Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Peers]

... so what was the point of making a convincing case on hasdaflag and a not-so-convincing case on Yos if you were just going to switch over to yet another person who's ticked you off???

(Mind you, if the scumteam is Yos, hasdaflag, and Quag, you're going to look like a genius.)

[Toaster Strudel]

... so what was the point of making a convincing case on hasdaflag and a not-so-convincing case on Yos if you were just going to switch over to yet another person who's ticked you off???

(Mind you, if the scumteam is Yos, hasdaflag, and Quag, you're going to look like a genius.)

Yeah I know. I have the hardest time deciding between these three players. That's pretty obvious. All of them are scummy for completely different reasons. However, hasfgas and Yosarian have reassured me somewhat, whereas Quagmire now appears overwhelmingly scummy. Wildly scummy.

I dunno. I wish some other players would weigh in with opinions and comments. We need a fresh outlook in this game, one that isn't mine.

[PJ.]

I'm glad I have my vote on quag already.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Stop voting Quag.

[Shanba]

Bookitty replaces Neo-viper9

[Quagmire]

Nine excellent reasons to lynch Quagmire:

(1) Jerked town around about role PM business.
(2) Needed to be at lynch minus 1 to allegedly read it.
(3) Has done absolutely nothing pro-town.
(4) Sabotaged all attempts for us to evaluate his alignment.
(5) His current strategy is to make sure he cannot be linked to any other player but one.
(6) Stubbornly policy voting a single player while denying it.
(7) Categorically refuses to answer questions - even from Yosarian who defended him earlier.
(8) This lynch will be informative of the alignment of the players that defended him, ie Yosarian, MoS and hasdfas.

(9) To completely refuse to involve oneself in the game in any capacity beyond a wholly useless policy vote, is thoroughly scummy.

That's the kind of thing a mafiosi might do in order not to compromise his buddies and leave no hints leading to them.

unvote, vote: Quagmire

- not for pressure, but for lynching.

None of these reasons are true, or good reasons to think that someone is scummy.

[Quagmire]

Maybe he's sick of contributing to the same conversation over and over again. You go me to change my mind; congrats. It doesn't mean you should expect everyone to flock to your banner.

I agree 100% with Peers. I don't talk when other people want me to, I talk when I want to. Get over it.

[YagamiLight]

Okay, I won't be posting my analysis tonight. I have almost finished with a reread, and figured I would finish and post it all together.

[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

[Shanba]

Vote Count:

4: Quagmire

(Elmo, Battle Mage, TS, JordanA24)

3: Kscope

(Zu_Faul, Yosarian2, schismatized)

3: Peers

(Mert, Erg0, hasdgfas)

2: MoS

(Kscope, Panzerjager)

2: hasdgfas

(ABR, Peers)

2: Toaster Strudel

(Quagmire, MoS)

2: Sikario8

(Neo-Viper9, Sir Tornado)

1: ABR

(Sikario8)

Not voting:

[Albert B. Rampage]

Quagmire, just claim. And then we'll all be voting hasdgfas.

[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.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Um, dude, you did mention it in the game. Anything you say in the game can certanly be used by anyone else in the game, and if she thinks your "policy lynch" comment was scummy or otherwise anti-town, or if she wants to use in her defense the fact that you said that in an attempt to discredit your attack on her or whatever, that's certanly her right, and it's perfectly reasonable for her to do so.

[YagamiLight]

Well, I expected to find more things to comment on. Here are the things I would like to comment on.

Albert B. Rampage: Post 167 & 169 looks like he's trying to bully Peers into voting Sikario, after Peers has said he doesn't believe Sikario is scum.

