I believe it's acceptable for the RVS.molestargazer wrote:Welcome MafiaSSK - Could I get your opinion on Verbose's play so far?
Mini 768- Root of All Evil (Game Over)
Forum rules
What is the point of this?Gateway wrote:Unvote
Vote: Verbosity
Actually, I picked himAzhrei wrote: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.
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.
I am an alt. An alt of whom, I will not say.Azhrei wrote: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?
Re: Spolium, see above.
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.molestargazer wrote: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.Verbosity wrote: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.
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.molestargazer wrote: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.Verbosity wrote: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.
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.molestargazer wrote: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.Verbosity wrote: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.
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.molestargazer wrote: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.Verbosity wrote: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?
Also - are you admitting to a little sloth there, copy-pasting the same argument to three people? :P
Above.molestargazer wrote:I'd also like to hear this.Spolium wrote:Is this significant, Verbosity, or a mere oversight?
These questions are not pointless, and as I have said, ignoring them is completely detrimental to the town, and by extension, scummy behaviour.molestargazer wrote: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.
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.
This is contradictory. Why is it not scummy to ignore my posts, yet you follow this up with a request for a response?molestargazer wrote:Welcome MafiaSSK - Could I get your opinion on Verbose's play so far?
See previous questions about why you ignore my posts.ThAdmiral wrote:vote: mafiassk
the clue is in the name.
I would appreciate expansion on this point.MafiaSSK wrote:I believe it's acceptable for the RVS.molestargazer wrote:Welcome MafiaSSK - Could I get your opinion on Verbose's play so far?
Unvote; Vote: molestargazer
My username is Verbosity for a reason.
- ChiefSkye4
- ChiefSkye4
-
ChiefSkye4
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 239
- Joined: April 13, 2008
- Location: Florida
No, connection, I suppose I'm trying to preserve the sanctity of the the random vote stage. By random voting.Verbosity wrote: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.
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
- molestargazer
-
molestargazer
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 933
- Joined: September 30, 2006
- Location: At my computer.
- Contact:
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.Verbosity wrote: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.
Pressure us fine. Cracking people without evidence to back it up isn't.
Is that what I said? No.Verbosity wrote:I did not in fact demand that everyone agree, did not say that people who disagreed would be scum.
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.
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.Verbosity wrote:If they skip my post, they are deliberately minimising information for the town, there is only scum motivation for that.
The copy-paste point wasn't serious, hence the .Verbosity wrote:The copy paste was because the questions were wholly valid, and I only copy pasted once, as I remember.
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.Verbosity wrote:This is contradictory. Why is it not scummy to ignore my posts, yet you follow this up with a request for a response?
My Wiki Page
I am
Unable to play mafia right now - life's too hectic with University. Apologies for replacing out...
|
My Last.FM |
My SteamI am
not
called 'molest'.Unable to play mafia right now - life's too hectic with University. Apologies for replacing out...
Interesting. Do I understand you correctly in interpreting this to mean "anti-town behaviour is tantamount to scummy behaviour"?Verbosity wrote:These questions are not pointless, and as I have said, ignoring them is completely detrimental to the town, and by extension, scummy behaviour.
---
The principle behind cracking someone is no different to that of pressuring someone.molestargazer wrote:Pressure us fine. Cracking people without evidence to back it up isn't.
The first was another joking post, which is why I did not push the Vote for kpaca.Azhrei wrote:Gateway wrote: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.Why the sudden change?Gateway wrote:Unvote
Vote: Verbosity
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.
- molestargazer
- molestargazer
-
molestargazer
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 933
- Joined: September 30, 2006
- Location: At my computer.
- Contact:
The principle may be the same, but the difference lies in how far you take it, IMO.Spolium wrote:The principle behind cracking someone is no different to that of pressuring someone.
