Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Quagmire]

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

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

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

too late

[Quagmire]

Reasons for TS being scum?

I haven't seen him post anything substantial outside of that wild and incomprehensible reaction a couple of pages ago. I just as well assumed that he was sarcastic, but that's all that I've got right now.

[Quagmire]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]

Unvote Vote: Sikario8

[/quote]

I will not stand for this.

Vote Kaleidoscope

FOS ABR

[Quagmire]

I was going to post this earlier today, but I held off, as I was curious to see how this Sikario wagon was going to play out.

So, Sikario is a selective flaker. In my experience (your experience may vary) I have noticed that flakers are very often scum caught early. They sign up for a game of fooling everybody for months, and they get caught in the first week. Disgusted or disappointed with their own performance, they flake. Or they half-play, or sorta give up, that kind of unsportsman-like behavior. So my guess is that if Sikario has stuck to this game, it's probably because he's enjoying it more than the other games, i.e., he's not prematurely caught scum.

What are you talking about?

[Quagmire]

why is kaleidoscope not being lynched right now

[Quagmire]

Just to offer one more conspiracy theory and some meta-gaming...

MoS might be really angry that I cracked his whole scum team so early in the game!

And really angry that Peers screwed up, maybe, too! Maybe Peers really did give out his scumbuddy Jordan/Panzer on a silver platter It's not impossible you know. It won't be the first time I've seen scum caught early.

Any reasonable player will wonder the

real reason

why MoS has kept so uncharacteristically silent in this game (that's the meta-gaming bit), and is now so-oo-oo-o-o cross. And why so cross with me, when there are plenty of other players that have contributed little, like, say, himself? Why me? Let every player answer this question for himself, and come to their own conclusion.

(Peers / MoS) or (Jordan / Panzer) = good lynches for today.

MoS is absolutely right.

unvote, vote toaster strudel

[Quagmire]

Also, it's a bit more than just a policy lynch. I don't have

fun

playing in games with people like that any more. But I have fun playing with most of the rest of you, so I'm not about to replace out. Therefore, I am also voting to eliminate the funsucker from this game. That person is TS. It's pretty simple, really. TS is not fun to play mafia with anymore. It doesn't really have anything to do with my alignment or her alignment. I just don't want to play in the same game with her.

Albert B. is right, MoS. You're better than posts like that.

And you know it's true when it comes form me.

[Quagmire]

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

IF NOT,

UNVOTE VOTE TOASTER STRUDEL

[Quagmire]

For everyone's information, Quagmire has decided to copy MoS's game-ruining "policy lynch" me strategy. I am very disappointed that people sign up to pursue silly personal agendas rather than play the game. A serious downside of that kind of behavior is that it becomes impossible to gauge the player's alignment (Quag & MoS) because they are, quite sadly, not playing the game at all.

Unfortunately Toaster Strudel I'm voting for you because of how mafia you are.

Retard.

[Quagmire]

Unfortunately Toaster Strudel I'm voting for you because of how mafia you are.

And just this afternoon, it dawned on you that I am mafia in every game we're in?

What you seem to forget is that you and your mentor are ruining the game for everybody.

Poke all you want, I will not destroy other players' enjoyment by engaging in petty feuds, OMGUS votes, or exchange in battles of insults with either of you.

I am here to play the game and have fun.

mod: A votecount would be a nice way to put us back on track

I'm not ruining the game for anybody. I'm voting for you because I'm fairly sure that you're mafia.

How could this possibly be a petty feud or OMGUS or insulting? I'm voting for you because I don't like your reactions in this game. They're screaming mafia to me. Get over it.

[Quagmire]

Hey quag, can you provide your case on TS plz?

She's reacting much too much on the recent votes for her.

Back on page four, or whatever, she made a smelly case against someone that I haven't been able to tell is sarcastic or not. If it wasn't, it was terrible and a disgusting attempt at opportunism.

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

It's kind of like reading body language and tone in RL mafia. I get signals of distress from her, but the way her posts are worded it seems like she's trying to mask her distress behind a wall of emotionless brick.

[Quagmire]

she has reacted very emotionally to the votes [...] I get signals of distress from her, but the way her posts are worded it seems like she's trying to mask her distress behind a wall of emotionless brick.

Why is it suspicious or even unusual for someone to react to MoS's post in that way? Being called a "crackpot idiot" and so on.

It's not necessarily unusual to react (although come on, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen) to what he said, but the way she reacted is what set me off.

[Quagmire]

It's not necessarily unusual to react (although come on, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen) to what he said, but the way she reacted is what set me off.

Speaking as someone who's reacted that way plenty of times before... there's nothing wrong with that. TS could be distressed at once again being killed day 1 for no good reason beyond "Hey, someone doesn't like me."

Show me where she's reacted like this before.

[Quagmire]

Show me where she's reacted like this before.

I've given up on metagaming, actually. Do you have any case against her that involves this game and only this game?

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

[Quagmire]

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

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

... Case dismissed for insufficient evidence.

No. Read the damn post again.

[Quagmire]

yeah DGB can you please either have an alt or not have an alt?

[Quagmire]

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

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

Going after MoS is like hunting tiger.

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

unvote, vote toaster strudel

[Quagmire]

please

less talking

more lynching toaster strudel

[Quagmire]

IGME(andmyvote)OY: Peers

vote: peers

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

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

Reasons, man, you need to give reasons!

please

less talking

more lynching toaster strudel

[Quagmire]

please

less talking

more lynching toaster strudel

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

Reasons, man, you need to give reasons!

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

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

Going after MoS is like hunting tiger.

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

[Quagmire]

please

less talking

more lynching toaster strudel

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

Reasons, man, you need to give reasons!

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

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

Going after MoS is like hunting tiger.

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

Is that from a different game that's going on right now?[/quote

Yes, but I'm carrying over the policy to this game as well.

[Quagmire]

makes no sense and is bad policy

That's a retalitory vote, which is just as unhelpful as mine. Stop being a hypocrite.

