Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Mastermind of Sin]

Original Roll String: 1d19

1 19-Sided Dice: (17) = 17

[Mastermind of Sin]

Vote: Zu_Faul

[Mastermind of Sin]

Your expecting me to react to a vote in the random voting stage?

You just did.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Congrats schizy =P

[Mastermind of Sin]

Kaleidopoop?

[Mastermind of Sin]

Hi.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Unvote, Vote: Toaster Strudel

Metagame policy to lynch TS in every game until I see some useful posts instead of random ranting that doesn't even contain logic.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Unvote, Vote: Toaster Strudel

Metagame policy to lynch TS in every game until I see some useful posts instead of random ranting that doesn't even contain logic.

Any player that reads the above post ought to selectively read MoS's posts in this game, and compare to mine.

I guarantee you're going to laugh.

Just to make it easier, let me post the ENTIRETY of MoS's contribution to this game (7 tiny, meaningless posts):

Original Roll String: 1d19 (STATIC)

1 19-Sided Dice: (8) = 8

Vote: Zu_Faul

Your expecting me to react to a vote in the random voting stage?

You just did.

Congrats schizy =P

Kaleidopoop?

Hi.

Unvote, Vote: Toaster Strudel

Metagame policy to lynch TS in every game until I see some useful posts instead of random ranting that doesn't even contain logic.

MoS's lack of reading the game (if he read the game he would not have dismissed my contribution so lackadaisically), combined with his own near complete lack of participation, and sudden attempt to distract from the Peers wagon leads me to believe that we might be on to something with the Peers wagon.

Also, my theory that either Jordan or Panzer may be scum with Peers, *might* be correct - and *if* it is correct, there is a strong probability that MoS would be another buddy.

Let this post serve as case in point for my meta-vote. I will continue to policy lynch someone who comes up with such ridiculous conspiracy theories left and right. We're only on page 10, for fuck's sake. There's nothing overly important going on. I don't even know what the peers wagon is about.

[Mastermind of Sin]

TS is a crackpot idiot who gets way too carried away divulging herself in ridiculous theories that are so strung out they fall apart like a house of cards if a breeze comes through. I'm more than willing to policy lynch a person like that in any game, unless I have a better suspect. And since it's only page 11 on Day 1 of a large game, that's a damn good place for my vote.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Also, it's a bit more than just a policy lynch. I don't have

fun

playing in games with people like that any more. But I have fun playing with most of the rest of you, so I'm not about to replace out. Therefore, I am also voting to eliminate the funsucker from this game. That person is TS. It's pretty simple, really. TS is not fun to play mafia with anymore. It doesn't really have anything to do with my alignment or her alignment. I just don't want to play in the same game with her.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Peers: are you just trying really hard to act casual in order to avoid your apparent "flipping out under pressure" meta? If so, you'd be much better off being useful rather than being cool.

Well, I've already partially flipped out, and it hasn't done me any good, so.

Personally? I've given my reasons for my vote... and MoS has slowly moved up the list. You don't see me voting for A.B.R. even though he's got a tendency to suck the fun out of the game, because every once in a while he actually posts something intelligent (it could be random coincidence, but heck... if there can be games where I agree with BM, anything can happen and policy lynches are bad).

That's the difference. ABR occasionally posts something intelligent.

Also, it's a bit more than just a policy lynch. I don't have

fun

playing in games with people like that any more. But I have fun playing with most of the rest of you, so I'm not about to replace out. Therefore, I am also voting to eliminate the funsucker from this game. That person is TS. It's pretty simple, really. TS is not fun to play mafia with anymore. It doesn't really have anything to do with my alignment or her alignment. I just don't want to play in the same game with her.

Although you may hate TS, this is not a protown thing to do, if we went through with it, and TS was town, we'd just waste a lynch wouldn't we?

MoS is a jester. Vig him tonight plz.

What's with the Jester obsession? Why can't MoS be a badly playing scum?

Why can't MoS be a pissed off protown?

Odd that you would limit your questioning in such a fashion that restricts me to being an antitown player only...

FoS: Jordan

Why is everyone assuming I'm a Jester? It's kinda weird that it already popped up this early in the game, just because I made a policy vote on Day 1. What's the big deal? DGB/TS is a liability to the town, so eliminating her helps us. I don't really see how this at all indicates that I am some sort of diabolical Jester trying to get lynched. And yes I know that this ridiculous matter was started by ABR and should therefore be completely disregarded. However, it

wasn't

disregarded, so I'm concerned as to why the idea was given credence.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Hmm? How is it BS, and how would I know this?

[Mastermind of Sin]

Mafia can make obviously scummy play page 5. You've played mafia, you know this. Your comments 'we are only page 8, there can't be anything serious yet', your blatant avoidance of town suspects, constant lurking and lack of contribution to the early game discussion is anti-town. I'm not saying this is scummy, else I would have voted you - I think this is moronic.

And, for the record, me and Battle Mage are the only viable policy lynches on mafiascum.

I didn't say there can't be scumtells committed. I said that there's nothing wrong with an early game policy vote. It's not like we're going to ignore the beginning of the game later. It's just that I don't have to go around pursuing every little dumb thing that happens.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Show me where she's reacted like this before.

I've given up on metagaming, actually. Do you have any case against her that involves this game and only this game?

\

Why the hell woudl you give up on metagaming? It's the most reliable way to find scum. To dismiss meta-evidence is a horrible strategic plan.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I've hardly been pushing the lynch vehemently. I made my vote, people questioned it, and I explained myself. There was nothing vehement about it.

You're just throwing around smoke and flames, Jordan.

Unvote, Vote: Jordan

[Mastermind of Sin]

I've hardly been pushing the lynch vehemently. I made my vote, people questioned it, and I explained myself. There was nothing vehement about it.

You're just throwing around smoke and flames, Jordan.

Unvote, Vote: Jordan

So, um...why, exactally, are you voting for him?

For throwing around smoke and flames. It seems like Jordan is just trying to kick up dust and cast suspicion on people, supporting whichever wagons seem the easiest to push.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Quagmire, depending on the other pieces in the puzzle, could be scum. If peers is scum, It could mean MoS is scum and TS is town. This could very well mean quag is either playing poorly or is giving MoS the benefikt of the doubt due to tenure.

