Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Yosarian2]

Unvote, Vote:BM

Prosecuted on page 1 is bad BM.

Care to clarify that, Panzer?

[Yosarian2]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]Why are you not voting BM?[/quote]

...because the bandwagon against him is dumb, and Panzer's vote against BM is the scummiest thing I've seen so far this game?

[Yosarian2]

I think I meant "prosecuting". And it's cause I felt he was voting for serious on the vote he put down so i voted him saying serious vote on page 1 is bad and scummy.

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant, and, huh? Why would a serious vote on page 1 be bad? That's silly. A random vote on page 1 isn't terrible, but a vote that has a reason behind it is obveously better, right?

[Yosarian2]

How many times do you get an actual, bona-fide legit serious reason to vote for someone on page 1 of a day-start game?

I'd say, more then half the time. Not usually a very strong reason, granted, but voting with any kind of semi-legitimate reason is better then a random vote.

[Yosarian2]

In fact, I'd say the thing most worth voting for on page one is

vote:neo-viper

I don't like Panzer's reason for voting, but the way viper followed him there was even worse. That kind of following vote, onto a bandwagon of someone like Battle Mage who many people consider an "easy lynch", for no good reason like that looks like a scum tell to me.

[Yosarian2]

Besides... random phase. You vote for people randomly, you let them off the hook randomly, until someone things they see a pattern in the randomness and then everyone decides if that person is right or if that person is scum.

There is no "random phase", Peers, when you can do whatever you want and no one is allowed to "seriously" vote you for it. In fact, really early in the game can be the best time to catch scum, because they think no one is paying attention.

[Yosarian2]

I like how Panzer is thinking here. When talking about BM, hasdgfas specifically said that

As he well knows, I like reasons behind votes

But then, he voted for peers, saying

ok. this bandwagon seems to have more behind it than the BM one.

unvote, vote:peers

So, despite his earlier comment about "liking reasons", he didn't actually give any reason for his peers vote.

hasdgfas, could you explain why you voted for peers, exactally?

[Yosarian2]

unvote, vote:sikario8

[Yosarian2]

Sikardo8's lurking, followed by a "I'm alive and reading" post, was scummy. His hasdgfas vote also seemed a bit odd. And when I voted for him because of that, he fos'd me for voting him? Not helping.

[Yosarian2]

Attention: Non-scum please stop acting scummy.

...did you read the player list for this game?

[Yosarian2]

Unvote
Vote:Sikario8

That's quite obvious. His vote was scummy as hell. Just when everyone called him out he voted on a bandwagon.

Hmm... I voted jokingly, why are you voting? Do you want my phone number?

You were...joking? About what, exactally?

[Yosarian2]

Interestingly enough, several of the people who are voting for me are defending Sikario. Your argument puts me in a position where, to appear less scummy to you, I must appear more scummy to them.

I hate that sentance there. Sounds like you're more worried about how your vote makes you look, instead of how you can use your vote to find scum.

[Yosarian2]

vote peers

again. This post irks me:

Vote: JordanA24

Reason: He's had four posts so far, two of them were votes with no other content. 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.

My other two of the 'requested list'...

Panzerjager, for the following, which feels like he's bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning, or trying to convince those who're voting otherwise to pick one of us:

So, are we lynching hasd or peers?

And #2, Sikario, which is more due to all the arguing about him than anything else giving much more to think about. I've seen plenty of town mislynches, especially day one, and they all seem to follow the same patterns as today, but I haven't played with a lot of this game before -- they could work differently as a town and be seeing something I don't.

First of all, if you haven't noticed, I have been acting the same way as panzerjager the whole game. Why no vote for me? A little hypocritical.

Second, I have never really agreed with voting someone for lurking. Always ask for a mod prod/replace.

Do not like this post at all. "Why are you voting Panzer when I'm doing it to" is not a good argument for, well, anything, certanly not for a vote like that; if you want to defend Panzer, then do so, don't do a "but I'm just as bad" thing; even if you are, no one can vote 2 people at once. And there's nothing wrong with lurker hunting.

[Yosarian2]

First of all, I wasn't defending panzer. It could have been anyone else using the same "non-chalant" style that he attacked. I'm just saying If your attacking someone for a certain behavior, why not attack all with that behavior.

Yeah, and I'm not a big fan of that argument. Espeally at this point in day 1, if I see something so something scummy, I'll attack them for it and focus on them without necessarally trying to figure out if anyone else has done something similar and/or attack the person who's doing it the worst..

And your last sentence is just opinion, I hope you know that. There's nothing wrong with having a life.

Lurking really hurts the town, and I think that just relying on the mod to control the problem is not in the best interestes of the town. Anyway, I understand that some reasonable people disagree with me on the validity of lurker voting, and that's ok, but I don't like that you're apparently using that as one of your reason to join the large peers wagon.

[Yosarian2]

I'm trying to use the same technique A.B.R. uses and be scummy as hell, just in an asshole way and not in a scum way. It seems to work for him. Be too hated to waste a NK on, but not quite scummy enough to lynch.

Um, except you know Albert does get lynched a lot, right?

[Yosarian2]

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

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

Unvote, Vote: Jordan

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

[Yosarian2]

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

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

Unvote, Vote: Jordan

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

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

When, exactally, was he "throwing around smoke and flames" or "trying to kick up dust"? Or "supporting whatever wagon seems easier to push", even. I'm all in favor of people lurker voting, but you're really not making a whole lot of sense here, MOS, and that's making your vote against him look really OMGUSy to me. Your current posts aren't helping that preception, either.

unvote:Sikario8

vote:MOS

[Yosarian2]

vote:mastermind of sin

[Yosarian2]

You already did that.

