Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 2:48 am**

In post 801, Nero Cain wrote:
In post 782, goodmorning wrote:Two, actually. Vaguely annoyed.

Why are you annoyed that two hoods got claimed?

Repeat: I've already spoken about this.
Repeat: I don't care to speak any more about it.

Note to self:
It is not polite to ask Thor to fuck off, even if you say please.

I find myself reminded slightly of NY 169 atm.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:05 am**

In post 825, goodmorning wrote:Note to self:
It is not polite to ask Thor to fuck off, even if you say please.

Is this actually a note to yourself, or a passive-aggressive jab at my post?

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:11 am**

It is actually a note to Thor, asking him politely to fuck off but not directly so I still have plausible deniability when he inevitably chooses to be offended by it.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:12 am**

Does anyone know whether Thor whinges as much as Town as he does as Scum?

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 3:54 am**

In post 818, Izariael wrote:
In post 714, Scripten wrote:My neighborhood is davesaz, Nero Cain, and TSO. I believe this may have already come out,
but I'd like it in my ISO for people to see.

I fail to understand why you chose to include the bolded statement. It sounds like you want to intentionally include something that *could* be seen as pro-town just for the sake of appearances. I don't see why a town player would be so concerned about making sure
this detail
is on their ISO. As long as they can confirm that no information about the hood is being lied about, then what is it to a town player whether they or another player opened up about it?

Confirmation bias much? I said right in that post that I thought that the information was already out there. I wanted it in my iso so that when another player looks at my iso, the information is right there within my posts. You're tunneling into a molehill and making it out to be a mountain.

In post 818, Izariael wrote:

In post 805, Scripten wrote:(The alt-hater thing is not really alignment indicative, but I do have a thing against policy lynches.)

Seems somewhat contradictory to what you said here

In post 39, Scripten wrote:Policy lynchers should be policy lynched.

Thor vote is serious.

In which you are saying you would policy lynch someone on the basis that they support policy lynches. This is like pushing for capital punishment on people who support capital punishment. Does someone else come along and policy lynch you for policy lynching someone who supports policy lynches? Where does this chain end? You're perpetuating the very thing you're trying to stop... and then now say you're against it?

You do realize that my 39 was contradictory within its own context, right?

Because it's a joke. If you read the next two posts after that, you might understand it a little better.

In post 819, Izariael wrote:
I don't actually see why a town player would specifically go out of their way to tailor their ISO to be "townier" in appearance, regardless of the details in question. It just seems like a counter-productive thing to be doing when you could be instead spending time actually, you know... looking for scum. It's like trying to coif your hair in the middle of a house fire. Like... get your priorities straight here. Survival > Appearances.

Because two sentences outweighs the rest of my posting? Okay.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:14 am**

In post 829, Scripten wrote:
In post 818, Izariael wrote:
In post 714, Scripten wrote:My neighborhood is davesaz, Nero Cain, and TSO. I believe this may have already come out,
but I'd like it in my ISO for people to see.

I fail to understand why you chose to include the bolded statement. It sounds like you want to intentionally include something that *could* be seen as pro-town just for the sake of appearances. I don't see why a town player would be so concerned about making sure
this detail
is on their ISO. As long as they can confirm that no information about the hood is being lied about, then what is it to a town player whether they or another player opened up about it?

Confirmation bias much? I said right in that post that I thought that the information was already out there. I wanted it in my iso so that when another player looks at my iso, the information is right there within my posts. You're tunneling into a molehill and making it out to be a mountain.

In post 818, Izariael wrote:

In post 805, Scripten wrote:(The alt-hater thing is not really alignment indicative, but I do have a thing against policy lynches.)

Seems somewhat contradictory to what you said here

In post 39, Scripten wrote:Policy lynchers should be policy lynched.

Thor vote is serious.

In which you are saying you would policy lynch someone on the basis that they support policy lynches. This is like pushing for capital punishment on people who support capital punishment. Does someone else come along and policy lynch you for policy lynching someone who supports policy lynches? Where does this chain end? You're perpetuating the very thing you're trying to stop... and then now say you're against it?

You do realize that my 39 was contradictory within its own context, right?

Because it's a joke. If you read the next two posts after that, you might understand it a little better.

In post 819, Izariael wrote:
I don't actually see why a town player would specifically go out of their way to tailor their ISO to be "townier" in appearance, regardless of the details in question. It just seems like a counter-productive thing to be doing when you could be instead spending time actually, you know... looking for scum. It's like trying to coif your hair in the middle of a house fire. Like... get your priorities straight here. Survival > Appearances.

Because two sentences outweighs the rest of my posting? Okay.

Did you wind up reading 822 before posting this? I think if you had waited another few sentences to comment you would see that I've changed my mind on this.