Right now, that's what I see of quag, He is voting TS due to him knowing MoS for a long while. That doesn't stop im from being advantageuous scum voting for whoever in the arguement of two towns.

The biggest thing to me is peers lynch. I would like an alignment to go off of before we continue discussing MoS TS and Quag.

Since when are Quag and I friends? I find it hard for you to come to that conclusion considering the fact that Quag and I have been at personal odds for the last several months due to various issues around the forum. You and TS both seem to have come to this conclusion with no supporting evidence.

[Mastermind of Sin]

We need more pressure on Jordan.

[Mastermind of Sin]

You forgot to vote Jordan.

[Mastermind of Sin]

MOS, have you got any reason for voting me other than that I'm voting you? You're smoke and mirrors accusation was ridiculous, I unvoted Peers when he was at -2, and very lynchable, and I was the

first

person to vote for you. How the hell were you an easy wagon if nobody else was voting you???

How the hell wasn't I an easy wagon with the anti-MoS sentiment that had already been growing before you voted me. Just because people hadn't placed a vote yet doesn't change the fact that the feeling was there. Everyone was speculating about me being a Jester or scum, and you took advantage of that to try and start a wagon on me.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Because your case has no substance to it.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I've already explained it. As have other people, so I know I'm not just seeing things. If you don't get it, tough. I'm not going to go out of my way to re-explain everything just because you can't figure it out.

[Mastermind of Sin]

You already did that.

[Mastermind of Sin]

You already did that.

Yeah, I know. Just in case you missed it the first time.

Seriously, I'm voting for you because the explination you gave for your vote was illogical and apparently untrue, and your response is to...refuse to explain what you were talking about? How is that helpful?

It's neither illogical nor untrue, and I've already explained both. I see no reason to repeat myself. I'm not refusing to explain. I'm refusing to repeat.

[Mastermind of Sin]

MoS: how do you feel Jordan's play in this game compares to his usual playstyle? Have you played with him much before?

In the past, I've found Jordan to be less aggressive and more reasonable as town, in my opinion.

[Mastermind of Sin]

MoS: how do you feel Jordan's play in this game compares to his usual playstyle? Have you played with him much before?

In the past, I've found Jordan to be less aggressive and more reasonable as town, in my opinion.

The only thing he's really being aggressive about is your attempt at a policy lynch. Rather than do the hypothetical question thing again, I'll just say that I don't think it's valid to judge him based on that. I could kind of see how you think he latched onto an easy argument, but it's hardly the worst offence of the day in my opinion.

My "attempt" at a policy lynch could hardly even be called an "attempt", so it IS latching onto an easy argument. It could more correctly be categorized as a slight suggestion that I backed up through action but did not allude to any expectations of success or even

progress

.

So, you're "policy lynching" DGB based on something that happened in a different game? That dosn't seem terribly helpful.

Anyway, I move that we just keep piling votes on MOS until he starts making sense. I know he can make sense, but he often refuses to do so until he's under sufficent pressure for some reason.

I'll start making sense when there's something to make sense about.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Because your case has no substance to it.

Oh yes, my case has absolutely no substance to it whatsoever

Also, it's a bit more than just a policy lynch. I don't have

fun

playing in games with people like that any more. But I have fun playing with most of the rest of you, so I'm not about to replace out. Therefore, I am also voting to eliminate the funsucker from this game. That person is TS. It's pretty simple, really. TS is not fun to play mafia with anymore. It doesn't really have anything to do with my alignment or her alignment. I just don't want to play in the same game with her.

Although you may hate TS, this is not a protown thing to do, if we went through with it, and TS was town, we'd just waste a lynch wouldn't we?

I don't like the Jester talk at all, why can't MOS be a poorly playing scum? What makes you sure that he's a Jester? Personally, I'm suspicious of MOS being scum for pushing a policy lynch so vehemently.

That's not what I meant, I was asking them why you have to be a Jester, why don't they think you could be badly playing scum? I can still see you as town, though I admit, I find you pretty scummy, just sticking to the TS policy lynch and contributing nothing useful to the town.

I've hardly been pushing the lynch vehemently. I made my vote, people questioned it, and I explained myself. There was nothing vehement about it.

You're just throwing around smoke and flames, Jordan.

Unvote, Vote: Jordan

Nice OMGUS

You pushed it pretty damn hard from what I read.

Well, now I've explained the vote, and I didn't start the bandwagon btw, I was the 4th person on it, what made you say I started it?

MOS, have you got any reason for voting me other than that I'm voting you? You're smoke and mirrors accusation was ridiculous, I unvoted Peers when he was at -2, and very lynchable, and I was the

first

person to vote for you. How the hell were you an easy wagon if nobody else was voting you???

You just proved my point. You quoted me the entirety of your case against me, and the only reason you are trying to get me lynched is because I made a freakin' policy vote on

Day 1

,

even thought I made no effort to convince anyone to join me, and abandoned it when there was something useful for me to direct my attention to.

That's a completely bullshit case that has no substance to it whatsoever, and it IS nothing but smoke and flames.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Yeah, you made a policy vote Day 1, contributed nothing that's useful to the game, and now you've got a bullshit vote against me that's for reasons that are best described as fiction, what do you mean by smoke and mirrors? How is 1 vote a wagon? How is being the 4th vote on a wagon starting it? Answer me those please.

If you don't know what the smoke and mirrors phrase means, look it up. It's a fairly common phrase.

You're applying a different definition of "wagon" than what I used, and I've already explained this. There was a lot of support for me being a Jester or scum, and many people had expressed suspicion of me

well

before you placed your vote. The only reason I didn't have votes is because people suspected me of being a Jester more than anything else, so they didn't vote. You came along and suggested that I'm normal scum instead of Jester, and then later placed your vote to open the floodgates. It's all smoke and mirrors because you used a false dichotomy when you deflected the Jester talk, as I pointed out earlier. Your misrepresentation regarding me is why you are scum.

What does your last question refer to? I don't recall saying anything about a 4th vote on a wagon. Although now that you ask that question, you should already know the answer. It's easy to be the 4th vote and start a wagon, if you're the one who presents the case that sets off their wagon. The location of your vote is NOT an indicator of your relationship to a wagon. Your other actions matter even more than your vote, so the implication that everything is dependent on when you voted is another illogical misdirection from you.

