Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[JordanA24]

WAKE UP Vote: ABR

[JordanA24]

Unvote Vote: Peers

[JordanA24]

TS is not over-aggressive. She pointed out the truth, it's that simple.

No, it was on Page 3, and he unvoted someone else (ABR I think, her original random vote) so he could vote Neo-Viper, so I think there might have been some reasoning behind it. Correct me if I'm wrong though Erg0

EDIT BEFORE I POST: I just noticed Erg0's previous post, which provides the reasoning of why he voted Neo-Viper.

FOS: TS

[JordanA24]

lol, Panzerjager

Vote: Sikario8

SPEAK!

Why vote the person who's reading and hopefully going to post an analysis at some point? This seems like opportunism to me.

FoS: Yosarian2

What a blatant OMGUS.

Hrm. You're right, I'm letting meta-game influence me. Sarcastic comment withdrawn.

Wow, what a backtrack.

I'm here. I've already read the thread.

There's really been absolutely nothing going on so far. Toaster Strudel is only kind of mafia so far, otherwise, nobody's really been catching my eye.

where is Mert? this game will be lame without him!

too late

Reasons for TS being scum?

I'm willing to sort of let Silkario go for now, because of BM's post, this does not mean that I'll never suspect him though.

Still happy with my vote on Peers.

[JordanA24]

I am here, and still very happy with my Peers vote, he's not providing good defenses, he's still buddying up, and voting lurkers is never a great thing to do.

I agree with TS that if Peers turns up scum, Panzer is a very good person to go after.

I am also wary of MoS's Post 232, that was way too overdefensive for my liking.

[JordanA24]

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?

[JordanA24]

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.

my vote stands. i can tell that me and yos are not going to see eye to eye on those issues, especially when he uses his an opinion of something as backup for his argument lol. (ie im not a big fan of...)

Way to dodge the argument Schis.

FOS: Schismatized

Hey, I remember you! Weren't you scum?

Actually, he was being one of the most level-headed and rational people in the game.

Peers PLEASE climb out of peoples arses.

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

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.

You're full of crap. You said that its too early to have any good leads, which you know is B.S.

Then why are you saying things you know are silly ?

For once, i agree wholeheartedly with ABR. MoS is not making any sense at this point, and i'm suspicious of those defending him so much. I mean, MoS pissed off is not scummy. Its a total null-tell. BUT, MoS pissed off over something totally trivial and pathetic, is pretty scummy. He needs to get his act together, and start helping the game progress.

Case closed.

QFT.

Since MoS and I have voted for her, she has reacted very emotionally to the votes, and in her posts, it's simple to tell that she's simply been masking her intensity through a fit of apathy, something in which if she were actually apathetic about it, she wouldn't care in the first place.

To be fair to TS, I'd be pretty upset if I was being voted for because of a retarded policy lynch (while being insulted at the same time) and being called scum with no reasons given.

uh...that's my case. only this game. i don't know her in any other games.

So your case is that she appears to be trying to not get angry, but got angry when someone insulted her.

... Case dismissed for insufficient evidence.

This post swings my vote.

Unvote Vote: MOS

Start participating properly.

[JordanA24]

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.

my vote stands. i can tell that me and yos are not going to see eye to eye on those issues, especially when he uses his an opinion of something as backup for his argument lol. (ie im not a big fan of...)

Way to dodge the argument Schis.

FOS: Schismatized

Hey, I remember you! Weren't you scum?

Actually, he was being one of the most level-headed and rational people in the game.

Peers PLEASE climb out of peoples arses.

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

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.

You're full of crap. You said that its too early to have any good leads, which you know is B.S.

Then why are you saying things you know are silly ?

For once, i agree wholeheartedly with ABR. MoS is not making any sense at this point, and i'm suspicious of those defending him so much. I mean, MoS pissed off is not scummy. Its a total null-tell. BUT, MoS pissed off over something totally trivial and pathetic, is pretty scummy. He needs to get his act together, and start helping the game progress.

Case closed.

QFT.

Since MoS and I have voted for her, she has reacted very emotionally to the votes, and in her posts, it's simple to tell that she's simply been masking her intensity through a fit of apathy, something in which if she were actually apathetic about it, she wouldn't care in the first place.

To be fair to TS, I'd be pretty upset if I was being voted for because of a retarded policy lynch (while being insulted at the same time) and being called scum with no reasons given.

uh...that's my case. only this game. i don't know her in any other games.

So your case is that she appears to be trying to not get angry, but got angry when someone insulted her.

... Case dismissed for insufficient evidence.

This post swings my vote.

Unvote Vote: MOS

Start participating properly.

the bit in red gives me deja vu, because i definitely recall someone saying it before.
Other than his views on Jester's in games in general, which he knows i dont entirely agree with, i think Jordan makes alot of good points here. Just the first sentence makes me uneasy...

BM

That was actually me who suggested it the first time round. I don't think I got a decent answer the first time round.

[JordanA24]

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.

[JordanA24]

uh...that's my case. only this game. i don't know her in any other games.

So your case is that she appears to be trying to not get angry, but got angry when someone insulted her.

... Case dismissed for insufficient evidence.

This post swings my vote.

You are -so- trying to butter me up into taking my vote off you, aren't you?

Gotta try harder than that.

No, I feel MoS is scummier than you. You're still #2 though, and very lynchable in my eyes.

[JordanA24]

Sorry for my absence, I've had a huge rush of homework and coursework recently, plus other game commitments kept me out of this one.

Oddly enough, people seem to be voting me for getting a load of coursework (trust me, I'd rather I didn't have it either).

LAL is a horrible idea, if I kept being inactive, the mod would simply be able to replace me, and you could try to lynch someone who is acting scummy if you ignore the lurkers.

I can't really see much in actual evidence against me. I've seen mentions of my jumping off the Peers wagon when it was "clear he wasn't going to be lynched". Not true, Peers was still at -2 when I unvoted him.

Peers still has his Page 8 vote on me, where he said the main reason for voting me was that I had 4 posts, 2 of which were of no content (1 of which was a random vote anyway, so that can be excused really, and the other where I voted Peers, because of his very scummy play up to that point, not that I mentioned it in the post, but that's why I voted Peers). Now I have 10 posts, all of which but two have content, are you still happy to vote me Peers? Especially since your other point against me was this:

He has not explained his reasons for his current vote, which started a bandwagon on that player, and has tried to spin an apology the person he voted for made as 'backtracking', which feels like trying to retroactively justify his vote.

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???

What is your opinion on 146 and 333?

What's your opinion on 146 and 333?

I'm still very happy with my MOS vote. His reasoning for OMGUS voting me are nothing more than fictional.

[JordanA24]

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.

Where's your evidence of this? How do you know I didn't simply just found you scummy enough to vote for you?

[JordanA24]

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???

Let's not vote MoS now. Anybody but MoS.

Why?

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.

Yes, it may be an easy argument, but that's because it's really obvious, that's why I'm more likely to pick up on it instead of something else. Voting for MOS, on it's own, is hardly scummy.

please

less talking

more lynching toaster strudel

More useful contributions please.

