Mafiascum.net

My original intention was to get voted and dissect my wagon to see who was scummy and who wasn't. You and flubber don't look so good.

↑ Garmr wrote:My original intention was to get voted and dissect my wagon to see who was scummy and who wasn't. You and flubber don't look so good.

Bull-fucking-shit "I was just gambiting".

I have an admittedly piss-weak case against you and you feel the need to cover your ass with that excuse anyway?

Caught.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:I have an admittedly piss-weak case against you and you feel the need to cover your ass with that excuse anyway?

Caught.

Oh really

↑ Garmr wrote:going to claim here and now I'm actually a

miller

lol

↑ Garmr wrote:

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:VOTE: Garmr

"lol" pings.

Your right I was lying I'm really a

Fbi Agent.

↑ Garmr wrote:

↑ WaffleGhost wrote:VOTE: Bookitty Because the lobster commands it.

Hey waffle your awesome.

See I'm buddying you

so you have to like me. Wanna shift your vote onto 2 bird's stoned.

I been saying trigger words constantly on purpose.

So there's three possiblities ,you're a village idiot or your scum.

You had enough games so strike 1
so that leaves one or two and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're are not a VI so that leaves scum.

two or three*

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:Bad vote, ProHawk is taking it at least just as seriously. Also, taking RVS seriously is pro-town.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: VictorDeAngelo

Also you are sure I'm scum yet you are voting victor what is up with that?

First you say I'm OMGUSing you, then you complain I'm not voting you, which is it?

You're right, though,

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Garmr

The posts you quoted don't look like you're trying to attract attention, they just look like you're joking around (with the exception of post one, which I took to be a sincere miller claim until you retracted). You're trying to fit joke posts in with an alleged master plan, and it's just silly.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:First you say I'm OMGUSing you, then you complain I'm not voting you, which is it?

You're right, though,

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Garmr

The posts you quoted don't look like you're trying to attract attention, they just look like you're joking around (with the exception of post one, which I took to be a sincere miller claim until you retracted). You're trying to fit joke posts in with an alleged master plan, and it's just silly.

Because I didn't realize you took your vote off me till the vote count popped up? So how do you justify pushing me as your main scum read while you are on victor?

I didn't keep very good track of where my vote was, sorry.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:I didn't keep very good track of where my vote was, sorry.

It's one thing to lose track of someone else's vote but your own also I think that's a lie.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:

Primate wrote:

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:Bad vote, ProHawk is taking it at least just as seriously. Also, taking RVS seriously is pro-town.

Is treating RVS seriously an intentional play you are making in this game?

Yes.

↑ VictorDeAngelo wrote:Why does ProHawk taking things just as seriously make my vote bad?

Because you didn't comment on it. Singling one out without commenting on the other points towards feigned scumhunting.

Victor/Garmr scumteam, ProHawk possible third member.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:ProHawk as possible Victor buddy.

You were pushing the fact that victor was your central focus for a while but as soon as I push you

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:It doesn't matter though, you're so hung up on being voted that I'm sure about you, even if my other reads are wrong.

Your focus returns to me and you act like I'm the one your most certain about the whole time.

Yes, my focus returned to you because you started bitching about being scumread again.

1.In short you if victor was your main focus for a bit and you were pinning people as scum due to association tells I don't think you would forget that you were voting him.

2.You admit I am your main scum read so why are you linking people to Victor and not me?

3.Saying you forgot your vote is like saying you don't care who you want lynched only if it's not you.

4.Also you agree with the situation easily You could of pointed out where I was wrong before but you just agreed. You could of said victor was my scum read for a while because of X and you became it after Y but you didn't you took the path of least resistance and the one you wouldn't have to explain yourself. This shows you know your reasoning is weak and you're more concerned about not making mistakes that would show you in a scummy light.

I linked you to ProHawk as well when I made the chainsaw comment.

I don't care who's lynched providing it's you or Victor.

My reasoning is weak because it's a page three case.

I'm going to re-summarize my cases because I acknowledge that my posting is all-fucking-over-the-place right now.

