Mini 1625: Redemption (Game Over)

[DrippingGoofball]

I'm town, droog is town, AWA is town...

Flubber is all fluff complaining that the game is fluff. http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p6404517 > here is is resorting to naked ad homs. There are aggressive stances but they are all of the "answer my questions dammit" type which tend to come from scum.

istott has a lot of RL excuses (which scum tend to favor), a reeeeeal lot.

[DrippingGoofball]

mod: I hope for a deadline extension

I'll move over to DGB if necessary.

Voting me is a bad idea.

[droog]

Which you haven't.

i wasnt done yet

[TierShift]

Please support your 'scum are aggressive about gettng their questions answered' with examples, never heard of that tell.

[Naomi-Tan]

... You were quoting things from behind the point you originally made... thats kinda reachy.

[droog]

Anyway, even if he's incorrect, even if he hasn't actually rebutted the points, how does that make him scummy?

It would be very easy for scumhim to rebut the points and I see very little incentive for scumhim to lie. What does he gain from it?

so your saying
you agree with my points
that awa is bad in several respects
but scum awa wouldnt be so bad as to be bad?

[Flubbernugget]

That actually does make sense. You gotta remember scum knows allignments.

But I still think theres potential for a stronger read on istott.

Might go after a last minute DCB wagon; extension dependant.

[droog]

Naomi, flubber, no idea who/what you're referring to

[Flubbernugget]

Scum can make more sense than town because they already know alignments and thus know what to look for. I think that's why tier is saying he doesn't like your case; it's based on reads and not intentions.

Actually lemme stop speaking on behalf of people.

[droog]

now i will definitively prove scum motive
in the case of the disappearing scumread

______________________________

as soon as i got on awa for his flubber read, it changes

And I've said that since

I don't have any strong particular reads of actual scum

, I'm more concerned about removing players that will be obstructions toward lynching scum in future days where we have more connections to work with. Day One is almost entirely ad hominem, the connections I'm drawing are more meta than that.

but remember:

FoS: Flubber.

granted, the FOS didn't have to be a strong one
((i mean, don't we all casually throw around FOS's and votes?
who really insists that FOS's and votes go on strong reads?))

but, uh, i dont recall awa ever modifying that scum read
do you dear reader?

let's compare awa's posts across time:

You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

ok, roger, flubber is the scummiest because flubber is helping scum the most

The only person that I would consider having a strong scumread on right now is droog, but God forbid I switch my vote (BACK) to him since that would obviously be nothing more than OMGUS, even though I had my vote on him in the first place. As of this moment, behind droog, Flubber is the person who I believe is the most dangerous to the town, from a metagaming perspective, and so I am voting for him. To answer your question directly, yes, I see nothing that would outright scream to me that he is mafia, however there is nothing that screams to me that ANYONE currently playing is mafia, because it is day one. Again, the only person that I think is remotely beyond that is droog, but I am well aware of how it would seem to switch my vote back to him after our recent exchanges. I do note that droog managed to slip in a vote on me while attacking my read on another player. I also note that droog has been extremely tunnel-visioned on me for the past hundred posts or so.

ok, roger, im the scummiest but flubber is 'most dangerous to the town'
which is not the same as scummiest anymore

You seem to either be of the mindset or want to force other people into the mindset that people can only think that others players a A.) Town or B.) Scum; this kind of black-and-white mentality is both iincorrect and hazardous. People lie on a sliding scale of Town-Scum, and the fact that you apparently want me to hold up a "neon sign with the words 'I am scumreading Flubber'" when I do not, in fact, hold that belief is indicative that you are trying to pressure people into rushing decisions and using the same kind of "100% good or 100% bad" mentality that you have, or want to project as having.

ok, now 'i am scumreading flubber' is too simplistic to contemplate saying
and too black-and-white
and pressuring people into rushing decisions

so, uh, if 'i am scumreading flubber' is too black-and-white, what is your flubber read?

AWA: I have two questions for you.

Do you think Flubbernugget is scum?

Do you have any scum reads?

1.) No, at the moment I simply find his actions to be anti-town.

ok, flubber is not scum
which is totally not too simplistic to say outright
even though 'i think flubber is scum' is too simplistic to say outright

((remember: by 706, the scummy players are anti-town players
and by 711, flubber is most dangerous to the town,
but somehow flubber is not scummy anymore
so, uh, what happened to the logic in 706?))

I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells.

that sounds consistent
flubber's only anti-town, not scummy
and it's reasonable to change your appraisal of a player

Not sure whether to keep my vote on Flubber (I believe that if not outright scum, then at the very least very anti-town) or to move it to droog (insistence upon moving the goalposts, poisoning the well, and a high postcount with a low content saturation (which leads to unnecessarily difficult analysis and frustration for people like myself who want to analyze content instead of respond to the same accusations over and over)). Except for these last few posts, Willow doesn't strike me as particularly scummy, but these recent attacks smell like bandwagoning to me, especially when he has no real argument to back them up. I think I will keep my vote on Flubber for the time being, but it could VERY easily jump to droog if he continues to post the same things while pretending that he's constructing some kind of case.

Vote: Flubbernugget

but awa keeps his vote on flubber
because flubber could be scum, and is anti-town regardless

are you starting to see how inconsistent this read is

Never did I say that I would prefer an anti-town lynch over a scum lynch.

