Mini 768- Root of All Evil (Game Over)

[MafiaSSK]

Welcome MafiaSSK - Could I get your opinion on Verbose's play so far?

I believe it's acceptable for the RVS.

[Battousai]

Vote Count

Verbosity

- 3 (Azhrei, Gateway, Molestargazer)

Sekinj

- 2 (Chiefsky4, MafiaSSK)

MafiaSSK

- 2 (Verbosity, ThAdmiral)

Molestargazer

- 1 (Spolium)

Spolium

- 1 (kpaca)

Chiefsky4

- 1 (Jazzmyn)

Not Voting

: Archon, sekinj

It takes 7 to lynch!

[Verbosity]

Unvote
Vote: Verbosity

What is the point of this?

Ok... I really had hoped you were making a joke with your first long post, I really had. It seems, however, you aren't. (If you are, now is the time to go 'hahahaha I got you all, LOL') For one, how do you know Pablo is a weak link? I'm going to assume you've played with him before? You never said. For two, how is it fair, on page 1, to put a vote on said player for no more reason than that? For three, if you hadn't noticed, there is thing called a random voting stage, and in it, we generally have some fun, throw out silly votes, and hope the scum will make blatant slips (hardly ever happens). Now, if you look at the post you've quote of mine (and, nearly all the others you've quoted) they are examples of random votes. Now, my random vote was essentially a joke about your name, and the length of your post. (at the time, I assumed it was some elaborate joke). Concise is the opposite of verbose, right?

So please, if you are indeed joking, tell us. If you aren't, well I'd really like to know your reasoning for your actions. If your intention was to have a record time for the RVS, I feel you may have just succeeded. Personally, I'm a little pissed off, as the RVS is a nice little fun way to start a game, and you've just gone and ruined it.

Actually, I picked him

because

he hadn't confirmed yet. I was more interested in seeing how people would react to my actions, your actions seem indicative of a townie. Despite this, you and a number of other players seem to think that the Random Voting Stage is as holy as the Sabbath. It's not. The faster we can get out of this stage and into the real game, the better the game will be. Your intent to maximise the random voting stage comes off as childish, rather than particularly scummy.

At any rate, there is nothing that needs to be "fair" about my votes. This is not a game of "fair", this is mafia. Once again, despite the general idiocy of this comment, I feel that it is largely of town motivation.

Oh, and also, I'm curious Verbosity. Your registration date is rather recent. Have you played mafia on another site? Same goes for Gateway and kpaca, what's your experience?

I am an alt. An alt of whom, I will not say.

Re: Spolium, see above.

I am going to vote for Pablo Molinero. I believe that he is the weakest player, and so most prone to revealing his alignment under pressure, and should he be town-aligned, would be least damaging to the town dead. I would appreciate additional votes to cause pressure on Pablo Molinero. Until then, I will place my vote accordingly: Vote: Pablo Molinero. Thank you for your time.

So, you want to lynch someone without any evidence for him being scum just because he's not worth the most to the town? Give the guy a chance.

That is not what I said. Jumping to conclusions like that is indicative of scapegoating, and thus is largely scum motivated behaviour. I said that I wanted to apply pressure to him, to get him to crack.

Please direct all counter arguments now, failure to do so will be regarded as implicit agreement with my strategy, failure to follow my strategy while being in agreement with it will warrant suspicion.

So, basically, you're saying anyone who doesn't agree with your strategy and vote PM is suspicious? Please see my 'counter-argument' up there.

Once again, no, that is not what I said. I said that if you agree with my plan, implicitly or otherwise, as I said I would assume prior, and if you then fail to follow the plan, it is suspicious. I did not in fact demand that everyone agree, did not say that people who disagreed would be scum. Stop misinterpreting my posts and strawmanning me. This is horrendously scummy behaviour.

To me, your vote for my behaviour is suspect, because there is no town motivation for such an action, except sloth, which is no contribution to the town at all.

Unfortunately, people will be lazy, be they townie or scum. You need to make sure people at least read your arguments, if you make them too long people will just skim and miss the facts.

I am attempting to make clear all my thought processes and hide nothing. That is hard to do while being concise as you apparently think is good. You shall likely learn from play with MafiaSSK how infuriating conciseness is.

Why are you ignoring what I have posted? Do you then accept my implicit agreement clause and the accompanying suspicion with failure to comply with my plan?

Quite probably because at that time it was still the random voting stage. See above, chances are they've skipped your post. This doesn't make them scum.
Also - are you admitting to a little sloth there, copy-pasting the same argument to three people? :P

If they skip my post, they are deliberately minimising information for the town, there is only scum motivation for that. The copy paste was because the questions were wholly valid, and I only copy pasted once, as I remember.