Oh, and why should we talk less?

please

less talking

more lynching toaster strudel

Of course, given that you have no parts to your case, it's rather easy.

Reasons, man, you need to give reasons!

Forget it, I'm after Thanatos now, I refute the Mos wagon on the basis of a better wagon.

Going after Thanatos is like hunting baby birds in their nests.

Going after MoS is like hunting tiger.

I'm going to join MoS and policy lynch you in every game I'm in.

Yeah, that sort of falls near the bottom of the list of convincing reasons on why to lynch someone.

IGME(andmyvote)OY: Peers

vote: peers

Wow. Under such a carefully thought-out and well-worded logical attack on me, I have no choice but to say every single part of your case is correct.

Of course, given that you have no parts to your case, it's rather easy.

Reasons, man, you need to give reasons!

::mulls it over and eventually shrugs half-heartedly::
Can we hurry and lynch him so that I don't have to provide any reason behind my vote...?

Wow, way to dodge giving reasons,

Instead of giving reasons for lynching someone like you're asked, you say "Erm, no I don't want to give reasons, lets just lynch you", which is really scummy.

Huge-mega FOS: Silkario8

::sits back and looks to MoS and Yosar::

No, instead, how about making a contribution?

[JordanA24]

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.

[JordanA24]

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.

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

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.

MoS is just inept. Let's lynch someone else.

Maybe, but you could use that argument against an MOS every time he's accused of being scum. And since this is playstyle, it's a nulltell.

Why are you so desperate for us to not lynch MOS?

Suggest who "someone else" could be, you've not contributed much in the way of content recently either.

[JordanA24]

What makes you THAT sure that MOS is a Jester?

And can you answer my other question please.

[JordanA24]

Because its obvious.

You sure? You sure he isn't badly playing scum (or maybe, shock horror, town), or he may even be trying to WIFOM us into thinking he's a Jester (though with the potential of cops around, maybe this isn't the best tactic, although sometimes in Werewolf games, cops aren't that reliable I've found.) Or, you could both be scum, and you're trying to defend him, those are the vibes I'm getting right now.

And you still haven't answered my other question.

[JordanA24]

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.

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?[/quote]

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

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.

[JordanA24]

You ever going to look at your role Quag?

[JordanA24]

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.

[JordanA24]

I still prefer my MOSvote.

[JordanA24]

Quag, it may be helpful for you not to read your Role PM, but it seriously disadvantages the rest of us, since you don't know what your alignment is on Day 1, and, if you're scum, you don't know who your buddies are, that makes all of your posts on Day 1 completely useless for trying to find your alignment/possible scumbuddies. Even if you're town, it disadvantages the town, because now, everybody's talking about you not reading your Role PM, rather than discussing about who's scum, it just wastes time and clogs the thread, and puts unnecessary pressure on yourself.

[JordanA24]

Careful, by my count Quag's at -1.

[JordanA24]

Not convinced Quag is scum.

[JordanA24]

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

I'm not policy lynching

anyone

.

Erm, pardon?

[JordanA24]

ABR, did you just confess?

[JordanA24]

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.

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.

OK, that's not the entire reason why you're voting TS, but is was the base of it. MOS, if TS wasn't such a "funsucker" as you say she is, would you be voting her now on the current evidence you have against her?

Feels like first page again. Stop fooling around, ABR is not the one we're looking for today.

posts like this make me want to put the noose around your neck. But, i'll humour you. Why are so sure that ABR is town?

While we're asking questions, why do you think he's scum?

I don't like how you ducked BM's question here zu_faul.

Who are you going to vote now ?

Why don't you suggest some people to vote for?

vote: toaster strudel

it seems to be the consensus at this point and I'm not saddened by this lynch.

FOS: hasgdfas

Voting because the target is a popular choice=Very scummy. Actually, just before this, you posted:

we need more pressure on peers.

Floating between the two biggest bandwagons, bumps it up into an

Unvote Vote: hasgdfas

Yeah, but he's at least talking, and we can still get him tomorrow. TS doesn't seem to be here to defend herself. We can make the mod's job a lot easier if we lynch someone that scummy today. Peers will still be here tomorrow unless he's vigged or something.

Well, I had slight doubts about voting you before this posts, but those doubts are now definatly quashed. Putting a vote on someone who isn't here is highly opportunistic, since they can't defend themselves from your vote, so you aren't questioned for it. And since you are the 4th vote on TS, if she was lynched, you'd be around the midpoint of the bandwagon, and not held too accountable for it, so it's the perfect opportunistic scum vote.

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.

This is QFT, particularly the last part.

[JordanA24]

QFT the above

[JordanA24]

I think Quag is completely screwing with us, trying to get conversation away from scum with his distracting antics, he's giving nothing to the game in terms of scumhunting, thanks to his ridiculous tunnel-vision on TS. I would not be sad to see him go.

Unvote Vote: Quag

[JordanA24]

What I am saying, is that in all probability Quagmire didn't read his role pm and still hasn't. Him contributing or not isn't really a scum-tell. Yes we would get rid of an anti-town player, but there are actual scummy players like Peers that are still alive.

Quag is still distracting the town from meaningful discussion about the game, or attempting to. If he's scum, that's a good reason to get rid of him rather than someone else who might be scum, such as Peers or hasgdfas.

Bookitty, you're reaching almost as much as TS does.

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?

And he has a point. But that point is also valid if he's town. Why on earth would town want to distract the rest of the town with a long discussion about the role-pm controversy? Quagmire can't pretend that he didn't know this was a controversial topic, that it would derail the current wagons, and that it would divert suspicion from people who were already being considered as possible lynches at that time.

No, I didn't. I thought it was a funny comment because I thought it was assumed that I

never

read my role PM in

any

of my games, so I didn't think twice about doing it or saying something about it. People just jumped on me like flies on horse shit, and after that, it "derailed" the town, so it's not like I instigated anything anyway.

So the question becomes, why would a neutral Quagmire want to get "the blunt of all of the negative attention in the world?" If he truly had not read his role PM, why would he choose to announce it (and he did CHOOSE to do so. No one asked him) and distract town with it, when it appeared we were nearing a lynch?

I did it casually and without thinking that it would cause a big hubbub (or one at all, for that matter). Simple as that.

That's bollocks, you know it's a contraversial topic, it's a highly unorthadox (and detrimental) way of playing the game, so you knew it'd become the main topic of discussion. Also, do you seriously think that there is not 1 person out of a group of 18 who don't know about you not reading your PMs? There are a few relatively new players who especially might not know about you that much.

(4) Sabotaged all attempts for us to evaluate his alignment.

No. I don't know where this is coming from, or what you have behind it.

Well obviously this is referring to that due to fact you didn't read your Role PM until about Page 20, therefore making all of your posts up to Page 20 completely useless. Don't think I'm dumb, you're obviously dodging questions you know you can't present a counter-argument to. You'd have to be stupid to genuinly not work out what TS is referring to here, and I know you're not.

