Mafiascum.net

The hall erupted loudly with accusations. Silently ee cummings stared at Brian; the author said nothing at all actually, so Brian considered the other prolific writers in the room. He did not understand every style of the writers; some styles were deeper than Turnips 'n' Potatoes Deeper'n'Ever Pie. He decided to focus only on their votes, and what shred of reasoning he could glean from the likes of Gertrude Stein or Mark Z Danielewski or James Joyce.

Brian read the latest editions of The Daily Bugle and ponderously mulled over the drama it yearned to create. Brian could not decide whether it was the style of the paper or the actual thoughts of the editor that distrustfully pointed at nearly every author in attendance! Brian carefully listened to the other authors and found it very easy to follow Edgar Allen Poe and Lemony Snicket, and was dismayed to find them butting heads. He could not thoroughly think on the rest of the accusations, and so put down his pen and scroll for the evening, asking in passing one question, "Dr. Seuss, I'm curious you didn't vote The Daily Bugle as well. From what you've so wittily rhymed, I take it you consider it too early to determine The Daily Bugle's true intentions?"

--G. K. Chesterton


I am still a tad suspicious of the Daily Bugle. I understand that he has constraints on him because of his native tongue, but I would like to see more from him. However, the haste with which some authors jumped onto the wagon seems a bit suspicious too. I will be watching several of you very closely. If only I had a bit of the Alderan Donas of seeing the future, but I lack that gift. Renegades to the Comyn, they may be, but that gift of foresight and others run strong in them.

For now, I will keep my vote where it lies, while I continue my research. I feel we need to unravel things a great deal more before we retire for the night.

Got a call. Mysterious voice on the line, "Quit with the RVS" then silence. I thought I heard a snicker before the line went dead. I'm thinking Price is a prize asshole if it was him. I fantasize for a moment about what it would feel like to rip out his jugular then I remember I have to return some videotapes.

UNVOTE: Jane Austen

Mamet did not vote.

It made me quite surprised.

I felt a stirring beneath

and plunged forthwith.

A random vote
Generated randomly:
David Foster Wallace -
Aghast, a God!

A ghast! Ah, god!
Generated randomly?
Ah, random.

An American Psycho

At the end of a random jaunt

Recently finished:

I criticise.

I do naht see Boogle as the scahhm, bahht, it is naht useful either. People are having leetle bit of fahn with the beginning, because the beginning, is the bit of fahn. It is the beginning, where you can play football, and have a bit of fahn, hah hah hah, just a leetle bit. To have a bit of fahn, that is not the town, bahht, [wags finger] that is naht the scahhm.

What I do not like, is the vote of Lemony on the Boogle. The reason he gives, is not very good, and does not draw the line with his thinking.

UNVOTE: Mark Z. Danielewski
VOTE: Lemony Snicket

I also like the third vote of Greg, and want to know, who Bret thinks is the scahhhm.

↑ Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote:

A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author.

--G. K. Chesterton


I am still a tad suspicious of the Daily Bugle. I understand that he has constraints on him because of his native tongue, but I would like to see more from him. However, the haste with which some authors jumped onto the wagon seems a bit suspicious too. I will be watching several of you very closely. If only I had a bit of the Alderan Donas of seeing the future, but I lack that gift. Renegades to the Comyn, they may be, but that gift of foresight and others run strong in them.

For now, I will keep my vote where it lies, while I continue my research. I feel we need to unravel things a great deal more before we retire for the night.

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

41 Let not a vote which is unrighteous and founded in sin be the vehicle for your deliverance. For your Bugle vote was pronounced during the time of Creation, and the attempt to turn a sinful lie unto the truth is most evil.

42. Smite that which is evil, lest it bring destruction down on that which I have Created.

43

For what did say the Bugle bad or not
Have yet I see a reason for his vote
The scum is not in him I think for now
The rest do still remain a mystery

Charlie sits at his desk scrolling aimlessly through the Author Mafia game thread on Mafiascum.net. Blue and white streaks by on the screen and reflects a dim bluish glow onto Charlie's face. The occasional sound of CAR WHEELS SPINNING THROUGH WATER PUDDLES can be heard coming from outside the modest Los Angeles townhome.



Charlie runs his fat fucking fingers through what little curly Jew hair he has left. He stares at the monitor for an eternity and then turns to his typewriter and starts pecking away.







Charlie slams his fists down on the table.



Charlie quickly redacts the last few words and begins typing away again.



Charlie Kaufman, in all his macho bravado and wit, marches straight up to the crowd surrounding the Daily Bugle. Everyone is shouting as Kaufman pulls everyone away and stands in front of the The Daily Bugle, eyeing down the crowd.



Charlie walks straight up to DAVID MAMET, a smug, 60-something bearded man, and decks him straight in the jaw.



Charlie stops. He reads over the lines twice in a row before picking up his typewriter and just throwing it across the room. It thuds and skids, sliding across the floor with no damage at all.



Charlie crosses the wooden floors to the coat rack, stubbing his toe along the way on the thrown typewriter.