[Mastermind of Sin]

What defense are you talking about?

And I'm voting Jordan

because he doesn't have a case against me

. You cannot in any logical manner conclude that I am scum because I policy-voted someone on Day 1 of a game. You have yet to address the fact that he doesn't have a good

reason

to have voted me in the first place.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm scum for saying you're not a Jester? Uh huh.

Do I really have to spell this out for you again? How thick are you? You're scum for presenting a false set of choices when you said I was not a Jester, by implying that the only choices were for me to be scum OR jester, as if being town was not an option.

What does your last question refer to? I don't recall saying anything about a 4th vote on a wagon. Although now that you ask that question, you should already know the answer. It's easy to be the 4th vote and start a wagon, if you're the one who presents the case that sets off their wagon. The location of your vote is NOT an indicator of your relationship to a wagon. Your other actions matter even more than your vote, so the implication that everything is dependent on when you voted is another illogical misdirection from you.

Maybe, but the post where I voted Peers was

Unvote Vote: Peers

So, that pretty much shoots that theory out of the water.

4th vote is jumping on a wagon, which is what I accused you of. So how does you being the fourth vote shoot my theory out of the water again?

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm scum for saying you're not a Jester? Uh huh.

Do I really have to spell this out for you again? How thick are you? You're scum for presenting a false set of choices when you said I was not a Jester, by implying that the only choices were for me to be scum OR jester, as if being town was not an option.

Thanks for the compliment,

You're taking my words too literally, when people accuse someone of being a Jester, it's because they see them as being deliberatly scummy, and I'm asking them "Why can't they be scum playing badly?", rather than saying "Why can't they be badly playing scum/town?", if they see them as being scummy enough to ask if they're a Jester, they're unlikely to see them as town, so I just don't bother and keep the question simple. That's all.

Hmm, I can accept this, for now.

Unvote

What does your last question refer to? I don't recall saying anything about a 4th vote on a wagon. Although now that you ask that question, you should already know the answer. It's easy to be the 4th vote and start a wagon, if you're the one who presents the case that sets off their wagon. The location of your vote is NOT an indicator of your relationship to a wagon. Your other actions matter even more than your vote, so the implication that everything is dependent on when you voted is another illogical misdirection from you.

Maybe, but the post where I voted Peers was

Unvote Vote: Peers

So, that pretty much shoots that theory out of the water.

4th vote is jumping on a wagon, which is what I accused you of. So how does you being the fourth vote shoot my theory out of the water again?

Ah I see, I misunderstood, I thought you brought up somewhere that I started the wagon, I must have misread somewhere.

At least you're willing to admit that there was a misunderstanding here. Your little buddy TS decided that she should attack everything I say even if my statements are backed up by facts and not actually wrong, as she implied. Seems a little excessive to me.

Vote: Toaster Strudel

Who's blatantly incorrect now?

But is jumping on a wagon on Page 3 that scummy? In most games, there are early wagons to get the game started, and people do jump on those wagons to put pressure on people, I thought Peers was pressure-worthy, so I voted him.

The fact that you'd done it multiple times made it worth my first serious vote, and I didn't really like your responses afterwards.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I can see where the wagon is coming from, but I agree with hasgdfas, lynching Quag would essentially be a random lynch.

I'm keeping my vote on MOS, I still don't like how he OMGUSed me and tried to pressure and insult me into unvoting him, rather than try to fight back against my arguments with a decent argument.

I've responded to all of your arguments. The entirety of your case against me is that I voted for Toaster Strudel and declared it a policy vote, and the voted for you. I've responded to both. It's you that has yet to make a decent argument. You have given no explanation for

why

me policy-voting TS on Day 1 makes me scum for *any* reason. If you can give me a reason why I'd do this as scum instead of town, I'll respond to it.

[Mastermind of Sin]

This gives us an advantage because he's playing as a townie.

He is not playing as a townie, he is playing as Quagmire, that is, he is completely useless.

Are you even paying attention, hasdgfas? He's pulled that "I didn't read my role PM" in another game, and he was scum. When Quagmire does that, it becomes a scumtell.

Who doesn't read their role PM with much anticipation? It doesn't make any sense, it's not believable, and, I'll say it again, he does that as scum.

This is perhaps the worst argument I have ever seen. This argument shames BM, seriously. But that's besides the point. I'll cut the ad hom out of the important stuff below:

In the only other game where Quag announced that he hadn't read his role PM, he *was* scum. But what TS conveniently forgot to mention is that in that other game, the mechanics could seriously benefit someone who could survive Day 1, since several protown people could die before Quag ever "read" his role pm. In that case, it makes sense for a scum to try saying they haven't read their role pm. However, in this game, that incentive is not there. There is no reason for scum to claim that they haven't read their role pm on Day 1. He's going to know his role tonight, so we haven't really lost much by him not knowing his role today. Since there is no benefit for Quag-scum to act this way, the benefits from his move are gained for once. In the other game where he pulled this, the dangers to the town far outweighed the benefits. However, in this game, not reading his role pm *does* allow Quagmire to objectively analyze people and call out scum. I don't agree with this strategy as I think it goes against the spirit of the game, but I there is NO reason for Quagmire to do this as scum. The only logical explanation is that he actually hadn't read his role pm, and to assert otherwise is just being opportunistic and illogical.

[Mastermind of Sin]

MoS, why aren't you policy lynching Quagy ? He is a way better policy.

I'm not policy lynching

anyone

.

[Mastermind of Sin]

This gives us an advantage because he's playing as a townie.

He is not playing as a townie, he is playing as Quagmire, that is, he is completely useless.

Are you even paying attention, hasdgfas? He's pulled that "I didn't read my role PM" in another game, and he was scum. When Quagmire does that, it becomes a scumtell.

Who doesn't read their role PM with much anticipation? It doesn't make any sense, it's not believable, and, I'll say it again, he does that as scum.

This is perhaps the worst argument I have ever seen. This argument shames BM, seriously.

Eh? How is that in any way my fault?
Has Quag read his role yet at least?