(8) This lynch will be informative of the alignment of the players that defended him, ie Yosarian, MoS and hasdfas.

No, it won't. It won't tell you anything.

How?

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.

I agree with Bookitty, what makes you assume that this was all to do with subliminal psychological stuff and not the more obvious he slipped up theory. In a way, you're trying to spin what Quag did to try and make it seem positive, so your reaching accusation is hypocritical.

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.

The more obvious assumption is one that requires subliminal psychological analysis?

Isn't the more obvious assumption that he just screwed up and said something scummy?

I don't think it's a huge leap of logic to look at what he said and see that something isn't right with it. Anyway, wouldn't it be more useful if HE explained it, rather than you providing psychoanalysis on it?

MoS is right on the money.

How convenient. Someone posts something in your favour, and you cling onto it, and say that that's what was going on all the time. If that was true, why didn't you say so earlier?

Unvote, vote hasdgfas

Not too keen about this following.

[JordanA24]

Quag is still distracting the town from meaningful discussion about the game, or attempting to. If he's scum, that's a good reason to get rid of him rather than someone else who might be scum, such as Peers or hasgdfas.

Uh. How?

How you're distracting from discussion or how is that a good reason to lynch you?

That's bollocks, you know it's a contraversial topic, it's a highly unorthadox (and detrimental) way of playing the game, so you knew it'd become the main topic of discussion. Also, do you seriously think that there is not 1 person out of a group of 18 who don't know about you not reading your PMs? There are a few relatively new players who especially might not know about you that much.

And then there's you, and yos, and hasdfhg, and all of the other experienced players who read mafia discussion who know that I do this. You'd think that if I said that, people would brush it off as the way I always play. I guess not. I was wrong.

Knowing about it=!Agreeing with it. I wanted you to read your Role PM just as much as most other people did. I was hoping that it wouldn't cease all other discussion, and make people lose track of the game, but at least it outed a scum.

Well obviously this is referring to that due to fact you didn't read your Role PM until about Page 20, therefore making all of your posts up to Page 20 completely useless. Don't think I'm dumb, you're obviously dodging questions you know you can't present a counter-argument to. You'd have to be stupid to genuinly not work out what TS is referring to here, and I know you're not.

And I'd like to note that she said, "sabotaged

all

attempts," of which I've done nothing of the sort.

Well, she believes that you haven't read your PM yet. Whether I'd go that far, I'm not too certain, but that explains that quote.

[JordanA24]

[snip]

Not convinced Quag is scum.

And his very next post regarding Quagmire:

I think Quag is completely screwing with us, trying to get conversation away from scum with his distracting antics, he's giving nothing to the game in terms of scumhunting, thanks to his ridiculous tunnel-vision on TS. I would not be sad to see him go.

Unvote Vote: Quag

I think this was the most opportunistic vote on the Quag wagon. I think jordan, as scum, realized his Quag vote looked incredibly opportunistic and didn't mesh with all his other statements regarding the wagon, so he felt the need to reinforce it with his last post.

unvote, vote: Jordan

May I just say, that I've done this post before, and the site lost it (Grrr!!!! *headdesk*), so any frustration is apologized for here.

Right, between my Quagvote post and the post before that, there was almost a month (24 Quag posts in other words). I probably should have explained better why I'm voting Quag in the post I voted him, so I'll do so here.

First, I want to point everyone out to this post. Before this, she had been doing her typical play (from what I hear; I'm too lazy to look anything up): baseless conspiracy theories with no logic tied to them whatsoever (see: what MoS posted in this upcoming quote). That's fine, that's cool and everything -- she wasn't really maliciously pursuing them, and there was nothing different about any of her play than I expected. Then this comes:

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.

I mean, first off, I couldn't take this at all -- much like the rest of TS's posts and I'm sure what most of you thought mine have been -- but this post struck me as odd. What I especially didn't like about it, and this was about when I started voting for TS with no explanation, I might add, was that TS started to manufacture her stupid conspiracy theories based on two lines of post.

That's a key word there.

Manufacture.

MoS said that he was going to policy lynch TS until he found something better. TS complained about his lack of posting and then promptly accused MoS of being in a scum group with whoever she deemed necessary. For some reason, she correlates "not posting" with "not reading the thread," which, in the case of MoS, a much better and more experienced player, is not true. He simply said that he's voting for TS until he sees something better, and TS created another BS conspiracy theory just to make more conspiracy theories. If that's not lynching without a purpose, then I don't know what is.

But, Policy Voting in the middle of a game (ie. Not in the Random Vote stage) is scummy. Policy Voting is voting someone for no game-related reason, therefore it has no connection what you think the players alignment is. So doing so in the serious part of a game, even "temporarily", is scummy, you're contributing nothing to the game, and clogging it with useless crap. Also, for the record, I find it odd that MOS's postrate increased dramatically as soon as TS pointed it out. Anyway, I think Quag's defense of MOS is craplogic, and points to possible buddies.

I'm not going to claim anytime soon. This conversation is worthless. Stop trying to "lead discussion" somewhere, because it's not going to go anywhere.

I didn't ask you anything. I asked Peers. Let him answer.

Yeah, but...this discussion has no point. There is no relevancy. It's totally useless.

Why? Would you be saying that if the focus of discussion was someone else?

Lynching me would be stupid. I'm on the town's side. Toaster Strudel is mafia, from what I've gathered. That's all that I'm going to say.

Why do you keep saying this? It has an air of desperation about it.

What you did was incredibly anti-town. It shows blatant disregard for the town, in other words.

Uhh, no it doesn't. Explain where it does please. And I guarantee you that my observations (before I looked at my role, of course) come from a purely townsperson's perspective.[/quote]

Maybe, but it still doesn't mean anything, of course it'd come from a townspersons perspective, you hadn't read your possibly scummy Role PM yet.

And what did you mean by "Before I looked at my role of course" in this post? To me, it says, it was from a townspersons perspective, but then I looked at my scum Role PM, and then that perspective changed. Fruedian Slip?

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.

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.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from. Someone saying unprovoked for no good reason that they haven't read their role PM up to this point really should be setting off your scum alarm. You know, because scum like to purposely go out of their way to gain attention.

Do town like to attract attention to themselves either? Besides, you hadn't even know your Role at that point anyway, so that makes this

entire point

invalid.

Also, I'd like the following from you:
Please give your opinion of Peers.
Please give your opinion of hasdfgas.
Please give your opinion of Yosarian2.
Please order these 3 players on a scale from town to scum.
Please provide appropriate quotes to support any statements that you make.

The only one of these that I'm going to answer is something that I've already answered. I refuse to do anything that you request me to do because no matter what I say, you're never going to believe a word that I say and nothing I say or do will ever remove your annoying and worthless "conspiracy theory" on me.

How convenient, someone actually asks you a question, and you deem them unworthy of an answer. I don't buy your Catch-22 excuse at all. Maybe if you answered her questions, she'd be more willing to get off your back.

