FASHIONABLE NOC ANON MAFIA - Days 1, 2, 3.1

Tiffany does not find any problem with disagreeing or agreeing with others' points. Tiffany will stop 'piggybacking off people's arguments' (this is a total misrep by the way) when Tiffany sees something that others' don't. Such as your currently attack, misrep, and straw man of Tiffany.

prod dodge

Misrep, strawman, you can throw out all the words you read on the MafiaScum wiki as you wish, it doesn't change the fact that you're basing a good portion of your actual content on other player's reads.

247: Yes, Tiffany does agree that David's post is rather lazy, maybe irresponsible.

339: Tiffany has read Jimmy Choo's post and agrees with it that this portrayal of Bulgari makes her seem extremely two-faced and hypocritical.

346: Tiffany agrees with this post.

382: Tiffany agrees with Burberry.

473: In a more relevant context, jimmy had already outlined his argument against Bulgari, and Tiffany finds the argument very compelling.

Yes, you do make posts where you disagree with certain points, but so far you've only disagreed with a single person (Dior), whereas you've used posts from multiple others to fuel your own views of the game.

I'm sure there'd be more of you agreeing with people and using their arguments, but unfortunately ~60% of your posts are voluminous non-content.

And your point is?

Tiffany likes agreeing with people? Ok. We see lots of people like that in real life, so Tiffany has no idea what you are trying to insinuate.

My point is you're used someone else's content to develop your scumread on me and haven't had much of an original thought all game. Where I come from, this is seen as scummy.

This may seem hypocritical, but after I read this read by Bulgari

Bulgari wrote:Vera Wang's defense of Miu reminds me very strongly of MewtwoHidden's defense of Ortheore in Vanilla. Minus the abrasive attitude of course.

I decided to do an ISO of Vera Wang. I agree this could sound like someone who is scum trying to defend a town player for town credit, without actually adding anything to defend the person / analyzing the posts. I don't really think scum is dumb enough to defend other scum like that, so the only other possibility is town gut defending mafia.

In any event when I ISOd Vera Wang, I found nothing but prod dodges and lack of content, dumb posts like "GG NO RE" I know I havn't been the most active, but some content would be cool because as Bulgari pointed out that last post was...

Very Scummy

Hey Fendi, I know there's only like 2 days left, but let's try something together here.

Vote: Vera Wang

Bulgari wrote:My point is you're used someone else's content to develop your scumread

So what? This point can be said about anybody in any game, how else would someone push a lynch? You point does not prove anything.

Bulgari wrote:haven't had much of an original thought all game.

This is obviously a false statement! Tiffany does not condone you sneaking in such blatant lies in an attempt to misrepresent or attack Tiffany! Clearly a straw man argument in ant attempt to make Tiffany look bad!

Tiffany wishes to highlight that Bulgari's attack on Tiffany does not discount Jimmy Choo's argument against her, and that how Bulgari is refusing to rebut the valid argument seeks further to prove Bulgari scum.

Ah, the "so what" defense. I love it.

My point proves you're more than willing to take a backseat and let others develop their thoughts while you simply sheep. Not a very town-oriented approach. Although I will admit I exaggerated about the original thought parts, as you've been doing a great job trying to schedule tea time with the ladies.

As for the Jimmy Choo argument (superb deflection by the way), I already explained how I felt about it in 386. The punctuation argument is ridiculous and what his initial scumread was based off of. When he revises it here, it's less ridiculous but still poorly reasoned. What he calls "attacking" other players is just as easily as perceived as "calling them out on silly shit," as other players have similar things to what I said, just more eloquently and with more words.

So let's go back to my initial question, but a bit more pointed: why are you basing your current strongest scumread off of someone else's content after my initial vote of you, and what is your argument for me being scum?

I'd be fine with a Tiffany/Vera Wang lynch too, but deadline is only like 30+ hours away and Miu Miu looks as scummy as they do.

unvote
vote miu miu

Jimmy Choo wrote:@ Dior :
And bulgari to some extent

Bulgari has explained shit all and tried to cover it up with uncalled for acts of attacks on other players(the "explain?" And that "omgus you omgussed me" above)

Bulgari has yet to make a post that makes sense or points towards being town. You say she "though the wagon was garbage" but that was totally out of context and a poor attempt at shifting the views.  

Furthermore my reply to marchesa was accepting her points and expanding on then to a certain degree. There was little "assumption" in the tone you suggest there so I'm not sure where you are coming from really

You have forgotten to respond to this post. However, at this time, the post is irrelevant now, as there are more recent examples to use.

