Student Mafia IV (New/Newish Players Welcome) - Page 40

On November 28 2014 03:16 rsoultin wrote:
Mmmmm...that could just be cause he's new, the big posts.

Picking you to look into and build a case against isn't completely out to lunch with your insta-vote, though you removed it when kush decided to participate, didn't you? Damdred seems more scummy to me than you do at the moment. Not really reading Trfel as scum just because he built a case on you though.

On November 25 2014 12:46 Trfel wrote:

If I had to take a guess right now, I would guess sicklucker and Half the Sky. But I feel like it's far too early for me to confidently make reads. As the vote gets closer, I will consider more strongly who to vote for. Until then, a no lynch or a policy lynch on an inactive (kushm4sta?) seems better than trying to take a guess if it still seems unclear.

On November 25 2014 14:59 Trfel wrote:
To be fair, kushm4sta, I would like some more from you. Batsnacks wants you to participate in the thread and share your thoughts, and that seems like a fair request. You obviously read batsnacks as scum. Any reasons we haven't mentioned yet? What about the rest of the people here?

On November 26 2014 12:25 Trfel wrote:
To reiterate:

That's the problem post with the kushm4sta policy lynch for me. Yes, I'm glad that he forced kusmh4sta to the thread. However, we don't need to focus only on one afk player to bring them back into the game. We can still investigate the people here while pressuring kushm4sta to play, we don't need to sidetrack our discussions for a policy lynch.

On November 28 2014 03:24 rsoultin wrote:
True, that is contradictory, Batsnacks. I'd have to look back and see if you kept pushing kush after kush appeared to prompt that (because I honestly don't remember and context is important) but I see no problem voting someone to get them to participate. Breshke did the same thing. If you're fine with one person doing it, you should be fine with another. Or so it seems to me.

On November 28 2014 03:28 rsoultin wrote:
Would you please answer my question about HTS though? If you're still reading him as scum, was it just the "TMI" in the one sentence? Or did you just mean to say that you understand why he might be seen as scum?

And frankly I don't understand how the sentence was TMI, so if you could explain that I'd appreciate it. I'm really just trying to figure out why the big HTS push when I saw nothing alarm worthy in it. I might be missing something the rest of you aren't.

On November 25 2014 07:26 Half the Sky wrote:
because you're a baddie trying to lynch a good guy?

On November 28 2014 03:33 rsoultin wrote:
Hmm...looks like you unvoted him and voted Oats before Kush posted, actually. So your voting change wasn't really related to kush's actions at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

On November 28 2014 03:44 Half the Sky wrote:


Context please. That was a theoretical. That doesn't mean I know who anyone was. I would have had the same reaction regardless of who was voting who. When I said that, that simply means that IF (in that case) Breshke (who voted SL) WAS a bad guy, he is obviously voting someone down who was not mafia. I questioned his motive with that theoretical.

On November 28 2014 01:32 rsoultin wrote:


Damdred, I was not asking why you were questioning sicklucker. Either you've forgotten you mentioned you thought HTS was scum, or you're dodging the question. Considering I could never find your reasoning for this read, that is concerning.

@all...my main reason for my post on slam was that I don't feel he's the better lynch simply because he wasn't in the game yesterday when he didn't do anything inherently scummy in his posts and we've got so many people question two other players. In fact, you probably have more against me than you do him lol.