BM

LMFAO

[Mastermind of Sin]

Everyone voting Quagmire needs to unvote or present a case better than "he said he hadn't looked at his role pm, he could be lying!"

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'd rather lynch someone who is scum than someone who is useless for Day 1. Considering that there are actually people who seem like scum right now, we're better off lynching then than Quagmire.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm voting scum right now.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'd rather lynch someone who is scum than someone who is useless for Day 1. Considering that there are actually people who seem like scum right now, we're better off lynching then than Quagmire.

I'm not so sure. I find it hard to see a mentality for Quag's play atm that falls in the protown category. If he doesnt want to play the game, Day 1 is the best time to get rid of him, as it also gains us info.

If we dont see anyone really standing out as scummy by the end of the day, i'm happy to just lynch him and be done with it.

BM

How can you assign an alignment to his mentality at all? The base assumption is that he hasn't read his role pm. Therefore, he doesn't know if he is protown or scum yet, so you obviously cannot make the assumption that he is scum OR town.

Everyone in the town would rather lynch scum than someone who is useless; that's the game. But in this case, nobody can agree just who seems scummy. At least, no more than a few people can agree. Quag is the first person the whole town has really gotten together on, to push to the point of hammering. It's day 1, we don't have much to go on and Quag sent up a huge signal fire to distract us.

I'd rather continue discussing things and come up with more suspects then decide Quagmire is a good compromise vote just because we can't decide on anyone else. The town has gotten together on Quagmire for no good reason. Just because they got together doesn't make it justified or good play.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Sikario, why attack Has and not myself? I agree with Has's stance about Quagmire. Pursuing him today is NOT useful to the town in any way. This setup has

NO

incentive for Quagmire to pull a stunt like this as scum, so we'd only be getting lucky if he died and came up scum. Given that he has a much higher probability of being town than scum, we're taking a crapshoot in the dark here just because we don't like that he didn't read his role pm. It's a bullshit justification for people trying to push a bad wagon on Day 1. And you trying to set up a 1-2 lynch on Quag and Has doesn't make it any better.

[Mastermind of Sin]

God help me, ABR is making perfect sense to me.

unvote

Vote: hasdgfas

FoS: Peers

ABR is making less sense than usual in this game.

Sikario, why attack Has and not myself? I agree with Has's stance about Quagmire.

Pursuing him today is NOT useful to the town in any way. This setup has

NO

incentive for Quagmire to pull a stunt like this as scum, so we'd only be getting lucky if he died and came up scum

. Given that he has a much higher probability of being town than scum, we're taking a crapshoot in the dark here just because we don't like that he didn't read his role pm. It's a bullshit justification for people trying to push a bad wagon on Day 1. And you trying to set up a 1-2 lynch on Quag and Has doesn't make it any better.

•

If this makes sense to you, then that's good and I appreciate your input, but it doesn't make sense to me; however, I don't think I'm still voting Quag cuz I stood down...I think. If I haven't, I'll go back and check.

If that statement doesn't make sense to you, clearly you believe that Quagmire has something to gain by doing this as scum. What do you believe Quagmire, if he's scum, is trying to accomplish by claiming not to have read his role pm on Day 1?

[Mastermind of Sin]

Vote Count, please?

[Mastermind of Sin]

The defense objects to this line of questioning on the grounds that the witness has introduced irrelevant evidence to this case. The prosecution is not attempting to charge ABR with child molestation. The crimes we are attempting to discern here are plotting the murder of other members of the town. As a result, the defense moves that this evidence be dismissed and stricken from the record.

[Mastermind of Sin]

We're null until proven either. Duh.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I don't find TS particularly scummy, and I think she's only been brought under the spotlight by MoS and Quagmire's policy crap. She also has a similar opinion of Peers to mine. Hence, I am unlikely to lynch her even (especially) in her absence.

This has all the hallmarks of a classic Day 1 "we're bored, let's lynch a lurker" wagon. Get TS replaced if you must, don't lynch her just to make the decision easier.

I'm not voting TS based on policy.

[Mastermind of Sin]

For fuck's sake, how many times do I have to say that I'm not policy voting for you to get it through your head.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Jordan, did you fucking miss the long period of time where I

unvoted TS and voted you because I wasn't going to policy lynch her

??? Did you also miss the part where I made a case against her and revoted for completely separate reasons that had nothing to do with a policy lynch?

I AM NOT VOTING TOASTER STRUDEL BASED ON ANY SORT OF POLICY OR OUT OF GAME INFLUENCE. I AM NOT DOING THIS IN

ANY

OF MY GAMES WITH HER, NOR AM/WILL I DO IT TO HER ALTERNATE ACCOUNT, DRIPPINGGOOFBALL

Get that through your fucking head.

[Mastermind of Sin]

And you two should get castrated for blatant stupidity in those last two posts. But none of us are going to get our wish, are we?

[Mastermind of Sin]

[quote="Toaster Strudel"]
(1) Quag's play is irrational, harmful, and to some extent personality-based, and really dumb. Plus, it's the kind of stunt he pulled as scum.[/quote]

The irony is killing me.

[quote="Toaster Strudel"][quote="Peers"][quote="Toaster Strudel"]Why are you totally ignoring Yosarian2 and hasdfas, by the by?[/quote]Because Yosarian's responded to every attack you've launched on him, [/quote]He has not... not by a long shot.[/quote]

Looks pretty thorough to me. You're building a house of cards, and Yosarian came along with an aerosol can and blew it apart. You should use glue next time.

[quote="Toaster Strudel"]Don't forget that the two players that started this game with a policy vote on me (MoS and Quagmire) are the only two players that are still voting for me. Therefore, their continued denial of said policy vote is bound to be met with some skepticism, and counter-reactions such as KaleiÐoscøpe's.[/quote]

I would like to point out to everyone that Toaster Strudel knows very well that any policy votes I had against her have been long since discontinued. This matter is settled and has nothing to do with this game. Any further discussion of this matter by me will be held in private or with Mith as an audience. I will make no more mention of it within this thread. Her continual mention of it merely shows that she wishes to introduce further irrationality into the thread and obfuscate the case against her with a screen of emotional bullshit.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Unvote, Vote: Kscope

[Mastermind of Sin]

Interesting vote, MoS. For many reasons.