Tiffany identifies that Bulgari is trying to push another faulty argument.

My point proves you're more than willing to take a backseat and let others develop their thoughts while you simply sheep

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Your premise is that Tiffany constantly agrees with other players to develop a scum read. However, you have made a logical leap in saying that Tiffany is 'willing to take a backseat', which is obviously wrong, and 'simply sheep' which is a blatant lie. How did you jump from A to Z? There is no link between the facts (Tiffany agrees with others) and your claim(Tiffany takes a backseat and simply sheeps). Obviously, you are making blatantly wrong conclusions from the facts, while taking a logical leap in order to hide the fact. This is a scum motivated argument in order to discredit Tiffany's reasoning and Jimmy Choo's argument.

Why is the punctuation argument 'ridiculous'? Do you think you can simply sweep away someone else's argument against you like that? Why don't Tiffany just claim your current argument is ridiculous and post a one line response 'your argument is ridiculous don't bother Tiffany'? This is what you are doing in response to Choo.

Tiffany did not care about your initial vote on Tiffany . For you to claim OMGUS is just whining when it was clearly not omgus, especially when your vote was not on Tiffany at the time.

Here is the endgame: Tiffany's argument against you is that you constantly attempt to discredit Tiffany by using fallacious arguments and faulty logic, which is scummy because in reality there is no way to provide a valid argument against tiffany, as Tiffany is town. As a result , you have to manufacture false arguments as you indeed know that your arguments cannot be true.

Next, Bulgari has failed to respond to the initial argument on her, which was by Jimmy Choo. Instead of rebutting the case, Bulgari chooses to attack a player who is supporting the case, which is in no way making the initial argument any less valid. As the initial argument against Bulgari cannot be denied, it taken as acceptance and the argument is right. Hence, Jimmy Choo's claim that Bulgari is the scum, is right. Which makes Bulgari the scum

More reads

Fendi- Yeah his earlier posts and pushing Tiffany over that 3rd person business were shitty and looked scummy to me, his recent posts are much improved in terms of content, but he's really only targeted Miu and Vera, and his line of thought does still seem to follow other players. Looking for him to start commenting on other players, until then slight scum.

Givenchy- Null, inactive.

Gucci- Null, inactive.

Hermes- hmm interesting. Possible points against them are the way they overreacted imo to that Valentino post and Versace's joke (that's not claiming scum). Also, that really emotional reaction to Valentino earlier was strange. However, this does not seem too bad to me as overall they've resembled an aggressive town- very active, looking for scum all that. Too early for a proper read on the sub. Overall town though

Jimmy Choo- Obviously new, his very first substantial post reveals that by thinking to just leap straight out of RVS like that. Until he started pushing Bulgari, he was spending all of his time talking about scum tactics and how he's trying to spark discussion rather than actually scumhunting. Then the vote on Bulgari... there are some legit points there, namely avoiding giving any justification for a vote, but the rest of your reasoning is just poor, I mean getting hung up on a question mark is just dumb, and you can say that it suggests developing a read before finding the reasoning for it, which is scummy. So yeah, leaning scum.

Kate Spade- Null inactive. Meta is always pretty shaky reasoning in anon imo though.

why is miu miu quiet as more pressure is placed onto them???

Dior, you need to understand that question marks, although cannot constitute a case in itself, can be used to support a case. If you have taken high school literature, which you clearly don't, then you would understand the significance.

Anyway, due to obvious time constraints, Tiffany can only attempt to push a Bulgari lynch tomorrow. Tiffany will be fine with compromising on a Miu lynch due to the recent revelation that Miu is finchinator. However, Tiffany wishes to emphasize that Miu is only 2nd choice for tiffany.

Tiffany, I understand perfectly well what a question mark does and how it can potentially impact the tone of a post, please don't suggest otherwise. You're attempting to extract tone from a single word. Not even a full sentence, a single word, with only the preceding quote to give context and help determine tone (Hint: it doesn't to any substantial degree). Do you not see how this is a stretch?

@Tiffany:

I'm not sure how you can call my deduction faulty: you initially agreed with Jimmy Choo that I was scummy, then used his argument to develop a scumread on me (sheeping), then continued to agree with him whenever he mentioned me in a post (backseat reading). This is literally the most logical conclusion one could make from viewing your posts, lol. Besides your scumread on me, you seem hesitant to develop your own opinions on people unless others mention them first. I'll freely admit this could be an issue of timing, as we both appear to be in an awkward timezone, but as I pointed out in a previous post, this has already happened multiple times in the game and seems to be more than a coincidence.