[Quagmire]

How is MoS playing badly again? I fail to see how a policy lynch on day one is a bad thing. Especially when it's DGB/Toaster Strudel.

[Quagmire]

I think Quag is scum

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

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

[Quagmire]

You ever going to look at your role Quag?

At the end of day one, yes.

[Quagmire]

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

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

[Quagmire]

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

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

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

vote:Quagmire

until he reads his freaking role PM.

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

[Quagmire]

I think Quag is scum

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

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

lol you want die?

vote quag

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

[Quagmire]

I roughly concur with Yos. Read it, Quag.

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

[Quagmire]

Whoofta! So much to respond to. I must dominate some morons as well as nicely counterpoint those who actually have intelligence. You'll know which one you are when you read the tone of my post.

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

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

first off, hiya mrs. opportunism. i've seen you do this to everyone all day, so my policy vote on you isn't totally worthless.

second,

not only was that a completely different game, the circumstances were totally and inexplicably different, you moron!

i know what game you're referencing because it was one of the only other games that i've announced that i haven't read my role in the thread itself.

i'm really tempted to tell you why you're being a doofus just by trying to compare this game to the last, but i can't talk about games that are still ongoing. i can, however, tell you that this is one of the worst arguments that i've ever heard.

I also don't understand why you want me killed. Is it because...OMGUS? That's all that I can think of right now.

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

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

...
...
...
i wasn't going to read my role anyways, but DAMN. am i totally oblivious to what you're saying or something?

If you're not letting your role affect how you play, then you can't give off any scum vibes, true... but you also can't give off any town vibes. What's worse... each of us who've read our roles know the alignment of at least one person: Ourselves. You don't even know that. It's the old saying... I'm not sure if you're scum, but you're definately not pro-town.

What, exactly, is the point of me knowing my alignment on day one? What is the point of me not "giving vibes" on day one? Somebody needs to explain this to me, because the only thing I'm seeing is that it's affecting your reads on me, something of which has nothing to do with me.

If he is scum, it is more pro-town, because he'll be scum-hunting just like the rest of us, so we might have one extra townie for at least a day.

Fantastic post. I'm fairly sure that toaster strudel is evil. I will post my reasons very soon, but for this post, I must defend myself.

He's an idiot, what makes you think he can find scum ?

http://www.flickclip.com/images/flickim ... alking.jpg

I'm laughing so hard, my belly is sore.

@ hasdgfas - What ABR says is absolutely true. Quag isn't gonna help zero in on scum, whether or not he read his PM. He's just dead weight, one more player for the rest of us to worry about.

And why is that? Especially since I explicitly told everyone why I don't ever read my role PM anymore on day one? If you need reminding, I'll tell you again:

I remove myself from alignments and roles in order to get more focus on trying to figure out who is mafia and who isn't. I feel that if I'm grounded in knowing that I'm mafia, or cop, then I post with the thought constantly in the back of my head that I'm that role; for example, if I'm a mafia, I don't want to say things that might bring myself attention, so I will hold back posting what I think in order to seem less evil to you. Well, that doesn't help win games, that just makes me into an inoffensive twat (apply this to things like cop, doctor, and even townie).

I get more out of scumhunting just by looking at this game totally objectively compared to when I'm bogged down by a role.

Besides... he's done EXACTLY what he is doing in this game, in another game - and he was scum.

Of course you fail to note that THE GAME HAD NEW MECHANICS THAT DON'T APPLY TO THIS GAME MAKING THE BEHAVIORS TOTALLY UNRELATED.

Good lord, you're stupid.

[Quagmire]

This is one of the largest facepalm games I've ever seen. Strudel, would you like me to prove to you that I don't know my role?

[Quagmire]

Good for you bro!

We still gonna lynch you though.

why? all you've done is sit here and made a tiki bar out of my head. why are you so lynch hungry all of a sudden? for no reason?

[Quagmire]

Fine, I'll read my role. Even though the circumstances are entirely different in the other game.

[Quagmire]

That's not it...

You're at L-1.

You also have to claim.

How else are we going to know whether it's BS?

No. Go fuck yourself. I'm on the town's side. The majority of you said that you'd unvote me if I looked at my role, and I'm a man of my word.

Why TS is scum, coming up in a few minutes.

[Quagmire]

WTF Yosarian ????

I don't understand why you want to lynch me so badly.

[Quagmire]

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

Unvote, Vote: Toaster Strudel

Metagame policy to lynch TS in every game until I see some useful posts instead of random ranting that doesn't even contain logic.

Any player that reads the above post ought to selectively read MoS's posts in this game, and compare to mine.

I guarantee you're going to laugh.

Just to make it easier, let me post the ENTIRETY of MoS's contribution to this game (7 tiny, meaningless posts):

Original Roll String: 1d19 (STATIC)

1 19-Sided Dice: (8) = 8

Vote: Zu_Faul

Your expecting me to react to a vote in the random voting stage?

You just did.

Congrats schizy =P

Kaleidopoop?

Hi.

Unvote, Vote: Toaster Strudel

Metagame policy to lynch TS in every game until I see some useful posts instead of random ranting that doesn't even contain logic.

MoS's lack of reading the game (if he read the game he would not have dismissed my contribution so lackadaisically), combined with his own near complete lack of participation, and sudden attempt to distract from the Peers wagon leads me to believe that we might be on to something with the Peers wagon.

Also, my theory that either Jordan or Panzer may be scum with Peers, *might* be correct - and *if* it is correct, there is a strong probability that MoS would be another buddy.

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

That's a key word there.

Manufacture.

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

Jordan's case against MoS has more merit that MoS's case against Jordan.

Jordan: leaning town.
MoS: leaning scum.

I get the feeling that this is only because Jordan "agrees with you" and MOS "doesn't." That's not scum-hunting, that's policy lynching as well.

What really set me over was this upcoming post, though. I was pretty content to just vote with no explanation, because my feelings weren't that strong at that point (as I had never been lumped into TS's conspiracy theories). However...

