Mafia 73: NEGWLTWWWTKY - Abandoned!

[Quagmire]

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

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

Prove it. Claim.

no.

[Toaster Strudel]

OK!

Die.

Bye!

[hasdgfas]

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?

[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.

[hasdgfas]

Rolefishing? How do you get rolefishing from that?

[YagamiLight]

I see what he means, if he said it does hurt him, it means he is either truthful scum or a power role.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Guys let's just vote him until he claims.

[hasdgfas]

ah, well that was not the way my question was intended. It was intended as "does the act of claiming disgust you so much that you just refuse to claim" not a "will you get NK'd if you claim" but now that you mention it I can see why that could possibly be seen as rolefishing.

[YagamiLight]

I don't see a need for him to claim. If he lied about reading his pm, and in fact continued to play without reading but is keeping it a secret he is acting pure town. My biggest problem was the announcement of it which basically says to me "You can't use any of the stuff I've say day 1 because I'm not reading my pm until night 1." Now, should something happen to draw suspicion to him, and he says he didn't actually read it, I would find him scummy. Not because he didn't read it, but because at that point a villager would try something else so he doesn't make all the posts he had made during that time useless.

[hasdgfas]

I don't like his defense of Quag not reading his role pm in post 493, though not necessarily scummy, he fails to realize that we get absolutely no information from Quag in this case.

If he lied about reading his pm, and in fact continued to play without reading but is keeping it a secret he is acting pure town.

That was my entire defense of Quag. You find it suspicious that I defend Quag, and yet here you defend him for the same reason?

[YagamiLight]

I thought I had posted a reply when you said this but I guess not.

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

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

I had originally thought you had been fully in his defense, and it seemed to me that you had not thought about if he had been lying and what the announcement of it did.

[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?

[Toaster Strudel]

I don't see a need for him to claim.

Neither do I.

We can just lynch him and get it over with already.

After he claimed he read his role PM, he didn't play like a power role, he played like scum. Anti-town, through and through.

YagamiLight, forget about the reading the PM business. Go and carefully analyze Quagmire's behavior throughout the game. It's much, much more than just the announcement that he didn't read his role PM. Let's not get hung up on arguments over this. 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.

Even if you want to believe that his not reading his PM meant we had "another townie" do you seriously think he was helping the town in anyway shape or form? He sure wasn't "another townie" helping us find scum.

[Toaster Strudel]

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?

Everything. You would gain everything.

Let's say on Day 1 we know you're scum. We go back, and analyze what you did on Day 1 to find your buddies. But noooooo... maybe you didn't read your role PM, so ready your Day1 contribution becomes a pointless exercize for the rest of us to find your buddies.

As scum, you stand to gain EVERYTHING from pulling that stunt.

[Toaster Strudel]

Besides all that, we'd be complete fools not to lynch Quagmire at this point. Although he was careful not to link himself to other players beyond policy-voting me, following MoS and trying to intimidate Bookitty a little, we have several players that have linked themselves to him, by defending him.

His lynch will be a treasure of information for the townies that have night actions to intelligently choose their targets tonight. We totally need to know Quag's alignment now. Knowing Quag's alignment is also the key to a very productive Day 2.

[Bookitty]

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.

[Mastermind of Sin]

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!

No, I'm not indirectly protecting Quagmire. I'm more than willing to state that this town would be idiotic to lynch Quagmire today. The wagon against him shows a complete lack of reasonable actions and logic.

My vote on Kscope is based on the fact that he opportunistically tried to start the wagon against me based on the overall feeling he was getting of the town's opinion of me. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

A little look at some of MoS's posts.

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.

So you're policy lynching her?

TS is a crackpot idiot who gets way too carried away divulging herself in ridiculous theories that are so strung out they fall apart like a house of cards if a breeze comes through. I'm more than willing to policy lynch a person like that in any game, unless I have a better suspect. And since it's only page 11 on Day 1 of a large game, that's a damn good place for my vote.

So she plays a bit differently than others. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It can be fun sometimes. Just because you don't like someone's playstyle doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the site.

MoS, why aren't you policy lynching Quagy ? He is a way better policy.

I'm not policy lynching

anyone

.

You said you were earlier

For fuck's sake, how many times do I have to say that I'm not policy voting for you to get it through your head.

It will never be enough after the post you made where you said you were policy lynching TS.

Take what you will from these posts. Personally, I'm not a big fan of them. You're policy lynching TS, but you're not? You're voting kscope why? It looks like OMGUS to me. That deserves, at the very least, a

FoS

A closer look at Peers hopefully coming soon.

You're a victim of selective reading. Had you actually read the entirety of my posts, you would not have come to such a clearly erroneous conclusion.

After the first two posts you quoted, I made this post.

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

This is clearly the end of any voting spree against Toaster Strudel, because I'm pursuing a real case now.

Then I made this post:

I'm scum for saying you're not a Jester? Uh huh.

Do I really have to spell this out for you again? How thick are you? You're scum for presenting a false set of choices when you said I was not a Jester, by implying that the only choices were for me to be scum OR jester, as if being town was not an option.

Thanks for the compliment,

You're taking my words too literally, when people accuse someone of being a Jester, it's because they see them as being deliberatly scummy, and I'm asking them "Why can't they be scum playing badly?", rather than saying "Why can't they be badly playing scum/town?", if they see them as being scummy enough to ask if they're a Jester, they're unlikely to see them as town, so I just don't bother and keep the question simple. That's all.

