Mafiascum.net

In post 819, KittyTacky wrote:

In post 814, humaneatingmonkey wrote:i want to understand what's going on inside that heaaaaaaad

It's just hard to explain beyond "their posts smell bad" but also it reminds me of how I acted when I was sinking scum in OMB as I explained now.

tell us about how you acted when you were sinking scum

In post 824, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 811, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 807, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 770, Nancy Sinatra wrote:

In post 759, humaneatingmonkey wrote:i was kidding but it's cool

std did some spewing. what does everyone feel about that?

You think he and Kitty are aligned?

and playing good cop/bad cop on me?

This is town!Nancy mindset, 100%

what does everyone feel about this? does everyone else agree? what do we feel about gamma saying this?

The good cop/bad cop thing is something I’ve only really seen mentioned by Town!nancy I think, and even if that’s inaccurate the application of it feels genuine

nancy seems self-aware of her meta. are you sure this isn't a pocket?

Meaning especially my initial trs. I also now also lean town on HEM and Roden.

So rn, I think Flea/Gamma/Kitty/HEM/Roden are probably town. Enchant and NM might be as well. FB is a complete null, so that leaves STD/Dwlee, which even if correct means that one of these is wrong.

In post 823, Save The Dragons wrote:

In post 818, Nancy Sinatra wrote:

In post 810, Save The Dragons wrote:

In post 795, Nancy Sinatra wrote:

In post 511, Save The Dragons wrote:

In post 500, Save The Dragons wrote:I believe in meta when it makes my point. I don't believe it when it doesn't.

This was a joke

In post 519, Save The Dragons wrote:I believe in some meta adjacent things but not meta itself. Like when people say "she's like this as town" maybe I agree.

When people say "In x game I was like this here's a link here's a quote" maybe I don't care

I also don’t understand why you would even sr for that tunnel after you made these posts? Like is it the drugs or are scum?

I don't know what you are asking

You make it beyond clear you have 0 interest in sorting me, yet you sr me because I didn’t re-evaluate after that?

If someone expresses 0 interest in correctly sorting me and ignores meta - AFTER they used that to push me, how isn’t that scummy?

I ignore meta constantly it holds no interest for me

I have re evaluated my read of you

Where?

I said I was waffling

I voted kitty for 3 seconds too

In post 363, Save The Dragons wrote:im honestly waffling pretty hard

mmm waffles

That was me doubting my read

In post 826, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 824, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 811, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 807, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 770, Nancy Sinatra wrote:

In post 759, humaneatingmonkey wrote:i was kidding but it's cool

std did some spewing. what does everyone feel about that?

You think he and Kitty are aligned?

and playing good cop/bad cop on me?

This is town!Nancy mindset, 100%

what does everyone feel about this? does everyone else agree? what do we feel about gamma saying this?

The good cop/bad cop thing is something I’ve only really seen mentioned by Town!nancy I think, and even if that’s inaccurate the application of it feels genuine

nancy seems self-aware of her meta. are you sure this isn't a pocket?

I rate the odds of that as rather low

In post 829, Save The Dragons wrote:I said I was waffling

I voted kitty for 3 seconds too

How is that a re-evaluation?

You can disagree but that's what reevaluation looks like

In post 830, Save The Dragons wrote:

In post 363, Save The Dragons wrote:im honestly waffling pretty hard

mmm waffles

That was me doubting my read

For 3 seconds? That’s the Guinness Book’s shortest waffle ever.

I wasn't waffling for 3 seconds I said I voted kitty for 3 seconds

Like you're trying way to hard to make it scummy when it isnt

In post 481, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 479, Nancy Sinatra wrote:

In post 476, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Kitty?

Tacky.

They were flaming obvscum in OMB and are playing 180 degrees differently here.

yeah that's my question, i didn't think kitty showed much enough to give us anything to read on.

Ngl this thought process from HEM on KT feels like an attempt to pivot momentum, but my hold-up on that is the impetus for it feels absent

In post 833, Save The Dragons wrote:You can disagree but that's what reevaluation looks like

Okay, so what happened in those 3 seconds to get you to revote me?

In post 835, Save The Dragons wrote:I wasn't waffling for 3 seconds I said I voted kitty for 3 seconds

Is there much of a difference?

I was waffling for a while? Like what is this line of questioning

In post 836, Save The Dragons wrote:Like you're trying way to hard to make it scummy when it isnt

I’m really getting tired of your continued misrepping of my posting. You said you re-evaluated and this doesn’t look like that to me.

In post 838, Nancy Sinatra wrote:

In post 833, Save The Dragons wrote:You can disagree but that's what reevaluation looks like

Okay, so what happened in those 3 seconds to get you to revote me?

I changed my mind

In post 492, humaneatingmonkey wrote:

In post 14, Nancy Sinatra wrote:The dm one could possibly result in my getting anaphylactic shock irl. I used to be extremely allergic to peanuts.

~N

this is gonna sound like a silly request but can you expound on this lmao
what dm one? why did you bring up your peanut allergy?
i ask because n_m is being dodgy on what makes this scummy

I think I finally have a good idea what NM was going for there
As I see it, that reason is incredibly weaksauce

In post 796, humaneatingmonkey wrote:is anyone scumreading me?

Ngl, not really liking all of the "how does everyone feel about X" posts but then not having much to say yourself.

In post 840, Save The Dragons wrote:I was waffling for a while? Like what is this line of questioning

You that but there’s minimal in-thread evidence of waffling

In post 841, Nancy Sinatra wrote:

In post 836, Save The Dragons wrote:Like you're trying way to hard to make it scummy when it isnt

I’m really getting tired of your continued misrepping of my posting. You said you re-evaluated and this doesn’t look like that to me.

Youre misrepping me :<

In post 845, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 840, Save The Dragons wrote:I was waffling for a while? Like what is this line of questioning

You

say

that but there’s minimal in-thread evidence of waffling

Ok? Doesn't mean it didn't happen

Like you can disagree but it doesn't change that fact

In post 500, Save The Dragons wrote:I believe in meta when it makes my point. I don't believe it when it doesn't.

There was a viable comeback, this was not it.

In post 847, Save The Dragons wrote:

In post 845, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 840, Save The Dragons wrote:I was waffling for a while? Like what is this line of questioning

You

say

that but there’s minimal in-thread evidence of waffling

Ok? Doesn't mean it didn't happen

Like you can disagree but it doesn't change that fact

The fact you’re up in arms trying to act like it proves anything when imo it doesn’t is a bad look tho