Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Battle Mage]

I have a question for coug. Do you think BM is scum or the best oprion for you atm.

At the moment, best option. Large games require a lot of work, and this is my start toward it. We need a lot of team effort to get a good deal of the cases down to size.

I dont like this question. Or the answer. You dont consider someone to be an option ATALL unless you feel they could be scum. MafiaMann, you seem to be giving him a get-out clause here, so he doesnt have to take responsibility for his vote, if and when i get strung up. Strangercoug indicates he clearly has little confidence in his BM-vote.

BM

[MafiaMann]

I have a question for coug. Do you think BM is scum or the best oprion for you atm.

At the moment, best option. Large games require a lot of work, and this is my start toward it. We need a lot of team effort to get a good deal of the cases down to size.

I dont like this question. Or the answer. You dont consider someone to be an option ATALL unless you feel they could be scum. MafiaMann, you seem to be giving him a get-out clause here, so he doesnt have to take responsibility for his vote, if and when i get strung up. Strangercoug indicates he clearly has little confidence in his BM-vote.

BM

Hmmm that wasnt my intention i was meaning to find out wether he really wants you lynched or thinks you are the most suspicous.

[Battle Mage]

Please provide reasoning why this post should be "laughed at or noted later." Here are nhat's two posts before I made the comment

/confirm

*gobbles fistful of chocolates, wipes hands and mouth with BM's Pact*

LOL - Everyone who is taking this treaty shit seriously

He didn't bother to make any response to why he felt that BM's treaty was a bad idea, he just made attacks on it, and the people discussing it, hence my comment. I was wondering if he was going to provide content in the future, if this was normal pre-game behavior for him.

I've played with this guy once before, and in that game he was both protown, and fairly intelligent. We didn't exactly see eye to eye, and his attack is clearly based more on disliking me than the pact itself. But, i'd expect SOMETHING useful from him.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I have a question for coug. Do you think BM is scum or the best oprion for you atm.

At the moment, best option. Large games require a lot of work, and this is my start toward it. We need a lot of team effort to get a good deal of the cases down to size.

I dont like this question. Or the answer. You dont consider someone to be an option ATALL unless you feel they could be scum. MafiaMann, you seem to be giving him a get-out clause here, so he doesnt have to take responsibility for his vote, if and when i get strung up. Strangercoug indicates he clearly has little confidence in his BM-vote.

BM

Hmmm that wasnt my intention i was meaning to find out wether he really wants you lynched or thinks you are the most suspicous.

The two are one and the same.

BM

[Battle Mage]

i dont think u responded to my 470 yet.

BM

[MafiaMann]

Ok BM the whole opposed versus you made you look bad because several times it seemed his question were valid and you flipped out at him. I was also working on this whole at how i thought as it unfolded later on i said good you are doing the pact the way you said you would.

[Battle Mage]

Ok BM the whole opposed versus you made you look bad because several times it seemed his question were valid and you flipped out at him. I was also working on this whole at how i thought as it unfolded later on i said good you are doing the pact the way you said you would.

Ok, i understand. But with hindsight, can you see the situation from my point of view?

BM

[Battle Mage]

also can you explain what you mean by the pact not being similar to Mafia itself?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I mean he's soft-claiming town by including himself in the group who scumhunts. He's labeling himself town, but subtly. I can live with an all out townie claim, even a clever or humorous one. But one under the radar like this rubs me the wrong way.

not buying it.

FoS: Nhat

for sheer bs. Slightly less suspicious of Untitled in light of this, although i havent discounted potential distancing.

BM

[Battle Mage]

[*]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

[Battle Mage]

[*]Post 209 - Ew. Ew, ew, ew. I

hate

this kind of ploy. [/list]

Please explain. Also, i bet those tags PHail.

BM

[Battle Mage]

...knew it. lol

[MafiaMann]

also can you explain what you mean by the pact not being similar to Mafia itself?

BM

Its a scum hunting group within a scum hunting group do you see what i mean.

[MafiaMann]

Ok BM the whole opposed versus you made you look bad because several times it seemed his question were valid and you flipped out at him. I was also working on this whole at how i thought as it unfolded later on i said good you are doing the pact the way you said you would.