I think Quag is scum

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

...lumping me in with scum just because I'm voting for her is a pretty stupid thing to do; to me, it feels like she's just voting for whoever doesn't like her just because she wants people to follow what she's saying and get us lynched. Of course, MoS and I were easy targets for lynches -- I've contributed little to nothing this game and MoS had a policy lynch going on TS for awhile. TS is smart enough to realize this, and decided to start pursuing as much.

Proof that she's policy lynching:

Wrong. You have to see where I'm coming from. I have MoS trying to intimidate me in every game. And one of the things that irks me is that he is so cranky and disagreeable that and a lot of players allow him to browbeat other players with nonsense. Only a few of the more experienced players will stand up to him, as Yosarian2 has in this game.

Now I see him doing the same thing with Jordan. MoS's arguments are complete rubbish, and for the most part blatantly incorrect.

So I decided to not let him get away with attacking players personally, calling them "retard" or "thick," especially in this case where Jordan has a clearly more valid case, better stated, and a more courteous demeanor than MoS. Plus, on an emotional level, my heart goes out to the kid. I know and feel what he's up against.

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

He is not playing as a townie, he is playing as Quagmire, that is, he is completely useless.

Are you even paying attention, hasdgfas? He's pulled that "I didn't read my role PM" in another game, and he was scum. When Quagmire does that, it becomes a scumtell.

Who doesn't read their role PM with much anticipation? It doesn't make any sense, it's not believable, and, I'll say it again, he does that as scum.

*Just as a sidenote: for the past, oh, six months or so, I haven't read a single role PM when the game has started on day one. There have been two games that I'm in where I've announced this. This one, and the other game.

[Quagmire]

O.K. good. We are still lynching you. How else are we going to tie you to anyone in the game ? Quagy derailed the Jordan bandwagon, and Jordan turns scum. Oh, but Quagy didn't read his role pm at the time, so its all good.

what

[Quagmire]

Whatever. I am either voting Quagy or MoS today.

What makes your policy lynch any better than MoS' or mine?

[Quagmire]

I have no meta on TS, unlike MoS. And you, you're just a threat to the town, Quagy.

Why am I a threat to the town?

[Quagmire]

Teflon, not Astroglide.

Liar. You smell like Astroglide and Axe deodorant.

And like Erg0 said... it's him, hsfalalala, and two lurkers. And judging from the most recent bandwagon... we now have president for people to not bother claiming today, since we didn't force a claim here... just a "No, I read it, I swear".

Precedent, not president, haha.

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.

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

[Quagmire]

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

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

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

[Quagmire]

man I was first on quag's wagon, I'm good a scum catching.

No...no, you're not.

[Quagmire]

Vote Count:

9: Quagmire

(Panzerjager, ABR, schismatized, Elmo, Toaster Strudel, Battle Mage, Peers, Kscope)

•

Whoa...what happened...?

Short version: Quag said he hasn't read his role PM yet. We all dogpiled on him despite not really being able to tell if a) he told the truth or b) if he's telling the truth now that

he says he read it

.

•

Quagmire: What's your role? Anything good?

I'm not telling, and you really shouldn't be so blatantly obvious when you want to fish for information.

[Quagmire]

Vote Count:

9: Quagmire

(Panzerjager, ABR, schismatized, Elmo, Toaster Strudel, Battle Mage, Peers, Kscope)

•

Whoa...what happened...?

Short version: Quag said he hasn't read his role PM yet. We all dogpiled on him despite not really being able to tell if a) he told the truth or b) if he's telling the truth now that

he says he read it

.

•

Quagmire: What's your role? Anything good?

I'm not telling, and you really shouldn't be so

blatantly obvious

when you want to fish for information.

•

Blatantly obvious would be your informing us that you haven't read your role PM.

In no way was I fishing for information at all. I don't understand what you're getting at here?

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

[Quagmire]

What have you gathered?

post 533. look it up yourself.

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

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

[Quagmire]

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.

I've been voting for Toaster Strudel for many a page.

While showing TS's wrong conclusions and all doesn't make you immediately pro-town, I am not convinced that you're scum.

It shouldn't make me immediately pro town. Nothing should make me, or anybody else, immediately pro town. The best you can do at this point is theorize.

[Quagmire]

I'd rather lynch someone who is scum than someone who is useless for Day 1. Considering that there are actually people who seem like scum right now, we're better off lynching then than Quagmire.

Everyone in the town would rather lynch scum than someone who is useless; that's the game. But in this case, nobody can agree just who seems scummy. At least, no more than a few people can agree. Quag is the first person the whole town has really gotten together on, to push to the point of hammering. It's day 1, we don't have much to go on and Quag sent up a huge signal fire to distract us.

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

[Quagmire]

Your opposition to this investigation, or mockery thereof, can be taken two ways. You can be genuinely upset that we're stuck on Quag and not hunting or you can be trying to preserve a scumbuddy. What if Quag's already looked at his role PM and what if you're his scumbuddy? Does this not imply that Quag won't change his playstyle and that, if we overlook him and you're his advocate, we'll consequently overlook you until you two NK everyone?

Why in the world, if he was my scumbuddy, would he be so obvious about it? Your vote reeks of opportunism, especially after you had just "cooled off."

[Quagmire]

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

yeah but in a game with so little proof is this still relevant?

Start contributing please

Why is TS not under more pressure?

[Quagmire]

I don't find TS particularly scummy, and I think she's only been brought under the spotlight by MoS and Quagmire's policy crap. She also has a similar opinion of Peers to mine. Hence, I am unlikely to lynch her even (especially) in her absence.

This has all the hallmarks of a classic Day 1 "we're bored, let's lynch a lurker" wagon. Get TS replaced if you must, don't lynch her just to make the decision easier.

I've outlined good reasons on why I think she's scum that have nothing to do with a policy.

[Quagmire]

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?