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

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

[Yosarian2]

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

No, you, in fact, never explained how Jordan was "throwing around smoke and flames", how he was "trying to kick up dust and cast suspicion on people" or how he was "supporting whichever wagons seem the easiest to push". In fact, that third sentance is pretty obveously false, since the only vote of his that could at all be considered a "wagon" vote is the one one on you, and "voting for MOS" is not equal to "supporting whatever wagon seems easiest to push".

[Yosarian2]

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

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

[Yosarian2]

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

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

No, you, in fact, never explained how Jordan was "throwing around smoke and flames", how he was "trying to kick up dust and cast suspicion on people" or how he was "supporting whichever wagons seem the easiest to push". In fact, that third sentance is pretty obveously false, since the only vote of his that could at all be considered a "wagon" vote is the one one on you, and "voting for MOS" is not equal to "supporting whatever wagon seems easiest to push".

Explaining your earlier post, the justifaction you origionally gave for your vote, isn't something you're willing to "make sense about"?

[Yosarian2]

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.

So...you think Jordon is scum because he "deflected the jester talk" about you and voted for you? Seriously? You realize that "MOS might be the jester" is a quite terrible defense, right?

[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.

[Yosarian2]

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

Well, I'm hoping you read it today before we have to lynch you for not reading it, but meh, either way. It's really up to you; if you'd rather hurt whatever side you might be on by getting lynched rather then going and reading your role PM, that's your call.

You might think that not reading your role PM is a good metagame stratagy for you. I think a good metagame stratagy for me is to bandwagon anyone who claims they didn't read their role PM, I vote them until they either go back and read their role PM, or until they get lynched day 1 for stubbornly refusing to do so.

Besides, from my point of view, you're either telling the truth, in which case you're a totally random lynch, or else you're scum pretending you didn't read your role PM for some kind of personal gain. That makes you a better then random lynch already.

[Yosarian2]

unvote:quagmire

before someone hammers him.

[Yosarian2]

Whatever he might have hoped to gain by the silly "didn't read my PM" gambit, it's gone now.

So anyway, back to the scum.

vote:MOS

[Yosarian2]

WTF Yosarian ????

What?

I said I would vote him until he read his PM. Now claims he has. He could be lying, but I doubt he'd lie until he actually knew he was scum, heh.

He could very well be scum, the whole thing could have been a scum gambit or he might have just discovered that he was scum, but eh, now that we've shut down the whole "I didn't read my PM" thing, I think MOS is scummier looking.

[Yosarian2]

So Peers. You agree with that? You think it's good for the game to let people get away without a claim? What do you think of the people that backed off Quagmire after the "I read it I swear" declaration? Two hundred words minimum. Be prepared for a follow up question.

The "people"? I'm pretty sure it was just me.

Anyway, I started the Quagmire wagon, because I wanted to pressure him into reading his role PM. It worked. At least, I think that it did; I suppose he could be lying, but I'm not sure why he would want to here. So, now, it's time to move on.

Why are you trying so hard to get him lynched here, TS? Do you really think he's scum who lied about not reading his role PM and then lied about reading it? Why would he do all that, exactally? Especally as he's mentioned in Mafia Discussion that he sometimes does not read his role PM on day 1, I don't see any reason to not believe him.

Or are you just looking for an easy lynch at this point?

[Yosarian2]

Do you really think he's scum who lied about not reading his role PM and then lied about reading it?

I don't give a rat's tutu about Quagmire. I want Peers to talk. Do you mind???

Well, that's fine, but personally I want you to talk. You are still voting Quag, and I would like you to explain why and to answer my questions.

[Yosarian2]

Even if he read his role pm its not like he can backtrack and go after someone else now.

He wasted his day1 and our time

, now we lynch him.

•

Did anyone come up with a rebuttal for this?

...so, because we don't have any information on him based on his early game play, we should speedlynch him rather then, say, get him to contribute on other issues and gain information based on what he says NOW?

I'm thinking the best wagon for the moment is Toaster Strudel. She looks like over-eager scum to me.

unvote:MOS

vote:Toaster Strudel

[Yosarian2]

Scum list:

1. Toaster Strudel
2. Mastermind of Sin
3. Sikario8

Whichever one people want to lynch first is fine by me.

[Yosarian2]

ABR is the play

FoS: Erg0

for assuming that any BW on ABR has no substance.

BM

Well, you know, the case on ABR really dosn't have any substance.

[Yosarian2]

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

Neah. There is no burden of proof. In mafia, you're assumed guilty until proven flammable.

[Yosarian2]

Because TS hasn't posted for over a week now, most likely. Out of sight, out of mind. It does look suspicious, yes...

I think TS is an alt of DGB, and DGB recently asked to be replaced in all of her games...

That being said, I also think she's probably scum. Might as well just lynch her now, rather then make the mod replace her so we can lynch the replacement.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]It's a policy lynch, MoS. I doubt I have to explain you that, no? <3[/quote]

unvote:TS

vote:KaleiDoscope

MOS's TS vote actualyl makes perfect sense, she really did look quite scummy. You "policy voting" MOS or whatever shows that either you're not really paying attention to the game, that you're scum hoping to get a mislynch based on emotion, or that you're TS's scumbuddy.

[Yosarian2]

Nothing random about my vote at all, BM. I think there's a fair chance Kalei is a scum who's attempting to take avantage of the emotions created by TS's post.

[Yosarian2]

TS: Fair enough, I do tend to defend people a lot. That being said, some of those things you attack me for weren't actually defending. For example, I'm not interested in defending MOS; what I am doing is attacking Kaleidoscope because his MOS vote looked incredibly scummy, the reasons he gave for it were simply not pro-town and I want a better explination from him.

Attacking someone because of a scummy looking vote is not the same as defending the person they're voting for.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, to comment on a few other things:

1. I stand by my early comments on the Battle Mage wagon. I think trying to start up an early wagon against an "easy target" like Battle Mage for no good reason is a pretty decent scumtell; I've caught scum with that exact scumtell before, in fact.


