Mini 760 - Bleach Mafia: Karakura Town - Game Over!

[PhilyEc]

I do agree that there's some interesting discrepancies in GC's posting...but Phily, your entire "mystery shadow-in-the-dark" type thing does not help the town. Explain what you mean or stop talking altogether.

Elaborate please, I dont know what question you're speaking of. Same goes to Zwet.

[GLaDOS]

... Processing ...

Seraphim, I never said that I did not have a reason for my vote. I said that if I wanted to explain my vote when I voted, I would have done so.

Using your own words, what in particular do you find to be "interesting discrepencies in GC's posting"?

[Green Crayons]

Let me address a few of these issues.

Second, do you plan on actually launching future discussion about item X or do you plan on just talking about launching future discussion about item X?

I do not like this. I cannot explain why in a manner I find satisfactory.

1) Green Crayon challenge Guiseppe, asks if theres any plan to bring up said meta info later on.

3) Green Crayon behaves unsatisfied , asks same question with clarity.

5) Green Crayon, goes at Giu's random vote moreover, questions the true randomness behind the vote (Note: Meta info was his unease)

Both Giuseppe and Phily misunderstood my issue, and Giuseppe's response shifted what I was originally looking at but my original issue remained. Let me clarify here:

Initially, Giuseppe said that he was going to "...Launch future discussion from how people criticize/critique my move." That was his "Action X:" his future discussion about how people reacted to his actions. He later shifted through a misunderstanding (?) of what specifically I was referencing into "taking discussion forward based on discussion of how I did it."

Originally, I was referencing his decision to base his future discussion on how people reacted to his actions. In his response to me post-clarification, he said that his future discussion was going to be able what he did (not people's reactions). At no point was I ever really thinking about Giuseppe's future discussion centering around LHNM's meta (not sure where Phily is pulling that from). This source of confusion, however, is a non-issue to me - I just want to clear up the situation in the here and now.

My point remains the same, regardless of what his "future discussion" is supposed to be about: I have seen plenty of times mafia say that they will talk about whatever but never actually talk about the subject - though they are quite verbose about promises of discussion, which masks their actual lack of contribution. It's basically a way of appearing to be active but maintaining no actual constructive behavior in the thread. Because my point is universal, it did not require me at the time to specify what specifically I was expecting him to talk about in the future - just, merely if he continued to ramble on about talking about something without actually discussing it I was going to slam him hard for it.

<snip>randomness is not all we have for our use in determining who to vote</snip>

At the time Giuseppe made his vote, randomness

was

all we had. The fact that there were less random things by the time Green Crayons made Post 39 does not change the situation of Post 14.

You missed the point. Giuseppe was using "randomness" to excuse his vote, but he explicitly stated that the cause behind his vote

was not random

. Just because he classifies the vote as "random," if he has cause behind it then it's not random. He was semi-hiding behind the veil of the RVS and I was calling him out on it.

"I'm randomly voting Player Y because of these reasons, but this vote is still random and you can't blame me because all we can do is randomly vote at this time!" ...Uh, what?

I disapprove of this characterization. It tries to lead readers into thinking there is a greater discongruity in Giuseppe's posts than there actually was. Giuseppe's vote was random in that it was not based off suspicion in the game.

Votes tied in a neat little bow with suspicion that's based off of

anything

automatically makes it not random. Regardless, people can look at my characterization and deem it appropriate or not themselves - and I'll note Giuseppe hasn't said a single word about it.

I also noticed that Green Crayons did not follow up on his question in Post 39 to PhilyEc.

Asks me questions, answers would be good scum food, doesnt notice that I dont answer (Empty questions to look town?)

Phily's furthered and continued retreat from his original lurker prodding led me to believe he didn't really have anyone in mind. His lack of an answer had me chalk up in my little notebook an attempt to look pro-town by calling out lurkers, but it backfired by pulling on that line a bit too early.

