In post 470, Robbnva wrote:can't believe I am going to waste my time here, but here goes nothing.
In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:1) You said I was trying to pocket Creature. That requires Creature to be town.
I said you were probably trying to pocket him. I didn't rule out the possibility that you and him are scum together and I didn't even rule out the possibility that he is still scum. That's why I said somebody should investigate creature. He is a slot we need to know his alignment sooner than later.
279 of yours was where you appeared to do this. You were asked if Creature would be town in that scenario, and you responded with "yes, but I need scum drum to confirm that. Until I know if he is scum or not I can still scum read both people." This is why I thought your scumread on me was dependent on Creature being town.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:Ok, so you don't have a case gotcha. The "scummy" posts you have called out have been posts in which your motives have been called into question and you have said they are scummy because you see no reason a townie would scumread you. I've already broken down the statistics with you that at least one townie has to have scumread you by now since there were at least 4 votes on you. Therefore at least one townie has scumread you. That proves that there is a reason why a townie would scumread you, so why can't more than one townie do it?
One of the definitions of redundant is
"repeating something else and therefore unnecessary"
This means I have given my reasons why I scum read ircher already. I don't need to do it again just because you asked (btw you didn't even say please). Remember the lecture I gave you about reading? If you aren't going to take the time to read shit, I am not going to waste my time with you anymore.
It helps if you pushing somebody to consolidate your read for other people. That being said - after you and Ircher insisted it was in the ISO I went back and looked through it again for the case and I asked you if I was right about what it was. I have read everything as it has come up - but sometimes I don't have the time to keep going back.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:Mario's ISO is solid. I saw reasons for both of his votes in the beginning and its why I started to TR him. This is just more discrediting from you rather than actually scumhunting.
Well to be honest I never really asked for your opinion, and clearly I disagree with you. Oh and you saw reasons for his votes? really?
Show me where his reasons were in these 2 completely unedited posts.
I said I saw reasons for a townie to make those scumreads, not that I knew for sure they were his. Formerfish got incredibly defensive over Ircher's vote hopping landing on him, and your reaction to Creature was (in my opinion - I know we don't agree on this but you have to respect that this is my opinion) scummy.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote:I won't waste my time waiting, cause there were none. So now we have 2 confirmed liars in this game and I guess that means you are just discrediting me which is basically what you have done the entire game. you twist the truths to smear my name and every single time I have proven you wrong. The original reason you scum read me to begin with has been proven wrong yet you can't even step back and reconsider you could be wrong. refusal to reconsider is a scumtrait, not a town one.
Here is a prime example of when I say you are discrediting people who push you. You call me a liar for saying that I can see reasons why Mario would scumread those people, yet you don't actually try to hear what they are from me. You now say that I am discrediting you by scumreading you.
I've also repeatedly admitted that I was wrong about Creature's intentions with the vote - but I have also stated that I do not see how somebody would instantly jump to the conclusion you did (though it was right) with no discussion about it. That's where my scumread from you originated. You jumped to that he was lying (which you were right about) rather than talking to him about it and figuring it out. It did not appear to me like you were trying to sort Creature, it just appeared to me like you were trying to discredit his vote.
I have also expressed doubt about my read on you several times, but right now the amount of discrediting you do versus scumhunting is too much for me to change my read. I'm going to take a page from your book here and tell you to read through my ISO to find it. If you can't then I'll point it out - but I've been actively trying to work with you and understand your mindset. You've been pushing me away, calling me a liar, and dismissing all of my questions to you as redundant. Also, I have not seen you reconsider your read on me once this game. So the same behavior that you are attributing to me is something you have been doing as well.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:Why does his ISO reek? You keep making weak statements about people without actually offering insight.
I don't offer insights? have you been reading the game? I am the most transparent person in here. You want some insight? I got your insight right here
122
124
130 - this one explains his experience level alone should tell him that what I have done isn't scummy. It is what he is now saying, null. He is only town reading me for it because of some delusional meta nonsense. It does however prove I was right. he was wrong to scumread anyone for that. EVERYONE is wrong for scum reading somebody for it. Why do you think everyone has basically backed off already? it's not alignment indicative.