2.

Once you come that far on a wagon, and a player needs so much pressure to make a post that claims he read his role PM, isn't it important that this player prove his honesty by claiming?

You have to believe that Quag actually didn't read his PM in the first place; then you have to believe he read it when he said he did.

I'm not willing to take this kind of guff from a player - unless he's my scumbuddy and I really need him to read his PM (haha!), or unless I'm scum and I know he's town and I want to be credited for saving his skin later... but hey... I reckon there's more than one explanation for Yosarian's behavior in this game.

Eh...I do tend to believe Quag didn't read his PM in the first place, because he's mentioned in the Mafia Discussion forum in the past that he has, in the past, not read his PM. I was not interested in allowing him to do that, so I pressured him until he read his PM. On the other hand, I do believe him when he said he did read his PM now; this might sound a bit strange, but I have never seen Quagmire lie as town, and a person who hasn't read his PM basically has to assume he's town, right? I donno, it's hard to explain, but I do, in fact, think he was telling the truth both times. Which dosn't mean he's not scum anyway, of course, but it does mean by Quag wagon accomplished what I wanted it to accomplish.

Not only that, one of the biggest problems with a person who hasn't read his PM is that it's much harder to make connections or get information if they do turn out to be scum. However, the large bandwagon on him also helped solve that, I think; if he does turn out to be scum, I think we'll get a lot of info from the way his bandwagon went.

Oh, and before I forget, I'm glad you decided to keep playing. Your analysis posts have also made me feel somewhat better about your alignment as well, they seem to show some good pro-town thinking.

[Yosarian2]

If you think MoS is scum, why are you attacking his attackers? Presumably you want MoS to be lynched, since you think he's scum, right? So why are you derailing the nascent MoS wagon? YOU said we should pile votes on him until he begins to make sense. Has he?

(shrug). A pro-town person has to be willing to switch direction in an instant if something dosn't feel right; stubborn pro-town people who stick to their guns no matter what are a scum's best friend. MOS seems somewhat less scummy so then I did before because I do think he is making some sense now. Basically, when he voted you, I, at the time, had a bad vibe about you, so his vote did make sense to me.

In conclusion, meh. MOS might be scum, but I'm not sure enough that he is to ignore suc h anti-town looking votes like the one Kaliedoscope dropped on him. And, honeslty, MOS almost always feels scummy to me day 1, so while I'm still not entierly comfertable with him, I'm not willing to bet on my vibe being right.

So what, if, by your own evaluation, Kaleidoscope wants to help by bus'ing MoS?

Eh. Kalei's vote dosn't look or feel like a bussing move, though. It looks more like he was thinking that everyone was mad at MOS at the moment, and that he might be able to use that to get MOS lynched without having to actually give any reasons that might get him in trouble later. It just felt like a "I don't care if he's scum or not, let's lynch him for being a jerk" move, and I always find those kinds of things really scummy.

Attacking someone because of a scummy looking vote is not the same as defending the person they're voting for.

I disagree; especially if the person that player is voting for tops your own scum list.

(shrug) Then we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose, at least during this stage of the game. The thing you have to keep in mind is that at this point of day 1, most people are pro-town, and most bandwagons are probably wrong, even the ones that sound good at the time. At this stage of the game, I always keep in mind that I might be wrong, and that if I am scum will most likely take the bandwagons I start and run with them. No one gets a free pass just because they agree with me.

[Yosarian2]

That's an easy one, everyone is tired with the "BM First Class Wagon."

What about all the other players you defended?

No more dodging please.

Well, who else do you want to know about? Panzer? Panzer made a bunch of posts that sounded logical to me, he was basically making more sense then I usually hear from him, and it gave me good vibes about him. (shrug) Nothing huge, but enough for a few pages into the game.

Are you saying that it's impossible that he said that in Mafia Discussion to give himself a bit of a Day 1 advantage across the board?

I highly doubt it. Lying in mafia discussion in order to get some minor advantage in some future mafia game would be in incredibly poor taste, and would not be behavior I would consider acceptable.

On the other hand, I do believe him when he said he did read his PM now; this might sound a bit strange, but I have never seen Quagmire lie as town, and a person who hasn't read his PM basically has to assume he's town, right?

Er - yes, it sounds uber-strange. OK. You haven't read, or understood, my argument. At all. See, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not that he's assuming he's town; it's that the stunt

can only help him as scum

and that

it never helps the town, especially not with Quagmire doing it

.

Right, which is why I refused to let him get away with it. I STARTED the wagon, remember?

This kind of blind trust of a player that advocates policy-lynches and pulled this stunt as scum before, is VERY ANTI-TOWN.

No blind trust involved at all. It's just that after reading his posts, I tend to think he told the truth both times. The whole point of mafia is to read what people say and try to figure out if they're telling the truth, isn't it? Well, go back and read his posts. Try to forget that you're annoyed with him for the whole thing, and just read what he says and try to figure out for yourself if it feels like he's lying.

What did you want the Quagwagon to accomplish, Yosarian? Tell the whole class.

I made that quite clear right from the beginning. This was the post of mine which started the entire Quagmire wagon.

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.

All along, I thought that if we just put enough pressure on Quagmire, he would give up and read his role PM; since the only rational reason to NOT read a role PM and then to say that you didn't read it would be in order to avoid being pressured or giving tells. So, like I said right from the start, the entire point of the wagon was to make Quagmire read his freaking role PM.

[Yosarian2]

Oh - let me get this straight.

(1) When MoS, who you think is scum, votes for me, who you think is scum, that's good! You vote for me. Even when it looks like I'm gone!
(2) When Kaleidoscope, about whom you have no opinion, votes for MoS, who you think is scum, that's bad! You vote for Kaleidoscope.