So, Quagmire, I would also like to hear what you think about different people in the game; as we don't really have any information on you until about 10 pages ago like to hear a little more about your current thoughts about the game.

Now that you've spit out your bile, Quagmire, Yosarian2 asked you the above question. Please answer.

What else am I supposed to say? I've put my thoughts out there; I think Toaster Strudel is scum. Nothing else is worth talking about at the moment. Nobody else has come up with a convincing argument to sway me and nothing's made me change my mind about what I think. So, until then, I have nothing additional to say.

I'll speak when I have something to say. Otherwise, you're just going to hear me say, "I don't have anything to say," if everyone continues trying to badger me about my thoughts on every single person in the game.

Well, if nobody's cases on anyone else can convince you, why don't you try investigating people's posts yourself, and see what you can find? Otherwise all you're doing is manufacturing an excuse to stay tunnel-visioned on TS.

[JordanA24]

Unvote vote Peers

Don't insult Setael kthx.

IGMEOY

This looked highly opportunistic, on the leading wagon.

Wow, how can someone misread my post so much that it appears to be an attack on

shismatized? Wtf? Yeah, if you invent crap I haven't said, obviously you can make an

attack against me. You are a complete retard.

Just because you're attention whoring and talk about no one but the guys you bring

up, and when someone else does not mention them you go into paranoid-angry retard

mode and start to scream and cry

Oh, aren't you one to preach to people about bad attitudes

I'm not feeling it either. I'd say it has about 30% chance of success. But do you really want to keep Peers up to the endgame ? I mean he is

useless

to us.

Tbh, I wouldn't particularly like Quag at Endgame either. I think they may both be scum, but Quag is more definate IMO.

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.

This could be a stupid question, but here goes:

If TS got near to being lynched, and you had your policy vote on her, would you take it off?

Also, my policy on policy votes is that they are detrimental to the game, probably as detremental as you think TS is (I don't really find her bad at all, but you're free to your opinions as long as you don't take it too far), my reasoning is that it makes analysing you harder because you have your vote on somebody for reasons that are unrelated to whether you think they are scum, and it skews past votecounts somewhat as well.

V/L/A

Unvote, vote Kalei

WTV, let's just end the damn day.

That IGMEOY just became an

FOS

. Since you're V/LA, you can't change your vote even if you decide to change your mind on KScope, and it's odd that you provide no reasoning for your vote switch, when KScope hasn't voted since your last one, and if you wanted to end the day, then it may have been better to keep your vote on Peers, since he's closer to a lynch than KScope is.

I'm on your side buddy. I'm voting for Bookitty.

Yeah, good job, you're voting, at deadline, for a player that has only your vote. That's so scummy, hiding off-wagon like that.

I think my #1 suspect right now is actually Panzer. So I'll go with that.

unvote, vote: Panzer

Yeah, good job, you're voting, at deadline, for a player that has only your vote. That's so scummy, hiding off-wagon like that.

Agreed.

MoS (I can't shake the thought that he always plays like this)

META on MoS:

Cheerful (just a hint of cranky): Power role
Cranky (plain old cranky): Town
Anxious (cranky but with some hand wringing): Scum

What catagory would you put him under right now? (Just say Town or Scum, not Powerrole).

LADIES!!

Unvote, vote Quagmire

Are you just voting for whoever happens to have the most votes atm?

Quagmire nets us the most information regardless of his alignment

I hate this argument, and any time that it's brought up. It is stupid logic.

You're not quoting her whole post here, which, if you did, would explain why this isn't really scummy (she has narrowed her vote to between you and Peers on scumminess, and she used potential info gained as a tiebreaker). So, you're pretty much misquoting her here.

I find it hard to believe that Quagmire really thought he might draw a NK after how today has gone. If he's town, after his play today no scum in their right mind would waste their time on him.

Agreed. Quag should be lynched today.

[JordanA24]

Huge FOS: Quagmire

This is carried on from yesterday of course. Another couple of people who deserve

FOS's

are hasd and Panzer, for their votes without waiting for a claim (hasd especially I've got my eye on today), however, I know only one person who really stands out as deserving of a vote.

Vote: Sir Tornado

2nd post of the game, 7th vote on KScope, not a particularly scummy person IMO, and with no reasons given. Very opportune, and very scummy.

Also, what was the case on KScope apart from lurking? I can't seem to find an especially good one, but we still lynched him, and look at that, we got a powerrole. This is

really

why we need to make sure we have plenty of reasons for lynching someone before we actually do, instead of rushing ahead

with no claim[/b] like Panzer and hasd did.

[JordanA24]

Nuclear Experiment Gone Wrong something something Werewolves etc

[JordanA24]

That makes sense

[JordanA24]

I apologize for my absence, my Internet's been very unreliable recently, and schoolwork became a mountain. Hopefully I'll be able to get back on top of Mafia soon.

Peers' death was certainly an interesting revelation, if ABR hadn't claimed Mason at the start of the day, I'd be pretty suspicious of him for his continued pushing on Peers to claim his target, which would achieve nothing for the town, barring some very stupid scum/SK/Vig, and give the scum an advantage by telling them who the Doc thinks is town and maybe a power-role.

TS, don't you want to lynch Quagmire anymore? If no, why not?

It seems that the players have decided that Quagmire is essential to the game, and his contribution is so invaluable that the game might just fall apart if we lynch him, and we absolutely need him at end game. I decided that I will not say another word about Quagmire.

You all want to keep him forever, you can have him.

So? You don't have to simply go along with the town's opinions, you'd be pretty scummy if you did all the time. I thought you had a pretty good case on Quag, and you shouldn't abandon it simply because the rest of the town doesn't agree with you.

Right, it doesn't matter because he already had more votes than Quagmire and we have no way of knowing whether or not enough people would have unvoted kscope in time for us to lynch Quag or anyone else.
Also, just because I disagree with you about Quagmire's actions doesn't mean I'm "trying to save him." I would have been perfectly ok with a quag lynch if that was the final decision, but I was happier with a kscope lynch. Yes, I should have counted the votes, but I didn't.
My question isn't a red herring, it's a rhetorical question. I would like to know the answer to it.

But the important thing is though that KScope turned out to be not just a townie, but a power-role, so asking questions related to if he turned out to be scum is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is what actually happened, people can "What if" all they like, it won't change what the actual situation is, and arguments that are based on a "What if" have a very shaky base and almost certainly craplogic.

FOS: hasd

So why are people not voting for bookitty?

Not changed much from Day 1 then, still unhelpful and just pushing cases without commenting on anything else that is happening.

TS, what happens if Quag IS town? What will your thoughts be?

I can answer this.

She will blame me -- I'm the one who fucked everything up, it's my fault that I didn't turn up scum, and I'm the dumbass.

And she'd be right.

Look, you want to be helpful to the town, try posting something useful once in a while, rather than your risiculously tunnel-visioned "Why aren't you guys voting [insert name here]" after building what is usually a pretty questionable case against that person. If you do that, then we might start to believe you to be town, if you can't be arsed with Mafia so much you can't do that, then get yourself replaced please.