Ok, i understand. But with hindsight, can you see the situation from my point of view?

BM

Yes i can but your reaction made it seem as if you were almost disrespectful of their ideas and view which made you look bad but i can see where your frustration came from.

[Battle Mage]

also can you explain what you mean by the pact not being similar to Mafia itself?

BM

Its a scum hunting group within a scum hunting group do you see what i mean.

yes. Which is my exact point. Those in the pact are in the greater mafia game, as well as being in a smaller situation- with other people of unknown affiliation who they must assess.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Ok BM the whole opposed versus you made you look bad because several times it seemed his question were valid and you flipped out at him. I was also working on this whole at how i thought as it unfolded later on i said good you are doing the pact the way you said you would.

Ok, i understand. But with hindsight, can you see the situation from my point of view?

BM

Yes i can but your reaction made it seem as if you were almost disrespectful of their ideas and view which made you look bad but i can see where your frustration came from.

Disrespectfulness is a personality thing. Sometimes i come across that way. Don't let it cloud your judgement of me in terms of affiliation.

BM

[nhat]

[quote="Battle Mage]
We didn't exactly see eye to eye, and his attack is clearly based more on disliking me than the pact itself.
[/quote]

A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B

[Battle Mage]

nhat, there is no way in hell "too townie" is ever going to fly as a valid scumtell if I have anything to say about it.

Please stop making me want to vote you; I'm happy with my current vote and I don't like the feeling of being torn.

It doesn't fall within the REALMS of 'too townie', because it isn't something inherently protown. Admittedly Nhat is really bad at explaining his point, but by not really concentrating, you are just as bad.

Did i FoS you yet? I sure hope so.

BM

[Battle Mage]

EBWOP: @Erratos Apathos, I do see one or two of them. The seventh one was my commenting that I was trying very hard to keep myself in control, and the last one was a legitimate question.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Question number two: does the fact that you had two pregame signal posts out of ten (excluding the confirm obv) tell you nothing about your attack on BM?

I give up on this since, as I said, my poor brain is unable to digest everything in here. Cass is probably right to vote me for the reasons she did. I'm not fazed by just one vote, though, especially since it puts me at L-13 or something like that.

While I'm at it, Snaps_the_Pirate's case on me at #271 sucks since Battle Mage isn't anywhere near lynch either. What doesn't make sense is how one measly person, who has said multiple times that he has to manage things one case at a time, can be trying to push for a lynch when 14 people have to agree that the person is scummy. You, my friend, are blowing my case out of proportion.

Unvote: Battle Mage
Vote: Snaps_the_Pirate

That's right kiddo. When you realise pushing me isn't gonna work, you try and screw over the guy supporting me. If you think acknowledging the case on you will gain you any credibility, you are wrong. The fact is, you stink of tunnel-visioning-rather than outright OMGUSing everyone, you are honing in on individuals 1 by 1.

@Nhat- I thought we'd have both learnt something from that game, no?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I also tend to think that those who were the most vocal in the pre-game are probably not scum, as it really puts them in the spotlight and draws votes. Although I would except BM from this general thought because some players have styles that are apparently well-known and maintain them from game to game.

That being said, the players who I'm mostly interested in are those that weren't as active during the pre-game, but perhaps not completely silent. This thought, combined with nhat's misguided, at best, reasoning, leads me to

vote: nhat

have i played with you before?

Also, Cephrir is really pulling his weight.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I actually take the opposite stance of nhat. Soft claim is ok. Straight up saying "I am pro-town" without provocation is dumb as EVERYONE would say that.

That makes no sense. AT-ALL. 0.o

gneral tip the manner in which you say somthing can help your case if you seem disrespectful of other peoples idea or thoughts poeple arent likely to change their mind.

Do you have any opinions on the situation or just anecdotal comments?

I rofl'd.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Oh dear, I'm yellow again

Erm, I don't think much of the current nhat, untitled, strangercoug suspicions. Actually, I think untitled has made a pro-town impression. Nhat's reasoning I don't agree with, but I don't think it's indicative of scum. StrangerCoug looks ok, his explanation for not wanting pre-game discussion seems in tune with his overall play style.