FoS's Korlash for his joke vote on himself (Add Scum Points for reaching)

You can check my game history. Anytime anyone puts a vote beside their name, I vote them. Several times it has been a scum, but now I do it out of habit. Self-voting is 1. dumb 2. counter-productive if you're town and 3. a great way to "be active" without having to worry about where your first vote will go if scum. The RVS is highly overrated and self-voting only prolongs it at best, distorts future rereads at worst.


Also, does anyone else find wasser's post 73 exceptionally odd? As in, he thinks he has found scum on page three and then, instead of explaining his conviction, he wants someone else to respond to something I can't readily identify first?

[PhilyEc]

Urgh, wrote an answer, I swear but when I clicked submit the blasted thing asked me to sign in.

Post gone.

Will post about the following;

Guiseppes future post thing.
Korlash's questionable self vote.
Zwet's strange behaviour.

But too annoyed to have to try and remember everything I already typed, gonna lurk around and read some other peoples games until I recover from the shame x-x

[Giuseppe]

Well, the reason I haven't had a chance to speak about it is because the town has taken a more organic, more useful path of discussion. While I was setting up a discussion, should one not occur naturally, this line of debate seems far more interesting than I can construct from that old idea.

That said, let me way in on the issue at hand:

I believe that the root of GC's argument against my actions lies in semantics. To me, the RVS isn't a defined place where people simply vote, and watch things go forward. The RVS is a time for experimentation: looking for the best way to take the town out of the RVS. That said, one should always look for new, more effective ways to launch the town discussion forward.

I decided that employing the use of meta would be a useful tool to push the discussion outwards. It seems that, inadvertently, I succeeded in causing said debate to occur through discussion of my use of meta in the RVS. I excused my action as random because the RVS is random in name only. Everyone pretends it's random *Hence why it's call the Random Voting Stage*, but it can't possibly actually be random. Calling it random was a way to plug it into the RVS, and start discussion. It would have been more suspicious not to call it random.

Thus, the cause you look for that make my vote not be random is the desire to push the Town out of the RVS. At the root, that was my intention. Not much else to say about it.

As for my own suspicions, I find that Korlash's method of trying to GLaDOS to explain her suspicions was quite questionable. All I had to do was ask that s/he explain it. I find that he instantly went to twisting his/her words to be a very odd, scummy choice to make, when the easier alternative would have been to ask.

[Green Crayons]

Calling it random was a way to plug it into the RVS, and start discussion. It would have been more suspicious not to call it random.

...So you lied to be less suspicious? I mean, I understand everything else you're saying, for the most part. But, really? I can't see any other way to read this ^.

I mean, I understand that you're saying that the RVS stage isn't purely random and so when you said "random" you meant in the semi-random aspect that encompasses the RVS... but. It just feels wrong. You had to excuse your vote after the fact by labeling it as random. And so that you wouldn't look suspicious.

Though, I hate that line of thought. Anyone who wants to get down to brass tax on D1, Page 1 I'm right there with them. In fact, I was happy you were talking about meta on Page 1 - it was a welcomed sight rather than "Tee hee I <3 Player X so I'm voting them gigglebarf" or whatever crap that has a tendency to occur in the early parts of the game. I originally voted you just because I thought it was a poor meta to hate on, but when you went back to somehow excuse your semi-legitimate means by explaining it was "random," it just struck me in an odd way. And now, to know that you did it specifically to look less suspicious... I mean. Wow. People lying about their motives to look more innocent are usually scum.

[Giuseppe]

You kinda sorta took it out of context. My entire point is that everyone calls it random. Please refer to the lines just above it:

I excused my action as random because the RVS is random in name only. Everyone pretends it's random *Hence why it's call the Random Voting Stage*, but it can't possibly actually be random.

As for saying it was to look less suspicious, well, that's the MafiaScum Gaffe of the Year.

While I can't just wish I hadn't said it, I'll do my best to explain. At best, I'm weak when it comes to defending myself. I don't like the spotlight on me, especially when I'm town, because I'd fail at successfully redirecting the point to the real scum.