I AM NOT VOTING TOASTER STRUDEL BASED ON ANY SORT OF POLICY OR OUT OF GAME INFLUENCE. I AM NOT DOING THIS IN

ANY

OF MY GAMES WITH HER, NOR AM/WILL I DO IT TO HER ALTERNATE ACCOUNT, DRIPPINGGOOFBALL

Get that through your fucking head.

This applies to me as well.

[Quagmire]

Although I would like to add that I'm glad you're leaving. I hope you leave the site for good.

[Quagmire]

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

Apparently someone has to explain to you that it's not YET AGAIN, because you just choose to ignore it every single time someone says otherwise. Numbskull.

[Quagmire]

I feel like I should be saying something right now because the discussion is on me. However, I'll refrain unless people have any specific questions into my behavior becaues this argument is between Yos2 and TS. I'd like to note that I'm still voting for TS and none of my intentions have changed since I posted content last.

[Quagmire]

I feel like I should be saying something right now because the discussion is on me. However, I'll refrain unless people have any specific questions into my behavior becaues this argument is between Yos2 and TS. I'd like to note that I'm still voting for TS and none of my intentions have changed since I posted content last.

I do have questions.

Did you omit to mention hasgfas on purpose, or accidentally?

Is there anything about him worth talking about? I see nothing that sparks my eye.

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

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

Anything anyone says or does is a catch-22 to you; you look for ways to back up what you think in that crazy tiny little noggin of yours instead of trying to take a look at what's actually happening. It is because of this that I'm never going to cooperate with anything that you tell me to do.

It is also partially because of this behavior that I'm voting for you. But I've already detailed that.

You might read that last sentence and think that it's a policy vote. Well, it's not. Please note the post where I've looked up your scummy behavior

in this game that you oh-so-conveniently ignored

and respond to me when you stop being so thick-skulled. Thanks.

CAN WE PLEASE JUST AGREE ON SOMEONE TO KILL?

I would be voting for you if TS wasn't such a worthy candidate.

[Quagmire]

I am not asking you to make statements of fact that can be verified with the scientific method. I have asked for your

opinions

about three players, Peers, hasfgas, and Yosarian. This is not something for other players to "believe" or not "believe" but rather, to allow us to evaluate whether or not your agenda is pro-town.

We need to be able to evaluate YOU, Quagmire. This is why we shouldn't let you get away with jerking us around, avoiding to claim, and now, refusing to commit to an opinion that may give us information concerning your alignment.

OK. I haven't noticed anything incriminating about any of them, so I don't concern myself with any of them right now.

We still need to have your opinion on players other than myself. You need to put some effort in the game. I happen to think that you can be very intelligent if you choose to apply yourself.

No, you don't. And get your condescending BS out of the way.

You should be aware that, after you and MoS have announced that you want to policy-lynch me, your continued voting for me amidst fresh denials of policy-voting looks like it is the both of you that are looking "for ways to back up what you think in that crazy tiny little noggin of yours instead of trying to take a look at what's actually happening." No?

Nope. You're trying to be opportunistic. Now you're backing off, for whatever reason, saying that you're "satisfied" with their responses (and I guess willing to write me off as town, or something). I've thought that you were scummy since I looked up that post however long ago.

Once again, you are betraying yourself; you have just stated that you are voting me because "'Anything anyone says or does is a catch-22 to you; you look for ways to back up what you think in that crazy tiny little noggin of yours instead of trying to take a look at what's actually happening" - that's policy-voting.

No. I'm voting for you because I think you're mafia. Don't disguise it as something else.

You have failed to convince anyone, and you are going nowhere with it.

I don't care who I'm convincing or not, I'm just telling people what I think and hoping that they agree with me and lynch you.

[Quagmire]

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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

[Quagmire]

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.

It is pro-town, though. Before I read my role, the town, whether or not I'm on the town's side, had a townsperson. If I was mafia, then the town would have gained an extra townsperson for that day. That is what hasdfhasgdhaf is arguing, and he's basically rehashed what I've said in previous discussions on the mafia discussion forum. I think they're pro-town, and so does he.

I still fail to see what relevance dissenting opinions in mafia theory have to do with this particular game.

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?

First, until I read my role PM, I was playing more pure mafia than anyone else in this game.
Second, I can honestly say that I have no idea how that game would turn out if nobody knew their role.
Third, what's wrong with me trying to gain an advantage? If I am a mafioso, then I have a slight advantage on day two. If I'm a townsperson, I've given the town an advantage. Isn't that the point? To get an advantage so that you have a better chance of winning the game?

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?

Because I think you're being mafia in doing so.

Hey... anyone noticed?

hasdagas has defended Quagmire...
...and now Quagmire is defending hasdagas!

Yes! You're Right! Me and hasdfhasdgh are scum partners! Excellent job in figuring out our connection! We weren't obvious enough for You! Awesome Job!

[Quagmire]

I would also like to point out that Albert B. Rampage enjoys this policy-voting thing. It's quite obvious.

[Quagmire]

Interesting vote, MoS. For many reasons.

There are 6 votes for Quagmire, 3 for Peers, and 3 for Kscope. Let's suppose you strategically decided to give steam to a wagon that competes with Quagmire's wagon, to indirectly protect Quagmire maybe, you'd switch your vote to either Peers or Kscope.

You voted for Kscope for no reason.
You didn't vote for Peers. You voted for Kscope.
See, I noticed.

Let's look at your relationship with Kscope:

This is the first time you mention Kscope in the game, not counting the one time you made fun of a typo of his name. An unsupported vote.

Let's look at your relationship with Peers:

Early in the game, you jumped on JordanA24 for putting (agack!) a FOURTH vote on Peers, and you voted for JordanA24, and accused him of throwing smoke and flames.

You yourself did once find Peers worthy of an FOS: FOS of Peers

Earlier in the game, I posted this crazy theory:

MoS's lack of reading the game (if he read the game he would not have dismissed my contribution so lackadaisically), combined with his own near complete lack of participation, and sudden attempt to distract from the Peers wagon leads me to believe that we might be on to something with the Peers wagon.