Where's the logic?

That actually has nothing to do with my logic.

MOS voted for you at a point of the game where I, as a pro-town player, might have done the exact same thing, so his move made me feel a little better about him.

Kalei voted for MOS in a way that didn't look pro-town at all to me.

I'm not even trying to do the kind of "X voted for Y, Y is scum, therefore..." analysis you're talking about, TS. I tend to think that trying to do that kind of analysis before we actually know anyone's alignment is foolish and self-defeating. What I'm trying to do is read individual posts and try to figure out if they're the kind of posts I would be more likely to make as a pro-town player or as a scum, and that's all.

(1) Explain what MoS has done to make you more sure he's town. Please list the posts he's made where he makes so much sense that a vote against him becomes a scummy vote.

Um, no thanks, I already said I'm not interested in trying to defend MOS at this point.

No one gets a free pass just because they agree with me.

Except Quagmire. Everything he says is true. You're only a skeptic when it's convenient... you're so scum in this game Yos...

There are two specific things Quagmire said that I think are true, and I've explained why I think both things are true a few times now.

[Yosarian2]

And Quagmire could not do something in "incredibly poor taste?" That's impossible? You can't wrap your head around the idea of Quagmire doing something unacceptable?

It's quite unlikely. Nothing is certain, and I never said it was.

Look, you're not making a lot of sense here. Do YOU think Quagmire is lying, or do you think he's telling the truth, or are you not sure? Because if you really think he's lying, you should be voting for him.

Part of the reason I suspected you was because it seemed quite obveous to me that the most likely scenerio was Quagmire telling the truth, in which case you were probably looking to get an easy lynch.

I give you ZERO credit for starting the wagon, since you stated at the onset that it was for pressure only. And he DID get away with it, because you ALSO started the wave that let him get away without having to PROVE that he read his PM, and stop jerking us around. YOU let him get away with it. You and hasdfas.

Get away with what, exactally? Whatever gain he might have gotten from not reading his role PM, he clearly lost.

How would you KNOW he's telling the truth? We were all within INCHES of finding out, but nooooo... you and hasdfgas shielded him from the scrutiny of claiming.

NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING. THAT'S ALWAYS TRUE IN MAFIA. I THINK he's telling the truth, that just seems a lot more likely then him not telling the truth, so I unvoted him. Do you have some problem with me trying to figure out if someone's telling the truth or not based on their posts?

and just read what he says and try to figure out for yourself if it feels like he's lying.

No - it's YOUR job to extract from Quagmire's posts what you felt was so convincing when he declared he read his role PM... AT LYNCH MINUS ONE for cryin' out loud... do you get this? He didn't "relent" until he was within hammering range. [/quote]

Um...what?

I came to my own conclusion, which is that he's most likely telling the truth, and explained it. But you don't seeem interested in what I think, you only seem interested in what I can or can't prove, and of course I can't prove anything at this point. So, fine, read what he said and draw your own conclusion.

And now you're...saying it's not your job to read quagmire's posts and figure out for yourself if he's lying or not? When you were the one who was more then anyone else trying to get him to either claim or be lynched? Based on your attempt to lynch Quagmire, I certainly think it IS, in fact, your job.

Assuming Quag is telling the truth..

Fallacy #1.

No, stating your assumptions is not a logical fallacy, it's actually the main part of how logic works. First I explained why I thought that Quagmire is telling the truth, then I explained what that would imply if true. Do you know what a fallacy is?

...and the next 6 so-called "fallacies" are you ripping apart the post when I attacked Quagmire. Which is just freaking bizzare, as when I origionally MADE that post, not only did you not attack it, you agreed with it and FOLLOWED me on it. And now you're trying to say it's logically flawed? Pshaw.

Why later, always later? You have a better idea? What, you don't think Kaleidoscope is scummier than MoS anymore?

Um, because first, I wanted to make Quagmire read his role PM. I suceeded, at which point I went back to attacking MOS, just like I said I would.

Again, you didn't have any problem with any of this stuff the first time around?

For the gazillionth time... we don't know whether he did, or when he did it, and what parts of his stunt are manipulating lies, and which parts of his stunt are true.

For the gazillionth +1 time, no, of course we don't KNOW, that's why we read people's posts is so we can try to FIGURE OUT if they're telling the truth or not.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="Toaster Strudel"]Right. Because MoS has not made any posts that make such stellar sense for you to find, and you know it. [/quote]

...what?

[quote]
And by attacking Kaleidoscope for voting MoS, you are, indirectly protecting MoS, by shifting the attack away from MoS, onto another player.[/quote]

You know, by that logic, you're defending Quagmire and MOS and everyone else by attacking me. I was just attacking the person who, at that moment in time, looked scummiest to me. Do you disagree with me that Kaleidoscope looks scummy? Are you "defending" Kaleidoscope by attacking my vote for him?


[quote]You do realize that your vote for me came when I was gone, and the only reason you gave is "She looks like over-eager scum to me." [/quote]

Yes, certanly. Your action towards Quagmire did make me think you were scum who was over-eager to get an easy lynch.

[quote]
Please explain why your vote for me is pro-town, but Kaleidoscope's vote for MoS isn't,

using the same set of standards.

[/quote]

Did you read Kaleidoscope's comments about MOS?

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]Ergo, MoS contradicts himself. He should get lynched (and raped)

Unvote Vote: Mastermind of Sin

[/quote]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]It's a policy lynch, MoS. I doubt I have to explain you that, no? <3[/quote]

Do you actually not think those posts are scummy? He attacked MOS for a bogus reason that didn't make any sense, and when he was called on it, he instead insisted that his MOS vote was a "policy lynch", which makes even less sense. I certanly think his behavior there deserves a vote, don't you?