Concerning the OMGUS, I call it as I see it: you seem to have had no problem with me and I felt as though your attack on me was predicated by my initial vote on you, which is why I called you out for it.

As for your endgame, you can't simply call yourself town and handwave my arguments on you away based solely on that, and trying to do so shows that you have little actual substance with which to debunk me. As for your insistence on using Jimmy's initial argument, I've already posted my response to it literally two posts above yours.

I will commend you however, for not breaking character. A+ job all around.

@Dior

How would Miu's flip affect your read of Fendi, if at all?

Dior wrote:Tiffany, I understand perfectly well what a question mark does and how it can potentially impact the tone of a post, please don't suggest otherwise. You're attempting to extract tone from a single word. Not even a full sentence, a single word, with only the preceding quote to give context and help determine tone (Hint: it doesn't to any substantial degree). Do you not see how this is a stretch?

You are correct. Tiffany feels relieved if you understand the significance of the question mark. Tiffany wishes to highlight Jimmy's point that Bulgari is attempting to launch a passive-aggressive attack on others. Tiffany also wishes to bring to Dior's attention Jimmy's sensitivity to punctuation, give him a quick ISO and you can see this in his second post. It is non- alignment indicative and thus should've treated as such.

Tiffany agrees that it is a stretch, hence Tiffany isn't emphasizing on Jimmy's point, but is instead emphasizing on the significance of the question mark. Tiffany hopes Dior can see the difference in Tiffany's intention.

Anyway, do take a look at the recent back and forth with Bulgari, she has launched a full fledged attack/defense in response to Tiffany's push, and please do identify Bulgari's faulty logic in her attempt to attack the player, not the case.

Reads part 3 (I originally had everyone in this post as either scum or null/slight scum lol. Obviously, I decided to scale that back a little)

Louis Vuitton- Leaning scum. Every post of his seems to be fence sitting or wishy-washy. He's really vague about his votes and motives- doesn't really give any reasoning for suspecting Miu, says Ray ban is his top scumread at one point despite saying nothing about him beyond that he's under the radar and not posting.

Marchesa- Null? An iso showed that they can provide some decent reasoning, but the majority of their posts are fluff, and though they've said a handful of good things, they haven't actually been scumhunting (I mean they haven't placed a vote or anything!)

Miu Miu- Scum. Do I have to post more about Miu? I swear I've posted enough, but w/e. Early-game fits the cautious scum archetype perfectly, took a lot of pressure to do any scumhunting, and even that wasn't very good.

Prada- Null/Slight scum. They haven't posted much, but the way they've approached the game has been extremely lazy and apathetic.

Ray-Ban- Null. They simply haven't posted enough, though it isn't really cool how they've barely commented on the game despite some pressure and now they're wagoning without any kind of commentary or reasoning (something they called Prada out on I noticed). Still, not yet enough.

Tiffany- Leaning scum. Lot of fluff posting and not a lot of scumhunting. Seems willing to agree with anyone over most things- Basically the only thing they've taken any kind of stand on is this Bulgari vote, which has seen some pretty poor reasoning, and in her more recent posts seems to be twisting words or interpreting them falsely.

Since I'm seeing an emerging trend in my reads list (a relatively high number of people who I'm tempted to read as scum), I kinda want to undo my read on Jimmy Choo, as I'm going to end up with plenty of scumreads, and I'll admit there's a decent possibility that he isn't scum due to a viable alternative explanation.

Though his play does have its share of oddities, an alternative explanation is that he is newbie town who is trying but isn't really sure how to go about it, an explanation which does fit with the 2 oddities in his play, namely the discussion of scum tactics in place of scumhunting and the reasoning on Bulgari, part of which was a huge stretch.

This will be Tiffany's last post before deadline! As Tiffany won't be online later, and there is no wagon happening in Bulgari today anyway, might as well add Tiffany's vote to the pile!

vote Miu Miu

Ladies, do stay safe during the night! Tiffany has heard that there are rapists lurking around this fashion show! Tiffany will stay vigilant!

Adios ~~~

sassafrass

Kate Spade wrote:why is miu miu quiet as more pressure is placed onto them???

Because real life is a bitch.

Gonna post more in a second

Omgus