Mafiascum.net

Bulba/Antihero/BROseidon/penguin_alien. Okay.

(expired on 2014-04-02 16:40:08)

till Day 3 Deadline

In post 888, Bulbazak wrote:I never said it wasn't. I just don't see the case.

You then clarify this to a town lean on the null side.
So what the hell are we talking about now?

He said that me hunting for opinions functionally was a scumtell.
You *don't* get a read off that?

In post 889, CrashTextDummie wrote:Is that a bad thing?

Yes.

In post 889, CrashTextDummie wrote:Burden of proof is on you. You are scumreading my slot for this. Show me that it's more likely to come from scum than town.

Don't twist on me dude, I never claimed his apathy was a tell one way or the other - you claimed his apathy was a town tell.
I don't think that argument holds water in either direction for alignment as some players are apathetic only as one alignment or the other, and some as both, and some just at various points in their lives. i don't think it's a tell in and of itself - you apparently do. If you don't, then say so.

In post 889, CrashTextDummie wrote:What's your point? For one thing, I'm also townreading you. For another, I also generally like his reads on unflipped people.

My point is that you're calling my reads bad, when the provable ones have actually been proven pretty solid. At that point you're not able to call them "bad" you can say you "disagree" with them, sure, but you're calling them bad.
By what justification? Simply because you disagree with them? If that's it...what validity do you think I should accredit your thoughts exactly?

In post 902, Thor665 wrote:

In post 888, Bulbazak wrote:I never said it wasn't. I just don't see the case.

You then clarify this to a town lean on the null side.
So what the hell are we talking about now?

I thought we were talking about whether or not I found his case scummy. I don't.

In post 902, Thor665 wrote: He said that me hunting for opinions functionally was a scumtell.
You *don't* get a read off that?

I agree that it's a dumb argument. I just don't see how it's scummy. Explain it to me.

Bulba seems to be Townreading smargaret for pursuing cxinlee who he was scumreading. The read hasn't evolved; he's a possible partner.

In post 486, Antihero wrote:aaaaand marge's first post is awful. yikes. "zkrom isn't scum because he's too scummy to be scum, but jello guy

is

scum by THE EXACT SAME LOGIC"? no

In post 491, Antihero wrote:alright, I got to the end of day 1 and kind of half-assed skimmed Day 2. So far, people who I want dead include: TSO, zakk, Yiley, marge, Bulba

That's way too many people

Attacks her early, scumreads her,

A very possible partner.

In post 639, penguin_alien wrote:smargaret--Eh, if cxinlee is scum as I suspect smargaret pretty much has to be town or incredibly self-destructive scum. Going with town unless I get reason to think otherwise.

Smargaret is Town because cxinlee is probably scum.

In post 642, penguin_alien wrote:If my cxinlee read is wrong, then I'd agree with smargaret pressure.

If cxinlee is Town, smargaret needs pressure.

In post 828, penguin_alien wrote:
I've started going back and forth on smargaret. Posts like this:

In post 702, smargaret wrote:

In post 666, T S O wrote:

In post 655, smargaret wrote:PV, what part of I had a townread on Zekrom do you not understand? I was asking questions to try and figure out what everyone else was, but I already had a townread on Zek. And I tend to ask questions when things catch my eye, especially D1 - I'm not totally sure why you think questioning Zakk is a problem.

Anyway, from reading through the stuff I missed, PV came across as scummy, mostly in the desperation to get a counterwagon going so we don't lynch cxin today. Granted, that means I have way too many scumreads, but another couple of flips will fix that, and cxin needs rope - unless we're actually getting the cop result today?

Pere needs rope because he's pushing you, cxin needs rope because he's likely to be hung today.

Good Jesus.

PV needs rope because he's pushing me, but he either hasn't actually read the posts he's citing as evidence of my scumminess (specifically, where I got the townread on Zek) or he's misrepping like heck. And I was pushing cxin before pushing cxin was cool /hipster.

On the one hand, we have what could be scum grumpy for being called out for poor reasoning, but on the other hand we have smargaret taking enormous amounts of credit for the cxinlee lynch when it was looking quite inevitable, yet scum knew he'd almost certainly flip town barring third party hijinks that we haven't seen evidence of so far. So why remind everyone that she'd been pushing a mislynch for ages?