Garmr:
Claimed with a "lol".
Got annoyed because he felt he'd dropped a different scumtell (this is massive alarm bells, btw).
Got annoyed again because "caught for wrong reason".
"LOLGAMBIT"

Victor:
Claimed a dubious scumtell against Boo when ProHawk was equally "guilty" of it; did not comment on ProHawk.
When I pointed this out, he didn't recognise the inconsistency; he voted me instead.

ProHawk:
Weak read, not scummy by himself.
Was chainsawed in RVS by Garmr.
Was ignored by Victor in favour of BooKitty, as previously mentioned

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:I linked you to ProHawk as well when I made the chainsaw comment.

I don't care who's lynched providing it's you or Victor.

My reasoning is weak because it's a page three case.

A chainsaw is attempting by definition "a player another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum." Explain why would I chainsaw someone who has one vote on them for a rvs vote which doesn't need defending?

You don't care unless it's me or victor. But you know you're reasoning is weak so instead of pursing the hunt for scum. You are happy for today's lynches to come out people you have weak reasoning for?

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:I'm going to re-summarize my cases because I acknowledge that my posting is all-fucking-over-the-place right now.

Garmr:
Claimed with a "lol".
Got annoyed because he felt he'd dropped a different scumtell (this is massive alarm bells, btw).
Got annoyed again because "caught for wrong reason".
"LOLGAMBIT"

Victor:
Claimed a dubious scumtell against Boo when ProHawk was equally "guilty" of it; did not comment on ProHawk.
When I pointed this out, he didn't recognise the inconsistency; he voted me instead.

ProHawk:
Weak read, not scummy by himself.
Was chainsawed in RVS by Garmr.
Was ignored by Victor in favour of BooKitty, as previously mentioned

You're case on me is that you think I'm annoyed and me pointing out what I was doing to try and break rvs?

Victor
Basically your reasoning for him is because his a hypocrite which town are often guilty of as well?

Prowhawk:
Only scum reading him because of the actions of others and not his own with no actual flips?

↑ Garmr wrote:A chainsaw is attempting by definition "a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum." Explain why would I chainsaw someone who has one vote on them for a rvs vote which doesn't need defending?

OMGUS generally requires a serious vote to be OMGUS too, didn't stop you from accusing me of it.

I don't know why you felt the need to change your random vote at all, but you clearly felt you did. Sure, defence, why the hell not.

If my case is so bad, why do you so desperately feel the need to respond to it? That's where the real clincher is, and your inability to let go is so hilariously damning.

↑ Garmr wrote:You're case on me is that you think I'm annoyed

It's fairly specifically what you were annoyed at, but yes.

↑ Garmr wrote:...and pointing out that I'm covering ass with nonsensical claims of gambiting

Yes.

↑ Garmr wrote:Victor
Basically your reasoning for him is because his a hypocrite which town are often guilty of as well?

That's not what "hypocrite" means.

↑ Garmr wrote:Prowhawk:
Only scum reading him because of the actions of others and not his own with no actual flips?

That's why I've said I specifically want you or Victor lynched.

↑ Flubbernugget wrote:Sheeping the reads of the leading wagon?

Why the fuck not.

VOTE: Garmr

How about not sheeping? Do you have any actual reads of your own Flubber?

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:

↑ VictorDeAngelo wrote:Why does ProHawk taking things just as seriously make my vote bad?

Because you didn't comment on it. Singling one out without commenting on the other points towards feigned scumhunting.

I don't have an issue with his play. So what value would there be to commenting on him.

I also want to /barn 56.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:ProHawk as possible Victor buddy.

Wow, page 3 and your already looking for interactions.

↑ Flubbernugget wrote:

↑ Bookitty wrote:

↑ Flubbernugget wrote:Sheeping the reads of the leading wagon?

Why the fuck not.

What reads are you sheeping exactly?

His garmr read.

There's too much theory discussion for my tastes right now.