You said it was a ridiculous theory. And yes, it might have been premature. But isn't it strange that, although you saw fit to FOS Peers, you twice made moves that might save his skin.

And you've protected Quagmire, too.

Just pointing it out for posterity, because I want to be a genius when Quagmire, MoS, hasdagas, Yosarian2 and Peers come up scum!

hahahahahaha too bad i'm town!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Quagmire]

hahahahahaha too bad i'm town!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's easy to type, and the least convincing of possible arguments.

Prove it. Claim.

no.

[Quagmire]

Keep that up, and I'm going to start thinking you're town, hasdgfas.

can't you just think that anyway?

In addition, Quag: what do you have against claiming? Does it hurt you in any way?

I have no reason to right now. The deadline isn't for another two weeks.

PS: Thanks for rolefishing. I thought you were town, too.

[Quagmire]

I find it is anti-town only because we do not know if you actually didn't read it like you claim. If you didn't then you're right, we gain a pure townie, whether you really are one or not. But there is the possibility that you are scum and lying about it. In this case you could go after people you know are town, still doing all the things scum do, and we would have to try and figure out if you did something scummy on accident or because you really did read your pm. So, like I said, I find it anti-town, but not scummy. I also just find the fact that you chose to let everyone know what is anti-town. I would have nothing against doing it and keeping it to yourself, because in the announcing, like I said, you could be lying, but actually playing a day without reading your pm does give you an advantage that I think is okay, as well as helping the town (at least for the one day).

Why in the world would I do this and lie about it if I'm scum? What do I have to gain in this situation?

TS tried to introduce long ago that she saw a game where I announced this unprovoked and I turned up to be scum. This game and that game are entirely different because the other game had new mechanics that made my strategy a viable one. Why would I do it in this game since those specific game mechanics are now dead?

[Quagmire]

Because Quagmire *knows* that he's making the game less fun for people. He does it on purpose for his own enjoyment. He's incorrigible. However, I have a much higher opinion of your intelligence and your maturity than I do with Quagmire, so it was worth the effort to try and get your attention, since you obviously were unaware of the effect of your playstyle.

I take offense to the "much higher opinion of your intelligence" portion, as I feel that that is the incorrect way of putting it. I feel that my intelligence surpasses that of TS and ABR, so to say otherwise I find to be insulting.

..
..

You may laugh at that. The problem is, I'm apathetic to mafia now more than ever so I find no desire to allocate my resources in actually playing the game. It's a matter of how much I care, not how intelligent someone is. It just depends on where I decide to allot my brain power. People like TS obviously use all of it, and look at how far that's gotten her; she's incredibly convinced that someone on the town's side is scum.

Other responses coming tomorrow.

[Quagmire]

You're really reaching with this, bookitty. This is pretty bad.

Quagmire volunteered the information that he didn't read his role PM. No one asked him, no one forced it from him. Here's the post in which he did so:

I think Quag is scum

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

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

So claiming to be distracted from scumhunting because of a situation Quagmire brought upon himself UNPROVOKED, and then arguing that his actions in THIS game should be discussed elsewhere, and not in THIS game, is a nonsensical argument. If Quagmire didn't want to have this discussion, then why bring it up? I think he wanted to distract town with EXACTLY this discussion.

Additionally, posting a quote from an ongoing game in order to support a policy lynch in this one is generally, in my experience, against the rules.

But for those who are arguing that Quagmire not reading his role PM is good, because we gained a townie for the day, I'd like them to list the pro-town, helpful things that Quagmire has done. Because I'm not seeing any, myself.

First off, let me just say that I've had to spend about half of this game so far trying to defend myself and the reasons in which I didn't read my role PM. In other words, it's absolutely absurd and ridiculous to try and cite "the pro-town things that I've done since I've read my role PM." I've spent the entire effing time posting rebuttals to idiots like TS to effectively do anything town. In other words, everybody's trying to reach to make arguments on me. Do you think it's because people don't like me? Hmm.

I mean, there's no way I can take that argument seriously. It's setting someone up to look like scum and then acting on it.

With all that said, I've tried looking for scum. I really have; I think TS is scum and I'm really certain that Bookitty's come and either policy-voted me (something that would make her a hypocrite) or come and joined this bandwagon which looks like it would go places (which would make her scum, because it was really stupidly done). I'm eager to learn which one it is.

Lastly, I want to take a look at

If Quagmire didn't want to have this discussion, then why bring it up? I think he wanted to distract town with EXACTLY this discussion.

Sorry, but...are you stupid? Why in the world would I do that if I'm scum, knowing that I'll be getting the blunt of all of the negative attention in the world? If I was down, why would I try to distract the town from anything?

[Quagmire]

This game is really frustrating me. I'm really tempted to pull a Shea and just flake out because I'm mad.

But I won't

[Quagmire]

On Quagmire: The one time I've seen Quag as scum he played completely differently to this.

Maybe he's changed his ways since; he is squarely anti-town in this game. Don't arrest your analysis at the "not reading the PM" business, it's passé and besides the point. Look at the rest of his behavior please.

You've never given any evidence of me being "anti-town" in this game. You keep saying it like you're a politician. Evidence please.

[Quagmire]

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

Sorry, but...are you stupid? Why in the world would I do that if I'm scum, knowing that I'll be getting the blunt of all of the negative attention in the world? If I was down, why would I try to distract the town from anything?

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

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

never

read my role PM in

any

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

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

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

I think it's likely Quagmire is scum. I think that one of his scumbuddies was under pressure, and that Quagmire is counting on our thinking "Oh, Quag always plays like this" to excuse his anti-town behaviour and avoid being lynched himself. So if Quagmire comes up scum, as I think likely, I'm going to be taking a hard look at the people under pressure when he made his original non-reading claim.

That's a good argument. The only thing that I can defend that with is a, "no, that's not true," and try and get you to understand that I had assumed that people either already knew I didn't read my role or wouldn't give two shits about it either way when I said that I didn't read my role.