I get a feeling from posts like 585 too that she's not just going along with popular opinions here, not trying to keep her head down. And then she votes PV right after going back and calling out Antihero, which I don't like.

Cxinlee flipped scum, but smargaret is Town because she owned the wagon.

idk it feels off.

They're all fucking potential partners I DON'T KNOW.

In post 904, T S O wrote:Bulba seems to be Townreading smargaret for pursuing cxinlee who he was scumreading. The read hasn't evolved; he's a possible partner.

This is a pretty blatant misrep, considering there was a big back and forth over this very issue.

Summarise what actually happened, then.

What do you want me to summarize exactly?

You say I'm misrepping the issue. Summarise what actually happened in your smargaret read's evolution, in your own words.

In post 903, Bulbazak wrote:I agree that it's a dumb argument. I just don't see how it's scummy. Explain it to me.

Because it was a non-starter designed with only the purpose of trying to make me and my reads look bad.
Literally the only purpose to that conversation was if he;

1. Believed opinions cannot be used to scumhunt (and...wow, if so)
2. He wanted to do something to try to discredit me.

I see no reason anyone would believe #1, indeed, even as I questioned it he retreated from the stance without actually backing off suggesting I was bad.
I see plenty of scum motivation for #2, and if he was town I think he'd just call my case bad and me scum, or just call me a bad player and ignore me as opposed to trying to suggest it is weird that I'm looking for opinions.

He went with the opinions thing. Got halfway through it, re-drew a few lines, and then scurried off.

TSO, when I said that cxinlee-town would make me scrutinize smargaret, that was before the 'owning the wagon' post, as you put it. I see CTD's point about how scum can do things that would be too aggressive to be expected from scum, but the confidence in the read fits with smargaret's confidence in her town game from what I saw rereading her ISO in Narnia.

smargaret, at one point you said PV was scummy for trying to get a counter wagon to cxinlee going--since that was less likely to be a scum move given the flip, what else is in your PV case aside from his push on you?

VOTE: Antihero

At this point I'm getting better vibes from smargaret's engagement with the game than Antihero's.

In post 911, T S O wrote:Summarise what actually happened in your smargaret read's evolution, in your own words.

As d2 went on and cases were made on her, I understood what they said and questioned my own read, but I couldn't shake the feeling that she wouldn't have made those moves as scum. I just think she's coming from a very town place. And when I look at her wagon, I dislike most of the people pushing the case.

@Thor: Do you not think that PV could legitimately think you're scum and therefore has tunnel vision?

In post 914, Bulbazak wrote:@Thor: Do you not think that PV could legitimately think you're scum and therefore has tunnel vision?

Well, considering he's not voting me, i don't think he's that tunneled. That said, tunneled or not, I don't expect Peretown to do what he did. And, if he loathed me so much as to actually go for that angle while being town - he should have been voting me long ago and not relented.

Am i missing something?

Kind of looking things over but at home, so of course mafia takes a back seat.

The problem is I haven't decided if you are scum or not yet. Your Zekrom interactions point me towards no. But, your a savvy enough player to make it look that way, especially considering the play on Zekrom's side (I don't see him pushing his scumbuddy Thor unless it was planned, but even then, the type of pushing is almost nonsensical.)

Your tunneling ability is not a scumtell for you, per se, so I'm trying to get at the logic behind your tunneling and the logic behind your reads. But, your not a primarily logical-type player, so that's proving awfully difficult also.

If your town, the rest of town will townread you in hopes that you save the day and are right. Scum will townread you because, currently, your dead wrong.

If your scum, the rest of town will townread you in hopes that you are not scum and you will save the day. Your buddy will obliquely follow you, because he knows your not town. You will most likely defend your buddy, because I can't see you bussing after losing a member so early. But, if you do, will you do so directly?

So, if you want to do something that can easily clear up these questions, then that would be super.
Otherwise, since this is a Jason game, I have almost two weeks to keep the questions up that will answer my questions about you.