Thank you.

Why am I being voted?

Because you don't contribute

anything

perhaps, bar an ill-timed K-Scope vote.

Replace me, I have zero interest in catching up and i'm not a fan of 50 page days

Vote: Panzer

This is such obvious scum running away from votes it's not funny. Seriously. Who says Panzer has to read all 50 pages to post something?

This is not happening at all. Quit skewing the facts. Since the day has started you've switched your vote around 5 times.

WHOA!!! Around 5 times? TWICE.

You aren't even attempting to make a case, except on Quag, and you then switched your vote two posts later.

Yeah, and who is making cases right now? Panzer who just flaked? ABR who decided for unfathomable reasons that Erg0 is scum??? Zu_faul, who is, in my book, potential scum and is voting for me anyway? Who? Show me some good cases. ABR who is asking OTHER FREAKIN PEOPLE to make his cases??????? My case on Quag is a total waste of time. I wasted 55 pages on Day 1, can you imagine my frustration? Nobody wants to lynch anyone.

I also am dissapointed you are ignoring all attempts to start discussion to chide the town for something they haven't even done yet.

Right, I'm not discussing enough? I haven't posted enough in this game??? Something the town hasn't done yet??? Were you there yesterday??? Argh!

Oh please yes, put me out of my misery. Let me help you.

vote: TS

Vote Count:

4: TS

(Panzerjager, Zu_Faul, IH, ABR, BM)

2: Panzerjager

(Setael, Toaster Strudel)

1: Sir Tornado

(JordanA24)

1: Bookitty

(Quagmire)

Not Voting:

Sir Tornado, Bookitty, hasdgfas, YagamiLight, Erg0, schismatized

I think TS should be on 5 votes. Also, Jordan, why are you not voting for TS atm?

BM

Because TS is obvtown IMO, I find her to be mostly logical and going after the players I find to be scum most of the time. I think she is being persecuted atm for her playstyle, and because of her frustration. The latter potentially by scum out to get an easy lynch.

unvote, vote: erg0

Why?

Players who have posted in the last week (9): zu_Faul, Xylthixlm, Bookitty, Setael, hasdgfas, vollkan, Battle Mage, Erg0, Toaster Strudel
Players who haven't posted in the last week (6): Sir Tornado, JordanA24, IH, YagamiLight, Panzerjager, schizmatized

I don't really see anything we can do other than start lynching lurkers. Any suggestions on who should go first?

Lynching Lurkers=

BAD!

. I cannot think of a more opportunistic vote than a vote on somebody who's lurking because of lurking. That lurker will not be able to defend himself until he comes back, which may be too late, that lurker may not come back at all, putting the replacement (if there is one) under great pressure when they arrive, and the lurker might not even have a chance to claim if he is a power-role.

I don't really see anything we can do other than start lynching lurkers. Any suggestions on who should go first?

vote: JordanA24

This one's not a purely lurker lynch. He's scum. I would also vote Panzer, but I prefer Jordan.

Why am I scum?

I still think Panzer is a good lynch, but since he hasn't been replaced yet, I'll

Unvote

to give the replacement a chance.

[JordanA24]

Peers' death was certainly an interesting revelation, if ABR hadn't claimed Mason at the start of the day, I'd be pretty suspicious of him for his continued pushing on Peers to claim his target, which would achieve nothing for the town, barring some very stupid scum/SK/Vig, and give the scum an advantage by telling them who the Doc thinks is town and maybe a power-role.

Normally, knowing who thinks who is town is

good

. Why shouldn't the doc disclose targets? I'm really curious, because my experience in IRC games has been that the town is helped by outed power roles (of any sort) claiming their targets.

But the flipside to this is that the scum knows the Doc's preferred target is, and may be able to work with that to plan their NK's better, and since the Doc aims to protect power-role's, they know who the doc thinks is a power-role. If they know this, they could out-WIFOM the doc to kill them.

Lynching Lurkers=

BAD!

. I cannot think of a more opportunistic vote than a vote on somebody who's lurking because of lurking. That lurker will not be able to defend himself until he comes back, which may be too late, that lurker may not come back at all, putting the replacement (if there is one) under great pressure when they arrive, and the lurker might not even have a chance to claim if he is a power-role.

This seems odd. Yes, players who have totally abandoned the game should be replaced - but what about people who are still playing but contributing as little as possible? What is your strategy to prevent scum from lurking their way through the game?

Oh sorry, misunderstanding there, I thought you meant abandoney lurkers.

[JordanA24]

Jordan concerns me somewhat. He has a made a few good points throughout the game, but his strong pushing against Quag (Coupled with the shift in his position) along with his lurking makes him a worry. At this stage, I think Jordan is about 60%.

60% scum I assume. Then why are you not voting for him?

Because someone else is scummier maybe?

Because TS is obvtown IMO, I find her to be mostly logical

You must be reading a different game than I do. Please redirect me to the game where TS is logical.

Most of her posts are, I haven't got the time at the moment to point out specific ones, but if you want me to, I will probably tomorrow.

[JordanA24]

Messes up tags in last post, sorry.

[JordanA24]

PBPA of Jordan

0: Wake up vote ABR
1: Joins Peers BW. No explanation or questions given

This is because I agreed with why other players had voted for Peers, any reasoning I'd have given would have just been repeating what others had said. And if I had simply said "For pressure", it'd have probs looked scummier than not saying anything at all

2: FoSes TS for asssuming randomness
3: Jordan accuses Neo of opportunistically voting Sikario and demanding content just after Sik had posted "alive and reading". Not only do I not see how it's opportunistic (What's the opportunity??) but several other people, all more experienced than Neo, also voted Sik - and yet Jordan only pushes Neo about it. Jordan also accuses Peers of backtracking - when all Peers did was retract a sarcastic meta-remark (hardly back-tracking the scummy sense, is it?)

Silkario had just promised to post content soon, so I found it odd that, just 2 posts later, Neo demanded content from Silk. I was wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon on Silk for lurking, conveniently "missing" Silk's post just above, which could grow into a larger, more permanent bandwagon later, especially if Silk's next post is bad, which is more likely if Silk is under pressure from votes for lurking. I called it opportunistic because Silk had said he was going to post, but hadn't yet, which would have been a good time to start a bandwagon on Silk, as he might be pressured by the votes on him when making the post, which might make him make a poor post, resulting in more votes on him.

4: 5 days later, affirms support for Peers vote. Suggests Panzer/Peers link. Thinks MoS is being over-defensive (an accusation I loathe)

Why do you not like over-defensive accusations

5: Doesn't think MoS's policy-lynch of TS is protown. Suggests MoS might be bad scum

I wasn't suggesting that MOS may be bad scum, I was pointing out to ABR he could be bad scum instead of being a Jester

6: FoSes schism for dodging arguments. Actually, I don't think schism did dodge anything because the debate he had with Yos ended in a theory disagreement. So, it was sensible of schism to do an "agree to disagree". Votes MoS and demands participation.