And your post 39 said "Thor vote is serious" so I didn't really read it as a joke. I was aware that it was contradictory in and of itself, but I had taken it as a serious stance. If it was intended as a joke, then great. Haha.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:32 am**

In post 816, AxleGreaser wrote:In order to be convinced PereV is scum, and buy into your ´çase´/wagon I would need to see a continuing pattern of behaviour. I don´t believe your thread discussion with him or the points you have made do that.

What sort of "continuing pattern of behavior" do you expect to get out of an attack on multiball comments?
This seems like a standard that torpedoes many types of scumtells.

In post 817, AxleGreaser wrote:Thor: ¨and to not address at all the other questions (scumhunting questions based off said setup) except to say 'later I will provide this.¨

as a claim i had stated i would answer the questions you claimed i had not, but do it later.

I had in fact as far as i still can tell answered each point, if not then by now I have done it twice.

Yes, I will agree after saying you would answer things that you eventually answered them and that in between the two points I expressed interest in seeing answers given per your comment that you would do so.
I am not sure why we're discussing this.

In post 821, Izariael wrote:He seems to speak this way to anyone not agreeing with him. It irks me as a player, but I haven't played with Thor prior to this nor have I checked his previous games to know if this sneery, condescending tone of his is par for the course or if it could be alignment-indicative. I can't work past my personal bias to get any sort of read on him.

Dear gawd, this is exactly the reason I made an alt - to get away from this gak. As far as I can tell if my join date is not as old and I post

instead of

then I am considered a fun player.
If I do the other then I am the meanest mean of the seven means.

JUST BECAUSE I DISLIKE YOUR PLAY DOES NOT MEAN I AM A MEANIE-POO HEAD. MAYBE YOUR PLAY NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED. MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT YOUR PLAY AND DEFEND IT IF IT IS GOOD. MAYBE IF YOU GET UMBRAGED AT ME QUESTIONING YOUR PLAY THEN IT IS NOT AS GOOD AS YOU'RE TRYING TO CONVINCE ME IT IS?

If I insulted you personally then say so and I'll apologize.
If I insulted your *play* then back your play up or get over it - I am alloed to not like your play decisions. That's a legit and fair stance to take.
Making it personal just clouds the waters and is a step you're choosing to take - not me.
I also dislike that play, fyi.

In post 821, Izariael wrote:
@Thor
: Drawing different conclusions or applying a different brand of logic than you doesn't make me terrible town. Nor does it make me scum.

It also doesn't make you good town nor does it suggest you are town. In fact, questioning questionable play is considered by me to be 'scumhunting'. because I do believe scum will do questionable play and I need to investigate it.

I will note that the other person defending you also didn't want to defend your play. Your play *is* questionable by more than just me, meaning that...yeah, there's probably something strange there - at which point yeah, you should expect people to address it. If you are unable to see why someone might question it then that's something you need to work on - maybe by asking me to explain why it's questionable in the first place, or defending why it isn't questionable at all. But just pointing out that you are a beautiful and unique snowflake doesn't change that you're doing something strange that people could, and should, investigate.

In post 821, Izariael wrote:You think I'm terrible town for having "faulty logic", while I think you're terrible town for your dogmatic attitude. The vast majority of your posts have this stick-up-your-Smurf tone that is quickly getting old.

I am saying you are terrible town or scum. If you just find my play dogmatic...that doesn't matter. Do you find my play potentially scummy? If no, then there's no point to this conversation. if yes you should be doing something with that thought instead of just pointing out that I am a dick. Because whether or not I am a dick does not affect whether or not I am scum, whereas my note of your strange play *does* have scummy connotations if you're lying about what you believe. I will admit I don't think scum tend to lie to act like a dick, so I'm not really sold on your tell, but if it's there advance it.

In post 821, Izariael wrote:I would love to give you an unbiased read that isn't influenced by my incredible distaste for your attitude, because right now all I'm thinking is "I just want Thor out of the game, regardless of his alignment." For that to happen, I would need you to step back a bit, get off your high horse, and cut this "I art superior to thou" crap that you're doing. Maybe you're right about EVERYTHING in this game, and I am WRONG about everything in this game. Perhaps it's the other way around. It still does not give you the right to be a complete Smurf to myself or other players in the way I see you doing. I'll leave that ball in your court. Do as you please.

Again - I believe I am allowed within the confines of the game to point out play I think is anti-town or pro-scum.
If my play is so terrible and uncouth that it prevents you from scumhunting though then one of us should replace out.
I do not think I have crossed any line and I also think I have been quite specific about what plays I find bad and why - allowing anyone to defend or discuss them if they wish.
I also think too much weight is being placed on my words, as other players have called your (and others) play bad and are not getting this reaction - and if I am getting extra weight to my words due to a join date that is an unfair weight to place on me, as it is not under my control.

