang (1)-Zang
Scumhunter (1)-Scumhunter
Vezokpiraka (1)-SleepyKrew
MagnaofIllusion (1)-MagnaofIllusion

Not voting (2)-
Vezokpiraka
jasonT1981

MoI, I'm not a fucking moron. I realize I'm going to be executed today like 9/10 times here. You have the town eating out of the palm or your hand, so good job I guess. I'm willing to sacrifice my life for yours tomorrow and hope that town will start to wake up about what is really going on here.



I'm having a sneaking suspicion that Vezok may be scum as well.

SK is probably just a VI. I waver back and forth on this but his reads are so bad and his play is literally so illogical that I have a hard time its coming from a scum player. Scum at least want to appear like competent scumhunters and he doesn't care that he looks like a moron.

Jason is probably still scum.

Zeng too.

TOWNIES, Im looking at you Quilford, implosion, Tragedy: I need your support here. This is an uphill battle as is today. If you think I'm stupid enough to fake this report.

I don't know how common framers are on here, but from the research I have done they are very rare. Although if one were to exist I'd absolutely have expected them to be on you if you, Moi, if you were to be town in this situation. I take it you are not a miller then? I was willing to try and look past my report and see if its possible you could still be town despite the guilty but as the day has gone on your actions are just more and more anti-town, pushing on the cop and my top town reads that I'm almost certain that the simplest solution is the correct one in this scenario.

I'm resigned to dying if thats what has to happen. I don't exactly have a ton of confidence that I will survive this round, but I'm willing to do whatever I can to prove I'm telling the truth here. Any questions please just ask.

And yes MoI is right about one thing, executioner votes are to go towards MoI or me only today.

You have said in [http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p3349803] this post that there are far better lynches than MoI and that you won't be pushing an MoI lynch today (bottom paragraph I believe). Furthermore, he lists MoI as a neutral read [http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p3346748] when a cop with a guilty would most certainly list him as a scum read.

I would like an explanation.

Scumhunter wrote:
I don't know how common framers are on here, but from the research I have done they are very rare. Although if one were to exist I'd absolutely have expected them to be on you if you, Moi, if you were to be town in this situation. I take it you are not a miller then? I was willing to try and look past my report and see if its possible you could still be town despite the guilty but as the day has gone on your actions are just more and more anti-town, pushing on the cop and my top town reads that I'm almost certain that the simplest solution is the correct one in this scenario

This right here is why I know you are lying scum. Immediately going defeatist when I push back on your 'claim'.

You are challenged on your 'scan' and you fall back to discussion about Framers and Millers. That's not a Cop mentality. The odds that a Framer would have targetted the same person you did on the Night you supposedly scanned is low enough that a real Cop wouldn't be looking for explanations for their result.

I'll state for the record - I'm not a Miller. If I was I would have claimed it in my first game post Day 1. That's proper Miller play. Reference Battle of Olympus of an example of how I play a Miller. There I drew a Hated Townie and claimed it in my first content post.

Finally - are you seriously suggesting that I'm scum who somehow knew you are a cop and was pushing on you for that? If that's the case why wouldn't I have executed you last Night and taken my chances during the Day defending my read?

MoI wrote:Not other Executioner votes are going to be acceptable at this juncture.

Okay. My initial reaction to SH's claim was kind of meh and that he was PROBABLY fake. But MoI saying this alone and then selfvoting might honestly be enough for me to FoS him. Why are you the only acceptable votes? why couldn't we just vote someone else to execute between you two? Important line: if we vote wrong, and elect scum, can't they just kill some random obv-town person since they're going to die anyway?

hrm. and SH, why do you agree?

hrm. this might be a bus. where whoever gets elected kills someone random and the other becomes semi-confirmed town in everyone's eyes.

hrm

HM

Really kind of tired today and the internet is acting crappy, so meh. I'm probably/hopefully going to be able to reread/rethink the game on Saturday or Sunday (saturday is the drive home from vacation, sunday is the last day before school starts).

Also, SH, cosca touched on this: why call moi neutral if he was a guilty, and did you leave ANY evidence behind for if you were suddenly killed and flipped cop that would hint at a magna guilty report?

Cosca, I asked people over and over for reads on [MoI, Zeng, Jason, SK]. I was planning on outting my report eventually today anyways. The whole point of garnering reactions is not tipping your hand as to what you are trying to look for. I listed MoI as a neutral read and asked for comments on him for the very purpose of trying to see what people would say. Some players became obv obv town for getting on MoI's case a bit. Look at Tragedy for example, she immediately was on MoI's case at the beginning of the day. Would she do that as a scum partner? 100% no chance in hell ----> Me realizing she is obv obv town as much for her meta as for her interactions with my guilty.

One thing I want to say is yes, I voted MoI for executioner last night. And yes, I checked him. And yes, I know I said I was suspicious of him even on the read through. So I'm sure someone will bring up, why would you give an executioner vote to someone you think could be scum? The consensus was to vote for MoI. I obviously didn't have my report when I put in my night vote and it really is critical that town all vote together at night. ESPECIALLY TONIGHT. If I am executed today, when I flip town, all townies need to vote for a predetermined person for executioner. I'm going to go ahead and say implosion is that person.