Newbie 534: MafiaTV - Episode 2 - Finally Over!

[Flameaxe]

Vote: No lynch

Good play right thar.

[Flameaxe]

Why are we all voting no lynch?

We aren't. If we were all voting no lynch, it would be night right now. But alas, it is not!

[Flameaxe]

Uhm...Numbers are our best weapon right now. What exactly do you plan on accomplishing from the nightm exactly? All that happens is that we lose an innocent without discussion.

[Flameaxe]

We won't be lynching only for the sake of it, but I highly doubt that a no lynch would ever be a better choice than a lynch.

[Flameaxe]

This might be a bad time, but I just get the impression that Flameaxe is a little too eager to get to the night.

That kinda makes me think that he is a cop and is eager to investigate someone, or that he is a mafia and is eager to kill someone. Or that I'm just an idiot.

Excuse me? Do you know how to read? I'm the guy fighting AGAINST the no lynch. How exactly is this be being eager? Secondly, you are just an idiot.

If anyone here is being eager, its Curateur. It may just be his way of how games went on wherever his mafia career was before this, but he seems way too deadset on a no-lynch for my liking. That and his convenient jumping on after I random voted no-lynch, the more he posts the more odd of a feeling I am getting.

Unvote, Vote: Curateur

. I love to follow my gut.

A lynch, no matter how random it is (even though it should never really be random), is always helpful.

[Flameaxe]

Well, you

were

the first person to vote no lynch.

And there was also this:

Why are we all voting no lynch?

We aren't. If we were all voting no lynch, it would be night right now. But alas, it is not!

Were you being sarcastic? Or is there something I'm missing here?

Yes, I was the first, but it was a vote that wasn't even justified with anything, thus (I was hoping) it would be assumed as random.

The second quote: I don't even think that applies in whatever fantasyworld you are living in. What I posted was a fact. Hot juicy fact.

---

You can't always take the first person to do something as a bad thing, sometimes those

bandwagoners

can mean a lot more.

[Flameaxe]

Ok, maybe that part was sarcastic. Now why again do you think I am being more eager than Cur? I'm you know...not the guy arguing it.

[Flameaxe]

Neither am I, if you read my last post.

I still don't think there's really much to go on, but I do agree it's strange that Ignatz found you more suspicious than me for the reason he posted, so I would have to say he's at the top of my list for now.

But you did. If he's at the top of your list, why not vote him?

[Flameaxe]

OBJECTION!

Top of list => "I don't think he's scum".

Need I say more?

[Flameaxe]

Ok, maybe that part was sarcastic. Now why again do you think I am being more eager than Cur? I'm you know...not the guy arguing it.

Maybe

it was sarcastic? Maybe? It was either sarcastic or not, good sir.
Is there some reason for not wanting to disclose whether or not it was? Or did you just not have enough time to think up another excuse?

Having the need to vote before anything has happened, encouraging others to vote "no lynch" in order to get to nighttime faster, changing your position as soon as someone challenges said position, voting for whoever seems to be in hot water at the time, and verbally attacking me when I entered a point of view all seem like scummy traits to me.

Vote: Flameaxe

This is going to be fun.

When a game starts, it usually begins with a random voting stage, which (when used correctly, and I can already tell, we will not be using this correctly) is used for judging a person's reactions to a number of votes, aka a bandwagon.

---

Now lets analyze with fury!™

Maybe

it was sarcastic? Maybe? It was either sarcastic or not, good sir.
Is there some reason for not wanting to disclose whether or not it was? Or did you just not have enough time to think up another excuse?

Hey guys lets pick at straws by completely reading things the wrong way. Well done, sir!

Having the need to vote before anything has happened, encouraging others to vote "no lynch" in order to get to nighttime faster, changing your position as soon as someone challenges said position, voting for whoever seems to be in hot water at the time, and verbally attacking me when I entered a point of view all seem like scummy traits to me.

