Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Peers]

Why does it figure that the one time I can't edit the post is the one time I screw up my vote count...

Sorry, the vote on MoS is correct and the one on Sikario is incorrect.

You also missed MoS's vote on Jordan, I believe.

[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.

[Quagmire]

I think Quag is scum

Me too. But Quag not worth arguing with. Quag is at the top of the list of any vig worth his salt.

I could be mafia. I don't know. I haven't looked at my role yet.

[JordanA24]

You ever going to look at your role Quag?

[Quagmire]

You ever going to look at your role Quag?

At the end of day one, yes.

[Peers]

Wow. That's... amazingly stupid. Seriously.

[Yosarian2]

You ever going to look at your role Quag?

At the end of day one, yes.

Theory: This might or might not help Quagmire, but it can only hurt the town, because it makes him literally impossible to read him day 1, and makes all of his posts basically completly useless for information purposes. It's even worse then lurking, because even if someone's lurking just the fact that they ARE lurking MIGHT give the town SOME information.

Suggestion: Assuming Quag is telling the truth, he is probably doing this in order to avoid getting pressured/giving ; that's the only logical reason to do it, after all. So he should give up the "not reading the PM" tactic if we pressure him enough. And frankly, if he dosn't give in to pressure and just read his role PM, his "I didn't read my role PM" thing is a better reason for a policy lynch then anything TS's done this game.

unvote:MOS

Still don't like his terrible OMGUS "Oh my god how dare you think my policy lynch attempt is scummy" vote on Jorden, but we'll get back to lynching MOS later.

vote:Quagmire

until he reads his freaking role PM.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Unvote, vote Quagmire

[Albert B. Rampage]

I don't care I want him lynched since he just wasted every single one of his posts and 20 pages of evidence.

[Peers]

... damn this game. I... I agree with ABR... I have to go clean my brain out with bleach now...

[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.

[schismatized]

I think Quag is scum

Me too. But Quag not worth arguing with. Quag is at the top of the list of any vig worth his salt.

I could be mafia. I don't know. I haven't looked at my role yet.

lol you want die?

vote quag

[Quagmire]

I don't care I want him lynched since he just wasted every single one of his posts and 20 pages of evidence.

I haven't wasted a single post, although your bandwagon (along with schism's) on me has been duly noted. Why does me announcing that I haven't read my role PM make my scumminess any different? We should be lynching TOaster Strudel, not me.

[Quagmire]

Suggestion: Assuming Quag is telling the truth, he is probably doing this in order to avoid getting pressured/giving ; that's the only logical reason to do it, after all. So he should give up the "not reading the PM" tactic if we pressure him enough. And frankly, if he dosn't give in to pressure and just read his role PM, his "I didn't read my role PM" thing is a better reason for a policy lynch then anything TS's done this game.

In different games where I haven't read my role PMs, as well as the mafia discussion thread, I've already explained why I don't read my role PM. It has nothing to do with "avoid getting pressured/giving" and everything to do with me not getting wrapped up in my role and how I should think based on what role I have.

In previous games where I've announced that I haven't read my role PM, I've been lynched and pressured. Why would I announce this if I'm just going to get lynched again and draw attention to myself (if I'm mafia)? I'd like to point out here that I wasn't pressured in any way to claim or reveal myself, and I can prove to you that there's an unread PM in my inbox right now if you'd like.

vote:Quagmire

until he reads his freaking role PM.

It looks like you'll be voting for me until the end of the day today.

[Quagmire]

I think Quag is scum

Me too. But Quag not worth arguing with. Quag is at the top of the list of any vig worth his salt.

I could be mafia. I don't know. I haven't looked at my role yet.

lol you want die?

vote quag

schism you've done nothing this entire game except bandwagon everyone and sit back. care to explain yourself?

[Elmo]

I roughly concur with Yos. Read it, Quag.

[Quagmire]

I roughly concur with Yos. Read it, Quag.

I did, and I responded to it. I don't care if that makes me "unreadable."

[Elmo]

Unvote

:

JordanA24

;

vote

:

Quagmire

.

[hasdgfas]

Guys, it's day 1. It's basically a random lynch, since it's really hard to get enough good info from day 1 in order to get a correct lynch. So unless Quag has a role with a Day 1 only choice, him not reading his role PM isn't that huge a deal.

[Albert B. Rampage]

No, let's lynch him.

[Toaster Strudel]

I thought Quag would be best handled by a vig (he needs to be killed, but it's not an informative kill, regardless of his alignment, so vig is best), but if there is a will to lynch him, I'm all for it.

Not to mention how I've seen him pull this trick before and he was scum.

unvote, vote: Quagmire

[Battle Mage]

Unvote, Vote: Quag

Maybe putting him at -3/-2 might encourage him to play the game-and playing the game starts with reading your role pm.

[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.

[Battle Mage]

dude, we arent going to lynch him. we're wagonning him, so he gets near a lynch, and has to CLAIM, hence he will read his role.

BM

[JordanA24]

I still prefer my MOSvote.