There are 6 votes for Quagmire, 3 for Peers, and 3 for Kscope. Let's suppose you strategically decided to give steam to a wagon that competes with Quagmire's wagon, to indirectly protect Quagmire maybe, you'd switch your vote to either Peers or Kscope.

You voted for Kscope for no reason.
You didn't vote for Peers. You voted for Kscope.
See, I noticed.

Let's look at your relationship with Kscope:

This is the first time you mention Kscope in the game, not counting the one time you made fun of a typo of his name. An unsupported vote.

Let's look at your relationship with Peers:

Early in the game, you jumped on JordanA24 for putting (agack!) a FOURTH vote on Peers, and you voted for JordanA24, and accused him of throwing smoke and flames.

You yourself did once find Peers worthy of an FOS: FOS of Peers

Earlier in the game, I posted this crazy theory:

MoS's lack of reading the game (if he read the game he would not have dismissed my contribution so lackadaisically), combined with his own near complete lack of participation, and sudden attempt to distract from the Peers wagon leads me to believe that we might be on to something with the Peers wagon.

You said it was a ridiculous theory. And yes, it might have been premature. But isn't it strange that, although you saw fit to FOS Peers, you twice made moves that might save his skin.

And you've protected Quagmire, too.

Just pointing it out for posterity, because I want to be a genius when Quagmire, MoS, hasdagas, Yosarian2 and Peers come up scum!

No, I'm not indirectly protecting Quagmire. I'm more than willing to state that this town would be idiotic to lynch Quagmire today. The wagon against him shows a complete lack of reasonable actions and logic.

My vote on Kscope is based on the fact that he opportunistically tried to start the wagon against me based on the overall feeling he was getting of the town's opinion of me. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

A little look at some of MoS's posts.

Unvote, Vote: Toaster Strudel

Metagame policy to lynch TS in every game until I see some useful posts instead of random ranting that doesn't even contain logic.

So you're policy lynching her?

TS is a crackpot idiot who gets way too carried away divulging herself in ridiculous theories that are so strung out they fall apart like a house of cards if a breeze comes through. I'm more than willing to policy lynch a person like that in any game, unless I have a better suspect. And since it's only page 11 on Day 1 of a large game, that's a damn good place for my vote.

So she plays a bit differently than others. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It can be fun sometimes. Just because you don't like someone's playstyle doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the site.

MoS, why aren't you policy lynching Quagy ? He is a way better policy.

I'm not policy lynching

anyone

.

You said you were earlier

For fuck's sake, how many times do I have to say that I'm not policy voting for you to get it through your head.

It will never be enough after the post you made where you said you were policy lynching TS.

Take what you will from these posts. Personally, I'm not a big fan of them. You're policy lynching TS, but you're not? You're voting kscope why? It looks like OMGUS to me. That deserves, at the very least, a

FoS

A closer look at Peers hopefully coming soon.

You're a victim of selective reading. Had you actually read the entirety of my posts, you would not have come to such a clearly erroneous conclusion.

After the first two posts you quoted, I made this post.

I've hardly been pushing the lynch vehemently. I made my vote, people questioned it, and I explained myself. There was nothing vehement about it.

You're just throwing around smoke and flames, Jordan.

Unvote, Vote: Jordan

This is clearly the end of any voting spree against Toaster Strudel, because I'm pursuing a real case now.

Then I made this post:

I'm scum for saying you're not a Jester? Uh huh.

Do I really have to spell this out for you again? How thick are you? You're scum for presenting a false set of choices when you said I was not a Jester, by implying that the only choices were for me to be scum OR jester, as if being town was not an option.

Thanks for the compliment,

You're taking my words too literally, when people accuse someone of being a Jester, it's because they see them as being deliberatly scummy, and I'm asking them "Why can't they be scum playing badly?", rather than saying "Why can't they be badly playing scum/town?", if they see them as being scummy enough to ask if they're a Jester, they're unlikely to see them as town, so I just don't bother and keep the question simple. That's all.

Hmm, I can accept this, for now.

Unvote

What does your last question refer to? I don't recall saying anything about a 4th vote on a wagon. Although now that you ask that question, you should already know the answer. It's easy to be the 4th vote and start a wagon, if you're the one who presents the case that sets off their wagon. The location of your vote is NOT an indicator of your relationship to a wagon. Your other actions matter even more than your vote, so the implication that everything is dependent on when you voted is another illogical misdirection from you.

Maybe, but the post where I voted Peers was

Unvote Vote: Peers

So, that pretty much shoots that theory out of the water.

4th vote is jumping on a wagon, which is what I accused you of. So how does you being the fourth vote shoot my theory out of the water again?

Ah I see, I misunderstood, I thought you brought up somewhere that I started the wagon, I must have misread somewhere.

At least you're willing to admit that there was a misunderstanding here. Your little buddy TS decided that she should attack everything I say even if my statements are backed up by facts and not actually wrong, as she implied. Seems a little excessive to me.

Vote: Toaster Strudel

Who's blatantly incorrect now?

But is jumping on a wagon on Page 3 that scummy? In most games, there are early wagons to get the game started, and people do jump on those wagons to put pressure on people, I thought Peers was pressure-worthy, so I voted him.

The fact that you'd done it multiple times made it worth my first serious vote, and I didn't really like your responses afterwards.

Clearly, I revoted Toaster Strudel in response to something she had done that was scum, not because of any supposed policy vote I made before I got serious in this game. In fact, you can tell from the end of this post that my vote on Jordan was my first serious vote of the game, which directly implies that I wasn't serious about policy voting TS. Since I wasn't serious about it, there's no reason for me to continue it randomly. The conclusion that I would do that in completely irrational. There is no advantage to stating that I am policy voting TS if I am scum.

[Mastermind of Sin]

@MoS: When you state that you are making a policy vote, that is what people remember. Voting for someone else for a real case, then getting back on to TS for a "real case" does not stick in people's minds, because we don't know whether that "real vote" is based on something that's actually there or if you're trying to just find something on that person so that they can be lynched. Even if it's a real case, there will still be that nagging voice in the back of our minds saying "Is this actually scummy, or is this still because of the policy vote?"
That's why there shouldn't be policy votes. It's similar to the boy who cried wolf. People won't believe you later, even if you really do have a real case on that person.