So yes, it feels Wrong. And off-key. And decidedly different. But I'd argue that for the sake of experimentation, it was a good move to make, even though I'll pay the price for it now. Yes, I suppose it was 'lying', although I didn't consider it that way. The benefits of quick discussion outweighed the risks of trying something unorthodox.

[GLaDOS]

... Processing ...

Still not liking the way Green Crayons is attacking Giuseppe, which is strange because I think Giuseppe still needs to be questioned. I suppose I just do not think Giuseppe was

lying

about his vote being random a

bad

sense -- which is why I simply asked him early in the game if his claimed "suspicion" was "false." I considered -- and still consider -- his vote to have been appropriately random, whilst being informative.

This is not to say I am satisfied with Giuseppe's recent attempts at explanation, because I am not.

I'm weak when it comes to defending myself

Please link me to an example, preferably multiple examples. Make sure they are finished games. I have some time to kill this week, so I can afford to read through a game or two if necessary.

I don't like the spotlight on me, especially when I'm town, because I'd fail at successfully redirecting the point to the real scum.

You say "especially" when you're town; why do you prefer being in the spotlight when you're scum? If I'm misinterpreting please correct me.

The benefits of quick discussion outweighed the risks of trying something unorthodox.

Did you actually think you were going to generate a discussion? If so, on what particular subject were you anticipating a discussion?

[Korlash]

As for my own suspicions, I find that Korlash's method of trying to GLaDOS to explain her suspicions was quite questionable. All I had to do was ask that s/he explain it. I find that he instantly went to twisting his/her words to be a very odd, scummy choice to make, when the easier alternative would have been to ask.

Technically I did ask, as what I said was a question. However your problem with it seems not to be that I didn't ask, but that I phrased my question poorly. Which is your right as a fake online avatar and username to have as an opinion. Now here's my question, Glad had already responded to someone asking her for her reasons with something along the lines of "If I had wanted to say them I would have" implying she wouldn't answer that question. So me asking it again would have most likely ended in the same thing. You can try to kid yourself that maybe it wouldn't have ended the same way, but I assure you... it would have. Now you can either deal with that or try to make it into something. I really don't care either which way. But if you do bring it up again don't simply "allude" to it with "vague" comments that waste my and the other's time. Actually make it a comment worth responding to. 'Kay?

I'll read the rest of the stuff either tomorrow or the next day when I have time...

[OhGodMyLife]

Vote Count:

7 to lynch

Gorrad: 2 (Albert B. Rampage, ZEEnon)
GLaDOS: 1 (GhostWriter)
Giuseppe: 1 (Green Crayons)
Seraphim: 1 (zwetschanwasser)
GhostWriter: 1 (Seraphim)
zwetschanwasser: 1 (LynchHimNotMe)
Korlash: 1 (Korlash)
Green Crayons: 1 (GLaDOS)

Not Voting: 3 (Gorrad, Giuseppe, PhilyEc)

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm with Erg0 Green.

Vote: Giuseppe

[GLaDOS]

... Processing ...

ERROR: 404 NOT FOUND

Need more input.

Mod, please prod GhostWriter, Gorrad, LynchHimNotMe, and ZEEnon.

[PhilyEc]

Initially, Giuseppe said that he was going to "...Launch future discussion from how people criticize/critique my move." That was his "Action X:" his future discussion about how people reacted to his actions. He later shifted through a misunderstanding (?) of what specifically I was referencing into "taking discussion forward based on discussion of how I did it."

Originally, I was referencing his decision to base his future discussion on how people reacted to his actions. In his response to me post-clarification, he said that his future discussion was going to be able what he did (not people's reactions). At no point was I ever really thinking about Giuseppe's future discussion centering around LHNM's meta (not sure where Phily is pulling that from). This source of confusion, however, is a non-issue to me - I just want to clear up the situation in the here and now.

My point remains the same, regardless of what his "future discussion" is supposed to be about: I have seen plenty of times mafia say that they will talk about whatever but never actually talk about the subject - though they are quite verbose about promises of discussion, which masks their actual lack of contribution. It's basically a way of appearing to be active but maintaining no actual constructive behavior in the thread. Because my point is universal, it did not require me at the time to specify what specifically I was expecting him to talk about in the future - just, merely if he continued to ramble on about talking about something without actually discussing it I was going to slam him hard for it.