If you are trying to refer to my "scumreads" in 395, refer to 731 where I clarify what I was thinking. I never advocated lynching anti-town over lynching scum on principle, I was pushing on Flubber because in the absence of a strong scumread I wanted to pressure the person I thought would be most harmful to the town in the future.

when awa voted flubber, an anti-town read
over me, awa's scum read

What? You don't find Flubber town; I don't find Flubber town. Yet you attack me because I decided to actually push in that direction? Your play is inconsistent, which is something I guess I should expect from a self-admitted troll account.

now it's "i dont find flubber town"
so flubber is scummy, right?

You make it sound as if Flubber has completely dropped off of my radar, and I don't think that he's lynch-worthy at all anymore. This isn't true. First of all, you seem to be reading way too far into my courtesy post (801). I didn't drop the case on Flubbernugget, in fact if you read 842 I continue to grill him. I suspect you're only read the part of the post that applied to you, which I find disappointing.

so... the case on flubber was never dropped
even though awa admitted that flubber was no longer scummy, but anti-town

1) do you think flubber is anti-town
2) do you think flubber is scummy
3) do you think flubber is scummy for being anti-town

1.) Yes
2.) As of this post, yes.
3.) No. As I have said many times.

[/quote]

and now flubber is back to being scummy
but not scummy for being anti-town

____________________________________

here are various things awa has said about flubber:

- flubber is scummy
- flubber is anti-town, and the most anti-town player is scummy
- flubber is still anti-town, but not scummy
- 'flubber is scum because flubber is anti-town' is a complete misrep of awa's position
- flubber is scummy, and awa never dropped that case
- flubber is scummy, and flubber is anti-town, but flubber is not scummy for being anti-town

this is a complete morass of nonsense masquerading as a 'consistent read'

why would a townie need to present a very inconsistent read as a consistent read?

now, my original case on awa imputed scum motive:

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

and after 648 i posted this:

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

after this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'
- i scumspect you for pretending you only ever said 'flubbel is antitown'
- i scumspect you for suggesting you responded to a point you actually didnt

yet awa keeps insisting:

I'm not going to continue responding to droog until he actually provides some kind of case instead of just saying that you don't like what I'm saying.

in short, awa's entire defense is based on me misrepping him
awa's case on me is likewise based on me misrepping him

and yet, when i explain that i have several reasons for voting awa
he does not respond to my points
he says that i am not reading him correctly

SO:

1) awa proposes lynching flubber, not because he thinks he'll lynch scum, but because it's a convenient lynch
2) when i call this scummy, awa says that im misrepping him
3) awa switches his flubber read as suits the circumstances of whatever argument he's in
4) awa refuses to acknolwedge any argument against him that doesn't agree with him
5) awa is pushing me for being scummy when i have, several times, given him room to explain

these are not town actions

he is not meerely being a little inconsistent, or having weird reads
he is actively changing his reads to fit the circumstances

he is not accusing me of misunderstanding him, or clarifying that i missed something
he is actively accusing me of being scum for having an incorrect case
and he refuses to explain why my case is incorrect until i admit it's incorrect

this is not town behavior

[TierShift]

Anyway, even if he's incorrect, even if he hasn't actually rebutted the points, how does that make him scummy?

It would be very easy for scumhim to rebut the points and I see very little incentive for scumhim to lie. What does he gain from it?

so your saying
you agree with my points
that awa is bad in several respects
but scum awa wouldnt be so bad as to be bad?

I'm saying that being bad has jackshit to do with alignment.

[TierShift]

You said you would point out scum motivation, droog, and I was foolish enough to believe you.

I has a sad.

Also, 731 adresses your entire post. He's not avoiding explaining his read.

[droog]

then what makes someone scummy?
awful reasoning?
hopping on a wagon when it's looking popular?
being named istott?

cause i can give you 2/3

[droog]

When I made the original post, my mental scale was sliding from Town to Neutral to Scum. I have since revised that to include Antitown, since I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells. It's not so much that my initial impression of Flubber was more severe than it is now, it's more that since my scale was revised, his placement on that scale now sits in a more accurate place.

like i went over in my post
his opinion on flubber changes yet again
and if you ask him
it was consistent the entire time

[droog]

*changes yet again after 731

[TierShift]

The only place where it changes is 929 but that's not ibconsistency but a change of his read if I get it right.

[TierShift]

then what makes someone scummy?
awful reasoning?

Depends on what it is trying to justify

hopping on a wagon when it's looking popular?

If done consistently and opportunistically, yes.

being named istott?

cause i can give you 2/3

Nope, try scumtells again. No scumtell is absolute.

[DrippingGoofball]

Please support your 'scum are aggressive about gettng their questions answered' with examples, never heard of that tell.

I don't believe in wikitells.

[Flubbernugget]

These droog walls are starting to bother me

[droog]

only giving the people what they want flubber

and the people want death by wordcount

[TierShift]

Please support your 'scum are aggressive about gettng their questions answered' with examples, never heard of that tell.

I don't believe in wikitells.

Right, but if you say 'flub is getting mad at people for not answering questions like scum do', you have to back up that 'like scum do'-part.

Otherwise I can just make up any tell and say 'it's what scum do'.

[DrippingGoofball]

These droog walls are starting to bother me

Said the scum

[DrippingGoofball]

Otherwise I can just make up any tell and say 'it's what scum do'.

It's what I've seen scum do. Sad to say but I have the highest total post count on this site, which means I have been scum many, many times, and I have seen how literal hundreds of scum team mates behave, including myself.

[GuyInFreezer]

bump

[GuyInFreezer]

2