Mafiascum.net

That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so

VOTE: fire

In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so

VOTE: fire

While I can follow the logic that someone overeager to defend at this point is a possible scumread, I don't understand then voting the defended and not the defender.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: DogWatch

Well I've just wanted to get a wagon going honestly.

That said 51 is bad. Why would scum!dogwatch be resisting town!fire's wagon at this stage in the game?

In post 52, aronagrundy wrote:Well I've just wanted to get a wagon going honestly.

That said 51 is bad. Why would scum!dogwatch be resisting town!fire's wagon at this stage in the game?

Because it is a wagon with no substance that will dissipate and then if I ever flip it certainly doesn't look bad for him.

Also your logic is player X is scum. Player X defended player Y. So I will vote for player Y.

Do you not see the issue there?

Exactly, which is why his defense lacks substance. If it's going to dissipate anyway, is anyone really going to give him towncred for defending your wagon?

I also never said dog was scum. I've wanted to start a wagon and felt like fucking with him

In post 54, aronagrundy wrote:Exactly, which is why his defense lacks substance. If it's going to dissipate anyway, is anyone really going to give him towncred for defending your wagon?

I also never said dog was scum. I've wanted to start a wagon and felt like fucking with him

If dog isn't scum then what relevance does him defending me have? He would be uninformed. The only way you can read him defending me as me being scum is if you also read it as him being scum. Otherwise it is obviously a null tell.

You are doing things that don't make logical sense and hiding it behind a teehee attitude.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: aronagrundy

I didn't have a read on you when I voted you. But I didn't like your reaction. This is why early game wagons are fun

In post 56, aronagrundy wrote:I didn't have a read on you when I voted you. But I didn't like your reaction. This is why early game wagons are fun

I've pointed out exactly why I reacted. What you are doing doesn't logically follow the reasoning you are giving for it. Even if you want to giggle it all away as "I was only pretending".

I wasn't pretending to be looking for reactions

In post 58, aronagrundy wrote:I wasn't pretending to be looking for reactions

You don't seem to be able to argue against my point that what you were doing didn't make sense. So I am confused by your conclusion that someone reacting against dissonance is scummy.

Ok but when I said "I just wanted to start a wagon" and explained why I wanted to do so, you said you didn't believe me

51 assumes that I thought dog was scum, which i admit could be a fair interpretation of my vote. But I also explained why assuming scum!dog is opposing town!fire's wagon is shaky logic

In post 61, aronagrundy wrote:51 assumes that I thought dog was scum, which i admit could be a fair interpretation of my vote. But I also explained why assuming scum!dog is opposing town!fire's wagon is shaky logic

And I have explained why it isn't in the slightest and why any basis on a read on me starting with !scumdog should end with !scumdog. Now we are talking in circles.

In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so

VOTE: fire

this was your first explicit reason for voting fire.

In post 54, aronagrundy wrote: I also never said dog was scum. I've wanted to start a wagon and felt like fucking with him

this is the second reason you vote fire.

fire's point seems to be that neither reason logically supports your fire vote. do you disagree?

personally, i fail to see how fucking with dogwatch is a reason to vote fire.

what is your point, arona? that you don't like fire's reaction to your vote? what don't you like about it? it's possible that 60 goes into this but it's incredibly unclear.

arona is obfuscating in this conversation. but i don't know if it's intentional.

In post 58, aronagrundy wrote:I wasn't pretending to be looking for reactions

my question is riffing off this, what is the reaction from fire that you don't like?

In post 49, aronagrundy wrote:

In post 34, NorskaBlue wrote:

In post 32, aronagrundy wrote:Because like transcend is probably voting one of his suspects so the question kind of rang hollow for me and then mozamis just doesn't follow through?? I guess I just feel like it's an empty post

How's that? Transcend mentioned four people (two FoS, two tr) but only voted for one. What rings hollow about him wanting to find out the others? And what is suspicious about empty posts? I'm not saying they're good, but this early in the game, it can be a bit tricky to provide any useful content.

Well it was more of a gut feeling, but then when mozamis didn't follow through it became an empty post when it shouldn't have been.

In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so

VOTE: fire

i don't get this progression in the context of your fire vote being to fish for reactions.

were you scumreading fire at the time of 50? were you scumreading mozamis at the time of 50?

VOTE: arona

In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:

didn't I have the same? why does fires wagon bother you?

wagons are good early on. also, this game progressed out of RVS very fast which is nice.

Yours were obviously based around your silly self vote and/or the RVS anyway. Fire's occurred after discussion had begun. All I wanted was a reason behind them. If there was a compelling reason there that i had missed, id be happy to join the wagon.

Fire's 55 is spot-on. Arona's whole progression on this page is nonsensical.

VOTE: aronagrundy[/unvote]

Ugh, thanks autocorrect

VOTE: aronagrundy

In post 69, DogWatch wrote:Ugh, thanks autocorrect

VOTE: aronagrundy

This is so obvious scum.

**ignores every question asked to it**

**let me create a counter wagon to my wagon**

Basically scum who's scared of getting lynched.
Everyone pile on Dogwatch

In post 48, Shadow_step wrote:

In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:

Concerned townie much?

just clarifying, was this sarcastic?

In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**

what questions has dogwatch ignored?

No it wasn't.
It's trying to show that he's being pro town by asking a bunch of people as to why they are RVS voting Fire. Being on 3 votes is nothing. It's L-4, what's the big deal?