Okay that makes way more sense then what I figured you meant by 'Item X', you wanted to call him out on his 'promise' to bring up how people critiqued his move in the future so that it doesnt just fade away and look like he already brought it up when infact all he did was assure people he'll do it at some point.
Reasonable enough way of saying it.

---

Self-voting is 1. dumb 2. counter-productive if you're town and 3. a great way to "be active" without having to worry about where your first vote will go if scum. The RVS is highly overrated and self-voting only prolongs it at best, distorts future rereads at worst.

1. Self voting well into a game is dumb, random voting yourself is dumb but so are all random votes, you seem to agree with this outlook on random voting stages.
2. Counter productive well into a game, not at the beginning, all random votes lead to little productive result, those results than do get produced usually come from over-eager players who generally tend to reach.
3. I dont think anyone worries past if they are wagoning someone theyve picked randomly from mod's list. You single him out for voting different to everyone yet I think the vote itself was a mock/joke vote for obvious reason.

Conclusion: Korlash voted himself during random voting stage, lawl~.

---

I considered -- and still consider -- his vote to have been appropriately random, whilst being informative.

This is not to say I am satisfied with Giuseppe's recent attempts at explanation, because I am not.

You've given me the words I couldnt find myself, this is exactly how I was the random vote. I think Green's intentions are questionable, on one side he could just be looking into it too much and confusing himself over wheter this vote was a scumtell or not, on the other hand, he could be playing a poor game as scum with his use of logic being weak. Other behaviour (my notes adding scum points) makes me think his intentions were scummy to be honest, doesnt make him scum, could be a mistake by a townie.

---

@Korlash
Would you agree with me in thinking that what you had said to Glados for not providing reasons for her vote was an attempt to apply pressure rather than making it easy for her by asking for reasons?

---

What do you think about Green Crayons?

: Scum, but I want Phily to answer first.

Conclusion: Finds me answering an unclearly stated question more important than identifying if GC is scum (quick write off then turns focus on PhilyEc). If he thinks GC is scum then why does he have his vote on Seraphim still?

---

I'm with Erg0 Green.

Vote: Giuseppe

*Adds scum points*

---

End

[Giuseppe]

Alright, I'll do my best to answer every comment directed at me. If I leave something out, please tell me, as I'd hate to ignore you.

@GLaDOS's Post 82-

Well, for starters, I've only finished one game on MS. The rest of my Mafia experiences lies on another site, which due to that site's policies on who can join, I cannot link to. I apologize for the inconvenience, sincerely, but I can't provide you any examples.

To your second point, I say especially when I'm town because of the difference in mindset that I can carry into the game as each role. As a townie, if I'm being targeted, the only thing I know for a fact is my own innocence, and I know that the scum could be entrenching itself as 'pro-town' figures while the town misguidedly thinks that I'm the bad guy. This leads to a sort of franticness, generally, to find the real scum, a franticness I am not yet feeling, but may feel in the near future, should I near closer to a lynch *I will constantly be striving towards over-coming this particular flaw in my playing style, please note*.

As scum, though, it's a bit different. Perhaps it's a cool confidence of knowing whose town and whose not? There's something about approaching an interrogation from the scum point of view that is much more easily dealt with, in my mind. For instance, it'd be easy to frame another townie who was perhaps too aggressive in his pursuit of a weak case on me. If I was a townie, and in the same position, how would I know if I was really derailing discussion to scum? A mistake like that from a Town player like myself would certainly doom me the next day, while as scum, the NK allows for more influence over who is allowed to speak.

Anyway, I hope that compensated for my inability to post examples, but that's sort of the difference in mentality that I carry into games.