@Bulba - take the above post for instance. He just wrote a lot. A *lot* of words. He actually said nothing. He even then ended it up with 'at least I have toime to keep working my scumhunting questions' while...oh, look, not actually asking me any questions.

It's all fake.

Yeah, the waffling is annoying. I'm just not sure this is evidence of scum PV. Personally, I'm taking tryhard PV as a good sign, although I don't agree with his current train of thought.

In post 917, Thor665 wrote:@Bulba - take the above post for instance. He just wrote a lot. A *lot* of words. He actually said nothing. He even then ended it up with 'at least I have toime to keep working my scumhunting questions' while...oh, look, not actually asking me any questions.

It's all fake.

In post 916, PeregrineV wrote:Your tunneling ability is not a scumtell for you, per se, so I'm trying to get at the logic behind your tunneling and the logic behind your reads.

In post 916, PeregrineV wrote:So, if you want to do something that can easily clear up these questions, then that would be super.

@Bulba - I don't think he's waffling, or, if he is, it's not scummy. The fake pushes are scummy. If you want to call that waffling, then i agree with you he's waffling, but it's not how I use the term.

@Pere - neither of those is actually a question. One is showing that you're trying to do something...but does nothing to do it. The second...is a vague request that is meaningless. I'm supposed to "easily clear up "these" questions?" Well...first off, what questions? The singular question of 'Is Thor scum'? What, you're hoping for me to go Innocent Child or something up in here? This is a silly request, and even in the best light, of presuming you're town - shows laziness and lack of care for your supposed line of "questioning". I also think it supports my stance that you aren't trying to sort me. You're just mudslinging and being defensive.

In post 821, CrashTextDummie wrote:BROseidon doesn't really bother me.

Why didn't my vote on Zek bother you?

In post 824, Thor665 wrote:

In post 820, BROseidon wrote:Except for the part where you then misunderstood my position. While a lot of this wasn't explicitly stated, the logical chain of conclusions wasn't exactly hidden, either.

1

That presumes I cared enough about you to follow that line of thought and have it in my head later when I read the one off comment and/or decided to go back and see if I could put the comment in context.

In post 820, BROseidon wrote:I'm not getting how that misunderstanding happened, and now I'm trying to figure out whether it's a null-derp, town-derp, or scum-derp.

2

I'm not getting why you think it would be any more or less likely to be any given one as opposed to "wasn't following BRO enough to put a non-contextual comment back into context via either recalling it off the top of his head or research" nor do I see why you would expect it to be and how this conversation could possibly lead to you managing to do so. Clarify?

1) So you don't care about me because...

2) A few points here. First is the question of whether your explanation is honest. Scum lie, and if you're scum, that would mean you'd lie about this to back off of a push that you know doesn't have traction. Second then is, if you're telling the truth, what motivation would lead to not caring.

Gut wants to call the derp a town-derp, since you're probably not lying about the mistake coming from a place of missing context – scum-you would likely be more careful in approaching the thread. Additionally, lack of caring is generally more indicative of town than scum – scum have more incentive to keep track of all the moving game components so that they can move most efficiently through the game. The fact that you don't seem to care about what I'm doing, or at least much of what I'm doing, indicates a town mindset.

In post 828, penguin_alien wrote:BRO, you probably paid closer attention to the Narnia game after we died than I did--how does this play line up with smargaret there for you?

I only paid attention to the flips to see how well my day-1 reads turned out.

In post 831, Bulbazak wrote:Long answer: I was accused of being scum, so I was addressing the argument from that assumption. Normally, if I'm pushing someone very hard, I'm confident in their wagon. If I'm doing so as scum, I'm confident that I can wear them down and potentially get them lynched. Essentially, I'm in it for the long haul, just as I would be if I were town. Now, unless something happened to make that person instantly obv. or conf. town, there would be no reason for scum me to kill them. So having been accused of killing Porkens, who I was actively calling scum d1, my question would be why I would make that kill as scum, since I showed that I had great confidence in my ability to push that wagon. Does that make sense?

But you have a scum partner who might have wanted Porkens dead for a variety of reasons.

Also: