Mafiascum.net

Let it be known for the record that I believe that policy lynches of various "gentlemen", if you may call someone like vezok a gentleman, is an excellent play indeed. On the one hand, indeed if he flips town it shall be of most sadness, however, him being a savage it shall work well to not have someone so hurtful to town in the game (unless he indeed does prove himself that he shall be useful and not harmful). However, if he is scum, it is one less villain we shall have to face.

Hoppster I do believe I see where you are getting at for thinking he's scum but if you shall so tell us the reason so that my suspicions may be confirmed or denied.

Twistedspoon: Do you not see the links we have posted? Will you really count on him coming back from V/LA to post, and only confirm what we have been saying?

My learned friend, I must confess I have not read the literature you have posted extensively

Alas, do not despair

I have played 2 prior games with the vagabond and have noticed some odd attributes to the character (Rolefishing being the one I remember most). If we do not acquire another stagecoach (wagon for future reference) to whisk us from the Ecletic Voting Stage (RVS for future reference) in due then I shall gladly embark upon the vezok stagecoach.

Twistedspoon wrote:Yet your random vote must be eclectic inherently since I perceive your vote as a (how do you say this) omgoose? and there is no evidence beyond an eclectic vote

The vezok chariot? I will reserve Judgement until the squire in question posts, thankyou

Your post strikes me as a foolish attempt by a most dastardly swine to cover up his failings.

If my vote was only a retalliation vote, it would have been inherently illogical of me to unvote you and then revote you one post later, and yet you did not press me on this. You are lying through your ears to us here, you villainous devil. Did you not wonder for what reason I specfied my vote to be non-random?

You are being too passive by insisting we must hear from vezok when you have reading materials shoved in your face.

Methinks the gentlemen doth protest to much.


TL: The shady character Twistedspoon completely dodged all non-random content in my post, instead fixating upon the non-productive fluff. This, I declare, is the behaviour of a shady character wishing to keep us all discussing tea, which (while a very interesting topic) is not related to the matter at hand of uprooting the evil ones - including himself, I say! I have a suspicion that he is in cahoots with the infamous vezokpiraka.


Edit of Foresight: Twistedspoon, do not fear to self-vote. A very valid wagon in yourself we have. It also amuses me how you are trying to appear concerned about exiting the ridiculous RVS when you have been one of the distractors.

Absolute balderdash!

Even If I were to vote Vezok now I would only be accused of sheeping.

Despite what I do I am not clear to hoppster ¬_¬
hark

As for your nonsensical voting patterns, no not expect me to understand them or question them. I trust you make your votes in good judgement even if they are wrong, thus it would be foolish to argue against a premediated decision

As for vezok, I have already acknowledged the chariot, but I have more to worry about in the knave of Hoppster and how he expects me to press him on every action he makes

Such poppycock

Twistedspoon wrote:Even If I were to vote Vezok now

Have you been considering casting your vote upon him?

Twistedspoon wrote:As for your nonsensical voting patterns, no not expect me to understand them or question them. I trust you make your votes in good judgement even if they are wrong

I question your good faith in me, which seems largely unjustified.

Hoppster wrote:

Twistedspoon wrote:Even If I were to vote Vezok now

1)Have you been considering casting your vote upon him?

Twistedspoon wrote:As for your nonsensical voting patterns, no not expect me to understand them or question them. I trust you make your votes in good judgement even if they are wrong

2)I question your good faith in me, which seems largely unjustified.

1) Naturally, I consider every direction my play could take. The conclusion I came to was that although a Vezok stagecoach seems tempting, his reactions would be much more succulent and it does seem most ungentlemanly to wagon a player who has hardly posted yet

2) You have tried to stagecoach me over the smallest of points such as 'why didn't you press the point on my votes' My primary and premature answer to this is why should I, but my preferred answer Is that I believed your vote confirmation to me a mere varitaion of the eclectic voting stage to try and muster a stagecoach upon one's self. Thus I believed the reasoning to be random and there was no point pressing spontaniosities.

If I may interject for a moment here, gentlemen: while vezok has, in the past, shown himself to lack the uprightness and character of a gentleman, is it not premature to discuss ejecting him before he has even said anything substantial? Should we not allow him an opportunity to prove himself? In my experience, a true gentleman does not allow himself to be so firmly committed to such a policy except in the most extreme of cases.

