Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[nhat]

Also, what's killing me is there's a few of you judging people by their pre-game content, or lack thereof. Be lucky that there is some content to go by because nobody has to do anything but confirm.

[OpposedForce]

Still here. This game moves way too fast (Damn people were still in confirmation stage :/) I still have my opposition to the pact and stand by it and no matter the argument it's not going anywhere (especially with BM) Post my thoughts later.

EBWOP: Read the thread. How convenient to call the pact off as BM feels that scum are more likely to come in because of the argument. Fair thinking I would say. And to my knowledge it's not going to continue just for that reason. Good maybe we actually play mafia without the silly argument.

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Do we have a limited amount of space, perchance?

Well if we did we'd be in alot of trouble.

[OpposedForce]

Also, what's killing me is there's a few of you judging people by their pre-game content, or lack thereof. Be lucky that there is some content to go by because nobody has to do anything but confirm.

Nhat, do you have any thoughts on other players judging by the pre-game content? If so is there anyone you find suspicous?

[nhat]

Also, what's killing me is there's a few of you judging people by their pre-game content, or lack thereof. Be lucky that there is some content to go by because nobody has to do anything but confirm.

Nhat, do you have any thoughts on other players judging by the pre-game content? If so is there anyone you find suspicous?

I'd have to have another look, it's just that one of my pet peeves is players getting worked up and drawing sides on something as asinine and shallow as an in-game voting pact.

[Cass]

I was staying out of the whole discussion, because it seemed pretty stupid to me to blow the pact-idea to pieces before it had even been tried. I wanted to see it in action before taking a stance. Seems it's too late for that, pity. Well, at least there should be enough content now for us to skip that annoying random stage - good job, BM

[Battle Mage]

I don't think that the game starts until we have a sufficient number of confirmed players. I think this explains a lot of our differences. if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it). likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

It seems a pretty safe assumption in my mind, as much as a vote is deemed to be an intent to lynch, so is an intent to vote an intent to lynch.

is a vote on page 1 an intent to lynch? because (as I explained in the post you quoted) that's all that I see it as.

A vote on page 1 is pretty innocent. But this isnt a confessed random vote. You've tried time and again to come up with a satisfactory reason to vote for me. Which in my mind, means you actually want to see pressure on me, perhaps to the extent of a lynch.

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Then don't read it. Nobody is forced to read anything in the game. Personally i dont see why they wouldnt. But if people will skim, they will skim regardless of how much content we actually have. If you really feel bad about the amount of space i've used, i'm sure you can find a way of removing some of the memory used by the site. Maybe you can request the deletion of your account?
If you don't want an active game, then you don't want a game with me in it. It's as simple as that. The fact is, this discussion has made this game different from any other start of a game, in that we all have an OPINION. Even the random voting stage doesnt always provide that. Tell me that getting us off the mark early is a bad thing.

you're strawmanning me, I never said that starting early was a bad thing. I said that this particular argument is pointless and absurd. filling the thread with nonsense makes it harder for everybody else to stay on-topic, hence I see it as being an impediment to finding scum in the game proper.

It's not pointless atall. The fact people got to irate about it in fact ensures that people HAVE taken sides. Currently no major conclusions can be drawn, but it is as much a game event as any bandwagon. It may not be informative at the time, and may come to nothing, but later on, it could be invaluable. I dont see your concern about staying on topic in a game that hasnt started, and your insistence that we must 'scumhunt' when you have not contributed anything towards this yourself. Hell, at least some of us are TRYING!

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

It is when you make ad hom attacks with nothing logical to back them up.
Your problem with me is that i post alot. Big whoop. Now are you going to even bother TRYING to explain why that is scummy?

1. I don't recall making any ad hom attacks on you.
2. saying that my problem with you is that you post too much is a gross over-simplification of my position.
3. even if that was my position, I never said you were scummy, just that I wanted to vote you.

"I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless."

I guess you forgot your above quote. I dont think i really need to explain it. It's plain to see what you are upto again.

Regarding point 3- why would you vote for someone who is not scummy?

But of course, i'm sorry i've been such a detriment to scumhunting so far, what with my minimal contributions, and *shudder* SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Why don't you, erm, gimme a shout when you've nailed the entirety of the scum, single-handedly?

in fairness, I think I slightly exaggerated your dodging in my mind because the last part of your previous post (quoted above) left me with that impression. the first point is not what I said (as noted previously) and the second point is an invalid and irrelevant argument. I don't have to be the world's best scumhunter to know a bad argument when I see one.

Well, i'm impressed you can admit when you are wrong. That puts you one step ahead of me. Next time maybe you could go 1 better, and not come up with the bad argument in the first place?

that was a redirect, not a retraction. feel free to answer my actual point at your convenience. I may have overstated it before, but the above post definitely makes me feel like I assessed your playstyle correctly.

if you have an actual point to raise, please feel free to post it.

BM

@Cass- thanks. <3

[Battle Mage]

if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it).

The suddenness of the want to vote BM is interesting however.

I fail to see how this is related to wanting to lynch him. surely a fast, unreasoned vote early in the game is

less

likely to reflect a genuine desire to lynch somebody?

Nice try buddy.
I'm 100% sure that if nobody had picked up on this, you'd have proceded to a serious vote and tried to run me up.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

Well actually, it kind of is when you don't give logical reasoning for the placement of your vote. People are going to be curious as to the reasoning of said vote. When you make statements like these-

how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?

I like a good argument, but this isn't a good argument. if it were, you'd be responding to things that I actually post instead of constructing an opposing position based on what makes you look best.

in any case, there's no need for me to get angry with you when

I have an alternative means of expressing my feelings so readily available to me - at least I will once a couple more people confirm

You continue to threaten to vote BM once all the players have confirmed, yet you have yet to give an honestly solid reason as to why. Therefore, BM's question doesn't seem particularly out of place.

yes it does, it's reverse OMGUS. "I didn't attack you, therefore your attack on me is unjustified" is not a logical argument. I explained the reasons for my statements, and they don't rely in any way on personal interactions with battle mage. in fact, the two have next to nothing to do with each other, which is why this question from bm is so off base.

Nobody said 'unjustified'. You admitted that yourself, when you acknowledged that you actually have no real reason to suspect me atall, and your vote is for all intents and purposes, going to be random.

Let's stick to the facts. You clearly had a bee in your bonnet with me before i even spoke to you, or you'd even made a comment on the discussion. My question is, why did you take it upon yourself to pursue what seems like a rather pointless, personal vendetta against me, when you are quite ready to admit that you had no game derived objective compelling you to do so? It just seems really odd. You didn't find me scummy, and yet, completely off the bat, you throw a massive hissy fit over HOW MUCH I POST. 0.o

So, i'd like an answer to the question please.

BM

[Untitled]

everything in the above two posts that isn't a blatant misrepresentation has been covered in my previous posts. I was initially giving you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point I'm pretty sure that you're just being intentionally dense in an attempt to piss me off.

[Cephrir]

It's true, Untitled. We're all out to get you, actually.

[Battle Mage]

Good news for ya Untitled:

I may not have internet access from now until Friday evening. I'll post if and when i can, but consider me on holiday

BM

Erm, don't lynch me while i'm away, and i'm sure i'll have the pleasure of a 30 page read when i get back!

BM

[armlx]

The kind of behavior the pact endorses is terrible for scum hunting. Letting people make their own decisions and be held accountable for them is really good I hear. Not to mention how the plan exacerbates tunnel vision and rushes claims.

The Nhat-Peter Griffin thing is possibly notable for later. But much later.

[rant]BM needs to stop fucking multi-posting for no reason. The material you are posting is ALL IN THE THREAD AT THE TIME YOU ARE POSTING. Be patient enough to put multiple trains of thought in the same post before you blow your load.[/rant]

That said, I want to look at the people who jumped into the plan sorta later on. Plenty of room for abuse there.

[Korts]

A heads up for everyone: I will be away without access starting Thursday until Sunday (21-24) so nothing from me then.

[skitzer]

OK, everyone has confirmed except Veronica13, Cyberbob, and winterbells. Veronica13 and Cyberbob have picked up their Role PM, so I'll prod them. winterbells is going to be replaced, but for now...

Day 1 begins! With 26 alive, it takes 14 votes to lynch.

[StrangerCoug]

The first two people I want to look at are Battle Mage and Untitled. I think we can safely forgo random voting.

[Erratus Apathos]

Vote: Netlava

[armlx]

Vote Dynamo

FoS PeterG, Wolf

See previous post.

[Korts]

Vote Dynamo

FoS PeterG, Wolf

See previous post.

I agree with this sentiment, though I think wolf was being much more blatant.

vote: wolf

[StrangerCoug]

I think Untitled has done a good job defending his actions for the most part. I am more suspicious of Battle Mage and his pact. First off, I want to say the pact is a null tell, but it's more accurate to say it's misleading to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact. The pact simply won't work, as it's too easy to infiltrate.

Also, 73 posts in the pre-game and not a lot of substance to go with it, either. Mafia is largely a game of quality, not quantity.

Vote: Battle Mage

[Korts]

I smell broken logic.

[StrangerCoug]

I smell broken logic.

What specifically?

[Korts]

Mafia is largely a game of quality, not quantity.

This, specifically.

[armlx]

I agree with this sentiment, though I think wolf was being much more blatant.

I have found Wolf has a tendency to agree with ideas that look well supported a lot more then normal, or I would have voted him.

SC, BM likes these dumb "Lets all gang up and vote someone to proceed the game" things regardless of alignment I think.

As for him posting infinite, he also has a tendency to be killed early on because a vig or scum group finds him too damn random/annoying to play the game with. You know its bad when a scum group targets you because.

Also, quality + quantity = good, but one without the other is not indicative of being scum. Moderate quantity without quality is, and a complete lack of both is as well.

[StrangerCoug]

Which do you find more credible: three posts that all make a good case or ten posts that suck?

[Cyberbob]

ohshi

Huge apologies guys, I was waiting for the thread to appear in the Theme Park.

I'm off to school in about 10 minutes so I won't be able to produce anything right now, but I promise I will get back on board this afternoon.

[armlx]

Which do you find more credible: three posts that all make a good case or ten posts that suck?

But since when is that the issue at hand?