Mafiascum.net

I mean he was caught scum before he made those posts lol

And how was I caught scum, exactly?

Radiant cowbells is right.

VOTE: inferno390

Elementary, my dear inferno.

Well this is interesting.

Ok I see how it is
I called you out on your BS confscum claim and so you try to apply pressure to me
Lovely

When people have real reasons for calling me scum, let me know. I’ll be here waiting when they do.

In post 80, Inferno390 wrote:Ok I see how it is
I called you out on your BS confscum claim and so you try to apply pressure to me
Lovely

When people have real reasons for calling me scum, let me know. I’ll be here waiting when they do.

Always a scum reaction lol

Why can't every game be this easy

In post 79, Tchill13 wrote:Well this is interesting.

A quick ISO of this guy confirms that Radiantcowbells is correct.

What is interesting?

I've got another read I'm thinking is likely, but I'd like to make sure everyone has posted and given their position on Inferno390 first.

In post 31, Inferno390 wrote:I’m confused by this question. How does people talking about ANYTHING early help figure out alignments other than by looking at how they respond? Isn’t that literally how you play this game?
And I actually analyze voting patterns and talking patterns. The miller claim itself is not what I would look at, but how people interacted with each other regarding it and what voting patterns emerged.

I was being specific about the whole miller situation. You saw the miller claim, and how people reacted to it already - either agreement or disagreement with the claim. Did you expect people to say other things than agreement/disagreement or the whole "miller claims at Day 1" theory?

In post 45, Vorkuta wrote:(we lost a town game where this very thing happened)

I guess this explains Vorkuta's behavior.

At this point, NotAnAxeHole is close from being lynched, and if I understood correctly, for being a Canadian. Must be a rough life being a Canadian.

In post 64, Inferno390 wrote:However much this sounds like parroting Tchill, refusing to speak your mind when we’re all trying to sort and analyze just looks like you’re trying to look active without doing anything. Which does not earn you town-points. It’d be one thing if you were trying to get a reaction out of people. But right now you’re just calling attention to yourself and then not following up on it. Not great.

I don't like this post, especially the "However much this sounds like parroting Tchill" part. It sounds like he is worried about his actions looking bad. I think town wouldn't care as much about what they say as long as they get their points accross?

In post 80, Inferno390 wrote:Ok I see how it is
I called you out on your BS confscum claim and so you try to apply pressure to me
Lovely

When people have real reasons for calling me scum, let me know. I’ll be here waiting when they do.

Ah, the great "I'm not guilty; you have no proof."
This usually comes from guilty people.

VOTE: Inferno390

In post 85, John Pierce Gantt wrote:

In post 31, Inferno390 wrote:I’m confused by this question. How does people talking about ANYTHING early help figure out alignments other than by looking at how they respond? Isn’t that literally how you play this game?
And I actually analyze voting patterns and talking patterns. The miller claim itself is not what I would look at, but how people interacted with each other regarding it and what voting patterns emerged.

I was being specific about the whole miller situation. You saw the miller claim, and how people reacted to it already - either agreement or disagreement with the claim. Did you expect people to say other things than agreement/disagreement or the whole "miller claims at Day 1" theory?

In post 45, Vorkuta wrote:(we lost a town game where this very thing happened)

I guess this explains Vorkuta's behavior.

At this point, NotAnAxeHole is close from being lynched, and if I understood correctly, for being a Canadian. Must be a rough life being a Canadian.

In post 64, Inferno390 wrote:However much this sounds like parroting Tchill, refusing to speak your mind when we’re all trying to sort and analyze just looks like you’re trying to look active without doing anything. Which does not earn you town-points. It’d be one thing if you were trying to get a reaction out of people. But right now you’re just calling attention to yourself and then not following up on it. Not great.

I don't like this post, especially the "However much this sounds like parroting Tchill" part. It sounds like he is worried about his actions looking bad. I think town wouldn't care as much about what they say as long as they get their points accross?

In post 80, Inferno390 wrote:Ok I see how it is
I called you out on your BS confscum claim and so you try to apply pressure to me
Lovely

When people have real reasons for calling me scum, let me know. I’ll be here waiting when they do.

Ah, the great "I'm not guilty; you have no proof."
This usually comes from guilty people.

VOTE: Inferno390

Lol

Response to 85:

1) see, this is where I’m confused. I said in my very first response to you that I hadn’t address the miller claim yet because I hadn’t gotten the chance to read what everyone else had said in response to it. In case you missed it, there are a wide number of opinions right now as to whether it was true or not and/or why. What did I do wrong here?

