Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[earthworm]

/confirm

[earthworm]

StrangerCoug, I don't really see the problem with discussion beginning in the pre-game, it's better than starting it with three pages of random votes, this way we'll be able to start placing pressure votes on suspicious people right off the bat when the game starts, rather than starting with random ones.

The thing with the treaty is that right now it seems to be working on a first-come-first-served basis, which is only going to guarantee scum within it, because there's pretty much nothing to judge people with at this point. Personally, I'm with Opposed Force in regards to his FOS on applicants becuase face it, if you were scum seeing the treaty, you would want to get inside, because it's a brand new way to safeguard the town's opinion of you, and another opportunity like that isn't going to come around in a long time, admittedly town would want in too, because as far as I know, a voting pact like this is a new idea that hasn't been used before, but to scum, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Killing without suspicion will also be a lot easier, because most suspects recommended to the pact will inevitably be innocent, and scum can vote on them worry free, since they did it along with the rest of the members. Conclusive evidence will be hard to find on any scum too, because they'll have identical voting patterns to the rest of the pact, since smart scum won't defend their scumbuddies who are brought forwards, since half the time the treaty's votes won't lead to a lynch, and the other half the lynch would be inevitable, and if they could actually prevent a scumbuddie's lynch, it would just hurt them further down the line.

[earthworm]

Scumz Die Now Pact

Preamble

This is a treaty of mutual assistance between the signatory players, who agree to consult each other and make collective decisions regarding placement of votes, with the intention of intimidating the heck out of the scum, and using their collective influence to run the evil do’ers outta town.

Consultation

When 1 signatory feels they have caught the scent of a scumbag, they may request the assistance of other signatories, in running them upto a claim, and possibly a lynch. Other signatories must answer this request affirmatively, or have a very good reason not to. For the purposes of organisation, all willing members will then Proxy their vote to said signatory, for the duration of the wagon.

Entry/Departure

A player may only be granted admittance to this treaty by a unanimous vote of existing signatories.
A signatory may voluntarily leave this treaty at any time, and must say so in thread.
A signatory may be forcibly removed from this treaty by a majority vote of the remaining signatories.

Signed:
Battle Mage
Korts

I thought you merged, BM has you down here as a signatory.

I'm against the whole idea of pacts until they stop being so exploitable by scum. And as far as I can tell, your ANTI-TREATY COALITION seems more like an alternate treaty than an ANTI-TREATY COALITION. (no offense)

[earthworm]

How will being in the treaty "safeguard the town's opinion of you"? I would argue that scum would need to be even more cautious, considering that often your vote will now have the power of five instead of one, and therefore your reasoning for votes and such will be even more carefully dissected than in a usual D1. Care to respond to either my or wolf's rebuttals to OF's points?

You also have to keep in mind that there is both an escape clause and a boot clause, so if there is a player that is making shoddy cases, not making cases at all, or simply acting scummy in other areas, chances are they're going to get the boot. If they don't, then that could actually lower down the field for potential scumbuddies, making the town's job almost easier.

Except that there still should be cases, evidenciary support, etc. If a case is shoddy, the fact that the case-maker is part of the treaty doesn't make the case any better. In fact, I'd argue that it makes it worse. Same for voting for no reason.

However, in my opinion there should still be reasoning and cases by the players, especially the one that's starting the bandwagon.

I'm not worried about scum getting the treaty to vote on an innocent, because that would put them under scrutiny. What's disturbing is that Mafia games usually have more than enough false scumtells, scum can just sit back in the treaty and join in when someone unknowingly presents a case for an innocent. When that innocent is lynched they're blameless, because they didn't vote for that person individually, they voted as part of the treaty.

In mafia games people who make cases against innocents aren't usually the most suspicious, the most suspicious are the ones who immediatly jump on the bandwagon. My problem with the treaty is that it's like a pre-built bandwagon that they don't come under suspicion for joining, because they were already members.

Consultation

When 1 signatory feels they have caught the scent of a scumbag, they may request the assistance of other signatories, in running them upto a claim, and possibly a lynch. Other signatories must answer this request affirmatively, or have a very good reason not to. For the purposes of organisation, all willing members will then Proxy their vote to said signatory, for the duration of the wagon.

So? We can still look at the reasons for the lynch, the reasons that the scumbuddy voted for his fellow scum, and if bussing is likely. That doesn't stop us from doing that. If a player is consistently hopping onto the bandwagon due to the treaty without providing any reasoning of his own, I'll be suspicous regardless of whether the person is lynched is scum or not. This is true in any game I will play.

People going along with the pact without any comments would be more likely to be lazy town than scum. Scum know enough to be able to blend in with the rest. In normal games the hardest part is joining in on bandwagons and pushing them without attracting suspicion, with those steps removed (they're already a part, and pushing it is being done along with the other signatories), it will be easy to blend in with the other five or so members.

That said, the treaty isn't as bad as I'm making it sound, seeing people's reactions will help us determine alignments down the line, and it's certainly possible that it

will

help us coordinate scumhunting and lynches.

[earthworm]

Not only is that a 110% invalid defense, but any player using that as a defense should be lynched on the spot, period. The pact affords players the opportunity to get on a wagon they might not find optimal, but it sure as hell doesn't grant them any measure of unaccountability.

The problem is that they'll all be pretty much equally accountable, so it'll be nearly impossible to single out a scum among the four people who voted for someone after the case for them was presented to the pact.

[earthworm]

Oh, sorry. Did you not realise that the pact won't ACTUALLY be going ahead?
It could have been really useful, but now i've had to spell it all, it would be much more easily abused by scum. Of course, i still feel the discussion of it has been very interesting, and certainly beats the random stage any day!
BM

... so you're telling me those fifty posts of debate were over something you didn't actually have any hope for?

Anyway, I dont really want to address everything thats happened in the 4+ pages I missed, but I've read it all, so if theres anything in specific you or someone else wants me to respond to or explain, I'll do so.

I also predict that there will be a vote on me when the game starts for not wanting discussion in the confirmation stage and talking during it anyway.

Now that I've seen what discussion in the pre-game leads to, I wish I'd listened to you

[earthworm]

Vote: nhat

He's still not definite scum at this point, but his vote on Untitled is what has me suspicious. He used a ridiculous argument to justify his wote, and it's made worse by the fact that Untitled was already the subject of votes and suspicions from other players, which makes it seem like he was scum thinking he could avoid suspicion since his actions were on someone who was already disliked. This, coupled with his defensiveness in the rest of the game, is why I think he's one of our best bets for scum at this point.

[earthworm]

Read the bold. That's you right now.

wow, I am going to admit that was a genius defense. That said, in practice the genius presentation kind of obscures the facts. Yours was the third vote on Untitled, whereas although you have been under suspicion, I'm the only person who has actually voted for you. And your argument only really stands if mine is in fact as ridiculous as yours, otherwise I'm just putting a vote on a suspicious person.

Your argument had already been pointed out to be flawed. My argument was that in addition to it being suspicious because of it's illogicality, it was also scummy because of the context: it got you onto the Untitled bandwagon.

Also, I dislike your refusal to back down from an argument that has been repeatedly pointed out to be flawed.

But you're far from definite scum in my eyes, because of how much attention you're willing to draw to yourself.

[earthworm]

Minor FoS: animorpherv1 because this is not the random voting stage.

It sorta is.

Normally it would be, but with 11 or so pages of pre-game discussion, in practice we just skipped straight to voting based on potentally scummy actions. So random voting is kind of unhelpful at this point.

[earthworm]

As for my thoughts about Untitled, it's unanimous that everyone disagrees with me. Many people say that it was flawed. It's what I see. My opinion. For people to vote me for that is plain silly. Disagreement is fine, as I had said before.

If it's your opinion you should be able to back it up, if it's unanimous that everone disagrees, but you think you're right anyway, you should tell us why our arguments don't apply. Scumtells shouldn't be a matter of opinion, if it's just a gut feeling you have, that's one thing, but if you're going to try to present a reason, your reason should be logical.

I also dislike how easily nhat deflected his bandwagon with his attack against Erratus Apathos, since he hasn't actually disproved any of the points against him. But after doing some investigation on it, it deserves a lot more credit than I originally gave it.

I'm suprised how many scumtells on different people have appeared in this game: at least 50% of players are suspected for some reason or other. I'm not sure if that's good because we'll always have something to go on, or bad because it'll be hard to determine the actual scum among them.

But the most concrete ramification right now is that I'm less suspecting of nhat as scum. Unlike many of the other suspicious players, many of his scummy actions can be explained by arrogance or poor logic, rather than scummyness. And as I've mentioned, he's drawn way more attention to himself than scum would want. He's definately not cleared of suspicion, but thanks to that, coupled with the fact that he's actively scumhunting now, and I'm fine with letting him off the hook for the moment, now that other players are starting to seem more suspicious

Unvote: nhat

[earthworm]

skimming your posts, I take it you're referring to post 289?

Post 88 - I don't like how Netlava tries to punish discussion of the pact with a round after having spent the initial part of his post doing just that.

FOS: Netlava

Well, looking over all that as well as a quick skim to get a more general overview of the game so far I'd say Netlava is most deserving of my vote at the moment - the play I FOS'd him for in my PBP combined with his subsequent lack of content despite a fairly substantially-sized chunk of discussion having occurred in between his posts don't make for a very pro-town appearance.

Vote: Netlava

Personally, I don't find his actions that scummy, as a subject of one of his FOSs, even I don't find them unreasonable: lengthly arguments over something in the pre-game would be a great way for scum to appear like they're contributing. And I don't think what you said about how he spent the initial part of his post arguing about the pact himself really applies: he spent two lines stating his opinion on the pact, which is nothing compared to the kinds of posts his accusations were over: take a look at posts 80 or 83.

[earthworm]

You do have a point about his subsequent lack of content though, I'm not sure what my take is on that, but scum trying to avoid suspicion is definately possible.

[earthworm]

You missed this:

Post 93 - More discussion of the pact. Really not liking Netlava at this point.

He spent a good deal more than two lines discussing the pact if you take all his posts into account. I don't disagree with his attacking of the discussion; it's the fact that he decided to buy into it after having just criticised it that drew my vote.

oops, I did miss that part, but if you look at the post:

Why? Because I feel that scum may be more interested about this pact than townies. I'm largely indifferent to whether a pact forms - it is interesting, perhaps, but not the best option. For scum, I think it is more important for their strategy and such - especially for them to get in a pact, if one were to form. I think earthworm described it as a "once in a lifetime opportunity" or something.

Also, the amount of debating over a policy that is ultimately inconsequential to finding scum comes at a surprise. The large chunks of text sound like a bunch of fluff. Now, I don't mind being interested in arguing, but I do hope it carries over to actual scumhunting. The main thing is that this was a great opportunity for scum to appear active, arguing over policy, without actually scumhunting. You guys may have overdone it, though.

I also don't agree with your stance on the policy. I get the feeling that you are intentionally not getting why a pact is not pro-town in order to further the argument.

Again, only the first two lines are arguing about the pact, and they're about why scum would want to debate over it, (they'd have the additional benefit of being almost automatically in if it does form), the rest is again about whether or not the people debating it are suspects. And he doesn't seem to discuss the pact anywhere else after that.

[earthworm]

Netlava, my reasoning behind defending you wasn't so much to defend you, but to say where I disagreed with Cyberbob's argument. If I see an argument that I think is flawed I'm going to point it out.

I usually see scum defend other players more than townies defending other players.

You'd have more knowledge than me in regards to this, because I've never seen this happen, but wouldn't it be a lot better to let a lot of players be under suspicion than to defend them?

This situation, in particular, may be a bit premature, which makes me suspect a possible buddy-up attempt.

If I was scum I would buddy up with someone who has more than 7 posts in a 440 post game, and isn't currently under suspicion from multiple players.

[earthworm]

On the topic of vote-hopping, what do you guys think of this? In five posts, Cephrir made 3 different votes.

Vote: Untitled

for craplogic, pretty sure I touched on this in the pregame.

Also, same question for Cephrir:

Vote: Untitled for craplogic, pretty sure I touched on this in the pregame.

I checked your posts and you didn't.

Hum. 'Kay.

And well... BM said a lot for me. Basically I think his viewpoint during that argument was rather illogical, I don't feel like sifting through the 10 pages of pregame just to QFT BM. Untitled isn't actually as bad as he was in my head though. Man, I do that a lot. So, I'd rather pursue my other suspect-of-sorts.

Unvote, Vote: nhat

It's a good EA case, but Cass kinda has a point. I was going to say what she did, but then I read nhat's reply and realized he was right. I still find him scummy but I want to pursue EA for... reasons. Not just nhat's case.

Unvote, Vote EA

It's made worse by the fact that every single one of Cephrir's votes were made onto people who already had bandwagons formed on them, with rarely more justification than was already provided by the bandwagon. I'd like to know what people think, because the only other game I'm playing is being moderated by Cephrir, so I'm having a hard time viewing him impartially.

[earthworm]

[*]Post 73 - Excellent dissection of why the pact was (is?) a Bad Idea.

Let me briefly outline the points made in post 73, and why they are not 'excellent'.

1. The Pact is based on a first-come, first-serve, basis - Complete Lie.
2. Scum would join the treaty - This means we can lynch everybody who joins the treaty, and win the game, no?
3. Scum can bandwagon relentlessly without any risk - If you see somebody wagoning people they dont feel are that scummy, they are probably scum themselves. It's how Mafia is played. This is just a great way of doing it
4. Identical voting patterns - This is true, and valid, but then, it is the case with all bandwagons- not just those made by signatories of the pact. It's not all about WHERE you vote, but also HOW you vote.

FoS: CyberBob

for being, just plain WRONG.

BM

Shouldn't you be FOSing ME for being just plain wrong, because it's MY post?

1-What else would you have me assume? What else you you base entrance on? townieness? The game hadn't even started. Kort's acceptance seemed random enough, you discussed it with him, he said it wasn't that bad, and you let him in. That and all the "/in for pact" posts gave me the impression it was essentially first-come-first-served (not literally, I read the acceptance criteria on the pact, but it sure looked like the unanimous decisions were going to be basically just going to be first-come-first-served, because what else would they be based on?). Also, I never said that was how the pact worked, I said the impression I had gained, and said why I had gained that impression, how is that a Complete Lie? Reread my post, with emphasis on "seems to be" and "because".