Is this significant, Verbosity, or a mere oversight?

I'd also like to hear this.

Above.

Unvote
Vote: Verbosity

1. You're pointlessly querying people in the RVS. Ignoring your post doesn't make them scum.
2. You're perfectly willing to kill someone who is, in all probability, pro-town - or force someone to reveal their role by pressuring them who you have no evidence for being scum.
3. Be concise, dammit.

These questions are not pointless, and as I have said, ignoring them is completely detrimental to the town, and by extension, scummy behaviour.

I am willing to put

pressure

upon that person.

You

jumped to the conclusion that I was willing to kill him. Your eagerness to ride my wagon is indicative of scum as is your strawman.

Why should I? Is it scummy to make all my thought processes known? What I have done is end the Random Voting Stage almost immediately, that is a good thing.

Welcome MafiaSSK - Could I get your opinion on Verbose's play so far?

This is contradictory. Why is it not scummy to ignore my posts, yet you follow this up with a request for a response?

vote: mafiassk

the clue is in the name.

See previous questions about why you ignore my posts.

Welcome MafiaSSK - Could I get your opinion on Verbose's play so far?

I believe it's acceptable for the RVS.

I would appreciate expansion on this point.

Unvote; Vote: molestargazer

[ChiefSkye4]

Do you agree with the logic of my plan, despite the vote? Have you then played with sekinj before to the extent that you believe that he is weak enough to be most easily pressured? If no to either, why have you followed this particular course of action? Why have you only commented on my target, rather than my method? Is this because you are connected to Pablo Molinero?

Thank you for your time.

No, connection, I suppose I'm trying to preserve the sanctity of the the random vote stage. By random voting.

Also, I have no reason to think that he's scum. And, I don't know about you, but I'd rather vote out scum than a bad-playing townie.

[molestargazer]

That is not what I said. Jumping to conclusions like that is indicative of scapegoating, and thus is largely scum motivated behaviour. I said that I wanted to apply pressure to him, to get him to crack.

If he is inexperienced as you say, getting him to crack will only elicit so-called 'scummy' behaviour from him, which will lead to a lynch, and in all probability, the death of a townie.
Pressure us fine. Cracking people without evidence to back it up isn't.

I did not in fact demand that everyone agree, did not say that people who disagreed would be scum.

Is that what I said? No.
I said that people who agree AND don't do anything are scum.
I did not say that you demanded people to agree, nor did I say that people who disagreed would be scum. I gave you a counter-argument which showed that I disagreed.

If they skip my post, they are deliberately minimising information for the town, there is only scum motivation for that.

I agree. But you have to cater your posts for your audience. I still believe pro-town players will skip simply because it takes too long.

The copy paste was because the questions were wholly valid, and I only copy pasted once, as I remember.

The copy-paste point wasn't serious, hence the .

This is contradictory. Why is it not scummy to ignore my posts, yet you follow this up with a request for a response?

It is a nulltell to ignore your posts. I wanted to know MafiaSSK's opinion as it's a good starting point for a replacement, and that topic is certainly the one right now. It also served to provide us with another point of view, which is never a bad thing.

[Spolium]

These questions are not pointless, and as I have said, ignoring them is completely detrimental to the town, and by extension, scummy behaviour.

Interesting. Do I understand you correctly in interpreting this to mean "anti-town behaviour is tantamount to scummy behaviour"?

---

Pressure us fine. Cracking people without evidence to back it up isn't.

The principle behind cracking someone is no different to that of pressuring someone.

[Gateway]

Unvote
Vote: kpaca

I think it is a great idea, "All not agreeing with me are wrong.", thieves don't have that sort of confidence.

Unvote
Vote: Verbosity

Why the sudden change?

The first was another joking post, which is why I did not push the Vote for kpaca.

Verbosity's I made without any statement because I really wanted to see Verbosity's reply. As it stands I really believe Verbosity has self esteem problems and wants us to off them, (Voted on first day)

So for now I will be changing my vote.

UNVOTE

But I am suspicious of of the Verb, but only little now, and would like to look more into it on Day 2.

[Gateway]

I read a post wrong, actually while there is a chance Verb's goal is to die day one, after rereading I think that it is a safe bet Verb is actually a gun-ho townie.

[molestargazer]

The principle behind cracking someone is no different to that of pressuring someone.

The principle may be the same, but the difference lies in how far you take it, IMO.

[Spolium]

after rereading I think that it is a safe bet Verb is actually a gun-ho townie.

Why?

The principle may be the same, but the difference lies in how far you take it, IMO.