Cass's post 325 is a bit scummy

@Nhat: I disagree that your 'softclaim' is any kind of tell. I tend to use words like 'we', 'our', etc. a lot.

We are after all a group here (with some traitors in our midst, but they're trying to blend in).

I consider (soft)claiming 'town', no matter how subtle or unsubtle, a null-tell. Because you see, there is no reason in the world for anyone not to do it. (Btw, I've heard of forums where everyone starts the day with 'hi, townie here' or something like that.)

Don't like the "feel" of the bolded part. I think scum may be more likely to pad their posts with such statements. Whether this is just posting style remains to be seen.

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

That deserves a

Vote: StrangerCoug

For hypocrisy and badly stretched 'logic'.

I can see the hypocritical part, perhaps, but where's the badly stretched logic?

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.

I'm leaning town on BM, because after any bit of BM questioning, and several people rush to his defense. I'm also leaning town on a couple of other people, but I don't think it's of note at the moment.

Petergriffin and earthworm, I'll probably go back and look into their interactions in-depth some time.

Do you find ANYONE scummy?

I also dont see your logic for me being town?

BM

[StrangerCoug]

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

why?

You were the first two people I was looking at when I made that post. I didn't want the long pre-game that we ended up having, but then again, there's a decent amount of information in there.

That seems rather contradictory. Why did you feel you could 'safely forgo random voting', and subsequently name 2 'suspects', one of whom you declared 4 posts later to be probably protown, and in fact, NOT a suspect?
It seems just like a transparent attempt to bandwagon somebody with little reason. I believe they call it 'Appealing to Stupidity'.

By saying I'm "appealing to stupidity" you've reduced yourself to being insulting. A 10-page pre-game with a lot of discussion may not be something I'm used to, but I fail to understand how that translates into a random voting stage once it's actually Day 1.

I actually agree with you here. But you still haven't explained why you opted to single me out, and perhaps more importantly, TRY TO HIDE THIS BY NAMING AN ADDITIONAL 'SUSPECT'. And ftr, a vote based on no reasoning except personal dislike, is, for all intents and purposes, random.

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

4 posts ago, you said that you wanted to look at Untitled. Evidently this was just an attempt to conceal an obvious attempt at tunnel-vision right?

This is delayed OMGUS since you lost the mental "convince the StrangerCoug" battle in my head. I believed Untitled more than you, so watch your step.

Rofl. If i was Armlx, i'd probably say something along the lines of 'Stop wanking', or something equally droll. I'm at least glad you concede that your suspicion of me was solely OMGUS, but seriously... threats? Did you even BOTHER to look where my vote is? 0.o

Ad lapidem

again.

Avoiding a non-existent question? really?

Buddy, in my mind, you are probably scum. At this point, you voting for me is reassuring. It means you're scared enough of me to pit yourself directly against me, which means i am doing my job.

This is tunnel vision and appealing to fear.

For something to be an 'appeal to' anything, it has to be directed at an audience. The fact i was talking directly to you, means that the only person i could be appealing to is you. Do you think i was trying to make you scared of yourself?
And for something to be tunnel-vision, it has to involve some sort of scumhunting and analysis. I merely stated that i felt you were scummy, and thus, was not especially worried at you OMGUSing me. lol

Not worrying about OMGUS makes so sense from a protown stance.

But, whilst i'm here, i'll point out that the "misleading" thing is that you clearly haven't actually READ the pact. If you had, you wouldnt make comments like, "to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact".

Give me three useful pro-town purposes of the pact

or

I'm dismissing this argument

as WIFOM

done as an attempt to make me look bad

.

ROFLMAO! It's like you aren't reading what i'm saying. This isn't anywhere

NEAR

WIFOM. It's a fact. You havent read the pact, yet you take it upon yourself to slander it. Skimmy is Scummy. You don't even try to deny this, which proves my point. Maybe you should read it, so you can retract your points, and perhaps save some of your dignity? But far be it from me to make your life easier.

If I hadn't read the pact, I wouldn't have objected to the goddamn thing.

This is why i'm attacking your comments. You cannot say objecting to something you haven't actually read, is a protown thing to do.

Prove that I haven't read the pact.

Other responses:

Underlined:

Only defensive scum will see everything that is said against them as an 'argument'. In fact, in this case it wasn't, but because you instantly see me as the aggressor who is making you look bad, your OMGUS-dar is on overdrive and you cant help but consider it 'war'.

If anything, we have each other's attention.

What?

If your objective was to attract my attention and keep it glued to you, then congratulations, you have succeeded.

Italics:

You really don't need any help on that score. You've dug a big enough hole for yourself that we can bury you now. Keep going and we'll have enough graves for your buddies too!

Tunnel vision again.

This falls into the same category as your failed attempt at labelling tunnel-vision earlier.

If you instead asked "Would you like enough graves for your buddies too?" then I would accuse you of a loaded question, but since you were not asking a question I decided to call it tunnel vision. I don't know the difference between the two besides the existence of a question anyway. Would you prefer the more accurate "loaded statement"?

Orange:

Because i relish making you look the fool, i accept your challenge, however off the wall it was.

1. It brings certain players to the forefront much like you would expect from the traditional 'case and bandwagon' style of Mafia. Those players can be assessed more easily, and it prevents them lurking to victory.

2. For the first day at least, scum dont know what to make of it. Everybody has an opinion on it, and it makes a great starting discussion topic to get the game moving. We get people taking sides, which we can really assess later on.

3. If implemented, it would allow us to move bandwagons quickly, keeping the scum on their toes. How they'd react is interesting and i think we could learn alot from who followed orders unconditionally, who did what was in their heart, and what people's limits were.

1 and 3 I'll buy, but 2 doesn't answer my infiltration concern.

Your infiltration concern is flawed because the pact is as much a method of creating a scumhunting system, as a scumhunting system in itself. But again, until you've actually read the treaty, there's not alot else i can do to help you.

And we are not allowed to think independently because?

And if there was any chance of you salvaging any credibility, you lost it when you said "73 posts in the pre-game and not a lot of substance to go with it". Are you kidding me? Name somebody who provided more 'substance' in the first 10 pages of the game. And hell, in your words, it's the fricking PRE-GAME. What sort of content do you want??

Jesus christ.... BM

Content that's not confusing based on my prior experiences, which in the pre-game is everything besides confirmations. I'll accept a little bit of small talk, but it really took off, and I'm used to Day 1 starting somewhere on page 1 or 2. Not page 10.

Hi. I'm BM. I'm a little different to people you might have met before. I don't always do what everyone else does. I can be a bit wacky. I'm really sorry if you have such trouble with things being different, but it's the only way you can really learn in Mafia. But you still haven't answered my question. What did you mean by 'not alot of substance'? And no, i won't accept the "I get confused easily, and anything i don't understand doesn't count as participation'.

By "not a lot of substance" I mean "filler". And where on Earth did you get "anything I don't understand doesn't count as participation"? If I'm slandering you as you say I am, then you're slandering me back, and this is a lose-lose proposition unless we can settle our differences.

Those are two completely different things. I can give you 12 pages of filler, but if i have 12 pages of content to go with it, i still have alot of substance. You said the content i posted was confusing, which explains why you didn't read it, and you also indicated that this content 'didnt count'. You seem to be under the impression this is solely personal. It is partially, but you are acting scummy, and i never back down from an argument when i know i am right.

From now on I'm just going to ignore you when you say "I am right", because all you're accomplishing with me when you do so is coming of as a selfish and elitist son of a gun.

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

1 word. Actually, i'll make it even easier. 2 syllables:

PRE-GAME.

This is question dodging by means of

argumentum ad lapidem

.

Lol, long word! I'm impressed. In fact, i'm almost inclined to look it up.

Then do so.

Why should i do you the honour of taking your comments seriously when you cant even be bothered to respond to mine?

I am responding to your comments. If you feel that you're not getting the kind of responses you want or that I am ignoring your comments by talking about something that's not the point, then say so.

Were it not for the fact that...

THE QUESTION WAS NOT POSED TO ME IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO HOW THE HELL CAN YOU ACCUSE ME OF DODGING IT?