Quite often, when people say "Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you, I won't argue with you anymore", it tends to be because they cannot think of a decent reply to whatever the other guy just said, so they say that as a "Get out of Jail Free Card"

7: Notes that he was the first to raise the bad scum thing
8: Calls out MoS for an OMGUS
9: Thinks Peers is #2 scum to MoS

Just for clarification, I didn't necessarily think that
Peers and MOS were scumbuddies.

10: Rejects Peers' lurker vote for himself because Jordan has now made 10 posts.

Considering that Peers had voted for me on Page 8, and had cited the reason that I had only made 4 posts (2 with no content) at that point for voting me, I think pointing out it was Page 16 and I'd made 10 posts was a fair point to make.

11: MoS accuses Jordan of voting him to latch on to the building anti-MoS sentiment. Jordan demands proof.
12: Quotes his anti-MoS posts. Gives sik a mega-FoS for asking to get the Peers lynch over with
13: Questions for MoS
14: Pushes ABR for defending MoS
15: Wonders why people think MoS is jester
16: Conjecture about what MoS might be
17: Explains his Peers vote was to pressure (worth remembering that Jordan supplied no questions with his vote)

To pressure Peers into providing better content, rather than stuff like "I agree with Yos because I've always wanted to say that". I wanted to see whether under pressure, whether he would pick up his act and defend himself a bit.

18: Asks if Quag is ever going to read his role
19: Doesn't like the Quag lynch, and is keeping his vote on MoS
20: Prefers MoS
21: Tries to persuade Quag to read his PM
22: Cautions that Quag is at L-1
23: "Not convinced Quag is scum. "
24: Queries MoS for saying he isn't policy lynching anyone
25: Asks if ABR just confessed
26: Doesn't like zu dodging questions ( I agree). FoSes hasd for declaring to go along with consensus (I agree). Votes hasd.
27: QFTs BM calling Quag a fucktard who should be the one to leave the site, after Quag was awful to TS. (Hehe, this is even made more amusing given what's Quagmire's temp-ban)

Has Quag been tempbanned? That's news to me *Breaks open a bottle of Champagne*

28: Votes Quag for being a distraction and not helping. I really don't like the fact that jordan now moves to a Quag wagon when he had good arguments against hasdf - particularly given his previous criticism of the Quag wagon.

I felt Quag was deliberatly messing with the town, to keep the town talking about him. My theory was that he had had enough of Mafia for the time being (He had said so himslef), so he thought he would be at least halfway useful to his scumteam by messing with the town for his own amusement and to distract the town from his scumbuddies, this is kinda why I voted him.

29: Keeps pushing against Quag. Agrees with Book about MOS spinning Quag.
30: Questions Quag. Says he had hoped that Quag would not distract the entire game.
31: Sets about explaining the weird shift in his behaviour to Quag. He suggests Quag is scum with MOS. He questions Quag for saying that the discussion about his role is pointless, wondering whether he would be saying that about someone else. This is dodgy, since the reason Quag did not want questions on the subject was, obviously, that it was purely a playstyle point - so this questioning from Jordan just seems futile to me. Says Quag is showing desperation because he called the wagon on him stupid and said TS is scum. It looks like frustration, but that isn't of itself a scumtell. Also rejects Quag saying that his actions weren't scummy because scum don't want attention on the bases that 1) Town don't like attention either (good, so it's a nulltell at most) and 2) That Quag didn't know his role (in which case, it can't be scummy). Rightly swipes at Quag for his refusal to answer things.

But Quag said that scum don't like attention being brought onto themselves, but he hadn't read his role PM yet, so he didn't know if he was scum or town, so, IMO, he was making stuff up to cover up for himself, which is

extrememly

scummy.

I don't see how my questioning was futile, it was stopping Quag from screwing with the town and forcing him to defend himself.

32: IGMEOYs ABR for what looks like an opportunistic vote on Peers (I agree). Questions MoS about policy lynches. Upgrades ABR to FOS for voting Kscope without explanation despite going on LA. Calls for Quag's lynch
33: D2 - HUGE-FOSes Quagmire, and FoSes hasd and panzer for their dodgy votes. Votes ST for having cast the 7th Scope vote in only his second in-game post.
34: Explains acronym
35: "That makes sense"
36: Wants Quag to be helpful (Ha! Now that's wishful thinking). Votes Panzer for his replacement request looking like scum giving up and running from votes. Thinks TS is obvtown since she is logical and going after scummy players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan concerns me somewhat. He has a made a few good points throughout the game, but his strong pushing against Quag (Coupled with the shift in his position) along with his lurking makes him a worry. At this stage, I think Jordan is about

60%

.

What is your position on Quag? You seem to beat around the bush a bit regarding Quag. You call his play "indefensable", but not unhelpful to the town, which doesn't seem right to me, so can you please post your actual position on Quag, preferably with a rating (like my 60%) for him please.

[JordanA24]

Personally, I think if there's only four scum, then we've got a huge number of vanilla townies. Maybe two power roles at most. I think it's more likely that there's five scum and four power roles. I've been in a six-scum 19-player game, but that was two mafias in a no-cross-kill game, so I don't think we've got that many. Four or five makes the most sense...

Since you're in a mind to speculate, why do you think the name of the game is

NEGWLTWWWTKY

?

For the record, I thought each letter represented the first letter of a role in the game. For instance, there are 4 "W" which I thought to signify 4 werewolves. With

M

asons and

J

ailkeepers I have to reckon I supposed wrong.

This is very interesting, because it implies that if Toaster Strudel has a non-Villager role it starts with N, E, G, W, L, T, K, or Y. That excludes pretty much every role I can think of ... except Werewolf. (Nurse is possible, but it would imply the presence of a Doctor, and D isn't in the list.)

So either Toaster Strudel is a Villager and claimed unnecessarily, or he's a Werewolf and wasn't thinking hard enough before posting. Hmmm.

I don't really like this post, there are a couple of other roles that I can think of that begin with those letters, and I agree with Erg0 that this isn't a very good thing to bring up, the scum may have noticed it, but there is a chance they didn't, and now they definatly have noticed it.

5: Doesn't think MoS's policy-lynch of TS is protown. Suggests MoS might be bad scum

I wasn't suggesting that MOS may be bad scum, I was pointing out to ABR he could be bad scum instead of being a Jester

How is this not suggesting that he may be bad scum??

I was wondering if ABR had considered the possibility, I wasn't saying that I believed MOS to be bad scum, at that point.

oh no all we need is more spam..

Are you planning on actually contributing at some point? Get in the game please.

Or, possibly, we could look for something besides your false dilemma and lynch someone like zu_faul or jordan, both of which have also been scummy.

Hey hasdfgas - what do you think is scummy about jordan?

And if there are people you find scummy, why aren't you voting anyone?

I may have the wrong end of the stick with the underlined part, but why are you asking what's scummy about me when you're currently voting me?