Hmm, I can accept this, for now.

Unvote

What does your last question refer to? I don't recall saying anything about a 4th vote on a wagon. Although now that you ask that question, you should already know the answer. It's easy to be the 4th vote and start a wagon, if you're the one who presents the case that sets off their wagon. The location of your vote is NOT an indicator of your relationship to a wagon. Your other actions matter even more than your vote, so the implication that everything is dependent on when you voted is another illogical misdirection from you.

Maybe, but the post where I voted Peers was

Unvote Vote: Peers

So, that pretty much shoots that theory out of the water.

4th vote is jumping on a wagon, which is what I accused you of. So how does you being the fourth vote shoot my theory out of the water again?

Ah I see, I misunderstood, I thought you brought up somewhere that I started the wagon, I must have misread somewhere.

At least you're willing to admit that there was a misunderstanding here. Your little buddy TS decided that she should attack everything I say even if my statements are backed up by facts and not actually wrong, as she implied. Seems a little excessive to me.

Vote: Toaster Strudel

Who's blatantly incorrect now?

But is jumping on a wagon on Page 3 that scummy? In most games, there are early wagons to get the game started, and people do jump on those wagons to put pressure on people, I thought Peers was pressure-worthy, so I voted him.

The fact that you'd done it multiple times made it worth my first serious vote, and I didn't really like your responses afterwards.

Clearly, I revoted Toaster Strudel in response to something she had done that was scum, not because of any supposed policy vote I made before I got serious in this game. In fact, you can tell from the end of this post that my vote on Jordan was my first serious vote of the game, which directly implies that I wasn't serious about policy voting TS. Since I wasn't serious about it, there's no reason for me to continue it randomly. The conclusion that I would do that in completely irrational. There is no advantage to stating that I am policy voting TS if I am scum.

[Toaster Strudel]

No, I'm not indirectly protecting Quagmire. I'm more than willing to state that this town would be idiotic to lynch Quagmire today. The wagon against him shows a complete lack of reasonable actions and logic.

Sorry if I said "indirectly" - I guess I will have to upgrade to "directly" now.

You're not fooling anybody you know, with the rest of that post, but nice try. I like it when scum refuses to give up.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Whatever. Quagmire will be lynched at deadline. Too bad he didn't claim.

[Toaster Strudel]

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

[hasdgfas]

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.

When I was defending his actions, I was stating that if we didn't jump all over him for not reading his PM or if he didn't announce it, we would, in theory, have a townie. Maybe he didn't do anything pro-town. In that case, we lynch him. However, if, say, mith were to be in a game and hadn't read his role PM during day 1, he would play day 1 as a townie. The action of not reading your role PM is not inherently anti-town, but Quagmire in this case looks more and more anti-town. Not based on that one action, but on the game as a whole.


@MoS: When you state that you are making a policy vote, that is what people remember. Voting for someone else for a real case, then getting back on to TS for a "real case" does not stick in people's minds, because we don't know whether that "real vote" is based on something that's actually there or if you're trying to just find something on that person so that they can be lynched. Even if it's a real case, there will still be that nagging voice in the back of our minds saying "Is this actually scummy, or is this still because of the policy vote?"
That's why there shouldn't be policy votes. It's similar to the boy who cried wolf. People won't believe you later, even if you really do have a real case on that person.

[YagamiLight]

@Quag: In answer to your question, as scum doing so could get you looked at the way has is, as an extra townie while allowing you to still play as scum.

@Bookitty & Has: I pretty much agree with has in his above post, but would also like to say that even if people didn't jump all over him for not reading his pm there is still the fact that he could have lied as scum about the whole thing. I think it if someone where to choose not to immediately read their pm they shouldn't announce it like that, because like I said in previous posts, it makes their previous posts unreliable.

[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.

[Mastermind of Sin]

@MoS: When you state that you are making a policy vote, that is what people remember. Voting for someone else for a real case, then getting back on to TS for a "real case" does not stick in people's minds, because we don't know whether that "real vote" is based on something that's actually there or if you're trying to just find something on that person so that they can be lynched. Even if it's a real case, there will still be that nagging voice in the back of our minds saying "Is this actually scummy, or is this still because of the policy vote?"
That's why there shouldn't be policy votes. It's similar to the boy who cried wolf. People won't believe you later, even if you really do have a real case on that person.

If I was serious about trying to "trick" you all into lynching TS by posting a fake "real case", why would I have announced that I had a policy vote at all in the first place? It seems counterintuitive towards completing the supposed objectives that you are ascribing to me. What you're saying is that I'm trying to sneak my vote in behind a false case so that you don't know I'm policy voting, AND that at the same time I was willing to tell you that I was making a policy vote early in the game. Those two actions contradict each other.

[Bookitty]

Mastermind of Sin:

How do you feel about Quagmire joining you in your policy lynch, and quoting from another game in which he apparently also joined you there? Do you still feel your original "policy lynch" vote was justified for the reasons you gave?

Do you agree with policy lynches in general of players who are unhelpful and make the game less fun? Are you generally in favour of other kinds of policy lynches?

Do you now feel it was a mistake to try to "policy lynch" Toaster Strudel near the start of the game?