[quote]There are two specific things Quagmire said that I think are true, and I've explained why I think both things are true a few times now.[/quote]Not logically, you haven't.[/quote][/quote]

Um, yes, logically, I have explained why I think both comments are true. You have yet to point out any logical flaws in my explination for either one of those. You have pointed out that it wasn't absolutle proof, which of course I agree with, but you haven't done anything to change my mind.

Make a logical argument about exactally what you think he was lying about, when, and what exactally he would have to gain by it. If you think he's lying scum, the burden of proof here is really on you.

[Yosarian2]

...and when he was called on it, he instead insisted that his MOS vote was a "policy lynch", which makes even less sense. I certanly think his behavior there deserves a vote, don't you?

You said you'd vote MoS until he makes sense, and Quag until he read his role PM. Please state ahead of time what Kaleidoscope has to do for you to later the derail the wagon you are starting

Ok. For the record, any time any person looks scummier to me then the person I am currently voting for, I will change my vote to that person.

As a side note; are you trying to debate me, or are you trying to actually listen to my answers? Because you seem much more interested in trying to shoot holes in everything I say then in trying to understand what I'm saying, to the point where you're even shooting large numbers of holes in a post that you had no problems with with several pages ago. And this kind of thing has gone badly for you before, where you've done a reasonable piece of analyis but then refused to re-think anything and continued to continualsy attack that person while ignoring everything they say over and over again. It dosn't make me necessarally think you're scum, since last time you locked onto me like this was in Vanillia Mafia where we were both pro-town, but it's not helpful.

Not to any standard of logic. You haven't explained why you believe everything Quagmire says, but you're skeptical of other players.

I'm skeptical of everyone. I think the most likely explination is that Quagmire told the truth on those two occasions. But, again, even if I'm right about that that wouldn't actually be a sign of pro-town-ness on his part.

I so totally have, like, over and over.

"Perhaps he lied in mafia discussion several months ago" is NOT a logical hole in my thinking.

You have failed to give LOGICAL, BELIEVABLE reasons why you are so eager to take Quagmire's nonsense as the truth, Quagmire who has policy voted me, Quagmire who has jerked us around, Quagmire whom you've allowed to go claimless, Quagmire who has pulled his stunt as scum, Quagmire who continues to vote me (a player you now feel might just be town).

Sounds like you're reacting quite emotionally here, and like there might be an element of OMGUS in your attacks on Quagmire. It also sounds like you're assuming everything Quagmire says is nonesense at least partly because you are annoyed with him, both for the "I didn't read my PM" thing (which annoyed me too) and because he voted you and is continuing to vote you.

Is that why you stayed on his wagon so hard and pushed so hard for him to be lynched? Is that why you're so agressivly attacking me mostly because I disagreed with you and didn't want to actually lynch Quagmire over the PM thing?

[Yosarian2]

CAN WE PLEASE JUST AGREE ON SOMEONE TO KILL?

Personally, I'm happy with my vote where it is. At least until he comes back and explaines exactally why he thought "policy lynching" MOS at this point in the game was a good idea.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]I actually made that comment of MoS' big letter post, which implied policy lynching. The reason I'm voting MoS is for his contradiction he states.[/quote]

Oh? What contradiction is that?

[Yosarian2]

"It looks more like he was thinking that everyone was mad at MOS at the moment." How many votes did MoS have at the time? Two? Three?

(shrug) I suppose I was being unclear there. What I meant was that it looked to me like he might be trying to take advantage of the situation where you got angry and said you were leaving the game, like he might have been trying to play on that emotion in order to make MOS look bad.

Yos - it sounds to me like you're willing to vote left and right, but you'll not willing to be part of an actual lynch.

I don't know what it means, just observin', that's all.

Eh. Yeah, I vote really easily and change my vote really easily on day 1, to try to get the game moving and to get reactions from everyone. On the other hand, if I have a bad feeling about a wagon later on, I try to not be on it.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 894#839894
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 990#878990[/quote]

Ummm....you have one link where he "policy voted" TS early in the game, and another link where he explained that he had unvoted TS at one point, thus ending his "policy vote", and then re-voted her later because she started to look scummy. He was pretty clear about that too, in that very post you quote:

[quote="MOS"]
Jordan, did you fucking miss the long period of time where I unvoted TS and voted you because I wasn't going to policy lynch her??? Did you also miss the part where I made a case against her and revoted for completely separate reasons that had nothing to do with a policy lynch? [/quote]

So, where, exactally, is this "contradiction" you speak of, Kalei?

[Yosarian2]

Mmmm... yeah... a'right... I would have guessed that working to reverse wagons would do the opposite of getting the game moving... anyway...

Getting the game moving means getting people talking, posting, arguing, attacking and defending, getting people to contribute, and just generally trying to make stuff keep happening, all of which helps the town gets information and keeps everyone active. When I say "Getting the game mvoing", that's not necessarally the same as "trying to end the day quickly".

Care to comment on Quagmire now that he's allegedly acquainted himself with his role PM? In particular:

(1) Do you personally believe he is still policy/vendetta voting?

No, not really. Like I said earlier, I thought it was fairly suspicious the way you were trying to actually lynch him for that instead of just trying to pressure him to act in a more pro-town way, it looked to me like you might have been a scum trying to get an easy lynch there, and that was when I started to suspect you. He appears to have also come to the concluson you were mafia around this time, and I can't blame him for that.

(2) Care to comment on his recent contribution, and how it fits with the rest of his contribution in the game? Maybe I missed something, and you have a sharp eye.

This is a fair point, though, and an interesting one. Other then attacking you and defending himself, there hasn't really been a whole lot of content in his posts since the point where he claims to have read his role PM, and he hasn't even gone into a lot of detail about why he's attacking you either. 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.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="Toaster Strudel"]
Yosarian, it's painfully obvious; to me anyway.