That's a given, but at what point does it stop being "fine", and - more importantly - do you consider Verbosity's stated intent to be scummy?

[molestargazer]

It stops being fine at the point where you're pressuring them to the extent where:
a) They make mistakes because of it (Especially if the player is as inexperienced as Verbose states), and end up being lynched, and/or
b) You force them to claim
If you do so without evidence and a sincere belief that they are scum because of that evidence.

If I believed Verbosity's efforts to be purely pressure instead of attempted cracking, then I wouldn't have voted for him/her. It's just the impression I've got.

[Gateway]

Would Mafia push that hard though, Verb has pretty much guaranteed a day two lynching if they lead a bandwagon in such a strong way and it is wrong.

Seems to me that verbosity is only fitting to their name with the extensive pressure.

As I said in post 31, we will really know better about Verbosity on day two. Right or wrong, I think Verb is just gun-ho

[Jazzmyn]

(1)Why are you ignoring what I have posted? (2) Do you then accept my implicit agreement clause and the accompanying suspicion with failure to comply with my plan? (3) Why do you defend from a random vote?

*I added the numbers for ease of reference in response.

(1) I ignored what you posted initially because I thought it was a joke, since it seemed to me to be utterly ridiculous on its face, thus I did not consider that it had been written seriously.

(2) I do not agree with your initial premise, nor with your decree that anyone who does not do as you ask implicitly agrees with your plan, nor with your assertion that anyone who does not do as you ask is, therefore, inherently suspicious. Frankly, I think your attempt to bandwagon a player who had not even picked up his role PM nor checked into the thread, is ridiculous. You say that it was to apply pressure - but that could not possibly be effective when the player was not even present. Moreover, you provided no basis for your assertion that Pablo is a weak player who would crack under pressure and reveal his alignment, and no basis for your assertion that if he is town-aligned, he would be "least damaging to the town dead". Your casual dismissal of a player who was not even here to defend himself, frankly, stinks.

(3) What you imagine to be a "defence" is nothing of the sort. It's called a joke - you should perhaps look into the meaning of the word some time.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

As it stands I really believe Verbosity has self esteem problems and wants us to off them, (Voted on first day)
So for now I will be changing my vote.

UNVOTE

But I am suspicious of of the Verb, but only little now, and would like to look more into it on Day 2.

Um, what? Self-esteem problems? What do you mean by that?

Regards,
Jazz

[Gateway]

I meant their goal could be to actually get voted off day one. I've seen it.

[Spolium]

As I said in post 31, we will really know better about Verbosity on day two. Right or wrong, I think Verb is just gun-ho

Why?

[Jazzmyn]

I meant their goal could be to actually get voted off day one. I've seen it.

Are you suggesting that Verb's a jester?

Regards,
Jazz

[Azhrei]

Why do I get this feeling that Gateway and Verbosity are scumpartners?

@Verbosity: I can see your logic, and I understand the RVS isn't something we want to stay in for too long, but seriously, page 1 man? It's a bit of fun. If you wanted to piss off nearly everyone and set yourself up as a lynching target, you've done wonderfully. Also, attacking people for not looking at an overly wordy post in the RVS is not really something that I see as worthwhile, or beneficial.

@Gateway: Why are you defending Verbosity without any real reasoning? Others have asked for specific reasons for what you've said, please ansswer them. Also, I would still like to know what your experience is. (I did ask earlier, y'know)

@kpaca: I asked about your experience too.

@Verbosity (again): Is that you Freak?

[ThAdmiral]

vote: verbosity

You have already shown your aptitude at pointing out every small thing in a given players post and dubbing it "horrendously scummy" so i can only imagine what you would have done with who you call "the weakest player".
Most probably witch hunt.

[Verbosity]

That is not what I said. Jumping to conclusions like that is indicative of scapegoating, and thus is largely scum motivated behaviour. I said that I wanted to apply pressure to him, to get him to crack.

If he is inexperienced as you say, getting him to crack will only elicit so-called 'scummy' behaviour from him, which will lead to a lynch, and in all probability, the death of a townie.
Pressure us fine. Cracking people without evidence to back it up isn't.

This is a common misconception. Getting people to crack merely leads them to post in what I like to call a "natural" way, without any guards or screens. In the case of scum, this reveals what they are, in the case of town, it does the same. You just need to know what to see.

I did not in fact demand that everyone agree, did not say that people who disagreed would be scum.

Is that what I said? No.
I said that people who agree AND don't do anything are scum.
I did not say that you demanded people to agree, nor did I say that people who disagreed would be scum. I gave you a counter-argument which showed that I disagreed.

Fair enough. I must have misinterpreted you.