If you think I crossed the line somewhere please point it out to me or the mod.
Otherwise - I do not see a valid reason to change my playstyle.

In post 823, TierShift wrote:
In post 799, Thor665 wrote:I would think my other comment of 'I am in a neighborhood and not claiming it yet' would remove all doubt.

Where is this post?

Response to inquiry when I have time.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p6268337
First response to a quote.

Speaking of quotes that can be responded to....

In post 799, Thor665 wrote:Back up your gak now please.
1. Explain your specific issue with how I approached him (even working within the misunderstanding you're now admitting to)
2. Then describe your chosen approach and why you thought it was a good approach.

That would be helpful.

You didn't answer this yet.
I don't know why that is hard to do.
I will make a comment about your play now and the idea of answering questions, but to soften it will do this

In post 825, goodmorning wrote:
In post 801, Nero Cain wrote:
In post 782, goodmorning wrote:Two, actually. Vaguely annoyed.

Why are you annoyed that two hoods got claimed?

Repeat: I've already spoken about this.
Repeat: I don't care to speak any more about it.

So...no, you haven't answered it, but you refuse to.

My Neighborhood is me, Pere, and Egg.
Egg gave me slight town vibes already.
Pere didn't post.

Discuss.

In post 825, goodmorning wrote:Note to self:
It is not polite to ask Thor to Smurf off, even if you say please.

Note to self: it is tough to get Goodmorning to state why she wants things not done because it will aid scum...'somehow'...I think, I'm actually inventing the excuse. It's the only one that makes sense, really.

In post 828, goodmorning wrote:Does anyone know whether Thor whinges as much as Town as he does as Scum?

Are you trying to be passive aggressive? There is a thing known as my player profile - y'know, click on my name, look at all my posted in games, have near infinite meta available.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:39 am**

In post 830, Izariael wrote:
Did you wind up reading 822 before posting this? I think if you had waited another few sentences to comment you would see that I've changed my mind on this.

Oh, I realize now that I'd misread your 822. My apologies.

In post 830, Izariael wrote:
And your post 39 said "Thor vote is serious" so I didn't really read it as a joke. I was aware that it was contradictory in and of itself, but I had taken it as a serious stance. If it was intended as a joke, then great. Haha.

I have a dry sense of humor that doesn't really translate well into text. I should probably stop trying to make jokes.

That said, I do have a personal distaste for policy lynches. Just that post conveying it was supposed to be funnier than I suppose people are taking it.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:00 am**

Well, just because I misread it as a serious post doesn't mean that everyone did. I could just be that one person who sits there with a blank look on their face when a joke cracks the rest of the room up yet flew over their head.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:01 am**

/confirm neighbors with Pere and Thor. Thor looked town in the neighborhood. Pere didn't post. We were assuming we probably had a scum. That's why I serious-voted Pere before he posted and asked Thor in thread about my Pere vote. The hesitance thing was mostly a reference to Cho's neighbor claim lowering the odds that there is a scum between the three of us. I still think Pere is scum though.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:08 am**

I think Pere is scum via play in thread, his lack of presence in the neighborhood means nothing really as he was checked out of the game for days after that anyway.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:12 am**

In post 831, Thor665 wrote:My Neighborhood is me, Pere, and Egg.
Egg gave me slight town vibes already.
Pere didn't post.

Discuss.

What did egg do that gave you town vibes? Is he scrambled or sunny side up?

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:13 am**

Thor, I find me repeating myself. I also want to say you're a fucking snoc for attributing the misunderstanding to me alone.

In post 799, Thor665 wrote:You leapt to his defense and had issue with my conclusions as regards him - which, by definition, means you have to have a town read there or there would be no issue to raise with me and what I said.
If your read of him was 'null' for instance...that would mean that you would understand his reads were screwy and would have agreed with me and, if you had decided to call it out, your language would have been one of 'what scum motive do you see in his screwy logic' as opposed to your chosen track.

I can take issue with someone calling null behaviour scummy (which I thought you were doing) without having a townread on said person. That is not at all a requirement. I have no idea why you feel I should have approached you differently than I have. Quote where I express a townread on iza. I only expressed feelings that him thinking nullreads can be committed to was genuine. That is not equal to a townread.

1. Explain your specific issue with how I approached him (even working within the misunderstanding you're now admitting to)
2. Then describe your chosen approach and why you thought it was a good approach.

1. You called null behaviour scummy (which is the misunderstanding I was working with). That is my specific issue. Scum do that.
2. I approached you by asking if you seriously found him scummy for that. You didn't try to clear up the misunderstanding, so I kept working on the assumption that you found him scummy for it. I then defended him on that assumption. No regrets.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:16 am**

In post 831, Thor665 wrote:My Neighborhood is me, Pere, and Egg.