Both MoS and Quag have announced policy votes. MoS unvoted me at some point, and he even voted for a couple of people prior to the announcement, early in the game. Quag has yet to pay attention to a player other than his policy votee.

Both policy voters are the only players voting for me, and we're what? Page 33? 34?.[/quote]

Meh. They may have more inclined to vote for you for other reasons, but that dosn't mean they don't also legitmatly suspect you. A does not invalidate B.

And I'd much rather if you'd let KaleiÐoscøpe try to explain his own scummy actions and defend himself rather then you jumping in and doing it for him, thanks.

[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.

[Yosarian2]

It looks to me like Kscope's response to my attack against him was first to link to two posts that actually DISPROVED whatever point he was trying to make, and then to lurk. As a matter of principle, I don't like to unvote people while they're lurking, because that encourages lurking.

[Yosarian2]

Who? You can't possibly mean you. In the small chance that you may be town, your lynch will help us a great deal to find the scum tomorrow. I'd be shocked if you're town.

Eh? That's a curious comment. How would lynching a pro-town quagmire help us find the scum tommorow?

If quagmire is town, I would tend to think that means half the pro-town people in the game are annoyed with him and voting for him, that the other half correctly read him as pro-town, and that the scum easily and fairly seemlessly are blending themselves into either or both groups, either to lynch him or to make themselves look better.

Now, if we lynch him and he's scum, that gives us more info.

[Yosarian2]

Sorry about this game distraction, but Yosarian2 appears to studiously avoid this game, he's posting all over the place but here.

Yes I'm paranoid... maybe Yosarian2 doesn't want to weigh in on Quagmire until it looks like Quagmire is about to be lynched for sure, haha. He doesn't want to waste his buddy unless it looks like a lynch is inevitable...

*taking my anti-hallucination tablets*

*off to paint more fungus*

Um...I'm lurking?

I just posted on Friday. I just now posted again on Sunday. Is not posting for one day considered lurking now? Especally when K-scope, who I'm still voting for, hasn't posted since December 30th, and you don't seem to mind that at all, it seems odd you attack me for "lurking".

[Yosarian2]

Oh, and to comment on one more noteworthy thing, I like IH's anaysis so far. I had actually forgotten about all of Panzer's early scumtells he was dropping left and right before IH reminded me of them; I knew I had some suspicions of Panzer earlier on, but he did just remind me of how well-founded they were. Looking at Panzer's more recent posts now, I note that he's only posted a couple of times in the last, uh, 20 days or so, and those posts don't look so great either.

fos:Panzer

. He's definatly another good lynch candidate for today.

[Yosarian2]

Indeed, that I think that's the more likely alternative. I for one am quite convinced that players that delay or refuse to claim are generally scum.

I often refuse to claim when pro-town.

I don't really feel like I have any information on quagmire that gives me a handle on his alignment at this moment. That fact ITSELF is probably a small scum tell, but all in all, I think there are others who would be a better lynch today. At least Quag isn't lurking as badly as some are.

(shrug) Then agan, I don't really have any strong reason to think he's pro-town either, so if it came to a choice between lynching him and a no-lynch at deadline, I'd vote him if necessary.

[Yosarian2]

I don't really feel like I have any information on quagmire that gives me a handle on his alignment at this moment. That fact ITSELF is probably a small scum tell[...]

Thank you for pointing out your own scumtells.

Will it be more, or less, of a scumtell if Quagmire turns up scum?

I thought it should be pretty clear that I meant it's a scumtell ON THE PART OF QUAGMIRE that he hasn't really done anything yet that can let me figure out his alignment. It's not as big as some other scumtells I've seen, and I'd rather lynch Panzer, or K-Scope, or some of the other scummy looking lurkers at the moment over him.

[Yosarian2]

I'd rather lynch Panzer, or K-Scope, or some of the other scummy looking lurkers at the moment over him.

FORTY ONE pages of material, and your best idea is to launch a lurker hunt???

I'm not trying to "launch a lurker hunt". I just want to lynch one of the two people I've identified as probable lurker scum. In both cases, the lurking is not the reason I initially suspected them, but the fact that they're also a lurker makes lynching them even better in my book.

And it's odd that you call me a lurker every time I don't post for 5 minutes, and yet you are willing to go to the mattresses to defend scummy looking people who seem to be intentionally lurking in order to avoid getting lynched.

[qupte]Hey Yos, since you're so fond of derailing wagons, and don't seem to have the gumption to start one, [/quote]

Um, I've been trying to start a bandwagon on K-scope for a while now. What, do I have to print up "lynch kaleidoscope in 08" bumper stickers or something for you to take me seriously?

[Yosarian2]

And it's odd that you call me a lurker every time I don't post for 5 minutes[...]

No, I only noticed that you were selectively lurking when the most recent Quagwagon gathered up some steam. That's different from being a general lurker. It's the timing of your lurking that I noticed with my legendary sharp, paranoid eye.

Um...when I made post 897, and when I posted again two days later in post 972, the Quagmire wagon had exactally the same number of votes. No one else had voted Quagmire between my posts at all. In no, way, shape, or form, was the Quagmire wagon "gathering up steam" during that time period.

It looks like you're starting to just basically make stuff up here that has no real basis in reality in order to support what you already want to be true.

[Yosarian2]

Gee...so my top two scum suspects seem to be working together to get MOS lynched. Not sure how that's supposed to UNDERMINE my case against the two of them; if anything, it's another argument for the two of them being linked scum.

Not that MOS would be a terrible lynch either.

You want to lynch players that are voting for MoS. I also can't find fault with Panzer for finding MoS scummy, and I'd also lynch MoS before I'd lynch Panzer.

ANd that's the only thing you're willing to comment on about Panzer? Not the fact that he's lurking while posting in other threads, or the fact that he's been acting incredibly scummy all game? So long as he's voting for someone who's pissed you off, he's gold in your book?