Note that it was a casual and lackadasical reference, and you're talking as if I rode through the town on a horse and yelled that the british were coming.

[Quagmire]

My experience in this game is that people that give the town a hard time about claiming are almost always scum.

I've had the opposite experience in games where the flavor of the theme does not play a huge role, so I count that as nothing.

[...]he was careful not to link himself to other players beyond policy-voting me, following MoS and trying to intimidate Bookitty a little [...]

I wasn't "careful" to "link myself" to anyone or anything else. I just say what I think with total disregard for what anyone else is saying. That's because I'm on the town's side and I don't need to pay any attention to things like that.
And my vote for Bookitty wasn't "pressure." It was me legitimately thinking that she's mafia. Read the post again. I'm sure your stubborn screen of bullshit won't prevent you from seeing my side..
Oh wait.

Look at how he wasted 30+ pages policy voting, didn't claim earlier at lynch -1, refused to answer questions even from his friend Yosarian, stubbornly refused to cooperate, try to find scum, and actually play the game in a manner that HELPS the town. He only recently switched his vote from me to Bookitty to intimidate her, in my opinion, because Bookitty was using her brain, and Quagmire wets his bed every time he has to deal with a player that is able to think.

30+ pages is wrong and not factual; I didn't claim because I didn't need to at that point (because people explicitly stated that they'd unvote me when I read my role PM, which I did); "stubbornly refusing to cooperate" with people like you isn't a bad thing and I didn't feel the need to answer Yosarian's (or anyone else's, for that matter) questions; I've tried my best in finding scum given the resources allocated, considering that I'm pretty confident that Bookitty is scum; and you really need to take a look in the mirror sometime.

Nine excellent reasons to lynch Quagmire:

(1) Jerked town around about role PM business.

Not a good reason to lynch. I do this in every game I play, sans newbie games.

(2) Needed to be at lynch minus 1 to allegedly read it.

Not a good reason to lynch either. I'd much rather live than not, and if that means reading my role PM, then so be it.

(3) Has done absolutely nothing pro-town.

Wrong, you stuboorn, misguided little fool.

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

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

(5) His current strategy is to make sure he cannot be linked to any other player but one.

No, my current "strategy" is to find scum. I'm also agreeing on the Panzer stuff.

(6) Stubbornly policy voting a single player while denying it.

It was a policy vote, and then a real vote. Get over it. I think you're scummy too. As MoS said,

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.

(7) Categorically refuses to answer questions - even from Yosarian who defended him earlier.

Yeah, which should tell you I only talk when I want to and I don't want to answer stupid questions that other people bring up just so they can "evaluate my alignment," or whatever. You can do that in other ways. If I have something to say about something, I'll say it.

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

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

(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.

I'm not even going to respond to this one. It's just too retarded and if you can't see why that's retarded, well, then I just have no time for you.

I submit this quote as evidence that Quagmire is continuing to policy lynch or is at the very least completely blindsided:

Although I would like to add that I'm glad you're leaving. I hope you leave the site for good.

I'm not even voting for you anymore, and just because I hate you doesn't mean I'm going to policy vote you anywhere. I despise quite a few people on the site; don't think I'm singling you out.

I submit this quote as evidence that Quagmire continues to refuse to participate, after alledgedly reading his role PM:

I'm not going to claim anytime soon. This conversation is worthless. Stop trying to "lead discussion" somewhere, because it's not going to go anywhere. I'm not going to claim anytime soon. This conversation is worthless. Stop trying to "lead discussion" somewhere, because it's not going to go anywhere. [...] Lynching me would be stupid. I'm on the town's side. Toaster Strudel is mafia, from what I've gathered. That's all that I'm going to say.

I feel like I should be saying something right now because the discussion is on me. However, I'll refrain unless people have any specific questions into my behavior becaues this argument is between Yos2 and TS.

These quotes are either stupidly represented (the former) or not evidence at all (the latter).

I refuse to do anything that you request me to do [...]

Nothing else is worth talking about at the moment. Nobody else has come up with a convincing argument to sway me and nothing's made me change my mind about what I think. So, until then, I have nothing additional to say.[...]Otherwise, you're just going to hear me say, "I don't have anything to say," if everyone continues trying to badger me about my thoughts on every single person in the game.

Neither of these two are evidence that I'm not playing the game. In fact, the latter is evidence that I am playing the game, because it says that I don't need to talk until I have something to say. Which, if you'll note, I do talk. I do have things to say.

[Quagmire]

I think you're reaching here. The more obvious assumption is that the reply was subliminally based off the fact that the people attacking him assumed he was lying about not reading his role pm. When you look at it from that point of view, his reply makes perfect sense. The fact that you are stretching to try and fit everything he does into a negative light does not make me feel better about your attacks on him.

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

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

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

MoS is right on the money.

[Quagmire]

Some of you are the worst mafia players in the world.

You should know who you are.

[Quagmire]

Why do you play mafia, Quag, if you hate it so much?

I don't. I hate this game.

[Quagmire]

lol then why are you staying ?

Because I don't flake or do dumbass things, like you tend to do.

[Quagmire]

Why do you play mafia, Quag, if you hate it so much?

I don't

. I hate this game.

Bizarrely, he's admitting that he IS NOT PLAYING the game. When he says "I hate this game" I can't help but think he doesn't like to be caught scum.

This is his defense:

Neither of these two are evidence that I'm not playing the game. In fact,

the latter is evidence that I am playing the game

, because it says that I don't need to talk until I have something to say. Which, if you'll note, I do talk. I do have things to say.

So he's admitted he's not playing the game, but then he's saying his behavior is evidence that he's actually playing the game.

He's jerking us around.

i just retaliated to your "evidence" you moron

[Quagmire]

Oh wow. You think that it is more ethical to stay in a game than request replacement ?

Yes. I'd be doing a disservice to the moderator if I decided to flake out of a game because it was frustrating me.