It may have been, but I was willing to allow anybody to answer.

Oh, gee, thanks! Ya kno, for lettin me play and stuff.
I must've missed the announcement that you were appointed Moderator....

The question was not directed to me, hence you cannot accuse me of avoiding it. By not acknowledging this, it is you who is avoiding the question. lawl

So be it.

Geez man, you need help. Seriously. The fact you can quote clever things shows you do have something going on in that head of yours. I just don't see why it can't be transferred to this game?

I'll explain my point a little more to help you out. You were the guy who said that participation in the pre-game was bad.

Find where I did so, because I remember making no such post.

Use the search posts by player tool, and read the first few posts you made. I dont have the time or inclination to bottle-feed you.

Oh, is this retaliation for me not doing favors for you?

Now, this is a million miles from a case of 'is quality better than quantity', because you are offering NEITHER. It's not like you have a leg to stand on when you attack me for lack of content, because even if only 1 word in each of my 73 posts was useful, and every single word you typed was awesomeness personified, you would still be inferior in terms of quality of posting. And sadly, this is far from the case.

Your question itself seems to be dodging the point in a humourous ironic twist.

Explain my posts not having quality. What do you think about my case on Snaps_the_Pirate, for example?

I'm not talking about since the game has started. I haven't even read past page 11, because there are still unanswered questions about that period. It was THEN that you criticised my lack of participation, and at that point, you had done F*All.

One, if you accused me of not reading, then it would look bad on you if you said you haven't read either, now wouldn't it?

Two, please do not cuss me out, whether you censor yourself or not. It's offensive.

You have already admitted that you:

A. Havent read the most important parts of the game so far.
B. Don't believe in participating unless absolutely necessary.
C. Voted for me solely based on OMGUS.

A. Large games are very hard for me to digest in one go.

Then dont pretend to be aware of whats going on, when you aren't. LaL is by no means a concrete rule, but if you lie about stuff with no protown motive, then you are going to look scummy. Plus it means you end up preaching bs, which makes you look really dumb.

C. You only call it OMGUS because you fail to understand my case on you.

rofl. Actually, i call it OMGUS because that's what you called it.

You really think i'm going to accept YOU telling me that my posts 'suck'?! Dream on kid.

Then prove they don't.

I've created discussion. You hadn't.

Note the verb forms here. You say you

HA

VE

created discussion, while I, on the other hand,

HA

D

NOT

done so. I'm sorry, but you are talking to someone who used to copy edit for his high school newspaper and you now have to convince me that your word usage does not create a straw man argument.

Again, you use the word 'case'. Where is the 'case'? I don't see it. You're scum who is barely paying attention.

Goddamn you, why are you so certain this early!? You seem to have made it your mission to get rid of me at all costs. I'm saving the rest of this paragraph for last, and we're almost at the end anyway.

You commit the scumtells, i call you out on them. Fairly mundane stuff.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

Stop ridiculing me.

NEVAR!

Get real. Seriously.

Blinded by OMGUS and panic, because you aren't in your comfort zone, and you are slipping up under interrogation, left, right, and centre.

Let's change the subject for just a moment so neither of us end up clawing at each other and winning nothing at the end. I will take a look at the other 24 players in this game and post my opinions of them based on their posts, and I want you to do the same thing. I think we've made it clear that we each think the other is scum, so don't do me and I won't do you.

Sounds good. Analysing everyone at this point is probably a good idea. But, i still want a separate post outlining your case on me. Just for the record.

BM[/quote]
OK, fair deal.

Cephrir: A lot of his early discussion is about the pact. Announces that he hopes scum joins the pact (this is where I'm getting that scum will infiltrate the pact, BTW). A lot of his discussion about the pact is with Opposed Force. Tells Untitled that "we're all out to get you", then votes him in his next post for craplogic. FoS's nhat for WIFOM and thinking a soft claim is a scumtell, and asks him to look up Too Townie. Decides to vote nhat given that he doesn't want to sift through the game to quote Battle Mage for truth and that Untitled wasn't as bad as he once thought. Attacks Erratos Apathos's voting him because vote = intent to lynch doesn't apply on Day 1 by saying this game is an exception, then votes him two posts later for reasons that I can't exactly make out. Cephrir leans on the scummy side to me.