Mastermind of Sin: Post 226, policy votes TS wanting useful posts instead of random rantings, at this point he had only made 7 posts that fit the reason he voted TS quite nicely (see TS's post immediatly following). I do agree with MoS partly in his following post (post 232) that the end part of TS's post looks like a conspiracy theory that has limited reasoning behind it. Later MoS does gather reasons for his vote on TS, and no longer has a policy vote.

hasdfgas: Post 43 he states he likes reasons, and then post 72 votes for peers without stating reasons. I don't like his defense of Quag not reading his role pm in post 493, though not necessarily scummy, he fails to realize that we get absolutely no information from Quag in this case. He states more pressure is needed on peers (post 665), but doesn't add it himself

Paradox244/Quagmire: Paradox never posted, so nothing from him. Quag claims not to have read his role pm yet post 477. I see this as anti-town. Regardless of partners (if he were scum) there could be serious scum hunting from him, but he could be lying about not reading, in which case we couldn't trust this as who he says is scum could be town he wants to get mislynched if he is scum. There is also the fact that we get no true read on him day 1 if he had gone through with his idea of not reading it until the end. These two things combined effectively make every one of his posts useless. In the end though I don't see this as reason to lynch Quag, just reason to convince him to read his pm (which I'm glad he did).

Peers: Post 57 looks like deflection from everyone BW'ing him, instead of giving a defense. I agree with ABR in post 183 that Peers seemed to be trying to do what people wanted him to do, and keep as many people happy as possible. As town you shouldn't worry so much about keeping people happy as hunting scum. If you just try to keep people happy the whole game, then should you be mis-lynched no one would know your honest opinion, meaning you wouldn't have helped in life or death.

Panzerjager: Post 46, says he voted BM for having a serious vote page 1. Post 100 he criticizes hasdfgas for plagiarism, which, while not scummy, I don't like. When someone else posts the reasons you have before you do you can't post anything other than what they already did.

No one else had any posts that really stand out as scummy to me. There are a few people that I plan to read in isolation, and after that I'm sure I'll have more. I was about to vote Peers, but noticed that I never unvoted Mert's vote for Peers.

[hasdgfas]

hasdfgas: Post 43 he states he likes reasons, and then post 72 votes for peers without stating reasons. I don't like his defense of Quag not reading his role pm in post 493, though not necessarily scummy, he fails to realize that we get absolutely no information from Quag in this case.

The post stating I liked reasons was a reference to another game, and while I still kinda like reasons, I realized in between those two posts that voting without stating your reasons isn't always a bad thing. Yes, we get no information from Quag, I understand that. Would lynching him for not reading his role PM get us that information?

He states more pressure is needed on peers (post 665), but doesn't add it himself

How can I put more pressure on Peers when I'm already voting for him?

[YagamiLight]

With the Quag thing, I did say that he shouldn't be lynched for it. My point with that was that you seemed to be defending his action. As if him doing that was not an anti-town thing to do.
I'm sorry, I just checked and you were voting him. When I had read that part I had thought you had had no vote based on your following post where you vote TS, but there was no unvote.

[hasdgfas]

Him not reading his role PM is not necessarily an anti-town action. He doesn't have to be hindered by his role and might play the game more normally. However, announcing it, especially in the way he did, is much more of an anti-town action, as there was no need to do so. I didn't pay that much attention to it when he first announced it, but after TS pointed it out, I looked back and realized that he didn't need to say anything.

And I understand the mistake with regards to my vote. I just wanted to make sure that you saw that I couldn't do more than I already was.

[Bookitty]

Okay, I completed my read of this game. The policy lynch thing of Toaster Strudel was undeserved, in my view. Mastermind of Sin doggedly clinging to this explanation that, yes, he WAS policy lynching her, but now he's voting her for another reason... that's not very convincing. I realise it might be true, but it's just not very convincing. Choosing Toaster Strudel as the target for a policy lynch in THIS game seems really odd to me, in any case.

The not-reading-the-role-PM fiasco:

Him not reading his role PM doesn't mean he's wasting anyone's time. If he's scum, it's a great play because then he's hard to read. If he's town, he can just play as a townie and not worry about any possible power role that he has. The reason our time is being wasted is because everyone's making such a big deal over this.