After you've derailed 41 pages worth of wagons, there's not a whole lot of will to help you in you Kal-is-scum agenda.

Yeah, yeah; I've already refuted all these points about me "derailing wagons" or whatever, you know.

The case against Kaleidoscope is a weak one, also not helping. The fact that you mentioned Panser before Kaleidoscope, and included "or some of the other scummy looking lurkers" to the lot shows that you're scummy little heart isn't really sincere about wanting to lynch Kal.

I'm perfectly happy with lynching either of them. I would actually be happier about lynching Panzer at the moment, but, contrary to your opinion of me, I'm not interested in derailing a good bandwagon like the one on kscope at this point in time.

I find it odd you have a problem with me attacking multiple people at once, when you're doing the same thing.

Besides, the kaleidoscope wagon is, what, the second or third biggest one at the moment; probably the only reason it's not bigger is because you've managed to keep a large part of the town focused on Quagmire.

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian, what's your opinion of my post 1003?

You at one point stated that if Quagmire had not read his role PM, he was acting "pure town". Can you support that statement with any actions that Quagmire has taken that seem especially townie to you?

That's not quite what I said.

I just said that I would expect a person who hadn't read his PM to basically act like a townie, in reference to the "would he lie or not" question.

As to if he looks especally townie to me, meh. He looks like Quagmire always looks.

[Yosarian2]

You don't really believe that the two people on MoS's wagon are both scum, and that MoS is also scum to boot, do you?

Not really, no. I think that Kal and Panzer are more likely then average to be scum, and that it's possible they're scum together. I also think that MOS is slightly more likely then average to be scum, for completly unrelated reasons. Clearly I don't think all three of them are scum together.

[Yosarian2]

If you were playing the first day without certainty of your alignment, for whatever reason, that would NOT make you town. It would make you neutral. You'd be hedging your bets, playing for yourself, watching the town and keeping your observations to yourself. You would not be revealing scum, because you might be one. You would not be making cases against people who might be your scumbuddy, your mason buddy, whoever... you would be playing as cautiously as you could and waiting for the information that would make your observations make sense. You surely wouldn't reveal those suspicions.

Well...I would think that the entire point of a person not reading their role PM would be so they COULD act exactally like a normal vanillia townie, so they wouldn't have any extra information they might accidently give away or any scummy motivations they might leak or whatever. At least, that's the justifcation that's usually given for it in mafia discussion threads, that you won't act scummy if you don't know you're a scum. (shrug)

I do think you're getting me confused with hagdafas here, though. You seem to be putting his words in my mouth.

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian, I'm trying to ascertain exactly why you are unwilling to vote Quagmire.

Well, I wouldn't say that I'm unwilling to vote for him; I already did say I will vote Quagmire if I have to in order to avoid a no-lynch. However, while the bandwagon on him makes sense, I just don't think he's especally likely to be scum. Most of the problems people have with him are things that, when Quagmire does them, are more null tells then anything else; Quagmire has a long habit of basically trolling the town on day 1's no matter what his alighment, I guess in order to get reactions or perhaps just because he's bored, and other then the role PM thing (which I think we can leave behind now) everything else is about par for the corse for him, IMHO. (shrug) Just like I don't really think it's scummy for TS to be stubborn, paranoid, and to bend facts to fit her pet theory, becasue I've seen her do all of those things too many times as town.

You'd stated earlier, explaining your defense of Panzer, that "Panzer made a bunch of posts that sounded logical to me, he was basically making more sense then I usually hear from him, and it gave me good vibes about him. (shrug) Nothing huge, but enough for a few pages into the game" but now you're saying that "he's been acting incredibly scummy all game".

Well, take a look at what Panzer did in December. First, he voted Quagmire back on december 3rd; fine, whatever. Then there were 4 little one-liner posts of little value at all; 2 swere complete spam, a 3rd suggested a TS/Jorden scum team but gave no logic for it, and then another spam post. Then, on December 14th, more then a month into this game, he voted Albert in what looks like a joke vote (the reason he gave was "He confessed and it's in BLUE! "). Then a few more one liners, where he randomally accused Schism of being scum but didn't give a reason and a couple of spam posts, then he turned around and voted MOS, giving no reason other then "I'm with K-scope", even though K-scope's reason made absolutly no sense. Then he lurked for a week, and then bizzarly said "I'm glad I have my vote on Quag already" even though he didn't, and has lurked since then.

There is absolutly nothing in the month of December that Panzer did that makes me think he's trying to help the town at all. It was all spam and active lurking, punctuated with a bit of unreasoned and illogical bandwagon hopping and a joke vote more then a month into the game, and then he just stopped posting all together.

The point of my post 1003 is that the timing of Quagmire's statement doesn't make any sense unless he was deliberately trying to distract from something. Do you agree or disagree with that analysis? Why would town bring up such a controversial subject while under no real pressure, and with no real provocation, in your view?

That is a good question; like you said in 1003, there's no real gain from it if he's scum or if he's town. (shrug) He probably didn't realize quite what the reaction would be, or else he was trolling the town again.

[Yosarian2]

wait I unvote for MoS for some random reason. I'm very lost in this game.

No, actually first you unvoted Quag to vote Albert in what was apparently a joke vote, which is just bizzare a month into the game, and then you unvoted Albert and voted MOS for a really bad reason, and then you apparently forgot who you were voting for.

Could you try and explain any of those actions?

[Yosarian2]

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?

Eh? I really don't understand what's supposed to "not be right" about what he said. People were accusing him of being scum who was lying about not reading his role PM, his response was "if I was scum, why would I do this?" It's not a very strong argument, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it if you read it in context.

Not only that, one of the biggest problems with a person who hasn't read his PM is that it's much harder to make connections or get information if they do turn out to be scum. However, the large bandwagon on him also helped solve that, I think; if he does turn out to be scum, I think we'll get a lot of info from the way his bandwagon went.