This is an accurate summary of what I've done in this game, for the most part. Care to explain why you think it makes me scummy? You kinda did something similar with a lot of people actually. So I'll just ask your entire post: why?

You say you hope scum joins the pact, which sounds a bit like something scum itself would say. It's like saying I hope scum kills Battle Mage tonight if he doesn't get lynched (especially since it would imply that I know Battle Mage is town). It is also not clear to me why you are voting Erratos Apathos.

Let’s change the subject for just a moment so neither of us end up clawing at each other and winning nothing at the end. I will take a look at the other 24 players in this game and post my opinions of them based on their posts, and I want you to do the same thing. I think we've made it clear that we each think the other is scum, so don't do me and I won't do you.

Wow, does that sound like he is scared of BM?

OK, so it's better for us to engage in an ultimately futile vendetta? I don't get it.

SrangerCoug has said an awful lot, but has not said very much. He mentions his case on me a few times. What case? He has said nothing for me to defend.

You said that my team effort was to get the most talkative player in the game lynched, which was not my intent.

He also talks about being misrepresented, yet he stated I was anti-pact. My only comment on the pact was that it was null and wouldn’t affect the game one way or the other. How is that “anti-pact”? Who is mis-representing who?

I misinterpreted that comment. Sorry.

StrangerCoug has yet to anwser my simple question “Why did he initially vote BM?”.

When the game started, a lot of discussion was still about the pact. The page it did so, Untitled accused Battle Mage of misrepresentation, and I believed Untitled's case on Battle Mage, hence my vote for the latter.

I know you only asked about the first time around, but the second time around was for accusing me of refusing to participate until absolutely necessary, which is not true since I've been able to post at least every 24 hours and say something at least half-decent.

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP to fix the quote boxes and address some points that I forgot to:

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

why?

You were the first two people I was looking at when I made that post. I didn't want the long pre-game that we ended up having, but then again, there's a decent amount of information in there.

That seems rather contradictory. Why did you feel you could 'safely forgo random voting', and subsequently name 2 'suspects', one of whom you declared 4 posts later to be probably protown, and in fact, NOT a suspect?
It seems just like a transparent attempt to bandwagon somebody with little reason. I believe they call it 'Appealing to Stupidity'.

By saying I'm "appealing to stupidity" you've reduced yourself to being insulting. A 10-page pre-game with a lot of discussion may not be something I'm used to, but I fail to understand how that translates into a random voting stage once it's actually Day 1.

I actually agree with you here. But you still haven't explained why you opted to single me out, and perhaps more importantly, TRY TO HIDE THIS BY NAMING AN ADDITIONAL 'SUSPECT'. And ftr, a vote based on no reasoning except personal dislike, is, for all intents and purposes, random.

Again, I was looking at Page 10 when I voted you. Also, who is this additional "suspect" that you speak of?

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

4 posts ago, you said that you wanted to look at Untitled. Evidently this was just an attempt to conceal an obvious attempt at tunnel-vision right?

This is delayed OMGUS since you lost the mental "convince the StrangerCoug" battle in my head. I believed Untitled more than you, so watch your step.

Rofl. If i was Armlx, i'd probably say something along the lines of 'Stop wanking', or something equally droll. I'm at least glad you concede that your suspicion of me was solely OMGUS, but seriously... threats? Did you even BOTHER to look where my vote is? 0.o

Ad lapidem

again.

Avoiding a non-existent question? really?

If the question is not directed at you and it is not an open question, then don't respond to it. You can talk about the question if you like, but even though it was directed at one person, it

WAS

open.

Buddy, in my mind, you are probably scum. At this point, you voting for me is reassuring. It means you're scared enough of me to pit yourself directly against me, which means i am doing my job.

This is tunnel vision and appealing to fear.

For something to be an 'appeal to' anything, it has to be directed at an audience. The fact i was talking directly to you, means that the only person i could be appealing to is you. Do you think i was trying to make you scared of yourself?
And for something to be tunnel-vision, it has to involve some sort of scumhunting and analysis. I merely stated that i felt you were scummy, and thus, was not especially worried at you OMGUSing me. lol

Not worrying about OMGUS makes no sense from a protown stance.