This is nonsense. It's a form of cheating, in my opinion. If he's scum, he's not giving any tells in a game where such tells are the only evidence we have to go on. It's not "hard to read", it's impossible. And hasdgfas, do you really think he just played as a townie and helped the town? Do you think he was scumhunting? What do you think Quagmire did that was useful to town? Do you think that Mafia would be playable if everyone followed Quagmire's example in this, or winnable for town? (And don't say, "oh, but they won't," because you're suggesting it as a great play for scum and a decent play for town, so you are ADVOCATING it, hasdgfas. If it's such a brilliant move by Quagmire, we should all do it, right? Except that's not how Mafia is supposed to be played.)

I don't see any reason why someone would regard not reading one's role PM as a pro-town action and defend it, especially in light of Quagmire's actual actions, which included quoting from another ongoing game in this thread to justify a policy lynch, trailing MoS's logic, and pretty much nothing that was useful to town. Quagmire is wrong, and what he's doing is against the spirit of the game. You, hasdgfas, are defending something that is detrimental to town and that in practice, in this game, was extremely anti-town. And I don't see a good reason for you to do that, unless Quagmire is town, and you are scum buddying up.

unvote; vote hasdgfas

[Quagmire]

Quagmire, just claim. And then we'll all be voting hasdgfas.

No.

Unvote, vote: Bookitty

.

The not-reading-the-role-PM fiasco:

Him not reading his role PM doesn't mean he's wasting anyone's time. If he's scum, it's a great play because then he's hard to read. If he's town, he can just play as a townie and not worry about any possible power role that he has. The reason our time is being wasted is because everyone's making such a big deal over this.

This is nonsense. It's a form of cheating, in my opinion. If he's scum, he's not giving any tells in a game where such tells are the only evidence we have to go on. It's not "hard to read", it's impossible.

This has been brought up an incredible amount of times since I've revealed to the world that I don't read my role PM, and each time people have disagreed with what I've done, people have done the correct thing and taken the issue up with me and lambasted me (see: a bandwagon starting on me earlier this game which you've assuredly read about) for actions that I've done. Now, I know you're trying to connect hasdfhsadfhasdfh with scumminess, but if you're going to gage this action (not reading a PM as scummy), wouldn't you vote for me instead of a player who is simply defending the action that I took? Wouldn't I be better implicated in this case?

Anyways. I urge everyone to read bookitty's post in its entirety before I bulldog it apart right here. In essence, what Bookitty tries to do is implicate hasdfhsgdhaf because of issues she takes with my own style of play. She certainly tries to mask her case under a vial of a "connection" between hasdfhsadghg and I because he defends why I do what I do, but it's quite obvious that your issue is with the way I decide to play the game. So why aren't you voting for me then?

I immediately considered this question, and the only reasonable thing that I can come up with where you attack hasdgfasdfhgasd for defending my actions that you take issue with is that you don't want to come into a game, say what's already been said by people, and then vote for me. That'd catch many peoples' eyes: it's bandwagoning, it's regurgitating past evidence, and you'd be saying nothing new and placing a vote on me, creeping me ever-so-closer to lynch. And, of course, why would a person be conscious of themselves when they're voting and talking? Well, it's if they're mafia, and they'd like to look like a townsperson, of course. You can call that WIFOM if you want, but I tend to hold that as a universal principle. Note while I'm attacking this post Bookitty's reluctance to ever address anything to me and form every question to hasdfhasdghadf instead.

And hasdgfas, do you really think he just played as a townie and helped the town?

...Sounds like you're setting up a catch-22 on hasdfhsdfhgasdhf's end...

Do you think he was scumhunting?

...totally objective, although this is a more appropriate question for me, so I'll answer it. I have been scumhunting this game (in fact, I'm doing it right now), but my ability to do so has been a little bit clouded with the majority of the game being an unreadable random stage, a bandwagon on me (and thus a requirement to take time off of scumhunting and pile time onto defending myself), or frustration with Toaster Strudel trying to lead where my own discussion goes. Assuredly I will speak only when I feel the need to and I will only answer peoples' questions only when I find an appropriate outlet to do so. Anyways...