I will claim my role -- I don't want to at all, but I will -- no earlier than 5 days before the deadline. I highly suggest that we lynch Bookitty instead.

[Quagmire]

Still reading the thread (sorry I fell behind). I'm at p. 24 and if no one has requested this yet, I'd like Quagmire to link a game in which he did not look at his role pm on day 1 and ended up being town.

The only other time I've ever announced it in the thread, I've been scum. However, I will give you two finished games where I did not read my role PM until night one and have been town:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3927
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3737

[Quagmire]

Thanks for linking those. As I've said, I believe that you didn't read your role. I'm still not sure what you discovered when you finally read it, but I'm leaning town on you.

Do you have any other reasons to suspect Bookitty that you haven't shared? I for one, think your case that she should've accused you instead of hasdf is utter crap and I very much agree that hasdf looked scummy for defending your anti-town play the way he did. But it made it look like he KNOWS you're town, so it would make sense to accuse him and not you, see? So, setting that aside - any other reason to suspect Bookitty?

Think, for a minute, that you're Bookitty. You just replaced into a game where you replaced a lurker that nobody paid attention to. You see that there is a wagon on Quagmire, which has the town pretty much split in half in terms of who's on it and who's off.

Let's think now that you're Bookitty and you're scum. Again, just hypothetically -- I'm not assuming anything. What should you do? You might get persecuted if you're on one side and you end up being wrong -- especially if you just waltz into the game and bandwagon somebody and shut up. That's a risk that I know as scum I wouldn't be willing to take.

What should you do, now? Trying to pin myself into that scenario, I'd try and craft a case on somebody else so that I don't have to take a side and it still looks like I'm participating genuinely. I wouldn't be brainlessly on one side, where I could be totally off-base and persecuted for it and yet still not aloof. There was a murmur or two about ashdfahg before Bookitty posted, but let's be honest -- the discussion was focused on whether or not I'm scum or lying or not or whatever.

That could be reaching a bit. But when you consider that she should have persecuted me for everything -- because if you consider her logic and reasons, she should have attacked me for exactly what she attacked hasdfhag for (that's what my post was about). The fact that she went for someone who wasn't me in this case screams out to me that she's scum. That's my case, and sorry if I didn't state it well enough earlier.

[Quagmire]

Why do you play mafia, Quag, if you hate it so much?

I'm not joining any more games anymore. I'm taking a break for awhile once the games that I'm in finish.

[Quagmire]

You've claimed, Quagmire, that you make a general practice of not reading your role PMs and apparently of announcing it (but only in one game where you turned out to be scum, which is an odd coincidence).

I've never announced anywhere that I announce it all the time. I've only said that I don't read it. If you can show me where I've said that I will announce it all the time no matter what, I'd love to see it.

You policy voted someone without reasons,

I had reasons to policy vote TS. One fantastic reason -- although, I don't know why people are so hung up on this. This policy vote lasted like three pages. I'm going to take the MoS route and take this position:

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.

If you always play like this, it's a nulltell. If someone else supports your weird and anti-town behaviour, especially someone whom I feel is a good player, then I'm going to notice that, and wonder why he would make statements that are clearly counter to logic and reason. I'm going to vote him and try to figure out what his motives are.

What about yosarian2? What about ME? What about anyone else who has defended me? hasdfhag, in defending me, basically regurgitated what I said when I defend the fact that I don't read my role PM. In essence, he wasn't talking, I was.

Lastly, just because you would do something, it does not follow that I would do the same thing. You didn't read your role PM and announced it to everyone and then acted surprised that this caused a big upset. I wouldn't do something so stupid and against the spirit of the game, so trying to judge my behaviours by yours is not going to get you very far.

Those are two totally different actions and I'd appreciate if you wouldn't use such crappy logic in lumping everything of this nature together.

[Quagmire]

Oh wow. You think that it is more ethical to stay in a game than request replacement ?

Yes. I'd be doing a disservice to the moderator if I decided to flake out of a game because it was frustrating me.

I will claim my role -- I don't want to at all, but I will -- no earlier than 5 days before the deadline. I highly suggest that we lynch Bookitty instead.

You rather waste 20+ people's time for weeks than 1 minute of a moderator's
time to do his job. Noted.

You are dense

[Quagmire]

hasdfhag, in defending me, basically regurgitated what I said when I defend the fact that I don't read my role PM.

And you feel that is something a townie would do?

I never said it was or wasn't.

[Quagmire]

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

Uh. How?

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

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

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

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

all

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

[Quagmire]

I don't read as much into Jordan's vote as you do, because I only replaced into this game recently, and I'm already tired of the argument between Toaster Strudel, MoS and Quagmire. I can't imagine what that would be like for people who have been here and active for the whole thing.

You have

no

idea...

I agree. I'm sure it's worse for the people involved.

[Quagmire]

Bookitty, what do you think of Jordan? Any merit to my case?TS, same question for you.

Sorta, but there are way more candidates out there that I'd vote for before I'd vote for Jordan.

Namely, MoS, Yosarian2, YagamiLight, and Peers, for starters, and pretty much in that order.

[Quagmire]

He said he would claim in 4 days.

Not if there's no need to, I won't. Meaning: I have no pressure on me anymore to claim.

[Quagmire]

Hence the phrase "run out of ideas". With all of the previous wagons failing, the town has implicitly consented to an easy lynch that most can feel comfortable with. I wonder how many of the people on the Kscope wagon would actually list him as their top suspect?

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

[Quagmire]

Quagmire nets us the most information regardless of his alignment

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

[Quagmire]

The reasoning is this:

Quagmire made an indefensible statement about not reading his role PM. I think (opinions may vary) that there is no pro-town reason not to read your role PM. I think that Quagmire himself has even stipulated to the fact that you are at best neutral when you don't know your role.

Some people defended him with pretty shaky arguments (hasdgfas, for one) and others took a more measured approach.

Uh, I've had arguments that not reading your role pm is pro-town. I'm a neutral player, but acting pro-town.