If I was serious about trying to "trick" you all into lynching TS by posting a fake "real case", why would I have announced that I had a policy vote at all in the first place? It seems counterintuitive towards completing the supposed objectives that you are ascribing to me. What you're saying is that I'm trying to sneak my vote in behind a false case so that you don't know I'm policy voting, AND that at the same time I was willing to tell you that I was making a policy vote early in the game. Those two actions contradict each other.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Mastermind of Sin:

How do you feel about Quagmire joining you in your policy lynch, and quoting from another game in which he apparently also joined you there?

Quagmire is obviously being juvenile as usual. *shrug* Doesn't make him scum any more than not reading his role pm does.

Do you still feel your original "policy lynch" vote was justified for the reasons you gave?

I never felt my "policy lynch" vote was justified. Isn't that obvious by now. All the clues are there. I voted her early on Day 1 and abandoned it as soon as I had a case on someone else, later declaring that as my first "serious" vote of the game. If I felt my "policy lynch" vote was justified, I would have pursued it more.

Do you agree with policy lynches in general of players who are unhelpful and make the game less fun?

No, which is why I wasn't serious about it.

Are you generally in favour of other kinds of policy lynches?

No.

Do you now feel it was a mistake to try to "policy lynch" Toaster Strudel near the start of the game?

No. The point of the "policy lynch" was to get her attention. I was hoping that by taking action like that, even though it wasn't a serious vote, it would clue her in as to the detriment her playstyle has upon the game in general. I was hoping that she would take it as a hint and at least *try* to reevaluate her own playstyle so that the town could have a better chance of winning. She prides herself on "frustrating" scum, but I don't think she realizes how much

more

frustrating she is to a protown player.

MoS will never, ever, admit to being wrong about anything.

MoS was not policy voting me because I am "unhelpful and make the game less fun." I can't say the real reason why he's policy voting, but I do know what it is. It would ruin another game that is ongoing if I were to reveal his true motive.

I *think* I know what TS is referring to, but she's unequivocally wrong in her assumptions. The problem is, she assumes that I have some sort of agenda in one game that affects my play in another game. I severely frown upon basing my actions in on game upon something I'm trying to accomplish in another game, whether the agenda is protown or antitown. TS obviously doesn't know me well enough, because she thinks I don't have enough integrity to keep from doing that. My "policy vote" on TS/DGB occured in two games, and two games only. Neither of those actions were based upon an agenda in the other game.

If he was policy voting players that are unhelpful and make the game less fun, why isn't he policy voting Quagmire?

Because Quagmire *knows* that he's making the game less fun for people. He does it on purpose for his own enjoyment. He's incorrigible. However, I have a much higher opinion of your intelligence and your maturity than I do with Quagmire, so it was worth the effort to try and get your attention, since you obviously were unaware of the effect of your playstyle.

Blanket of Suspicion (BoS)

on all players that defend Quagmire, whose behavior in this game is absolutely indefensible. Either they are protecting a buddy, or they know it's a mislynch. Under the blanket: YagamiLight, MoS, Peers, Yosarian2, and hasdagas (though hasdagas' recent behavior makes me less confident that he might be scum).

Quagmire's behavior is unassailable, you mean. There is no adequate attack that paints him as scum. There is no reasonable agenda he could be trying to accomplish through his actions today.

[Mastermind of Sin]

IH, I got all my angry out during my policy vote of TS. I don't have a reason to be angry anymore, and it doesn't really do any good. I'm keeping my exasperation bottled up. This is something that's happening in most of my games, actually. It's a playstyle change, not something only happening in this game. I'm trying to minimize my lapses into angriness, so that I can be a more effective and rational player. Some people are making it really hard to do that, though.

[Mastermind of Sin]

P.S. - I've also come to the realization that TS is in fact worse than Quagmire, and can't be saved, so I'm not going to expend the emotional energy trying to help her. Sorry, but my helpfulness only goes so far. She's clearly beyond my reach.

[Mastermind of Sin]

That was a nice attempt on TS to completely misrepresent what Yosarian2 said. Just about par for the course, though, eh?

He ain't going to claim, so we might as well lynch or deadline lynch him. Either that or we ignore quagmire completely, but support for another wagon will be even more difficult.

That's only because everyone is getting way too hung up on the Quagmire issue. If you just step back and take your blinders off, it's not that hard. Quagmire, whether or not he has read his role pm, will have to read it tonight, and he'll be acting with full knowledge of his alignment. He's playing like a neutral now, because he IS hedging his bets, but in this game, there is nothing he can really take advantage of as a result of this action. Sure, we can't read him Day 1, but well be able to read him after that. It's not like lynching him will make us able to better read his actions. All you're doing is saying, "oh well, he's making it so we can't read his actions, we might as well lynch him instead of actually hunting scum." That's bullshit.

[Mastermind of Sin]

The quote that's currently troubling me is this, Yosarian:

Sorry, but...are you stupid?

Why in the world would I do that if I'm scum

, knowing that I'll be getting the blunt of all of the negative attention in the world? If I was down, why would I try to distract the town from anything?

I had been more or less default-assuming, previous to this, that Quagmire hadn't read his role PM. Yet right there he says, "Why in the world would I do that if I'm scum", which is supposedly information he wouldn't have had yet when he did it. So why word it like that? The quote above seems to try to say (paraphrased) "I knew I was not scum when I claimed that I didn't know my alignment." Which means something there is a lie.

Peers: I do not think TS was seriously accusing Ramp or myself of being scum.

I think you're reaching here. The more obvious assumption is that the reply was subliminally based off the fact that the people attacking him assumed he was lying about not reading his role pm. When you look at it from that point of view, his reply makes perfect sense. The fact that you are stretching to try and fit everything he does into a negative light does not make me feel better about your attacks on him.

[Mastermind of Sin]

The argument that Quagmire is scum here because he was scum in the only other game where he announced he hadn't read his role pm is as

logically flawed

, if not more, as the argument (not used in this game, but many of you have seen it used in other games) that I'm scum in games where I defend ZONEACE against playstyle persecution because I wasquag scum in the only completed game where I defended ZONEACE.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Scum would definitely be motivated to push the Quag wagon (easy lynch especially with TS tunneling like this)

There's no such thing as an easy lynch in this game.