246
258
271
I don't think I need to go on do I? if you want to see more. click my name at the bottom OR the iso button next to my name and ctrl+f or command+f and search for ircher.
So that is another lie you have told. Let's see what other goodies you have left for me to find.
Thank you for linking these, even though you waited until after I looked through your ISO earlier to find these reasons. We clearly have different definitions of insight, because I don't find many of those posts to be insight as to why he's scum.
122 - This is good advice from you, but I don't see anything that makes it AI for Ircher
124 - This is you getting defensive that he called your unwillingness to work with Creature anti-town.
130 - Saying that he is too experienced to think that you are scum isn't really insight because it's so clouded with your own bias of yourself. This goes back to when I called a lot of your reasoning OMGus because it is heavily rooted in it.
246 - This is again about you defending the push on you. This isn't insight about Ircher - this is why you think his scumread of you is bad.
258 - This one is the most insightful of them all so far. I commented when I saw this one that I liked this post.
271 - This is you again disagreeing with him that your own stances are antitown.
1/6 is insight into why he might be scum. I did look through your ISO to find your case on it and I asked you if I had it right on
463. Please tell me if that is the summary of your case on him and if I am wrong about anything, please let me know. As I said, I'm legitimately trying to understand it.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:He OMGus scumread every person who pushed him (Creature, Ircher, Mario, and I) and only pushed to discredit us rather than make an actual case on us.
Technically this is a lie. my early scum reads were you, creature, and former. If you have noticed I have actually attempted numerous times to enguage with mario and he refuses. I only more recently think there is a small chance mario/ircher are a pair but I am not ready to consider that an actual reality just yet.
This is not a lie. You have scumread every single one of those four people. I'm not going to pull quotes for Creature, me, or Ircher since I have no doubt you'll agree with me that you have. In
410 you associate Mario/Ircher as scumbuddies. You say that that doesn't count - but you never voiced any doubt about it until this response. You've also indirectly painted Mario as scum whenever you've stated that there's no reason a townie could scumread you.
You are right though that you do also have a Formerfish scumread in there. I would also like to point out though that Former also questioned you while Creature, Mario, Ircher, and I were pushing you.
Current count on (Actual Lie)/(Things that you've called lies) = 0/2
In post 470, Robbnva wrote:Also what you call "discrediting" is what I call providing reasons why I think you guys are scum....
If that's the case then we have extremely different opinions on reasoning vs discrediting.
Discrediting statements are statements made to lessen the legitimacy of another persons reads. This is what you are doing by calling me a liar for statements you disagree with in this post. This is what you are doing when you accuse everybody who scumreads you of being scum for it because there isn't a reason a townie would do so, or because "ircher is to experienced to do so." It is not meant to actually try to figure out a persons alignment, but it is meant to make a person less trustworthy to other people. You have even claimed that everybody pushing you deserves to be discredited in
213. This is not trying to sort a person's alignment. There isn't any sorting here.
An example of a post you have made with reasoning would be the one where you call Ircher out on his 180, or even post
275 about myself. That is reasoning because it doesn't try to discredit my opinions, but it states why you find me scummy. You don't think I'm scumhunting, and you think I'm trying to pocket Creature. I disagree with the reasoning but it is reasoning nonetheless.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:Early game fluff is why I was thinking it could be scumread. A fluffy "sup" allows the player to avoid participating in RVS without being absent completely. I didn't necessarily find it scummy, but I've seen people get jumped on for posts like this in RVS before.
1. You do some people just don't like RVS right? not wanting to participate in rvs isn't scummy and it certainly isn't vote worthy.
2. the fact that you have seen people get jumped on before should be more than enough to know you probably should ignore it, unless you can provide evidence that every single time a player who avoided rvs flipped scum which I would bet anything in the world didn't happen. I bet the exact opposite happened. Majority of the people flipped town. Of course we will never know the truth and you have lied multiple times so your word is crap now.
This is where I would tell you to read.
I have stated again and again that I did not find your sup post to be scummy. Elena asked me why I thought that somebody else might have, and I answered it. I've seen people jump on people for similar reasoning before, therefore I thought Creature was jumping on you for that reasoning. Do you understand this? If not, please tell me what you don't understand.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:If you can understand how people would scumread you, then how can you say that townies can't scumread you? Your logic is so contradictory.