If they skip my post, they are deliberately minimising information for the town, there is only scum motivation for that.

I agree. But you have to cater your posts for your audience. I still believe pro-town players will skip simply because it takes too long.

I'm going to continue as is necessary to fully disclose my thoughts.

This is contradictory. Why is it not scummy to ignore my posts, yet you follow this up with a request for a response?

It is a nulltell to ignore your posts. I wanted to know MafiaSSK's opinion as it's a good starting point for a replacement, and that topic is certainly the one right now. It also served to provide us with another point of view, which is never a bad thing.

It is not a null tell. Besides, he is a replacement on the first page, it is not as if he needs help.

These questions are not pointless, and as I have said, ignoring them is completely detrimental to the town, and by extension, scummy behaviour.

Interesting. Do I understand you correctly in interpreting this to mean "anti-town behaviour is tantamount to scummy behaviour"?

Anti-town behaviour and scummy behaviour are separate animals. Scummy is something that is suspicious, anti-town is flagrantly indicative that the player is scum. It's more like degrees of bad, really.

Verbosity's I made without any statement because I really wanted to see Verbosity's reply. As it stands I really believe Verbosity has self esteem problems and wants us to off them, (Voted on first day)

So for now I will be changing my vote.

UNVOTE

But I am suspicious of of the Verb, but only little now, and would like to look more into it on Day 2.

In the interest of good education, common practice is to lynch those who claim jesters or those who you believe to be jesters, they are more often scum than jester. Back to relevance, I am not a jester. If I were a jester, I would have asked for replacement. Jesters are not a role for a decent game, which I believe Battousai knows well. Think I'm scum if you want, but don't insult me like that.

The principle behind cracking someone is no different to that of pressuring someone.

The principle may be the same, but the difference lies in how far you take it, IMO.

Agree.

(1) I ignored what you posted initially because I thought it was a joke, since it seemed to me to be utterly ridiculous on its face, thus I did not consider that it had been written seriously.

(2) I do not agree with your initial premise, nor with your decree that anyone who does not do as you ask implicitly agrees with your plan, nor with your assertion that anyone who does not do as you ask is, therefore, inherently suspicious. Frankly, I think your attempt to bandwagon a player who had not even picked up his role PM nor checked into the thread, is ridiculous. You say that it was to apply pressure - but that could not possibly be effective when the player was not even present. Moreover, you provided no basis for your assertion that Pablo is a weak player who would crack under pressure and reveal his alignment, and no basis for your assertion that if he is town-aligned, he would be "least damaging to the town dead". Your casual dismissal of a player who was not even here to defend himself, frankly, stinks.

(3) What you imagine to be a "defence" is nothing of the sort. It's called a joke - you should perhaps look into the meaning of the word some time.

Regards,
Jazz

(1) ...

(2) It is not ridiculous to expect a response. The only recourse I have if someone ignores my posts is that they agree with them, or are scum. If somone agrees with my plan, but fails to follow it, that is suspicious, wouldn't you agree? Beyond this, I believe I have already explained that I picked the player who had not confirmed because I wanted the responses from the rest of you, and how eager you are to defend a random person.

(3) Interestingly enough, defending from a vote like that is often indicative that the person has something to hide. The guilty run if they see a cop, etc.

@Verbosity: I can see your logic, and I understand the RVS isn't something we want to stay in for too long, but seriously, page 1 man? It's a bit of fun. If you wanted to piss off nearly everyone and set yourself up as a lynching target, you've done wonderfully. Also, attacking people for not looking at an overly wordy post in the RVS is not really something that I see as worthwhile, or beneficial.

Are you suggesting that people want to lynch me for ending the RVS? I'm not writing a book here, it's not that much to read, if I can write it and respond to all of your complaints about it, you can read it.

vote: verbosity

You have already shown your aptitude at pointing out every small thing in a given players post and dubbing it "horrendously scummy" so i can only imagine what you would have done with who you call "the weakest player".
Most probably witch hunt.

That was in fact one (1) thing that I did that to. If you've noticed, I actually said that Azhrei is town. Explain how my actions could be motivated by the scum, and why those motivations are greater than those for a townie.

For those that are curious:

Scum

molestargazer
ChiefSkye4
Jazzmyn
ThAdmiral
MafiaSSK
Gateway
Spolium
Azhrei

Town

??? - Please post more
sekinj
Archon
kpaca

[Gateway]

Alright to address a few points
Spolium - Why do I think he's gun-ho, because I feel he's living up to the term verbosity, we'll know more on day two. See post 36

To Jazzmyn - While I sure hope not, as I feel that role really ruins a game (unless it is a quick pick me up game or the like) There is always that chance so I decided to try and read it as a gun-ho person (they do exist you know) until day two.

