Mafiascum.net

In post 759, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 735, talah wrote:I'm just being a lazy half drunk fuck and taking a day off, but do you have a read on me yet?

I pretty much have a gut reaction to everyone. If you consider that a read then town since you are reminding me of the first game we played. Most of ya'll should already know that if I find something that I think needs to be yelled about...then I'll yell about.

Anyways, more Rogers votes plox.

FAIL. Try again and stop the lazy scum shtick.

In post 823, Mister Rogers wrote:AP hasn't had a convo with me.

In post 762, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 724, Mister Rogers wrote:1) Didn't his read look bizarre to you? And his opening reads in general (the 3 I mentioned)?
2) What do I need to know about Mastin as to why he's town i.e. why you are reading him as town?

1) Quick gut reads and updating them constantly is sort of a mastin thing in general. Im annoyed that shes V/LA but shes not posting anywhere on site so -shrug-. Shes not one to flake though, so she'll be back.
2) Im not really willing to call mastin town yet. Reading mastin is more of an art than a science . Weve discussed it multiple times and I think the best way I can describe it is her heart just isn't in the posts she makes when shes scum. Shes capable of faking it thought which is the scary part, gotta look for the cracks. She gets misread a TON for meta and shes actually pretty good at mimicking townmeta as scum.

/meta.

In post 761, projectmatt wrote:
1. What's wrong with having

only

townreads?

FTFY.

2. I have provided essentially most of my major reads, cases pending.

Can I see specifically? Your ISO doesn't appear to have these...

3. Where have I not generated reads on my own? Who did I steal them from?

In post 653, projectmatt wrote:Zdenek do you have the sparknotes version of why I, personally, should vote Talah?

Here you are asking someone why you should have a scum read on Talah. This is case fishing. It be OK if your ISO had its own scum suspects but I don't find those.

In post 699, projectmatt wrote:It was delicious. But do you know what isn't delicious? Mafia.

Unvote

Vote: Yates

In post 701, projectmatt wrote:What's your read on Yates?

The problem here is that you just got done voting Yates with what can only be seen as an introduction to a case. You don't provide that case and instead query me for my reads. Again, your ISO devoid of case material makes this much worse.

4. I probably have become the biggest BJC defender in the thread. You think my defense is illogical in spite of literally hiveminding the same logic as me, though. Explain?

I do not have the same logic. You are town leaning him. I have said that is WIFOM. Now you are right, I DID have the same read before he went all defiant and so I updated my read and I explained that to you.

My "point" here which really is only a note for future reference should either of you flip scum, is that you came in pushing very hard against any BJC voting and at the same time voted Yates who was also voting BJC. Its simply a note of this.

Furthermore, your defense of BJC read as ott to me & your push on me about "bigger fish" while you were voting Aptil also read as fake posturing.

5. The primary thing of your -case- seems to be that I haven't done a wall explaining my internal logic yet. I will man, don't worry, the day is young!

With less than a week to deadline we are no longer young? I prefer "Sieze the day! Let's catch these scum now before we have a rushed deadline!". Yes, case material in your ISO; I need to see it!

I am not familiar with the beetlejuice tell. Although it's now been brought to light that aptil isn't lurking intentionally - at the time Mr. Rodgers made that post,

there was no clear distinction as to whether or not Aptil was lurking intentionally or lurking due to internet problems

.

"Simply" lurking and "intentionally" lurking seem like the exact same thing, I believe the correct term might be "intentionally" lurking and "unintentionally" lurking

.

No they are not the same. Simply lurking is someone who's intention is unknown. Intentionally lurking is someone says "I am content with lurking. kthxbai."

There was a profile on Aptil with him stating his to actually post substance. But that's not the issue. The issue is that you promised a case on Aptil but never delivered and more importantly, your ISO consisted of Aptil and followed by a vapid case on Yates.

What is OTT? I've seen it twice now.

@Mister Rogers

- you do seem to be saying something then doing the opposite and calling people out for things you are also doing.

These are accusations which I have addressed with both DG & Matt.

This is my start for the day. Let's get moving people, we only have 168 hours to save the Earth!!

Here, here!

In post 828, Snork wrote:What is OTT? I've seen it twice now.

Nevermind. I googled. Couldn't get past post 396.

I was trying to refrain from posting responses to stuff that happened many pages ago, but I have some questions.

The biggest thing on my mind right now (page 16) is : You were pushing Talah pretty aggressively, but then agreed with his stance on Yates' observation on the vig gambit. I was curious about the tonal change there. What is your current read on Talah?

This:

In post 340, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 267, talah wrote:I'm not buying the "fake vig". Nor the "town reaction". But I'll have to take a look back to see what exactly irked me about it.

Unf. Talk to me about this. I agree and Im concerned that Yates is the only other person to step up to the plate on this one.

Also, I'm confused about what the stink was regarding Zd? I think it was MR that commented to AP that he rattled Zd pretty badly with his push, and I agree, but I really felt the reaction was quite town, and maintain my read on him. I actually find the wagonshift to Zd really, really, really odd.

In post 789, 4nxi3ty wrote:vibeing on snow's ISO like it ain't right, like something to do with scumread of Damon
And I wish Yates had

a

comment about me or the events surrounding me, but there's alot going on in this game sooo maybe just paranoia there?

AP's certainty makes me want to recheck talah, but there were some comments I liked, I'll try to find them again

Please do. Please.

In post 805, Luca Blight wrote:

In post 801, ThAdmiral wrote:

LOOK HOW MUCH FUN WE'RE HAVING!!!

Haha that is funny. You are coming across as town to me, as is Pisskop, so I will go ahead and UNVOTE: Pisskop

VOTE: 4nxi3ty

Still catching up for me. But this is enough for me to NOT vote Anx and super lynch Luca. Talk about Beetlejuice.