My Wiki Page
I am
Unable to play mafia right now - life's too hectic with University. Apologies for replacing out...
|
My Last.FM |
My SteamI am
not
called 'molest'.Unable to play mafia right now - life's too hectic with University. Apologies for replacing out...
Why?Gateway wrote:after rereading I think that it is a safe bet Verb is actually a gun-ho townie.
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 wrote:The principle may be the same, but the difference lies in how far you take it, IMO.
- molestargazer
- molestargazer
-
molestargazer
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 933
- Joined: September 30, 2006
- Location: At my computer.
- Contact:
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.
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.
My Wiki Page
I am
Unable to play mafia right now - life's too hectic with University. Apologies for replacing out...
|
My Last.FM |
My SteamI am
not
called 'molest'.Unable to play mafia right now - life's too hectic with University. Apologies for replacing out...
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
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
*I added the numbers for ease of reference in response.Verbosity wrote:(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?
(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
Um, what? Self-esteem problems? What do you mean by that?Gateway wrote: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.
Regards,
Jazz
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?
@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?
"He was cooler than Samuel L. Jackson on dope" - Raccon
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.molestargazer wrote: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.Verbosity wrote: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.
Pressure us fine. Cracking people without evidence to back it up isn't.
Fair enough. I must have misinterpreted you.molestargazer wrote:Is that what I said? No.Verbosity wrote:I did not in fact demand that everyone agree, did not say that people who disagreed would be scum.
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.
I'm going to continue as is necessary to fully disclose my thoughts.molestargazer wrote: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.Verbosity wrote:If they skip my post, they are deliberately minimising information for the town, there is only scum motivation for that.
It is not a null tell. Besides, he is a replacement on the first page, it is not as if he needs help.molestargazer wrote: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.Verbosity wrote:This is contradictory. Why is it not scummy to ignore my posts, yet you follow this up with a request for a response?
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.Spolium wrote:Interesting. Do I understand you correctly in interpreting this to mean "anti-town behaviour is tantamount to scummy behaviour"?Verbosity wrote:These questions are not pointless, and as I have said, ignoring them is completely detrimental to the town, and by extension, scummy behaviour.
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.Gateway wrote: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.
Agree.molestargazer wrote:The principle may be the same, but the difference lies in how far you take it, IMO.Spolium wrote:The principle behind cracking someone is no different to that of pressuring someone.
(1) ...Jazzmyn wrote:(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
(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.
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.Azhrei wrote:@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.
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.ThAdmiral wrote: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.
For those that are curious:
Scum
molestargazer
ChiefSkye4
Jazzmyn
ThAdmiral
MafiaSSK
Gateway
Spolium
Azhrei
Town
??? - Please post more
sekinj
Archon
kpaca
My username is Verbosity for a reason.
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.
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
- sekinj
-
sekinj
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2070
- Joined: June 21, 2008
- Location: Moving to San Antonio
- Contact:
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.
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.
Show
-sekinj
To Do:
├óÔé¼┬ó [s]Find a job[/s]
├óÔé¼┬ó [s]Find an apartment[/s]
├óÔé¼┬ó Pack
├óÔé¼┬ó Move
To Do:
├óÔé¼┬ó [s]Find a job[/s]
├óÔé¼┬ó [s]Find an apartment[/s]
├óÔé¼┬ó Pack
├óÔé¼┬ó Move
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.Verbosity wrote: For those that are curious:
Scum
molestargazer
ChiefSkye4
Jazzmyn
ThAdmiral
MafiaSSK
Gateway
Spolium
Azhrei
Town
??? - Please post more
sekinj
Archon
kpaca
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.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.Gateway wrote: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.
"I think Verbodity is a townie, but I'm gonna vote for him"Gateway wrote: 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
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.
"He was cooler than Samuel L. Jackson on dope" - Raccon
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.My username is Verbosity for a reason.
Yes I change my vote often, I've never once tried to convince anyone else that Verbosity is a townie, I only answered why
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.
-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.