Again, reading the above posts Verb is either scum, or a gung-ho person that likes to move in a direction and for the second is perhaps flustered by us talking and discussion the idea instead of doing it. (should see me play call of duty and explain the concept of rushing B in the beginning of every map and ignoring the one they start by, it looks just about the same)

At Azhrei - I am not defending, where did you get defending? I was asked why I changed my vote, I said I felt they were Gung-Ho or a Jester. Not really defending so much as saying I'd rather find out on day two.

Trust me I think Verbosity is blowing wind, and stirring up more trouble then they are worth, but still I am going on the vote that they are townie.

With that said though, and the fact Verbosity has us focused on someone we shouldn't, we might as well make Verbosity the day one lynch.

Vote: Verbosity

[sekinj]

wow. a busy day...

verb - now that ssk has replaced in, have you moved your vote because it was no longer on what you considered the weakest player? do you now consider the molester the weakest player? or have you moved your vote because of your suspicion of molester? I'm just trying to figure out if the 'weakest player' bit had any validity to it, or if you ONLY picked that player becuase he/she had not yet confirmed. therefore was useful in your presentation of your 'plan', which in reality was just a mechanic to spark discussion.

[Azhrei]

For those that are curious:

Scum

molestargazer
ChiefSkye4
Jazzmyn
ThAdmiral
MafiaSSK
Gateway
Spolium
Azhrei

Town

??? - Please post more
sekinj
Archon
kpaca

I like how the ratio of scum to town is more reminiscent of that of the normal town to scum ratio. Also, why am I scum now, when you said I seemed townie to you earlier? Oh, and you asked me whether I was suggesting that people were happy to lynch you for fucking over their RVS. The answer is no, at least for myself. There's a difference between being pissed off at you, and wanting to lynch you.

Oh, and I would also like to note, that I have 'cracked' people before, and they've spouted some incredibly scummy stuff, and we lynched them and found they were actually a townie.

Also,

Unvote, Vote Gateway

, I really don't like your eagerness. See below for more.

Alright to address a few points
Spolium - Why do I think he's gun-ho, because I feel he's living up to the term verbosity, we'll know more on day two. See post 36

To Jazzmyn - While I sure hope not, as I feel that role really ruins a game (unless it is a quick pick me up game or the like) There is always that chance so I decided to try and read it as a gun-ho person (they do exist you know) until day two.

Again, reading the above posts Verb is either scum, or a gung-ho person that likes to move in a direction and for the second is perhaps flustered by us talking and discussion the idea instead of doing it. (should see me play call of duty and explain the concept of rushing B in the beginning of every map and ignoring the one they start by, it looks just about the same)

At Azhrei - I am not defending, where did you get defending? I was asked why I changed my vote, I said I felt they were Gung-Ho or a Jester. Not really defending so much as saying I'd rather find out on day two.

From nearly every one of your recent posts, I have felt that you have been attempting to defend the actions of Verbosity. You keep saying how you think he's a townie, but there really isn't much reasoning behind it.

Trust me I think Verbosity is blowing wind, and stirring up more trouble then they are worth, but still I am going on the vote that they are townie.

With that said though, and the fact Verbosity has us focused on someone we shouldn't, we might as well make Verbosity the day one lynch.

Vote: Verbosity

"I think Verbodity is a townie, but I'm gonna vote for him"

Wait, what? You just voted for someone who you said, in the same post, you thought was a townie. You also seem to be trying to finalise the day, by saying that we should lynch Verbosity. Lynching someone on Page 2 will not help us, even if we happen to find scum. Short days = bad. 2 page days = Horrible. Short days like that just allow the scum to take over and get in multiple mislynches.

[Verbosity]

Ironically, I find myself strapped for time to make a longer post, I promise you all a response tomorrow, but for now I should clarify, Azhrei that what I posted above was a

spectrum

. Scum at the top, town at the bottom, the others were people who have not posted or not posted enough.

[Gateway]

Yes I change my vote often, I've never once tried to convince anyone else that Verbosity is a townie, I only answered why

-I-

think that, as per the question.

And yes, I have -zero- idea who is Mafia on day one, so if I had to make a vote, although I am not sure, I would vote Verbosity over anyone else at this point.

Yes I am voting while not sure because to claim you are 100% sure on day one is ignorance, so I am voting on the townie I think may be scum. I change my vote a lot because I don't have the "I am right!!!!" attitude. If a few posts say something that goes against (or maybe with) something I was thinking, I change my vote.

Also I never said to speed up the lynch, I just said who I thought at the time. You're over analyzing on this one.