In post 810, SnowStorm wrote:Before: Luca Blight [3] (Damon_Gant, 4nxi3ty, talah)
...
After: 4nxi3ty [4] (ThAdmiral, Damon_Gant, talah, Luca Blight)

This looks funny, in a bad way. Can we just lynch them all?

I like your thinking but didn't you promise some large amounts of posting earlier? Like you know, looking at the active posters and such? Like anywhere but DG?

In post 820, talah wrote:Rogers, I have - what - half a dozen? Eight? - completed games under my belt including a couple I replaced out of. Where you're getting the idea that I'm some kind of superscum or supertown I have no idea. Historically I've been able to town pretty hard by screaming and raging, but I really don't like that aspect of myself. So yeah, I have some *personal* cog-dis, but unless it's related to me gaining some kind of scum-benefit - what's the purpose of even pointing it out?

Because to me it indicates that someone is manufacturing a mindset. The AtE rage out of nowhere didn't fit the game situation. Its a pattern you've done it at least twice.

I know its bizarre but this post sums it up:

In post 107, mastin2 wrote:basically, there's nothing genuine about talah's posting; it's hollow, shallow, easily faked and overall just feeling plain empty. He's playing a highly-reactionary game rather than a proactive one, and overall, he feels like he's not scumhunting; he feels like he's trying to get a feeling for how to manipulate players.

I about fell out of my chair when I read this in your ISO because its come true.

In post 419, Yates wrote:Let's look at this a different way...
When is the last time you saw a fake vig shot catch scum?
OR - since this will give you are larger pool - when is the last time you saw a fake hammer catch scum?
Cripes, in ALL the REAL hammers you have seen - in what % of those hammers [excluding end game] did the scum just give up the ghost and go "awe shucks - you caught me. Good job!"

THIS is my point. Some of you [you specifically] are acting like your WIFOM bomb of nullness is some sort of game changer. THAT is what I can't wrap my head around.

THIS POST.

IS AWESOME.

In post 833, Mister Rogers wrote: I like your thinking but didn't you promise some large amounts of posting earlier? Like you know, looking at the active posters and such? Like anywhere but DG?

Hmm no? Well, I said I wanted to re-read those pages I missed but I got lazy and decided to skip that and just ISO people. I'd never promise large amounts of posting lol. I ended up only ISO'ing a couple of people and it wasn't very conclusive.

In post 826, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 823, Mister Rogers wrote:AP hasn't had a convo with me.

In post 762, AngryPidgeon wrote:

In post 724, Mister Rogers wrote:1) Didn't his read look bizarre to you? And his opening reads in general (the 3 I mentioned)?
2) What do I need to know about Mastin as to why he's town i.e. why you are reading him as town?

1) Quick gut reads and updating them constantly is sort of a mastin thing in general. Im annoyed that shes V/LA but shes not posting anywhere on site so -shrug-. Shes not one to flake though, so she'll be back.
2) Im not really willing to call mastin town yet. Reading mastin is more of an art than a science . Weve discussed it multiple times and I think the best way I can describe it is her heart just isn't in the posts she makes when shes scum. Shes capable of faking it thought which is the scary part, gotta look for the cracks. She gets misread a TON for meta and shes actually pretty good at mimicking townmeta as scum.

/meta.

Yes, I read this on my catchup. Its a nice start and thank you for your reads there.

In post 828, Snork wrote:What is OTT? I've seen it twice now.

Over the top.

In post 785, Nero Cain wrote:

In post 782, PeregrineV wrote:

In post 778, Nero Cain wrote:I meant Aptil not Ap as in the angry bird.

So whats so scummy about Aptil?

Only real post of content is 595. And it's not delightfully good, either.

And that's scummier than Luca? I don't see how.

For what its worth, I actually agree here. Before Luca's scummy vote of Anx and especially now.

However, it appears Nero has skimmed and pretended to catch up.

@Snow: Well I certainly agree with your take on the Anx wagon.

I really dislike pisskop right now.

In post 794, 4nxi3ty wrote:reaction to nero?

Nero being Nero. Completely null. He takes more than a day to read.

In post 796, ThAdmiral wrote:Wait. Aren't you doing exactly that? Saying what you would do as scum? See bolded.

lol. What's with you and pisskop jumping on that? Yes. That's what I was doing. But in a mocking way. And that was the point. To show him how silly it was. Why is it *he* seems to be the only one that got it? Context people! Or pisskop/ThAd scum team??

Serious question - since I've been asked about it twice - did think that statement required explanation?
For reference

In post 841, Snork wrote:I really dislike pisskop right now.

Glad I unvoted your slot. Guess who I'm voting for RIGHT NOW.

I hope it's one of pisskop, thad or talah. Pisskop's 702 was such a skeevy jump onto you after several people to be discussing whether their reads on you and pmatt voted you. It's like a hot pink neon flashing sign.

That's where I'm at btw - page 29. So close. I really want to start talking to people directly.

EBWOP: remove the word "whether" from the second sentence and it will make sense.

Yea no totally super detective work being put into those reads/votes.

Snork, anything particular?

Like, he didn't even bother entering the discussion. He just took his opportunity to slip in a vote.

p-edit: About why you're a huge sack of scum? Plenty. I'll get to it.

Another top detective, deducing that voting for a scumread is scummy.

In post 847, pisskop wrote:Another top detective, deducing that voting for a scumread is scummy.

I'm sure others in this thread are not so dense to think that is the only reason you are scum, as you would have us believe. Either you are and actually think this is the case, or you're scum trying to discredit yet another player who has caught onto your complete disconnect with the game.

:/

you must not know my meta.