Too much theory discussion. There's been a little mention of the seriousness of rvs. That's it. And you seem to just trying to hold back doing anything.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: FlubberNugget

↑ Garmr wrote:Doesn't anyone want to point that 2bird1stone is omgusing me?

You do apparently. Where's this apparent OMGUS?

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:I didn't know he was your buddy at the time, it only became apparent in retrospect!

So yeah, probably confirmation bias.

Sorry for the vote hopping but I want to lynch this more.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: 2birds1stone

I'm not quoting more of his stuff, since he and Garmr are dominating the thread, but his cases are all piss poor and no town runs around page 4 thinking they've solved the game.



You're next.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:

↑ Garmr wrote:A chainsaw is attempting by definition "a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum." Explain why would I chainsaw someone who has one vote on them for a rvs vote which doesn't need defending?

OMGUS generally requires a serious vote to be OMGUS too, didn't stop you from accusing me of it.

I don't know why you felt the need to change your random vote at all, but you clearly felt you did. Sure, defense, why the hell not.

If my case is so bad, why do you so desperately feel the need to respond to it? That's where the real clincher is, and your inability to let go is so hilariously damning.

The reason I won't let go is I think you're scum and you don't feel the need to justify anything unless pushed extremely and you dodge some points you can't answer or retort with a weak reason you think i'm scummy as if that would nullify my case. There's a reason your the number 1 wagon. Also the omgus vote is a emotional response that doesn't need a case on you. This show me you don't understand when and where tells can be used and you just throw them out.

↑ Garmr wrote:You're case on me is that you think I'm annoyed

It's fairly specifically what you were annoyed at, but yes.

I'm not annoyed if i was was I would be pretty aggressive towards you and the reasons are to weak to even consider a tell.

↑ Garmr wrote:...and pointing out that I'm covering ass with nonsensical claims of gambiting

Yes.

Has to edit my post will note that. But if I wasn't doing that why did I continue it so long and have evidence to prove it, also why would I be lying about my intention this early on when I could easily brush every case on me aside?

↑ Garmr wrote:Victor
Basically your reasoning for him is because his a hypocrite which town are often guilty of as well?

That's not what "hypocrite" means.

Will you that one but still I been guilty of pushing a vote on some for one reason yet excluding another person for the same reason. Usually because I view one person as scum or the other as town.

↑ Garmr wrote:Prowhawk:
Only scum reading him because of the actions of others and not his own with no actual flips?

That's why I've said I specifically want you or Victor lynched.

[/quote] What do you think of prohawk with out the actions of others.

will give you that one*

@Victor I like you're post 93 you can be town

his omgus

↑ Garmr wrote:VOTE: 2birds1stone
stone kills bird

Me having a joke post

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:VOTE: Garmr

"lol" pings.

Finds a weak reason to vote me after voting him.

Also we are dominating the thread because of our timezones Other people will become more active after we fall asleep.

ProHawk is null in a vacuum.

OMGUS is an emotional response to pressure. RVS isn't pressure. My alleged OMGUS and your alleged Chainsaw are in exactly the same basket, so fucking pick one.

Victor, you said BooKitty was "taking RVS too seriously", you cannot tell me you didn't have an issue with ProHawk's play too.

VictorDeAngelo wrote:Wow, page 3 and your already looking for interactions.

I do apologise for playing the game.

Garmr wrote:Has to edit my post will note that.

Someone doesn't appreciate snark.

Garmr wrote:also why would I be lying about my intention this early on when I could easily brush every case on me aside?

You're lying because by page two standards, it was a damning case.

You know what? Even if it was a gambit, I still want you policy-lynched for playing intentionally anti-town. I don't believe it was, though.

↑ 2birds1stone wrote:
Victor, you said BooKitty was "taking RVS too seriously", you cannot tell me you didn't have an issue with ProHawk's play too.

Funny, that seems to be exactly what I'm telling you.

VictorDeAngelo wrote:Wow, page 3 and your already looking for interactions.

I do apologise for playing the game.

You don't need to apologise, we all draw red at some point or another.