This statement made me think yos knows Quag is town. If Quag turns up scum, Yos would look pretty bad so I can't see him saying "if he does turn out to be scum, I think we'll get a lot of info from the way his bandwagon went" unless he KNOWS Quag would come up town.

Eh? I don't know if Quag will come up town or not. If he comes up town, then the people who irrationally kept pushing his lynch beyond the point where it seems logical to do so (to me, anyway) would look bad. If he comes up scum, then the people who opposed my initial attempts to pressure him into reading his role PM will look bad (which, if I remember correctly was mostly MOS and hasdgfas). I wasn't really thinking in terms of how anything would make me look.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Yosarian did the same thing.

Liar, liar, pants on fire, sitting on a telaphone wire.

Or, in other words, I was the first person to protest Quagmire not reading his role PM, I attacked him the hardest for it and led the campaign to force him to either read his PM or be lynched. So, no, I never said that "quagmire not reading his PM is a pro-town action", I very loudly and very cleary said the exact opposite of that.

No one is going to follow you anywhere if you don't stop your habit of just flat out making up stuff that's completly untrue.

[Yosarian2]

]
Interesting. No matter how Quagmire comes up, you'll be smelling like roses?

No, actually, no matter what Quagmire comes up, it'll end up being an excuse for people to attack me, I can almost guarentee it. That's what happens whenever anyone does anythng that could be vaugly interpreted as "changing their minds"; they end up getting attacked by someone because of it either way. But I don't really give a crap, I'm just going to do what I think is best for the town and not worry about how it looks.

(1) If Quagmire comes up town, you're hoping I'm going to look bad, because, in your scumpinion, you think that I'm pushing his lynch irrationally.

If Quagmire comes up town, then yes, you look bad. Deal with it.

(2) If Quagmire comes up scum, MoS and hasdagas are going to look bad because they opposed your pressure to get Quagmire to read his PM? Ain't that a blast... Because MoS, hasdagas, and YOU (which you conveniently forgot to mention) are the three players that defended Quagmire tooth and nail!

(shrug) If he is scum, I'm sure you'll try to make that case. Good luck with that. I'm just going to be over here, continuing to try to figure out who the scum are.

(1) If Quagmire comes up town, MoS and hasdagas and YOU are going to look bad because you three defended him irrationally, since he is, best case scenario, and I think we have a concensus on this, a totally worthless player. That means that you old scumbags all knew he was town.

I don't think anything I've said about Quagmire has been irrational, either when I've attacked him or when I defended him or if I end up lynching him at the end of the day.

(2) If Quagmire comes up scum, actually... it's going to look like I not only bus'ed him, but tied in up to railway sleepers in front of an oncoming train.

Actually, if Quagmire come up scum, you would come out looking pretty pro-town to me. Your attacks on Quagmire don't really look like bussing to me; they're a bit too convincingly angry for that, heh.

[Yosarian2]

I didn't say that you said "quagmire not reading his PM is a pro-town action"

Um...you didn't?

I don't see any reason why someone would regard not reading one's role PM as a pro-town action...

Yosarian did the same thing

Did I miss something here?

[Yosarian2]

Yos, what do you think of the case on hasdfgas?

Well, as far as I can tell, the best point that was raised against Hasdfgas was that he defended Quagmire in a kind of wierd way, going as far as to say that him not reading his role PM was somehow pro-town. However, that's really only a valid scumtell in my mind if Quagmire does turn out to be scum. The rest of the case against Hasdfgas seems weaker to me.

[Yosarian2]

Though I totally agree that Peers has acted scummy, but Peer has already said he's vanilla. Choosing to lynch Peers today is a pretty dumb town strategy.

Huh? If you think he's acted scummy, how does him claiming vanillia make him a bad lynch? I'm confused.

[Yosarian2]

Anyway, I should probably just start ignoring TS, she's certanly just ignoring my responses to her attacks on me and just continually repeating them over and over agian. I normally have a policy of responding to all attacks, but I think I might have to start making an exception in her case, it's just getting too tedes to respond to the same flawed attacks with the same defenses over and over again. The really frustrating part is that I don't even think she's especally likely to be scum.

Anyway, I still say we lynch either Panzer or Kscope. I haven't see anyone give any good reasons why not, least of all either of them.

[Yosarian2]

Damn it, Albert, could you please stop doing that?

[Yosarian2]

Well if I draw the night kill tonight, what I just did might save a power role.

Just do me a favor and stop talking or joking or kidding about your role, ok? It always just gets you in to trouble.

[Yosarian2]

No need to mod prod me; I'm here, I'm here. I kept trying to post in this game last night, and Bluehost kapt shutting me down.

Also, I'm not sure why all the pressure on kscope has gone away. Why are people letting him get away with lurking his way out of trouble here? I'm also not sure why toaster strudel keeps wanting to prod me when some people literaly have not posted yet this year.

On another note, while I'm glad to see us moving in ANY direction without TS derailing any non-Quagmire wagon, I'm not entirely sure why people are suddenly attacking Peers. Could someone explain why they think peers is scum? Not that I've got anything against that wagon per se, but I would like to hear a case before he's deadline lynched tommorow here.

[Yosarian2]

On another note, while I'm glad to see us moving in ANY direction without TS derailing any non-Quagmire wagon, I'm not entirely sure why people are suddenly attacking Peers. Could someone explain why they think peers is scum? Not that I've got anything against that wagon per se, but I would like to hear a case before he's deadline lynched tommorow here.

Have you been reading the thread? Post 1094, I think, is my main case against him. If that's not enough, then read his posts in isolation and see what you find.

Ummm...your post 1094 is mostly talking about page 1 of the game.

Is that really the best tell we have to work with now?