TL Mafia LIV - Page 45

On May 07 2012 13:55 Blazinghand wrote:


Yeah it does! You realize your actions are indefensible so you make some dirty, dirty appeal to IRL and asking for a pass. I'm not a teacher, I don't give out hall passes, you gotta earn them yourself by being useful.

And you're not.

##unvote
##vote: Nova_Terra

On May 07 2012 14:16 johnnywup wrote:
"i'm busy so you're scum"? is that what you're saying?

On May 07 2012 13:37 Kenpachi wrote:
lawl. excess mafia i guess.

been busy and decided to abuse that by making no posts to bait a scum.
gg i asked for replacement

On May 07 2012 13:43 Kenpachi wrote:
didnt even see that you voted me
you're obviously mafia rofl.

protip, you dont accuse me of being scum. This is a method only i can use (because im kenpachi. no joke thats the legitimate reason) as im like, THE EASIEST target to after by far. Mafia always call me bad/useless/scum to gain easy townie credit but through the many games i played, its a foolproof method even i doubted that finds scum majority of the time.

On May 07 2012 14:16 Nova_Terra wrote:

Lol what... I'm not dumb. I wouldn't make inexcusable actions if I was scum. And I would legitimately defend myself. I don't see any reason a scum wouldnt defend himself instead of asking to not be killed

On May 07 2012 14:33 Nova_Terra wrote:
No, as scum I would try my hardest to never get into this situation

On May 07 2012 14:05 DoYouHas wrote:
Part 1

I suppose I should start with far and away the scummiest of blubbdavid's posts and then tack on all the extras after to seal the deal.

1. This is awkwardly phrased considering SA had just said that he thinks blubb is scum.

2. Daring SA to try and lynch you? Where is this coming from? For someone who has played the "my bad, don't hold it against me" card as well as a "I give up" defense this is extremely out of character and scummy. Not only that, he states his read that SA is scum because SA doesn't want to vote for him yet which immediately makes his next statement absurd.

3. This is the part that really got me wanting to lynch blubb. Let us think about this ridiculous scenario that blubb has put forth between SA and layabout. Supposedly at this point blubb believes both SA and layabout to be scum, or at the very least highly suspicious. So in what world does it make sense that one scum(SA) is going to 'buddy' ANOTHER SCUM(laya), another scum who just happens to be under a fair bit of scrutiny atm. Even forgetting the scrutiny part it doesn't make sense. In blubb's attempt to defend against SA's claim that blubb seemed to know people's roles he slips again and gives us this buddying scenario. The only way that it can possibly make sense is if blubb KNOWS that layabout is town.

4. Didn't sheep the vote of layabout, true, but then there is this:
For someone who has been fixated on attacking others (mainly layabout) for pushing a BM lynch you were awful ready to jump on the train to secure the lynch.

---

Part 2


Seriously, obtaining information is more important than lynching scum D1 according to blubb. This is the reasoning he uses to say that BM was a bad lynch. This is just so incredibly wrong from a town POV. Lynch a lurker scum d1 you get all the info of the people fighting/pushing the lynch + the chance to get rid of a scum power + YOU JUST KILLED SCUM, CMON.



blubb quotes JW's good post on laya's behavior and then does what? Reinforce a point(s) he liked? no. Expand or provide further analysis? no. What we get is this statement, "It took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled." What purpose does this serve? This statement isn't, "I also think it took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled." or "If it took scum by surprise that Kat was modkilled then...". I think that the lack of relevance paired with the certainty on something that shouldn't have been able to go past speculation makes this likely to be a scumslip.

---

Part 3

Inconsistencies and WIFOM:


blubb calls out Katina which normally would mean that blubb would have taken note of Katina's past posts as well as be waiting for a response to this call out. Then we get this:

This is after I made my case and slOosh had switched his vote. A consistent blubb would already have been up to date on Katina and this comment would have been either been accepting, refuting, or critiquing my case instead of playing at being ignorant.

WIFOM:

There are a few more examples of each I could pull for this section, but I feel like I would just be diluting my argument.

---

TLDR: blubbdavid is scum, scumming scum

##Vote: blubbdavid

On May 06 2012 19:50 blubbdavid wrote:
I see, Blazinghand is switching cases so it looks like he doesn't sheep l10f.
--snipped--

On May 07 2012 03:27 blubbdavid wrote:
Do I truly believe that you are scum? No. Is there a high possibility that you are scum? Yes. And you dodged my question by writing three lines of that say all the same thing.

On May 07 2012 04:54 blubbdavid wrote:
SA, you didn't answer that question about layabout that has been bugging me. It's even something that makes him townier in my eyes (still scum though), and yet you are unable to build on it.

And action = vote, calling somebody scum several times and not voting is definitely NOT action. It's more like "i make the impression i am active but i better wait till a wagon forms".