Shit. I found egg slipping knowledge of the neighbourhood in 124, which is why I posted 125. There defnitely hadn't been enough info to conclude you were in a neighbourhood, so I hoped egg wasn't in your neighbourhood and scumslipped.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:22 am**

In post 827, goodmorning wrote:It is actually a note to Thor, asking him politely to fuck off but not directly so I still have plausible deniability when he inevitably chooses to be offended by it.

In post 828, goodmorning wrote:Does anyone know whether Thor whinges as much as Town as he does as Scum?

I was wondering if it is alignment-indicative for thor too.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:44 am**

Maybe it's just me not really interacting with Thor this game, but I haven't found him particularly abrasive.

I have thought a lot of his pushes seem to go over my head due to me skimming most of his arguments if they bore me, but I don't know if that's relevant to him, rather than me just being a lazy skimming fuck. Meh.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:45 am**

Also, I always thought SG was a just a Thor wannabe. Shows what I know!

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:48 am**

In post 836, Nero Cain wrote:What did egg do that gave you town vibes? Is he scrambled or sunny side up?

Well, basically his play was so terrible I have a hard time believing he was scum. He played the 'what do we do with a neighborhood' card while also admitting to being scum in a neighborhood semi-recently. That is terrible play and quite nonsensical - but I cannot imagine even a half sane scum would do that as scum. Ergo, a town vibe.

In post 837, TierShift wrote:Thor, I find me repeating myself. I also want to say you're a Smurfing snoc for attributing the misunderstanding to me alone.

I have no idea what a snoc is. Snob?
I do think the misunderstanding is on your end alone - as I've noted how my story has been clear and unchanging and that you approached your claimed issue in a weird way.

In post 837, TierShift wrote:I can take issue with someone calling null behaviour scummy (which I thought you were doing) without having a townread on said person. That is not at all a requirement. I have no idea why you feel I should have approached you differently than I have. Quote where I express a townread on iza. I only expressed feelings that him thinking nullreads can be committed to was genuine. That is not equal to a townread.

I will admit, by the time you start calling a player 'genuine' I don't tend to think you lack a town read on him.
Okay, so you were just defending a null read - got it.

In post 837, TierShift wrote:1. You called null behaviour scummy (which is the misunderstanding I was working with). That is my specific issue. Scum do that.
2. I approached you by asking if you seriously found him scummy for that. You didn't try to clear up the misunderstanding, so I kept working on the assumption that you found him scummy for it. I then defended him on that assumption. No regrets.

1. Okay.
2. How did I not try to clear up the misunderstanding? Let's review my immediate reply to your comment;
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p6268266
Specifically this;

In post 735, Thor665 wrote:
Making him either town
who is dangerous to have in the game due to inability to read below the surface
or scum
.
Both making him a viable lynch option to me.

From the first moment I answered I noted awareness of the ability to read it as a null tell.
Which would make the communication issue on your end.

When i clarified again (repeating myself) you complained about my tone. Maybe I should have called you a Smurfing snoc to clear it up

Would you like to vote Pere now?
Pretty sure he's scum.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:50 am**

In post 840, T S O wrote:Maybe it's just me not really interacting with Thor this game, but I haven't found him particularly abrasive.

After the comments I've gotten today I want to frame this.

Really, I think the primary issue is simply the written word. In person I say the same sort of stuff and people think I'm polite and to some degree funny. Same thing happened when we played audio mafia (except for the scum players). I think my vocal tone is different from what people presume it to be.

I should try doing an alt where I insist on posting readings of every post I make. I wonder what that would do to how I'm reacted to...

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:50 am**

Maybe just do it as my main, honestly.
I might not do it in this game but in [ongoing] it would be amusing I think.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:00 am**

A snob, yes, a snob.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:05 am**

In post 842, Thor665 wrote:Would you like to vote Pere now?
Pretty sure he's scum.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:09 am**

Nah I'm not really interested. Convince me.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:13 am**

Have you ever played with Pere prior to this? I feel like you must have.

He is not only doing a slow start (which I might buy as town him) but is pairing it with sloppy reads and not really looking over the thread (note how he agreed that...whoever that was, Muffin?, who had earlier brought up multiball was scum after it was pointed out. But if he had actually read and also actually thought that was an issue (as shown by his reaction to me) he would have mentioned it.

If he had openly stated he was skimming/sipping stuff - no worries.
But he didn't, he chose to present like he read.
He was probably lying about that.
Why do you think town Pere would do that?

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:19 am**

Also, in all seriousness, go back and read the *conversation* wherein I brought up multiball.
Not the post, the conversation, and ask yourself if it seemed scummy in any way particularly that I brought it up.
Then ask yourself why Pere thought it was scummy.
Then go and look at how I asked him to explain and the way (shifty and not answering) he chose to respond.

Mafiascum.net

NY 178: MASQUERADE -- GAME OVER