46 pages, 23 wagons, Day 1.

Look at Mafia 69
63 page,

Day 7

Long days can be productive if they aren't clogged up by inane tunnel-vision attacks on people whose alignment can clearly not be determined that day. I was in a Mini with a 45 page Day 1, and I caught 3 scum that day. It's all about what you do with the time you use. This town, or more specifically, you, TS, are frittering away the pages with useless chatter that only serves to distract the town away from finding scum. One could almost make the connection that you are purposefully pursuing this crusade against Quagmire to keep the town from actually finding scum today.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Who besides Peers?
MoS is the only one that I feel quite happy about saying is scum.

And yet you

still

haven't presented a reasonable case for me to be scum. Funny that you are the most confident about me being scum without having a real case against me yet. Perhaps you'd like to amend that oversight, or do you just want to confirm the fact that you're throwing baseless accusations at me?

Besides him, the ones that I'm leaning scum on are Panzer, schis, and kscope. I thought Quag was town and the reasons for voting him were idiotic, but TS pointed out that Quag revealing that he hadn't read his role PM when he did was completely unnecessary, and I've been looking more closely at him. I'm not nearly as confident in him being town as I was before. I think he's possible, but slightly more unlikely than some of the others.

Not reading his role pm at all was completely unnecessary, too. Does that make him scum? I think not.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I don't read as much into Jordan's vote as you do, because I only replaced into this game recently, and I'm already tired of the argument between Toaster Strudel, MoS and Quagmire. I can't imagine what that would be like for people who have been here and active for the whole thing.

You have

no

idea...

[Mastermind of Sin]

... holy crap. TS might just be right.

Unvote
Vote: MoS

No, not voting for Kscope. I'm not convinced on him. MoS, however, is either scum... or being expertly set up by the scum.

And for those of you voting for me who aren't scum, I'd like to remind you that voting for me could be a very bad thing.

Uhh, Peers. Why don't you actually pay attention instead of listening to Toaster "National Enquirer" Strudel? Panzer pretty much admitted that there wasn't a case against me, and that he had no idea why he was voting me. This happened

before

TS voted me. So his unvote was merely a logical conclusion of there being no case against me. If you buy into all this conspiracy theory shit, the logical conclusion is that TS voted me to set me up for the "pattern" she suddenly discovered, since it was obvious Panzer would unvote me in the near future. So if you buy into this pattern shifting crap, you should vote TS, not me.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm quoting this post because Bookitty has obviously not read it, since she repeats a bunch of things that I already answered in this quote.

Mastermind of Sin:

How do you feel about Quagmire joining you in your policy lynch, and quoting from another game in which he apparently also joined you there?

Quagmire is obviously being juvenile as usual. *shrug* Doesn't make him scum any more than not reading his role pm does.

Do you still feel your original "policy lynch" vote was justified for the reasons you gave?

I never felt my "policy lynch" vote was justified. Isn't that obvious by now. All the clues are there. I voted her early on Day 1 and abandoned it as soon as I had a case on someone else, later declaring that as my first "serious" vote of the game. If I felt my "policy lynch" vote was justified, I would have pursued it more.

Do you agree with policy lynches in general of players who are unhelpful and make the game less fun?

No, which is why I wasn't serious about it.

Are you generally in favour of other kinds of policy lynches?

No.

Do you now feel it was a mistake to try to "policy lynch" Toaster Strudel near the start of the game?

No. The point of the "policy lynch" was to get her attention. I was hoping that by taking action like that, even though it wasn't a serious vote, it would clue her in as to the detriment her playstyle has upon the game in general. I was hoping that she would take it as a hint and at least *try* to reevaluate her own playstyle so that the town could have a better chance of winning. She prides herself on "frustrating" scum, but I don't think she realizes how much

more

frustrating she is to a protown player.

MoS will never, ever, admit to being wrong about anything.

MoS was not policy voting me because I am "unhelpful and make the game less fun." I can't say the real reason why he's policy voting, but I do know what it is. It would ruin another game that is ongoing if I were to reveal his true motive.

I *think* I know what TS is referring to, but she's unequivocally wrong in her assumptions. The problem is, she assumes that I have some sort of agenda in one game that affects my play in another game. I severely frown upon basing my actions in on game upon something I'm trying to accomplish in another game, whether the agenda is protown or antitown. TS obviously doesn't know me well enough, because she thinks I don't have enough integrity to keep from doing that. My "policy vote" on TS/DGB occured in two games, and two games only. Neither of those actions were based upon an agenda in the other game.

Some thoughts on the game so far:

I understand Toaster Strudel's hostility. I do think MoS's original policy vote was unfair, and unjustified, regardless of what other games are ongoing. Quagmire's joining in that policy vote was also apparently based on personal hostility and not on alignment.

I completely agree with you. My policy vote was unjustified, and I

already said that

. However, I've already made peace with TS regarding any out-of-game influences that may have affected either of us in this game. What I've done in other games is not relevant to my "policy vote" in this game.

MoS has a recurring pattern of defending certain players who have extremely scummy playstyles. ZONEACE springs to mind, and I think a similar thing is going on here with Quagmire. I find this scummy, but in MoS's case it may well be a nulltell. I simply don't know. That said, this:

Also, it's a bit more than just a policy lynch. I don't have fun playing in games with people like that any more. But I have fun playing with most of the rest of you, so I'm not about to replace out. Therefore, I am also voting to eliminate the funsucker from this game.

is WAY over the line. I could make similar arguments in this game for lynching Quagmire, and in other games for lynching ZONEACE and other people as well, people that MoS defends tooth and nail. Alignment DOES matter. I happen to have fun playing with Toaster Strudel (at least when she's not being baited and provoked and made angry every second). So just because YOU don't have fun playing with her doesn't have anything to do with her alignment. If other people voted for ZONEACE because he's abusive and he isn't any fun to play with (both things I find to be true) then you'd be screaming bloody murder about how only his ALIGNMENT matters. So that's a pretty hypocritical argument, in my view.