On another note, I could not help but note imaginality's noncommittal attempts to sway suspicion from Twisted. While I normally applaud gentlemen being true to their fellows, in this case it caused me to raise my eyebrows in a distinct manner.

Twistedspoon wrote:Even If I were to vote Vezok now

I would only be accused of sheeping

.

Did the bolded clause fragment into factor into your decision?

Twistedspoon wrote:I trust you make your votes in good judgement

Twistedspoon wrote:your nonsensical voting patterns

The above two statements do not seem to be able to agree with each other. I would appreciate it if you clarified on this matter.


Apokalyptika: How say you on Twistedspoon's behaviour?

1) yes, but it wasn't the prime reason. Far from it. As apok says, It would have been ungentlemanly to be rid of vezok before he posts content

2) Your votes don't make perfect sense to me at first glance, but that is because I, sadly, am not you. I assume that your votes make perfect sense to yourself of course

in post 55, the honorable Twistedspoon wrote:Thus I believed the reasoning to be random

Even despite this?

in post 55, the honorable Hoppster wrote:This vote is not one that I have cast in a random manner.

EBWOP: Hoppster's post was #41

Twisted is a most interesting gentleman indeed. Astronomical considerations aside, the little tiff between you and he has been most interesting. While his reservations on a vezok vote seem eminently reasonable (and, indeed, his views are shared by myself), I find myself somewhat concerned with his refusal to attempt to understand or question your votes, whether on himself or another. However, your stated policy in regards to vezok is no less concerning; indeed, while TheLonging merely introduced the subject with an accompanying pamphlet of reading material, your vote to eject him came with reams and reams of papers which, however, covered only one incident. Dastardly as his actions undoubtedly were, this strikes me with a certain overeagerness. It troubles me. While I will wait with bated breath to see how this all plays out in future, I will actually tread off the beaten path a wee bit and in order to . His defense of Twisted nags at me, and I must have the courage of my convictions.

Why did you feel it necessary to point out that Twisted had not been alone in his frivolity?

in post 56 the honorable Apokalyptika wrote:If I may interject for a moment here, gentlemen: while vezok has, in the past, shown himself to lack the uprightness and character of a gentleman, is it not premature to

discuss ejecting him

before he has even said anything substantial?

Should we not allow him an opportunity to prove himself?

In my experience, a true gentleman does not allow himself to be so firmly committed to such a policy except in the most extreme of cases.

The two bolded clauses are not mutually exclusive. It does vezokpiraka no harm to re-enter the room and join the discussion to find several of us practising tying the hangman's knot while gazing askance at him. He will still have an opportunity to prove himself.

as the illustrious Samuel Johnson once wrote:The prospect of being hanged focuses the mind wonderfully.

And if, perchance, a majority of our company proclaim judgment on vezokpiraka even before he has confirmed our judgment of him, I would regard such widely- and strongly-held opinion to be sufficient evidence that the lynch is a wise one.

in post 56 the honorable Apokalyptika further wrote:On another note, I could not help but note imaginality's noncommittal attempts to sway suspicion from Twisted. While I normally applaud gentlemen being true to their fellows, in this case it caused me to raise my eyebrows in a distinct manner.

To point out that other players had made posts of similar lightness to Twistedspoon's is not to sway suspicion from him but rather to ensure that that particular point is not given undue weight. I was wary of Hoppster's reasons for focusing on one such person if several others could be accused of the same sin.

Now, what is a far better point against the gentleman in question (Twistedspoon) is that he has tangled himself up in his words while attempting to justify his lack of curiosity about Hoppster's explicitly non-random vote. The feebleness and contradictory nature of his explanation is of genuine import, and I await his answer to my question above (in post 59) with great interest.

My dear Apokalyptika, I trust I have satisfactorily addressed your question, inter alia, in my preceding post?

I don't seem together, so correct me if I err, but it is of utmost importants that I bring you two points:

1. I am most displeased with the concept of policy lynching. It does not serve but to deprive us of information and is such unfitting of a gentleman. I am supportive of Apokalyptika's statement in regards to this matter and believe that TheLonging must be allowed to speak before we remove him from the lodge.
   