FoS: Toaster Strudel

for his incredibly opportunistic attempt to redirect suspicion to hasdgfas. hasdgfas isn't scum.

Hasdagas practically just confessed.

He tripped on his semantic shoelaces.

I'm quite suspicious of hasd, but I think this is stretching quite a bit, for the reasons Xyl outlined in Post 1709.

. I have looked closer at zu_faul lately though, and have found nothing useful from him at all. It's as though he's a parrot, chirping out what others have said and jumping on the easy bandwagons.

Who was it again who started the KScope wagon, when there was no one else voting for him? So much for parrotting. Maybe have someone read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia for you. Slowly.

I'll reply to vollkan when I got more time.

Oh yes, I forgot about KScope, well done there zu_Faul.

Just one problem there, didn't KScope turn out to be a powerrole?

There was no need for the Dyslexia insult either IMO.

I'll post a seperate post to respond to vollkan's Post 1684, to prevent this one from becoming too long.

[JordanA24]

This is because I agreed with why other players had voted for Peers, any reasoning I'd have given would have just been repeating what others had said. And if I had simply said "For pressure", it'd have probs looked scummier than not saying anything at all

Okay. This is one reason I don't like unexplained votes, because it means that rather than taking a transparent position at the time, you can justify it later. I'm not saying I think your vote was scummy, because I know such votes are common, they just irk me a little.

Fair enough, I accept that.

3: Jordan accuses Neo of opportunistically voting Sikario and demanding content just after Sik had posted "alive and reading". Not only do I not see how it's opportunistic (What's the opportunity??) but several other people, all more experienced than Neo, also voted Sik - and yet Jordan only pushes Neo about it. Jordan also accuses Peers of backtracking - when all Peers did was retract a sarcastic meta-remark (hardly back-tracking the scummy sense, is it?)

Silkario had just promised to post content soon, so I found it odd that, just 2 posts later, Neo demanded content from Silk. I was wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon on Silk for lurking, conveniently "missing" Silk's post just above, which could grow into a larger, more permanent bandwagon later, especially if Silk's next post is bad, which is more likely if Silk is under pressure from votes for lurking. I called it opportunistic because Silk had said he was going to post, but hadn't yet, which would have been a good time to start a bandwagon on Silk, as he might be pressured by the votes on him when making the post, which might make him make a poor post, resulting in more votes on him.

That seems rather conspiratorial of you. You were "wondering if he was aiming to start a bandwagon" and yet you voted. That suggests that you just assumed he was trying to push the opportunity. Sure, it wasn't a fantastic vote - but there was nothing to suggest that he had any intention of building the wagon up to a stage of being permanent.

Also, could you please address why you didn't attack any of the other's wagoning on Sik and explain the accusation that Peers was back-tracking?

I never voted for Silk to my knowledge.

It does seem rather conspiratorial I admit, but IMO, it's plausible, and I can't find anything that points to my theory not being true, so for now, I'm considering it possible that he was planning to make a permanent bandwagon. If I was scum, and I saw the opportunity to get a cheap bandwagon on a protown player, I'd probs try to take it.

I didn't attack anyone else voting for Silkario because soon after Neo posted, Silk posted this gem:

vote hasdgfas

for doing exactly in this game what he's voting me for in another game

This on the other hand was scummy, so I understand other votes for him.

Peers' backtrack accusation came because he dropped his ABR accusation as soon as ABR questioned it, and posted some rubbish about metagaming as an excuse.

Why do you not like over-defensive accusations

Because it's player-dependent.

I see it as analogous to when I get attacked for being "over-aggressive". If people bothered to meta me for three minutes, they would realise that I am always inquisitorial about things. Similarly, if you meta individuals who are called "over-defensive", more often than not I think they will be that way consistently.

The only valid form of the over-defensive accusation is something like: "Having reviewed all of X's games, it seems X is only very defensive when he is scum. Thus, I shall vote X for his defensiveness here."

But I thought the post of MOS's I highlighted was ridiculously snappy and defensive, so much so I felt that it didn't matter how defensive he may normally be (I'm not really sure how defensive he tends to be, can anyone who's played with him a lot clarify this please?), that seemed very defensive.

Quite often, when people say "Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you, I won't argue with you anymore", it tends to be because they cannot think of a decent reply to whatever the other guy just said, so they say that as a "Get out of Jail Free Card"

Indeed, but that wasn't what happened here.

Yos and schism's argument ended up coming down to a theory-point. Whilst they could have continued arguing, it would not have been directly relevant.

I never likes Schis's argument in the first place, and Yos seemed to have a good argument against it, nevertheless, I kinda see your point now.

To pressure Peers into providing better content, rather than stuff like "I agree with Yos because I've always wanted to say that". I wanted to see whether under pressure, whether he would pick up his act and defend himself a bit.

Yes, but "Vote: X" doesn't provide pressure unless it is coupled with an attack. Otherwise, all the votee can do is ask for some explanation. The real "pressure" comes from the arguments.

But what if other people have already made the attack you were going to make? Then I feel it's OK to simply post "Vote: X", otherwise I'd just be parroting what others have said. And repeated attacks don't provide any more pressure, and one more vote on your wagon does give a bit of pressure all by itself IMO.

Has Quag been tempbanned? That's news to me *Breaks open a bottle of Champagne*

Yeah, for spamming in GD.

*cheers*

*cheers* Do you know how long the tempban will last for?

I felt Quag was deliberatly messing with the town, to keep the town talking about him. My theory was that he had had enough of Mafia for the time being (He had said so himslef), so he thought he would be at least halfway useful to his scumteam by messing with the town for his own amusement and to distract the town from his scumbuddies, this is kinda why I voted him.

What made you think Quag was scum, versus Quag just being a useless townie?

Because he was going out of his way to be a pain in the arse, for example, why would he bother posting that he'd not read his Role PM if he didn't want to draw attention to himself? Posts like this are also pretty good examples:

HEY AM I VOTING FOR TOASTER STRUDEL RIGHT NOW?????

IF NOT,

UNVOTE VOTE TOASTER STRUDEL

^(Agreeing with MOSes metavote for no apparent reason)^

But Quag said that scum don't like attention being brought onto themselves, but he hadn't read his role PM yet, so he didn't know if he was scum or town, so, IMO, he was making stuff up to cover up for himself, which is extrememly scummy.

I reasoned that what he was saying was that his behaviour was not scummy because scum wouldn't do it. It didn't require him to actually know his own alignment to say that.

What is your position on Quag? You seem to beat around the bush a bit regarding Quag. You call his play "indefensable", but not unhelpful to the town, which doesn't seem right to me, so can you please post your actual position on Quag, preferably with a rating (like my 60%) for him please.

I call it "indefensible" because it breaks the spirit of the game. It doesn't "hurt" the town if he actually engages in scumhunting - which he didn't. That said, it can be argued that by virtue of him not knowing his alignment, he deprives the town of information because there is the potential for Quag, not knowing his alignment, to play in a half-hearted fashion.