Charlie hops around on one foot towards his bed, flinging himself onto the bed and collapsing in pain and shame.

VOTE: Le Daily Bugle

-- Michelle Hodkin


You who call yourself God, I have met many men like you in my life. Small minded men who use Scripture to prove that a woman's place is being barefoot and pregnant and most of all, the chattel of men. Many who deny the Goddess, and limit themselves to an unbalanced and skewed view of the world. If you are planning on pursuing me and blackening my name as scum, you will have to do better than saying I am scum because I am female. Have you ever seen a Cheiri? They are both male and female at different times in their lives, though many spend most of their life in a neuter state. Thanks to them interbreeding with the early settlers on Darkover, many powerful Gifts came to the Comyn. All Gods are one God and all Goddesses are one Goddess, just multiple facets thereof. But you need BOTH to be balanced.

It was raining when he arrived. He'd heard that this part of the country was rather wet. In that much, it reminded him of home. Upon entry, he was shown to the room where the rest were gathered, already in the midst of heated discussion. He allowed himself a moment of observation before interjecting.

"It seems apparent that there is a certain amount of disdain for the papers in this country. I for one agree. The newspapers have degenerated. They can now be trusted completely." He seemed amused at his own wit, and allowed himself an airy laugh before continuing. "My dear woman, you seem to be preparing a preface to a long rage against the heavens. You would do well to listen again before you take arms against God. It is not your womanhood specifically that he takes issue with, but your pursuit of a certain publication of record. One might liken the action to a pack of wolves descending upon an old ewe, whose slowness of action has made her easy prey."

The Bugle Bandwagon really is the most disagreeable wagon, and it seems to my mind that the Bugle wagon really must not continue, and I would go so far as to say that the Daily Bugle was my strongest town read. A Bugle wagon! His only crime being the unerring search for truth and a disagreeable way of putting it; his only crime is being the Daily Bugle! David Mamet is clearly the scum, and I pray that you read Mr Kaufman's posts for I would have said much the same; though with less vulgar use of language.

a(n
ews
p
a
p
e
r brings

ro
ver
sy

yet promotes
ano
ther

womynproud

re
jects eachness

&a charlieman

pre
tends oneness

The young man nodded ascent before speaking. "I do believe I must agree with the vote for Madam Bradley. She has misrepresented the word of God, and seems less than sincere in her criticism of the Daily Bugle. However I am disappointed with the lack of a Tuesday edition of the paper. Perhaps today we will have some reading material."

VOTE: Marion Zimmer Bradley

↑ Edgar Allan Poe wrote:

↑ Lemony Snicket wrote:

↑ Edgar Allan Poe wrote:And do thou, sir, believe that a criminal would attempt to "stand out" amidst a crowd, or that they would have better luck attempting to fade into the general public? In addition, I do not believe "oddity" merits a vote. No indeed. Truly, those who can think for themselves are usually innocent of any crime, whilst those endeavoring to appear "unodd", if you may term it as such, merit a closer look upon. Do thou believe differently?

I'm afraid that when searching for these criminals in the early stages of our game, much like when first sweeping a crime scene, or when inspecting a house you bought from your suspicious aunt with a wooden leg, oddities are the best we can find. But I do agree, E.A.P, that those who blend in are as devious as those who stand out.

Thou surely contradict thyself? For how can a man believe that both standing out and blending in are both suspicious to the eyes? Truly, would not every gentleman and madame fit into one or the other category. Especially when thou are attempting to search for criminals early on.

Much like when I watch football (the one that does not involve much use of one's foot), I do not believe I am following. In the game of mafia, there is not one particular ways the criminal acts, for if there was, we would be able to identify that behavior and then send them to the gallows. I was merely trying to say that those who who vote in the "Random voting stage" are not suddenly absolved from suspicion in my mind, yet Mamet's initial post and his response did not make much sense.

E.A.P wrote:

↑ Lemony Snicket wrote:Do you believe the Daily Bugle is devious?

My main concern with The Daily Bugle at this hour is not over it attempting to beguile us, rather it is that it seems to be more forging a summary rather than entrust us with it’s thoughts. However I will admit that it seems to be attempting to intertwine both aspects.

However, if thou point was to connect The Daily Bugle with seeming devious for attempting to fade into the general public, then I must confess, I see not where thou come from. Truly, it seems due to that theory, players like Christopher Marlowe, whom hath done nothing but come and declare that they have found nothing of suspicion and simply throw a random vote towards Dr Seuss, or James Joyce, who hath entered and paid no notice to the events that have since ensued, and simply threw a random vote himself, or Charlie Kaufman, who mayhaps hath attempted to beguile us by deviously concealing a, what people term around here, “bandwagon” vote.

As I said, my problem is the former. The Bugle is merely attempting to note those who are not contributing to the conversation. However, we all clearly have eyes, or else we would not be able to write the miserable works we do, and we can see who is and who is not contributing.