Where did I say townies can't scum read me for saying they are bad at mafia? That could be difficult for you because it never happened, so let's try this. Who wasn't scum reading me and then started scum reading me because I said they were bad at mafia.
oh wait, that didn't happen either.
You need to really work on that reading. I hate repeating myself over and over again but dude, go read Ircher's post if you won't listen to me.
You said that townies can't scumread you. You only called townies that scumread you bad at mafia, so of course nobody who wasn't scumreading you already started because of it. But you act like the scumreads on you are irrational, yet you admit that you calling people bad at mafia for doing it is more likely to make them scumread you more.
Quit acting like the repetition is one-sided as well because I don't know how many times I've had to explain to you that I wasn't defending Creature.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote:
attacking me for my push on creature looks like a defense to me. Especially when your push on me was terrible and as now basically been blown apart.You have basically lost all legs to stand on. You keep saying I am discrediting you, yet you keep lying about me. You concede that creature lied yet you still scum read me for pushing it. You have seen evidence and heard evidence that supports that this is my playstyle and is at best town and at worst null, yet you are still pushing this BS agenda. Your days are limited. It probably won't be today, but most likely day 2 you will be lynched. Though day 1 is still a possibility.
Like right here. I have told you many times that I pushed you because I did not think you were trying to genuinely figure out Creature's motives with his vote; you just assumed he was lying (and were right about it). The fact that you were right doesn't change the fact that I don't see how you got to that point without trying to discuss it. You then criticized me for not asking Creature why ahead of time and jumping to the conclusion that it was a scumread, when I should've asked him right away. You said this was a lack of me scumhunting. This is the exact reason I scumread you here. You jumped to a conclusion and it did not feel like you were scumhunting. The conclusion that you jumped to was the one that made Creature look the worst, which made me feel like you were trying to discredit him. Do you see what I'm saying here?
I think the question that gets to the nitty gritty of this issue is:
How did you know he was doing that?
My biggest issue with you about that reaction is that I can't see the how you came to that conclusion.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:You made no attempt to humor the idea that he could've had a scumread on you, and you just assumed he was lying.
Oh I never considered it? are you sure?
In post 157, Robbnva wrote:2. I did actually consider it. I asked myself would a rational person who is using logic and common sense find that post scummy? I concluded no. Nobody in their right mind should find it scummy.
OH SHIT. that is yet another lie.
what is the count? is that 3 or 4? can't tell anymore.
I've already answered this as well, but you never vocalized any doubt. You just immediately hopped to him lying. You say afterwards that you considered it, but I can only go based on the actions I saw. This is not a lie, this is exactly how it played out at the time. Just because you said later that you considered it doesn't mean I know this to be fact. Your actions at the time did not reflect this, so I am not going to take your word at face value that it happened.
This goes to the part of the definition of the lie that the speaker has to know that it is false. If you did consider it, I do not know that because you never vocalized it at the time.
0/3 lies here.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 442, DrumBeats wrote:1) This is my issue with you - you have spent all your effort into making yourself harder to lynch rather than trying to find scum to lynch. This is evident by every single one of your scumreads being within your wagon - and you scumreading every single one of those people.
If I have not been scum hunting, how do I have scum reads and each one has very different reasons for them? and how is one of them NOT on my wagon? Who was the person trying to get people discussing other things besides focusing on one topic?
Your reasoning for Ircher, Mario, and I is very similar with a few slight differences. You suspect all of us for pushing you. You've split them a little bit by saying that Ircher's 180 is sketchy and you don't like the advice he is giving people. You don't think that I am scumhunting (which in my opinion is primarily because I'm scumreading you, but that's just my opinion) and you think I'm trying to pocket Creature. Your case on Mario is tied to your case on Ircher.
You are right that you have one more scumread not on your wagon, and I apologize for forgetting that read. You push it far less than the others, so it slipped my mind. The reasoning for Former is unique, but it also still stems from Creature, just like your reads on Ircher, Mario, and I. When all of your reads go back to one event that primarily involves yourself, I don't find that to be scumhunting. It looks a lot more like you are trying to deter people from questioning your motives.
