Mafiascum.net

In post 79, Aubrey wrote:

In post 59, lucca261 wrote:

In post 35, Aubrey wrote:

In post 34, lucca261 wrote:VOTE: CommKnight

hey people, what's up?

I knew your name looked familiar. You were in that unpleasant Watchman game.

was that the one that Grey got force replaced and everybody was fighting everyone? I think I remember that. it made me quit mafia, for like, six months. so, how are ya? any reads so far?

VOTE: Cheeky

serious vote.

Yea. That was the one. Cheers to hoping this one is better.

--
as for reads, I don't have anything super sufficient yet.

I'm not overly keen on Jamie right now as everyone else is. 36, asking for a vote count after two pages in, just reads as an attempt to seem productive and concerned about the general game state. 3 scrolls & a back-space button would have given him the info he needed. His most recent post, 71, also rubs me the wrong way a bit. It makes me wonder if he is trying to figure out the site meta, so that he doesn't step on toes later, when he should just play the game as he sees fit naturally. When I transitioned to MS from my home site, I don't remember being really concerned with the site meta, and began to understand it through my own experiences.

I also don't see his vote overly towny either as everyone is saying it is. Scum know town wants to get out of RVS, so naturally they will also be looking for reasons to vote someone with stronger reasoning than RVS.

--

Chisa I like simply because they are being open & throwing out reads in 68. Haven't done a deeper read on whatever they and cheeky are currently arguing about.

In post 204, Aubrey wrote:

In post 194, Epic Fial wrote:Maybe scum are lurking weebs in this game. Another possibility is that they are posting a lot but are not weebs. So I'm going to be considering both weebs and non-weebs, and people who are lurking and people doing the opposite of that, whatever it is called. On the other hand, they might be in the middle somewhere. Nearly certain we can hit scum in one of those groups.

In post 325, Aubrey wrote:

In post 307, Jamiet99uk wrote:kinda buried in a big block of text and not directly addressing me.

That whole block of text under Lucca's quote was about you. This might be site meta differences, but just because I start talking about 1 player doesn't mean that whole post will be about one single player.

In post 308, Jamiet99uk wrote:Having re-read Awoo I no longer scumread him (not her, sorry it was the female picture). Awoo seems to be looking carefully at people's reactions which is good scumhunting play. I particularly agree with this response to Lucca261. It's egregiously scummy to want to know what people think you would do or say as scum (so you can later avoid doing or saying things that will get you scumread).

VOTE: UNVOTE until I can properly reread Lucca.

So let me get this straight. You originally scumread the slot, but that slot didn't keep your interest that much moving forward until you were pressured into expanding on your read? This is a red flag to me. If you scum-read a slot, they should hold a good amount of your attention. As the slot begins to change, shouldn't you take note of that instead of being

forced

into recap? It's stuff like this that hints artificially suspecting people to me.

In post 309, CommKnight wrote:Aubrey was the only one who really got past me.

That was a fun game. I was wondering when you'd list out your credentials.

In post 1973, Epic Fial wrote:

In post 1971, Flubbernugget wrote:Stop being coy epic

Explain the significance of the dots?

In post 1980, Epic Fial wrote:

In post 204, Aubrey wrote:

In post 194, Epic Fial wrote:Maybe scum are lurking weebs in this game. Another possibility is that they are posting a lot but are not weebs. So I'm going to be considering both weebs and non-weebs, and people who are lurking and people doing the opposite of that, whatever it is called. On the other hand, they might be in the middle somewhere. Nearly certain we can hit scum in one of those groups.

Aubrey, did you see the crumbing here?

In post 1977, Epic Fial wrote:I meant to add there that Comm and Aubrey had this buddy banter thing going on early game.

In post 1972, CommKnight wrote:Cool, Flubber is hesitating, so we found the final scum. Thanks for confirming Flubber. Sorry about suspecting you Aubrey.

In post 1987, Flubbernugget wrote:

In post 1973, Epic Fial wrote:

In post 1971, Flubbernugget wrote:Stop being coy epic

Explain the significance of the dots?

It wasn't a vote