What do you think Quagmire did that was useful to town?

...he has already explained this...

Do you think that Mafia would be playable if everyone followed Quagmire's example in this, or winnable for town? (And don't say, "oh, but they won't," because you're suggesting it as a great play for scum and a decent play for town, so you are ADVOCATING it, hasdgfas. If it's such a brilliant move by Quagmire, we should all do it, right? Except that's not how Mafia is supposed to be played.)

...irrelevant question. This question should be saved for mafia discussion and has no place in an actual game, as it's an attack on mafia theory instead of a judgement of mafia or townsperson. Which you can't make in this case, especially if a person is saying, "I subscribe to THIS mafia theory," and you're simply disagreeing with it.

I don't see any reason why someone would regard not reading one's role PM as a pro-town action and defend it, especially in light of Quagmire's actual actions, which included quoting from another ongoing game in this thread to justify a policy lynch, trailing MoS's logic,

The only time I've trailed MoS' logic has been when I policy voted TS as well. Although, I find it funny that you're trying to implicate hasdfhsdafgh when I'm apparently trailing MoS' logic as well, but you make absolutely no mention of him when talking about people that you may find scummy.

and pretty much nothing that was useful to town.

Once again, that's objective. Right now, I think I'm being useful to the town.

Quagmire is wrong, and what he's doing is against the spirit of the game.

Although this again should be saved for mafia discussion, I never buy into this. What the hell is the "spirit of the game?" For a community so tightly bound by logic and rational thought, how can everyone talk about an abstract, unquantifiable term like it's set in stone? Who defines "the spirit of the game?"

Also, until this upcoming quote, she hasn't implicated hasdfgah on anything -- it's only been a critique of how I play the game. This post has been fine and good and everything, until this bottom paragraph, where she tries to justify a vote on hadasdfgh by placing a "connection" between us, even though he's simply been defending my position when others have attacked it.

You, hasdgfas, are defending something that is detrimental to town and that in practice, in this game, was extremely anti-town. And I don't see a good reason for you to do that, unless Quagmire is town, and you are scum buddying up.

unvote; vote hasdgfas

There could be plenty of other reasons why he wouldn't vote for me. Maybe he thinks the way I play isn't as bad as you think it is. Maybe he thinks people overreacted a bit. The fact that you're trying to mask your desire to vote for hasdfhdfah when I'm the issue that you want to deal with makes me think that you're trying to be opportunistic without being a bandwagoner.

[Quagmire]

(pant pant pant)

I see that my vote for Bookitty is hard to pick up in that last post, so I'll make it easier to be read in this one:

Unvote, Vote Bookitty

[Bookitty]

Defending your stupid actions is equivalent to defending a newbie's idea to have a first day no-lynch. "But wait, that seems pro-town, because then we wouldn't lynch a townie!" It SOUNDS good, but it doesn't hold up. Hasdgfas is arguing that your actions were pro-town. They were not. They were pro-YOU. Now, his arguing that doesn't make YOU scum, though you may be. But it does make HIM scummy for arguing it.

You're going against the entire point of Mafia by not reading your role PM, Quagmire. Paint it how you like, but it's something intended to give you an advantage over other players. If not, why do it? And if everyone followed suit, would this game be MORE fun, or less so?

I'm sorry you don't like the discussion here, in this thread. You brought it up yourself, under no pressure to do so. If you didn't want the discussion, why bring it up?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Bookitty, let's both vote Quagmire and pressure him into a claim.

Unvote, vote Quagmire

[Bookitty]

Agreed, with the caveat that I still think hasdgfas is scummier.

I'd like to see this claim too.

unvote; vote Quagmire

[Albert B. Rampage]

Also, I liked the past couple posts you made, they were most excellent.

[Peers]

Pressuring Quag to claim is pointless right now, given that must of us don't even believe that he's bothered to read his PM. He's possibly the only person in this game where a BW would be for a lynch, not for pressure.