I would put his play at 55%. From memory, he didn't do anything particularly "scummy", but his refusal to help or post anything meaningful merited suspicion.

Fair enough

[JordanA24]

It does seem rather conspiratorial I admit, but IMO, it's plausible, and I can't find anything that points to my theory not being true, so for now, I'm considering it possible that he was planning to make a permanent bandwagon. If I was scum, and I saw the opportunity to get a cheap bandwagon on a protown player, I'd probs try to take it.

But possibility =/= likelihood.

As town in that situation, my inclination would have been to wait and see. Having actual proof of opportunism is valid evidence to push against him - voting because of the potential is just conspiracy.

I saw no decent reason for Neo to have been voting Silk, the only reasoning he put in his post was that Silk hadn't posted anything for a while, which was a blatent lie because Silk had posted just 2 posts above, so I felt the vote had a fairly good chance of being opportunistic, so I said so.

But I thought the post of MOS's I highlighted was ridiculously snappy and defensive, so much so I felt that it didn't matter how defensive he may normally be (I'm not really sure how defensive he tends to be, can anyone who's played with him a lot clarify this please?), that seemed very defensive.

I don't know how defensive MoS usually is. The thing is that there is no reason for scum to be more reactive.

The idea: "Scum have more to lose, so they will get more defensive" is decimated by the fact that "Scum have more to lose, so they will try and play as tightly as possible". I don't know which is true (I would love to find out) and I've never seen any universal evidence for this. What is also valid, however, is if you have proof that, say, MoS reacts more as scum. That's also good worthwile evidence to discuss.

Your posting is still assuming that snappiness and defensiveness are intrinsically 'scummy' things, when I don't believe that is the case (FWIW, I also don't believe they are town-tells. I remain skeptical.)

He was evidently very irked in his post, for example there was absolutely no need for the profanity in it. And his threat of policy lynching her in every game they are in because of it also seemed very over the top. As far as I could see, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with TS's post, there was definatly nothing "ridiculous" about it, nor was it really a "conspiracy theory". And him saying that nothing overly-important happens on Page 10 and before is complete and utter crap. And it's quite difficult to not know what the Peers wagon was about if he was reading the game. So really, as well as the overdefensiveness, there is also complete craplogic and evidence that MOS wasn't really reading the game as well, and attacking TS rather than her theory quite a bit in a way. It was intimidation at the very least.

Yes, but "Vote: X" doesn't provide pressure unless it is coupled with an attack. Otherwise, all the votee can do is ask for some explanation. The real "pressure" comes from the arguments.

But what if other people have already made the attack you were going to make? Then I feel it's OK to simply post "Vote: X", otherwise I'd just be parroting what others have said. And repeated attacks don't provide any more pressure, and one more vote on your wagon does give a bit of pressure all by itself IMO.

Well, I think that it is far more helpful to say something like:

Vote: Oman

Answer Jordan's questions.

I guess this just comes back to my previously-stated views on transparency. If a person just says:

Vote: Oman

Then they can respond with "Oh, I just wanted to add to the pressure." No further questions. It allows scum a safe position.

If, however, people are expected to even just refer to the questions they want answered, it at least requires some level of accountability.

I accept, however, that mine is a minority view and I don't think lack of explanation is excessively scummy, but it is something I pick up on.

Sadly, I can't really provide any evidence that I was only voting Peers for pressure, and that I had no ulterior motives.

*cheers* Do you know how long the tempban will last for?

It was only one month, but I think/hope that he may be brooding indefinitely.

Let's hope so

Because he was going out of his way to be a pain in the arse, for example, why would he bother posting that he'd not read his Role PM if he didn't want to draw attention to himself? Posts like this are also pretty good examples:

There's something odd about Quagmire going out of his way to be a pain in the arse?

Anyway, I still don't see why if, as you said earlier, Quag was sick of mafia, it is somehow less conceivable that he just play the role of shit-stirrer as a townie.

lol,

The sheer amount of posts he made is quite odd for someone who is sick of Mafia, he seemed to be making an extra special effort to act like a complete tit. I'm sure he enjoys doing that, but the special effort he was making is what makes me suspicious of him.

[JordanA24]

SCUMPUTER

8: Kscope (Zu_Faul**, Yosarian2***, schismatized, MoS***, TS, ABR, Peers*, Setael)

Yos was town. MoS was town. I'm town. ABR is a Mason. Peers was town.
That leaves us with one of Zu-Faul, Setael, or schismatized being scum. = 0.33 point each

===================
7: Peers (YagamiLight, Erg0, hasdgfas, Panzerjager, MoS, Quagmire, Setael)
6: Quagmire (Battle Mage, JordanA24, TS, Bookitty, ABR, Peers)
3: Kscope (Zu_Faul, Yosarian2, schismatized)
5. 3: MoS (Kscope, IH, Peers)
1: Setael (Sir Tornado)

On the Quagmire wagon, TS, ABR and Peers being town,
One of BM, Jordan, and Bookitty is scum. = 0.33 point each

===================
8: Quagmire (Panzerjager, ABR, schismatized, Elmo/IH, Toaster Strudel, Battle Mage, Peers, Kscope)

ABR is a mason, TS is town, Peers is town, Kscope is town.
Scum on that wagon: At least one of Panzer, schis, Elmo/IH, BattleMage = 0.25 point each

===================
7: Sikario8 (Neo-Viper9/Bookitty, Yosarian, Sir Tornado, Elmo/IH, Zu_Faul, Kscope, ABR)

ABR, Kscope, Yosarian,are town.
Scum possibilities: Bookitty, SirTornado, IH, Zu_Faul = 0.25 each

===================

Sum of scum possibilities

BattleMage 0.33 + 0.25 = 0.58
Bookitty 0.33 + 0.25 = 0.58
Zu-Faul 0.33 + 0.25 = 0.58
schismatized 0.25 + 0.33 = 0.58
Elmo/IH 0.25 + 0.25 = 0.50
Setael 0.33 = 0.33
Jordan 0.33 = 0.33
Panzer 0.25 = 0.25
Sir Tornado 0.25 = 0.25

===================

Early possible distancing votes:
Panzer>>>BM
Bookitty>>>BM

===================
BM votes: ABR(mason), vollkan, IH***, TS(town), Hasdagas(presumed town), Peers(town), Bookitty***
Bookitty votes: Hasdagas (presumed town), BM***, Sikario8
Zu_Faul votes: TS(town), Sikario8, Bookitty***, Kscope(town), ABR(mason), vollkan, IH***

===================
TOP SCUMPUTER CANDIDATES - OUTPUT

1. Battle Mage
2. Bookitty
3. IH
4. schismatized
5. Panzer
6. Zu_Faul

unvote, vote: Battle Mage

So wait, what happened to Quag being certain scum then? I know that you have given up on bandwagoning him, but that surely doesn't change your opinions on him being scum, right?

lurkers/scummy:
BM
Panzerjager
Bookitty

So, do you feel that lurking=scummy?