How ironic. You complain about TS being baited and provoked and made angry every second, yet you persist in baiting, provoking, and making me angry just as much as anyone is doing with TS. What makes her qualify for special treatment? You aren't the only one doing this, nor the worst offender, but I don't see you complaining about people doing it to me, either. I'm trying to be part of the solution, but you're being part of the problem, as is TS. She is trying to continue this trend of vendetta voting instead of ending it so that we can have a game that's free of personal hostility. I do not hold any hostility towards TS. I just want to find scum.

There was no consensus for lynching Quagmire. A consensus can't be forced. I think Toaster Strudel is angry, and I would be too in her place. I think the behaviours exhibited by MoS and Quagmire toward her are horrendous, and that it is very difficult to get past that fact. But Mafia is a game not just of finding scum, but of building consensuses, and as long as some of the players are playing with personal hostility not related to alignment, it's more difficult for ANYTHING to get done.

Again, I'm trying to be part of the solution. I ceased being part of the problem by

page 14

, and we're already on page 50. I am not the one persisting in making this a problem. The people responsible for that are Quagmire and TS, so don't try to unload this on me.

MoS, did you expect Quagmire to jump on your policy vote and try to lynch TS? Did you approve of that once it happened? Do you regret any of the statements you made in that regard?

No, No, No. I've already answered this, though.

The same is true for MoS. His behavior with Quagmire fits more under the category of scum than town just like Yosarian's - again regarless of Quagmire's alignment.

Explain this. This is nothing more than an unfounded conclusion. What evidence points to me being more likely to do this as scum than town? Do you have a meta read on me?

[Mastermind of Sin]

How ironic. You complain about TS being baited and provoked and made angry every second, yet you persist in baiting, provoking, and making me angry just as much as anyone is doing with TS.

Please show where Bookitty is "baiting" and "provoking" you. You may or may not agree with her points, but Bookitty is a cool cucumber and is not baiting or provoking anyone.

She is very much provoking me by persisting seemingly serious consideration that I would actually continue policy voting you this far into the game. I'm being baited into getting angry, which I've already done, and I've considered replacing out of this game entirely on numerous occasions, just because of the sheer ridiculousness of it all. She may do it in a calm manner, but she is very much provoking me.

as is TS. She is trying to continue this trend of vendetta voting instead of ending it [...]

No hostility meant, MoS, but you're scum in this game.

Then have some logic for it instead of just shouting randomly about Quagmire. I'm not the only person who thinks lynching Quagmire is a retarded idea, and we can't all be scum. Just because I'm not willing to lynch him *today* does not make me scum.

The same is true for MoS. His behavior with Quagmire fits more under the category of scum than town just like Yosarian's - again regarless of Quagmire's alignment.

Explain this. This is nothing more than an unfounded conclusion. What evidence points to me being more likely to do this as scum than town? Do you have a meta read on me?

Simple. For you to defend boneheaded play such as Quagmire's requires you to be (1) scum knowing that Quag is town or (2) defending your buddy.

unvote, vote: MoS

You can strike #2. For someone who claims to have a good meta on me, you should know that #2 is impossible.

[TS-logic]Also, gotta love how everyone tried to revive the Quagmire wagon after it became apparent Kscope was close to being lynched. I smell scumbuddies protecting him. Vote stays.[/TS-logic]

[Mastermind of Sin]

She is very much provoking me by persisting seemingly serious consideration that I would actually continue policy voting you this far into the game. I'm being baited into getting angry, which I've already done, and I've considered replacing out of this game entirely on numerous occasions, just because of the sheer ridiculousness of it all. She may do it in a calm manner, but she is very much provoking me.

Ah, c'mon. The problem is you, not her. She's playing the game, she believes what she writes, she's not trying to anger you.

It's illogical for ANYONE to believe that I'm still trying to policy lynch you, and I do not see BooKitty as an illogical person. That aside, though, she doesn't have to be doing it on purpose to provoke me. I'm certainly not *trying* to provoke you, but she accused me of doing it. Everything you said about her applies to me as well. I'm playing the game, I believe what I write, I'm not trying to anger you. And people are still accusing me of provoking people. So just because it's not on purpose doesn't mean you can dismiss it. If that was true, everything said against me should be dismissed, cuz it wasn't on purpose.

Then have some logic for it instead of just shouting randomly about Quagmire. I'm not the only person who thinks lynching Quagmire is a retarded idea, and we can't all be scum.

Lynching Quagmire is a RETARDED idea? I mean, I would understand if you said that lynching Quagmire is not the best idea we could have, or maybe that there are better alternatives, or a better strategy but that's it's RETARDED? You've got to be kidding.

It's not retarded to lynch a player that doesn't play the game, refuses to claim and answer questions, policy votes (unlike you, MoS, Quagmire has never played a game with me, so his policy vote is very bizarre), then stubbornly sticks his vote off-wagon, and refuses to take a position on the dozens of aborted wagons we've had today.

"Retarded" is not the first word that comes to my mind when it comes to lynching that kind of player.

We don't gain any usable information from lynching Quagmire, and we can guarantee that he will read his role pm tonight, even if he hasn't yet. If he continues this same play Day 2, I will be right beside you in leading his lynch. But today is not the day. It's obvious that Quagmire isn't going to cooperate today.

You can strike #2. For someone who claims to have a good meta on me, you should know that #2 is impossible.

Hey! You're funny, suddenly. You're faking a power role? Hahahhhahahha.

There are numerous examples that provide a meta about Quagmire and I. Jack of All Trades is a good one, especially since we won that game.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Unvote, Vote: Peers

I suggest you answer hasdgfas' question.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm almost tempted to vote Quagmire just to make TS apologize for being so damned hung up on him all day and then being wrong about him after spending the entire day derailing the town into focusing on him. But since voting for someone who does not look like scum isn't really useful, I won't.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm almost tempted to vote Quagmire just to make TS apologize for being so damned hung up on him all day

and then being wrong about him

after spending the entire day derailing the town into focusing on him. But since voting for someone who does not look like scum isn't really useful, I won't.

Sounds like you know this for a fact.

And who would know this for a fact? Scum, that's who.

You do realize that I set you up for that, right?

Unvote, Vote: Kscope

Peers really did not handle that well.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Whoa, I'm dead? Totally didn't see that one coming.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I was a villager...>_>