In response to your last question there, you're not the only one who's talked outside of the tunnel. We all have. The fact that all of your scumreads can be tied to that tunnel though is the part that I am suspicious of.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 180, Robbnva wrote:t's hard to move off to somebody else when the only serious discussion surrounds one topic. Don't worry I won't death tunnel but until some discussions happen about something else I'm limited. There are lots of players who need to contribute so once they do I can assess them.
^that guy is awesome. he doesn't want town to spend a majority of the day talking about a null issue. He wants to hear from the quiet people and see what they have to say and see if they add anything new to the discussion. He is super fucking awesome. he is trying to even scum hunt but can't because he is stuck defending himself over something stupid.
I get that you think you're townie. The fact that you keep having to tell people that doesn't make me feel better about you.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 454, DrumBeats wrote:You have also refused to talk to people. Please stop with the hypocritical reasoning here. At least look at your interaction with Mario and see where you are getting frustrated with it, then look back and see why I have been frustrated with you.
I can provide you examples of me interacting with creature and you. I refused to consider anything has to say in regards to reads and what not because I don't trust him. I cut off talking to you because you keep asking questions that have already been answered and you don't read things thoroughly. On top of that I think your lie count is at lie 4?
I can provide examples of you blatantly refusing to talk to Creature. Creature starts a dialog with you and on
133 you blatantly shut him down. I offer my opinions on Mario - and you blantantly shut me down in this long post I'm quoting because "you didn't ask for my opinion". You have refused to have legitimate conversations with people.
This is not a lie, and I don't even see why you would try to paint it as one as either alignment. It is so easily objectively provable - 0/4 lies.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote:I tried to get some dialog with mario, to get some idea about his thoughts of the game and he basically refused and resorted to trolling. That is in no way even close to what I did.
Could you please point this out to me? I'm looking back at both of your ISO's and I can't find this. I can find your post about it on
371 - and I found Mario's response that I could see you calling trolling on
373, but I don't actually see Mario brushing you off. Before you made that post it looked like there was a back and forth conversation going on.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote: In post 454, DrumBeats wrote:Or not please. You say you want to talk and work together but this is ridiculous. Also, could you please answer my questions in the spoiler. Especially the first one and the last one.
There is no such thing as certainty in mafia, but I am fairly confident you can not be town in this game. Your presence in this game isn't helpful. You really arent scum hunting, instead you hide behind pointless questions, you lie repeatedly, and you can't even take the time to read properly. On top of that you are still holding on to a scum read that basically everyone has moved on from and still using reasons that have been disproven. You don't want to town read me that's fine but you have absolutely nothing to use against me that says I am scum anymore. Now you vote TB which I don't really care about, but you haven't explained where this read came from. You have asked at least 2 people to provide a case on somebody so clearly you think these are important, yet you don't post one yourself? and you have the nerve to call me a hypocrite? pot meet kettle.
1) My questions are helpful to me understanding the mindset behind the players I am talking to. This helps me make reads.
2) How is holding onto a scumread that others have let go of scummy? Wouldn't it be easier for me to follow the crowd and let go of it?
3) I did explain the TB vote. Looks like you haven't been reading - which is what you're accusing me of.
454 has it. TB's 180 on you is baseless as of now, and his statement about Zach is scummy as shit. He presents a duality of "it is one of two options" but both options lead to Zach being scum, when there is a simple possible third option of Zach finding another player scummy rather than trying to derail the Ircher wagon.
4) I have made cases on all of my votes - you just don't like the reasoning, or choose to ignore them.
In post 470, Robbnva wrote:and this is all I have to say to you drum. I looked over your questions and the ones that are pertinent have already been answered. The ones that aren't I am not wasting my time, especially with the number of lies you have just been caught in.
Well you did indirectly answer the first one with your read on Former, even though he did push you a little bit, I'll give it to you since he never voted you. The second one you didn't answer, but oh well it's not the most important. The third one you did answer, so thanks. Only thing I still have outstanding here then is if you could check over what I interpreted your scumread on Ircher to be for when I looked through your ISO in
463 and a few that have popped up in this post. The most important one here was "How did you know that Creature was lying without talking to him about it?".
But yes, I can see why you don't trust me with the 0/4 lies you caught me in.