2-I don't even understand this point. We couldn't lynch the whole pact because scum wouldn't be stupid enought to send their entire team into it. The majority would be town, but among them would still be scum getting a free ride. Or is your comment about lynching them all some kind of sarcasm?

3-"If you see somebody wagoning people they dont feel are that scummy, they are probably scum themselves." Then the scum just won't show that they don't feel the people are that scummy. Am I missing something?

4-You're saying my point is valid, but you seem to misunderstand it. Identical voting patterns aren't in every bandwagon, they'll only exist with the pact. Ordinarily, when you see seven people vote on someone, prior to that, their votes all moved around differently, and on different people, and in the previous day, the lynch was caused by a whole different group of people. With the pact, those seven people all voted for the exact same people previously in that day, and in prior days, their votes were also all exactly the same. Then when you look at their individual motives you gain just as little, because scum aren't stupid enough not to be able to blend in with the rest of the pact.

Also, I really shouldn't let myself get sucked into an argument with BM, especially over something that's barely still relevant to the game.

[earthworm]

I'd like to know what people think, because the only other game I'm playing is being moderated by Cephrir, so I'm having a hard time viewing him impartially.

I'm not sure why this would be a problem.

In my head, I think of Cephrir as nearly confirmed innocent, despite him having done absolutely nothing to put himself there.

Also, a good part of why I presented his votes to see what everyone thought was that I'm not terribly convinced by the cases based on votehopping, or voting on bandwagons, like the cases on EA and Cass. In such a large game, there's inevitably going to be lots of cases that emerge, and rise and fade, and with 14 players to lynch, there is inevitably going to be a lot of people who go onto bandwagons, since a bandwagon is the only thing with any hope of pressuring anybody, or getting anybody lynched.

Finally, I'm suspicious of DynamoXI, his actions prior in the game were bad enough that he was already in my lists of suspects, but his questioning of animorpherv1 was even worse. It seemed like a thinly veiled attempt to find out whether or not MafiaMann was indeed a powerrole, something that should have been completely left alone after it was brought up. In what possible way could finding out about animorpherv's post benefit the town?

As for animorpherv1, I think he seems more like an inexperienced player than scum, but he sure has been doing a lot of inexplicable and unhelpful stuff.

[earthworm]

he has replied to a prod.

Yeah, I'm still here, but the game has kind of slowed down, so I don't really see much that I have to say at the moment.

[earthworm]

what what

Dynamo is definitely scummy. Sineish's point that he engaged in fishing as well as Animorph is ringing true in my mind...

The only difference between the two in my mind is that Animorph has been far less active and Dynamo has been far jumpier with his votes. It's a tough call to make... nah, I think I'll stick with Animorph. Sineish's reaction to my vote was

most

interesting particularly given the amount of misrepresentation he had to engage in to be able to come up with a reason to try and cast suspicion on me. If Animorph ends up dying and cardflips scum I will definitely be taking a careful look at Sineish.

However, if it comes down to a choice between Dynamo and No Lynch (what with the deadline) I would be willing to switch to Dynamo. A slightly-worse-but-still-decent-lynch (or indeed, any lynch at all) is better than No Lynch.

I'd much rather see a lynch of Dynamo than animorph. Dynamo has very little excuse for all the thing's he's done, whereas animorph's mistakes can be put down to noobness, if his replacement starts acting suspicious he'll be one of the first ones on my list, but until then, I think Dynamo's the better choice. Also, I think we'll have more content tomorrow if we lynch Dynamo, because many of the posts made about animorph were complaining about his lurking, or saying why his posts made no sense, compared to Dynamo, who many people have given more complex opinions on.

Also, do you realise that Sineish is animorph's replacement?

Anyway:

Vote: DynamoXI

[earthworm]

I'm going to go ahead and

FOS Netlava

, because he's done other things I didn't like, in addition to the scummy actions that have already been brought up. But I don't think a Netlava lynch is going to happen today, and I think lynching Dynamo will give us more information and is probably more likely to get scum, so I'm leaving my vote on him. (Although I'm not quite so sure anymore, after EA's argument, which seems pretty valid to me.)

[earthworm]

3.) When a player reaches a majority of votes, they are lynched. I will reveal their role, and the game will move into night. All players can still talk during twilight.

Hey guys, the rules say we're allowed to post during twilight.

So that's what I'm doing.

Awesome.

[earthworm]

Anyway, sorry about my lack of posting up to the lynch, the Dynamo lynch was looking inevitable, so I was having a hard time caring about the side wagons which were popping up.