To GLaD's last point, well, I was going to start discussion either way, if it didn't kick off. I was laying the meta as foundation, seeing if I could draw a response from LHNM, and overall seeing how putting meta out there might effect the progression of the RVS. One shouldn't just decide that discussion will be about one thing or another before it happens. It should be an organic transition from RVS to real play, and it should be as minimally contrived as possible. That said, I had a rough plan, but I wasn't going to force the conversation.

@Korlash's 83- I didn't see anything really vague about what I was saying. I said that the way you phrased your question wasn't effective, and you were twisting GLaD's words, which seems a very anti-town way to get the answer out of her. If the town had pressured, GLaD would have answered, and that's what happened. The urge to go to subterfuge first is scummy, in my mind, but not terribly so.

@ABR's 85- You need to Unvote first. That said, wow. You don't have any further input at all? Speaking is pro-Town.

@Zwet's 72- I hadn't actually seen this when I was reading the topic before, but upon seeing the quote in Phil's post, sirens went off in my mind. Zwet doesn't normally wait to hear other people's opinions... This is massively out of character. This seems to me like scum who want to hear a Townie's PoV before latching on and repeating the same argument, thus clearing themselves.

Of course, then again, after seeing Zwet's post, I thought of ABR's most recent post, and saw how they were quite similar. Both in the severity of their condemnations of their respective targets, and also the seeming lack of their own arguments to bring to the table.

FoS: Zwet and ABR

I'd like to hear a little more from both of you.

[zwetschenwasser]

I think Phily could be scum. That's why I was holding off on GC until Phily gave me something to work with. How is this hard to understand?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Erg0 definitely came out the victor out of that exchange in my opinion. This explains the vote, and why I now suspect you Giuseppe.

[zwetschenwasser]

Don't forget he misrepped my earlier post.

[PhilyEc]

Erg0 definitely came out the victor out of that exchange in my opinion. This explains the vote, and why I now suspect you Giuseppe.

Who be this Erg0 you speak of~ And why do you vote with victors within exchanges, what happens if both are town? Your jump into the 'exchange' throwing in a vote seems to be an attempt to fuel some serious suspicion on Giuseppe rather than provide an evaluation of said person while considering wheter this is enough reason to vote this person for being scum in your mind. Letting town do the work for you?

I dont like this kind of behaviour and its a good scumtell in itself.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Yes indeed. I follow Erg0's logic.

[Seraphim]

Erg0 = Green Crayons?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Positive. Post 80 outlines my reasons for voting G.

[GLaDOS]

... Processing ...

Seraphim, please answer my question to you from Post 76.

[Giuseppe]

ABR, are there any specific reasons why you feel Erg0 won in our debate?

[PhilyEc]

Albert, firstly, you need to unvote before you can vote again. (eager jump on Giuseppe?)

I'm highly suspicious of you now. You're posting a tiny amount and leeching off of GC's accusations.

...So you lied to be less suspicious? I mean, I understand everything else you're saying, for the most part. But, really? I can't see any other way to read this ^.

I mean, I understand that you're saying that the RVS stage isn't purely random and so when you said "random" you meant in the semi-random aspect that encompasses the RVS... but. It just feels wrong. You had to excuse your vote after the fact by labeling it as random. And so that you wouldn't look suspicious.

Though, I hate that line of thought. Anyone who wants to get down to brass tax on D1, Page 1 I'm right there with them. In fact, I was happy you were talking about meta on Page 1 - it was a welcomed sight rather than "Tee hee I <3 Player X so I'm voting them gigglebarf" or whatever crap that has a tendency to occur in the early parts of the game. I originally voted you just because I thought it was a poor meta to hate on, but when you went back to somehow excuse your semi-legitimate means by explaining it was "random," it just struck me in an odd way. And now, to know that you did it specifically to look less suspicious... I mean. Wow. People lying about their motives to look more innocent are usually scum.

Lying over a random vote is the reason you think hes scum? This lie being what exactly Albert? Give some content, the lack of it is making you look reluctant to give opinions.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Erg0 Green destroyed your (G) arguments and provided ample evidence to your guilt, particularly in post 80 where your scummy actions are revealed.