2) Tchill just literally posted the same thing that my above post did, but in less words. I was recognizing that fact. I would understand if I had said “I don’t want to parrot people, but...”. That’s not what I did. If I was so worried about parroting people. I wouldn’t have said it at all?

3) This is a misrep of the situation. I called RC out on being vague and unhelpful play. He responds with quipped remark and what amounts to an OMGUS vote. Axe jumps on the wagon with nothing more than “Oh, RC is correct.” It’s not a matter of proof, it’s a matter of people trying to get a ride out of me instead of having a reason to vote me. This is me calling it out and saying I’m not going to take a crap wagon on page 4 seriously.

VOTE: Axe
This is probably the most disgusting vote on my wagon. Flagrant sheeping, evasive responses and a shit post to respond to the one good analytical post made on my wagon? Really?

I gotta head out now so I'll address the rest later.

In post 87, Inferno390 wrote:1) see, this is where I’m confused. I said in my very first response to you that I hadn’t address the miller claim yet because I hadn’t gotten the chance to read what everyone else had said in response to it. In case you missed it, there are a wide number of opinions right now as to whether it was true or not and/or why. What did I do wrong here?

I was asking you how would looking at people's opinion about the miller claim help you with sorting people, when the discussion is going to be all about theories, which doesn't give out people's alignments.

In post 87, Inferno390 wrote:Response to 85:

1) see, this is where I’m confused. I said in my very first response to you that I hadn’t address the miller claim yet because I hadn’t gotten the chance to read what everyone else had said in response to it. In case you missed it, there are a wide number of opinions right now as to whether it was true or not and/or why. What did I do wrong here?

2) Tchill just literally posted the same thing that my above post did, but in less words. I was recognizing that fact. I would understand if I had said “I don’t want to parrot people, but...”. That’s not what I did. If I was so worried about parroting people. I wouldn’t have said it at all?

3) This is a misrep of the situation. I called RC out on being vague and unhelpful play. He responds with quipped remark and what amounts to an OMGUS vote. Axe jumps on the wagon with nothing more than “Oh, RC is correct.” It’s not a matter of proof, it’s a matter of people trying to get a ride out of me instead of having a reason to vote me. This is me calling it out and saying I’m not going to take a crap wagon on page 4 seriously.

VOTE: Axe
This is probably the most disgusting vote on my wagon. Flagrant sheeping, evasive responses and a shit post to respond to the one good analytical post made on my wagon? Really?

If you're voting for me because you expect my wagon to remain, let me tell you now it's a bad strategy.

Oh okay
I mostly wanted to see what voting patterns around the claim would be like, if people were defending the claim, if people were completely throwing the claim out without evidence, etc. If someone was trying to push the claim relatively hard in one direction and responding to it with a lot of force, I would probably lean scum on them a little bit. Which would have an effect on how I read voting patterns and the RVS transition.

@Axe I’m voting for you because your vote and subsequent posts regarding me are crap and we both know it. As I just made explicitly clear. I’d be voting for you rn regardless of what your wagon looked like.
Great shade though. Certainly makes you look townier.

In post 90, Inferno390 wrote:Oh okay
I mostly wanted to see what voting patterns around the claim would be like, if people were defending the claim, if people were completely throwing the claim out without evidence, etc. If someone was trying to push the claim relatively hard in one direction and responding to it with a lot of force, I would probably lean scum on them a little bit. Which would have an effect on how I read voting patterns and the RVS transition.

@Axe I’m voting for you because your vote and subsequent posts regarding me are crap and we both know it. As I just made explicitly clear. I’d be voting for you rn regardless of what your wagon looked like.
Great shade though. Certainly makes you look townier.

I refuse to engage caught scum.

Hey Dave, mind giving some real thoughts on this wagon, since the only other person actually doing so is not around right now?

In post 78, RadiantCowbells wrote:Elementary, my dear inferno.

We're at -4

Btw his posting since being called out is absurdly LAMIST. He is trying to sound townie and unconcerned

He's actually caught scum just lynch him asap

In post 95, RadiantCowbells wrote:Btw his posting since being called out is absurdly LAMIST. He is trying to sound townie and unconcerned

Maybe I’m not to sound concerned. Maybe I’m just not concerned. Because, again, this is a BS wagon that only one person (which is niether you or Axe) has actually given real reasons as to why they were voting me before the above quoted post. Which is very clearly flailing on actually having a reason. Oh, and the fact that I’m at L-4 and this is, again, that is not going to go anywhere until you have real reasons for calling me scum.

I can have you lynched without giving any more reason than I already have

Really? Then why am I still here?