I also don't know where you got the fake pretense that I've insinuated before that I'm neutral at best. I'm neutral at worst.

[Quagmire]

I don't think you're trying to "provoke" me. Not anymore, to be sure. It's behind us. But I still think you're scum in this game... can't help it, sorry.

We don't gain any usable information from lynching Quagmire, and we can guarantee that he will read his role pm tonight, even if he hasn't yet. If he continues this same play Day 2, I will be right beside you in leading his lynch. But today is not the day. It's obvious that Quagmire isn't going to cooperate today.

The only problem with your reasoning, is that the Number One reason for a player not to cooperate, especially after he allegedly read his role PM, is that he's scum.

I believe we'll get more solid information from lynching Quagmire, than from lynching K'scope, who you are voting for at the moment. That's my opinion.

And one thing is certain. In the off-chance that we may be lynching a townie, Quagmire would be the one with the least downside.

I've provided plenty of logic, scumhunting, and usefulness in this game, something of which you've been unable to muster.

[Quagmire]

The peers bandwagon suddenly looks comforting.

However I'm sticking with Bookitty.

I'll claim tomorrow.

[Quagmire]

We're now tomorrow. Claim time.

OK, fine. I am a basic townsperson.

What I tried to do, in refusing to claim, was imply that I had a power role (which, amazingly, none of the stupid players picked up on -- whaddaya know?!) so that perhaps the mafia would try to kill me tonight. Think about it, if people think that I'm a power role, the not only would the town not incorrectly lynch a townie (me), but only a townie should die the next night, putting the town in the best position.

Of course I don't know why I said any of that, because nobody's going to believe me.

[Quagmire]

unvote: vote peers

I must save my own ass.

[Quagmire]

This is about the 10th time this game he's said "A Peers lynch will be bad for the town."

He's already said he's vanilla. What's his defense? He looks like a weak townie to me at this point.

The big difference, I see, at this point, between Peers and Quagmire is one of agenda. Peers, beyond saying that a Peers lynch "would be bad for the town" has not done anything particularly scummy has his wagon mounted. When he expressed suspicion, it was on a few players that are quite justifiably scummy.

Peers made no subtle analysis trying to distance from one player, buddy up to another... mixing up townie and scumbuddies as scum would... no. He just named the three most obvious scumbags on his wagon. That's a player that doesn't have an agenda.

Quagmire, on the other hand, has spent the whole game with an agenda. Not reading his PM is an agenda. Twinning MoS's policy vote (and again, I'd never played with Quagmire before, why would he policy vote me?) is an agenda. Refusing to answer questions is an agenda (though Peers is too lazy to answer one now, admittedly, not helping himself here). Note that Quagmire refused to asnwer the EXACT SAME kind of question, which is, "Do you think so-and-so is scummy?" Quagmire would not answer these questions either. Refusing to claim is an agenda. Voting Bookitty off-wagon is an agenda, allowing to switch his vote late on a wagon and make a difference. Maintaining this vote against all logic is an agenda.

What distinguishes the players on the Peers wagon from the players on the Quagmire wagon, is that the players on the Peers wagon appear to amplify anything that Peers do, and have a complete blind spot for Quagmire. Hasdagas, Setael, even Erg0, MoS, and Quagmire himself. Adn Zu_Faul to some extent.

See, this is why I policy vote you. You are not helpful to the town.

I have categorically refused to answer other questions that people have posed to me because I have no opinion on them, and if I do have an opinion on them, I would have either said it already or would have answered your questions. I don't have the time, patience, or desire to look through every single one of the posts that people request me to find and then force myself to have an opinion on them.

Peers, meanwhile, has dodged the question, never explicitly stating that he doesn't want to answer it. It sounds like he's trying to grin, look nice, and change the topic. Not that there's really anything wrong with this at this juncture in the game, but

the two situations are completely different.[/b] Like I said, I'm only voting for peers to save my own ass and if still alive tomorrow will continue to pursue Bookitty.

Also:

Quagmire, on the other hand, has spent the whole game with an agenda. Not reading his PM is an agenda. Twinning MoS's policy vote (and again, I'd never played with Quagmire before, why would he policy vote me?) is an agenda. Refusing to answer questions is an agenda (though Peers is too lazy to answer one now, admittedly, not helping himself here). Note that Quagmire refused to asnwer the EXACT SAME kind of question, which is, "Do you think so-and-so is scummy?" Quagmire would not answer these questions either. Refusing to claim is an agenda. Voting Bookitty off-wagon is an agenda, allowing to switch his vote late on a wagon and make a difference. Maintaining this vote against all logic is an agenda.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Quagmire]

unvote, vote kscope

let's not lynch the doctor and still save me

[Quagmire]

you know what's really funny? i'm going to end up getting lynched at the deadline. you know what this means? the people who have been for my lynch will just blame my townieness on MY bad play,

NOT

THEIRS.

I want someone to quote this post tomorrow when someone does that.

[Quagmire]

Vote: Bookitty

I'd like to point out:

1) Remember when I called TS a dumbass? Case in point.
2) Why does nobody listen to my case against Bookitty? It's a good case indeed.

[Quagmire]

So why are people not voting for bookitty?

[Quagmire]

This game is annoying.

Maybe I'll put forth the effort to rebuild a case against bookitty, and maybe I won't. We'll see in the next few days.

[Quagmire]

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

I can answer this.

She will blame me -- I'm the one who fucked everything up, it's my fault that I didn't turn up scum, and I'm the dumbass. She won't actually blame herself, because she's far too ignorantly proud for that. I mean, come on, look at this:

He wouldn't, say, try to build a case (or be too lazy to) against one of the most logical and useful players in this game like Bookitty, I mean, himself!

I've already built a case against Bookitty.

[Quagmire]

I really don't buy hasdfgas as scum. He posts some sense, especially when replying to sikario.

and also when you consider that his "defense" of me was just a rehash of what i've said in other forums. he just told you people what i've said, in regards to why i don't read my role pm.

either that or he sees my side of things.