2. I must direct your attention to the 53rd post in this thread, written by Twistedspoon. Why, Twistedspoon, is it acceptable to use fear of sheeping to avoid voting for vezokpiraka? I believe we have a heckler in him in this lodge.

I shall UNVOTE: imaginality and VOTE: Twistedspoon.

Wraith wrote:

Votecount 1.1

Sir Hoppster

(3)

:

Twistedspoon, Caboose, Apokalyptika

StrangerCoug

(0)

:

imaginality

Twistedspoon

(2)

:

Sir Hoppster

, Sir Hoppster, StrangerCoug

imaginality

(0)

:

StrangerCoug

vezokpiraka

(2)

:

TheLonging,

Sir Hoppster

, imaginality

Not Voting

(6)

:

kr0b, Feysal, GMan, inHimShallBe, kpaca, vezokpiraka

With 13 remaining it shall require

7

to lynch the knave.

The records shall show a complete history of the day's votes, including all possible repetition of votes by one guest upon another.

Red

signifies a guest at either two or one vote from execution.

Multiple guests have not yet spoken up regarding these matters, which I suspect is due to my own error in failing to send notification of the beginning of the day's proceeding to said guests. It shall be done, and participation henceforth shall be expected. Good day.

By Jove, why does Sir Hoppster get a title, But not Myself

imaginality wrote:

in post 56 the honorable Apokalyptika further wrote:On another note, I could not help but note imaginality's noncommittal attempts to sway suspicion from Twisted. While I normally applaud gentlemen being true to their fellows, in this case it caused me to raise my eyebrows in a distinct manner.

To point out that other players had made posts of similar lightness to Twistedspoon's is not to sway suspicion from him but rather to ensure that that particular point is not given undue weight. I was wary of Hoppster's reasons for focusing on one such person if several others could be accused of the same sin.

Now, what is a far better point against the gentleman in question (Twistedspoon) is that he has tangled himself up in his words while attempting to justify his lack of curiosity about Hoppster's explicitly non-random vote. The feebleness and contradictory nature of his explanation is of genuine import, and I await his answer to my question above (in post 59) with great interest.

I beseech you, look over your posting again.

imaginality wrote:The reading material you gentleman have seen fit to share with us certainly elucidates the potential agonies we may all suffer if we allow vezokpiraka to remain part of our gathering.

Unvote; vote: vezokpiraka

Is Twistedspoon villainous in your eyes, Hoppster, for his preference for discussing celestial matters and other such frippery rather than actively scumhunting?

If so, I would caution that the hour is still early and others amongst us (e.g. StrangerCoug) have been no more committed to genuinely scumhunting as yet.

Or is there another reason for suspicion to be cast on Twistedspoon in particular?

The sentence I have here emphasized is the main focus of my suspicion. Not only do you make rash assumptions regarding the intentions of Sir Hoppster (there is a saying regarding the forming of assumptions, but it is far too crass to mention here) but you also specifically invoke the name of another, namely StrangerCoug. This strikes me as being a tad too emphatic for refuting the basis of a case that, at that time, had not been fully explained by Sir Hoppster.

I ask you, good friend Imaginality, why is it more note-worthy of others such as our good chum StrangerCoug for not voicing his concerns whilst the are others around us who have also kept their opinions tightly oppressed to themselves. I say, t'is an awful bad idea to contract a case of tunnel-vision this early on, but alas, t'is still only on t'third page of reasonings.

Good sirs, my sincerest apologies for my absence. Allow me to make a few arrangements with the houseservants and I shall make haste in exposing these scads.

Good Gosh, inHim I do hope this apparent house servants of yours are for all of our use. Or perhaps one would not be too foolish to think that these supposed house servants are in-fact your accomplices in these heinous crimes!

Of course, one would not want to assume that a highly esteemed gentleman such of yourself, renowned for his hunting skills would not simply come out and admit to such discussions away from the group.

bid your houseservants salutations from myself and my butler, Hoppster

I'm here, you Badgers.

Aye came from da country. Ecspect nothin' mor' until I get unsleeepy.

What manner of uncouth tongue is this? Had I the wherewithal and means, I'd have you beaten and given a proper course in grammar!