I'm being attacked for random voting. DAMN this game is gonna be full of good clean family fun. Wait...I'm here, this won't be clean enough for the whole family.

I never encouraged anyone else to vote no lynch. You are making things up to better your case now. I think you have a case of "not owning that funny thing called 'reading comprehension'". Here I have a book for you:

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k74/F ... ngcopy.jpg

I'm not really sure you can call a random (It wasn't really random, I don't believe in this random you speak of...or apparently don't) vote a position. I'm voting for whoever is in hot water all the time...right, HEY BUDDY, I'VE VOTED FOR ONE FUCKING PERSON, WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE YOUR SCUMBUDDY (yes, I am claiming, on page two, our scumpair).

I want you to prove right now that any personal attack made by me, or anyone for that matter, makes them scum. Do it now, please.

All of those seem like scummy traits to you, when half of them are complete bullshit, madeup, or straw pickings.

Unvote, Vote: Ignatz

for being so fucking obvious.

[Flameaxe]

Hey guys lets pick at straws by completely reading things the wrong way. Well done, sir!

You're avoiding the question. This is the fourth time I will ask: Were you being sarcastic? It's just a simple question.

I'm always sarcastic, I usually don't notice it anymore. Happy?

I need to know that, because it will discern whether you were advocating people voting no lynch or if you had already turned on Curateur.

I was

never

advocating people to vote no lynch.

I never encouraged anyone else to vote no lynch.

"If we were all voting no lynch, it would be night right now. But alas, it is not!"

Wow, so wrong. So...so wrong. This isn't pushing a no lynch no matter HOW you read it. Context would show you that the poster before me said "Why are we all voting no lynch?", and I reply with "We aren't all voting no lynch, if we were it would be night!" Your stupidity and constant leaving things out and reading things wrong is terribly frustrating.

I'm not really sure you can call a random (It wasn't really random, I don't believe in this random you speak of...or apparently don't) vote a position.

Your point?

First: I believe you just contradicted yourself there. It was random, but yet it wasn't?

Nothing is truly random, therefore, I don't rely on random. I didn't contradict myself at all, you would realize that if you read it a bit closer.

Second: If it wasn't random, you must have had a reason for it.

Thats not necessarily true. A baseless vote is not always random, keep going on in this day and you shall see.

I'm voting for whoever is in hot water all the time.

Yes you are.
Example1: Curateur votes "No lynch"
copyWright challenges Curateur's position, votes "Curateur"
Flameaxe switches position, challenging Curateur's position, too.

I never had a position, so this entire statement is invalid. Nice try though, really.

Curateur continues, unchanging
Flameaxe votes "Curateur"

What so now I'm not allowed to make a push? And then you try and pin it on me? Damn, you really are trying to make this obvious, aren't you?

Example2: Ignatz2000 posts an opinion [bThat was completely wrong and reeked of scum protecting his/her buddy.[/b]
Curateur posts that Ignatz is "At the top of his list"
Flameaxe encourages Curateur to vote "Ignatz2000"

No I didn't, you are twisting my words. I simply asked why Cur was voting NL when you were at the top of his list. He seems way to cautious.

Flameaxe votes "Ignatz2000"

No no no, let me fix this for you.
"Flameaxe builds a case against Ignatz, justifies it, and proceeds to vote him."

There, much better.

I want you to prove right now that any personal attack made by me, or anyone for that matter, makes them scum. Do it now, please.

Aggressiveness and unpleasantry towards people who have differing opinions displays nervousness that said person will make a decision that you do not approve of, and hopes to prevent that decision by cowing said decision-maker.

Way to spew bullshit while avoiding the question. I'll give you another try, how does this make me scum, and not just an asshole in general?

If you fail: I'm the bold.

[Flameaxe]

All of my votes have been justified, but you can keep trying to make me look bad all you want.

BUT ALAS, YOU CANNOT!