Marion Zimmer Bradley's response to "God" was similar to the rambling's of the Baudelaire's banker Poe when his cough took him and he had a strong fever. Surely M.Z.B does not have a fever, so I don't understand the motivations for the response whatsoever.

The Daily Bugle – 6 (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Rucks, David Mamet, Lemony Snicket, Gertrude Stein, Jean-Baptiste Poquelin)

[* Or more than one, of course.]

voted first, at RVS. A wagon, which seemingly appeared out of little and less, surfaced. Miss Bradely decided “I am still a tad suspicious of the Daily Bugle…. However, the haste [of the] wagon seems a bit suspicious too.” She, however, simply puts not effort into attempting to analyze the voters. Tell me, , why do thou insist on camping a simple random vote on The Bugle when the wagon is springing faster than one can descend into madness? Surely, if thou no longer agree with thy original mark (for surely, no man – or woman – can simply know before hand of someone’s guilt – and surely, you confessed to the rest that thou hath suspicions of the wagon), why must thou insist on keeping thy mark on the Bugle? Thy rambling towards “God” does you no favors, either, Madame.

, whilst seemingly half-crazed, does not draw my eye with his marking against The Paper. The man seems to demonstrate a certain genuineness in his talk. I note no oddity there.

evokes controversial reactions in my soul. On one hand, the bad mark against Bugle seems to be well thought out, and is indeed true. On the other hand, I have seen criminals use this tactic - sort of, say, “victimize” themselves - in hopes of being looked upon favorably. Alas, though, my mind shall hopefully be made up in the future. At this hour, however, I shall keep the man under my gaze.

is very troubling indeed. First, the man decides to raise up arms over Mr. Mamet simply over not “voting” in the beginning. I first simply considered it a jest, but the man seemed to continue on pushing the idea, and seemingly serious. After poking him, he simply states that anything “odd” is a sign of a criminal. Then, he takes it to the head to vote The Paper, for seemingly simply saying it’s thoughts, and for truly similar reason for why he marked Mamet on the first occasion - for Budgle was pointing out “oddity”, as a source of some authors not addressing the main topics of talk, whilst Snicket accused Mamet of also being “odd” and “standing out”. “Others are not acting as well, but this has been noted by the Daily Bugle.” This must truly be some type of hypocrisy, for Snicket had done nothing much previously than simply pointing out the oddity in Mamet, for not voting.

, a truly mad woman, from what I can make out from her crazed talk, seems to be voting The Paper for simply summarizing the events, and not sharing opinions. Of course, I confess, I believe I am partly imagining what she is saying, and the other part imagining what she is meaning. But for the world to know, , please indulge us in why thou hath black-marked the papers.

, the sixth voter, does not say much - concerning The Papers of course -, and simply adds another vote without much mentioning the growing wagon, nor demonstrating genuineness in their talk. For that, I am wary of the man. But please, Monsieur, do not let me distract thy thoughts, nor interpret thy hard work in searching for scum. I will, however, be patiently awaiting thy thoughts on the matter of thy vote on The Papers. For thou did say “I sought specific posts to look through while I thought, On whether this [Bugle] player was proven scum or not.”. And then, thou decided to mark the person right away, for us to - if may dare say- “magically” know where thou coming from. Do please entertain our thoughts more on the matter of thy marked The Paper.

I hope to the angels that I am not mistaken about Bugle’s alignment, and that I somehow change the course of things to look favorably on The Paper, or simply dissuade others from continuing on the trail there are committed to at the present. However, my analysis still holds firm, for whether The Paper’s is guilty or not of committing the crime, a bad mark is a bad mark, and should be met with swift retribution. If Bugle at some point in the course of the future were to be confirmed as guilty of the crime which gathers us all here, then I would heavily suspect that those persons with the bad marks got, perhaps, frightened and paranoid early on, and, sensing that one of theirs might be in danger, decided to look unfavorably towards the poor soul - for even a criminal betrayed by his own provokes a certain kind of sadness - in hopes of leaving no connections to the man, and for others to look favorably upon them once The Paper were to be confirmed as an evildoer and spreader of evil.

For now, I will,

VOTE: Madame Bradely,

For while I find Mr. Snicket equally suspicious, I am displeased to find that others do not see what I do. However, a common goal should always be eradicated first, and then the players shall attempt to settle their differences.

The lady Bradley

Does not attract my eye;

Mongrel! Pretender! Artificer!

Against god - the author above's - word!







Fingers grasp
Dead leaves.
Suspicion rouses
American dreams.

Suspicioun rouses
Fingers. Grass,
American dreams:
Dead leaves.


VOTE: Madame Bradely

There is rope out there with your name on it.

The Daily Bugle would like to sincerely apologize to its faithful readers. Our printing presses have been jammed. By squirrels. We hope to have the problem solved within the next 48 hours. Thank you for your patience.

Real life decided to kick my ass the last couple days. Should have time to post tomorrow, but for sure Friday. Muchas apologies, a phrase which here means "blame my professors."

OOC: Yep, two midterms Friday. I'll be active afterwards.