[Flameaxe]

Okay. Ignatz, Flame is right. You are picking at straws. If you look at his posts in context they make sense, mostly. "Mostly," because I'm not sure I understand the whole dispute anyway.

Picking at straws I may be, but that isn't an entirely useless pastime.

Flameaxe's whole reaction to my posts suggests a certain 'scumminess'.

Ignatz's push of me and complete ignoring of Cur suggests 'omg-scumbuddies'. Take that.

[Flameaxe]

Ignatz's push of me and complete ignoring of Cur suggests 'omg-scumbuddies'. Take that.

Complete ignoring? No.

Curateur gave me the impression that he was following the lead of a older, more experienced member, and got bit in the ass by it when said older member turned on him.

Considering every post you've made is about me, yes, you are.

[Flameaxe]

Nothing to add.

[Flameaxe]

Anything.

[Flameaxe]

Not to point out the obvious, but copywright isn't saying anything either. Saying that nobody is saying anything is scummy but then not saying anything yourself is scummy.

Unvote. Vote: Copywright

This coming from Mr 3 post. It's just a big long chain of fun now.

[Flameaxe]

Your small amount of contribution is noted.

[Flameaxe]

No its not.

How do you know what I've noted and what I haven't?

[Flameaxe]

@Flameaxe- I'm that good...

@Silence- Saying that nobody is saying anything isn't scummy. Urging other people to post content while posting no content yourself might be.

[Flameaxe]

Right, because arguing over a bullshit case is really "being defensive". I forgot that part.

[Flameaxe]

Ignatz and Flameaxe - I would assume one of them is scum and the other one isn't. Currently I am leaning towards Ignatz, because he seems to be making connections that aren't there and is at the very least overanalyzing things. On the other hand flameaxe has attacked at least 3 or 4 townies already, though that could be characteristic to his playstyle.

Only two, and both were completely justified. Also, how would you know if I've attacked townies or not? *ponders*

[Flameaxe]

Right, because arguing over a bullshit case is really "being defensive".

No it's not.

Responding to a off hand, inconsequential impression that another player has about you by calling them an idiot is defensive... no matter how you try to spin it.

That isn't all I responded with though.

[Flameaxe]

Hi guiz. Scum should claim.

[Flameaxe]

I think that third one just grew. Or maybe it was the third. Overall, great match. Very close between all competitors.

[Flameaxe]

Mah gut says Pwayne and Superfly. What about your gut!

[Flameaxe]

My prime suspect is still copywright.

Oh and silence for not suspecting flameaxe who started the bandwagon in the first place - he was the reason ignatz flipped out and went emo.

PS: could someone prod copywright, it has been a month since he last posted.

Building a case that was completely justified should make him suspect me. Gotcha.

[Flameaxe]

There is a difference in the ways we went after Ignatz Wright. I made the coat-tails, you rode them.

You jumped up my scumdar, for the record.

[Flameaxe]

There is a difference in the ways we went after Ignatz Wright. I made the coat-tails, you rode them.

You jumped up my scumdar, for the record.

Lol. Thank you for the record.

I try.

[Flameaxe]

hi

[Flameaxe]

Great. This game has halted to a standstill. Is everyone else still interested in playing? I'll get two replacements if that's what you want, but this game just seems like it's going to die.

I honestly have no opinion on this matter. I don't want to see the game die, but it doesn't really seem like activity will pick up past the replacement's catch up posts and responses to it. If everyone else wants to continue, I'll be more than happy to follow along though.

[Flameaxe]

Vote: Pwayne

[Flameaxe]

Kay.

[Flameaxe]

Limited access this weekend. St. Patty's rush at work.

[Flameaxe]

Reply.

[Flameaxe]

I'm actually voting pwayne.

[Flameaxe]

I'd argue but what would I say. Occult hit the nail on the head... only FA is a bigger jackass than I am... for the record, that is.

I won't be denying this statement.

[Flameaxe]

Poor pwayne.

Why?