But, whilst i'm here, i'll point out that the "misleading" thing is that you clearly haven't actually READ the pact. If you had, you wouldnt make comments like, "to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact".

Give me three useful pro-town purposes of the pact

or

I'm dismissing this argument

as WIFOM

done as an attempt to make me look bad

.

ROFLMAO! It's like you aren't reading what i'm saying. This isn't anywhere

NEAR

WIFOM. It's a fact. You havent read the pact, yet you take it upon yourself to slander it. Skimmy is Scummy. You don't even try to deny this, which proves my point. Maybe you should read it, so you can retract your points, and perhaps save some of your dignity? But far be it from me to make your life easier.

If I hadn't read the pact, I wouldn't have objected to the goddamn thing.

This is why i'm attacking your comments. You cannot say objecting to something you haven't actually read, is a protown thing to do.

Prove that I haven't read the pact.

Other responses:

Underlined:

Only defensive scum will see everything that is said against them as an 'argument'. In fact, in this case it wasn't, but because you instantly see me as the aggressor who is making you look bad, your OMGUS-dar is on overdrive and you cant help but consider it 'war'.

If anything, we have each other's attention.

What?

If your objective was to attract my attention and keep it glued to you, then congratulations, you have succeeded.

Italics:

You really don't need any help on that score. You've dug a big enough hole for yourself that we can bury you now. Keep going and we'll have enough graves for your buddies too!

Tunnel vision again.

This falls into the same category as your failed attempt at labelling tunnel-vision earlier.

If you instead asked "Would you like enough graves for your buddies too?" then I would accuse you of a loaded question, but since you were not asking a question I decided to call it tunnel vision. I don't know the difference between the two besides the existence of a question anyway. Would you prefer the more accurate "loaded statement"?

Orange:

Because i relish making you look the fool, i accept your challenge, however off the wall it was.

1. It brings certain players to the forefront much like you would expect from the traditional 'case and bandwagon' style of Mafia. Those players can be assessed more easily, and it prevents them lurking to victory.

2. For the first day at least, scum dont know what to make of it. Everybody has an opinion on it, and it makes a great starting discussion topic to get the game moving. We get people taking sides, which we can really assess later on.

3. If implemented, it would allow us to move bandwagons quickly, keeping the scum on their toes. How they'd react is interesting and i think we could learn alot from who followed orders unconditionally, who did what was in their heart, and what people's limits were.

1 and 3 I'll buy, but 2 doesn't answer my infiltration concern.

Your infiltration concern is flawed because the pact is as much a method of creating a scumhunting system, as a scumhunting system in itself. But again, until you've actually read the treaty, there's not alot else i can do to help you.

And we are not allowed to think independently because?

And if there was any chance of you salvaging any credibility, you lost it when you said "73 posts in the pre-game and not a lot of substance to go with it". Are you kidding me? Name somebody who provided more 'substance' in the first 10 pages of the game. And hell, in your words, it's the fricking PRE-GAME. What sort of content do you want??

Jesus christ.... BM

Content that's not confusing based on my prior experiences, which in the pre-game is everything besides confirmations. I'll accept a little bit of small talk, but it really took off, and I'm used to Day 1 starting somewhere on page 1 or 2. Not page 10.

Hi. I'm BM. I'm a little different to people you might have met before. I don't always do what everyone else does. I can be a bit wacky. I'm really sorry if you have such trouble with things being different, but it's the only way you can really learn in Mafia. But you still haven't answered my question. What did you mean by 'not alot of substance'? And no, i won't accept the "I get confused easily, and anything i don't understand doesn't count as participation'.

By "not a lot of substance" I mean "filler". And where on Earth did you get "anything I don't understand doesn't count as participation"? If I'm slandering you as you say I am, then you're slandering me back, and this is a lose-lose proposition unless we can settle our differences.

Those are two completely different things. I can give you 12 pages of filler, but if i have 12 pages of content to go with it, i still have alot of substance. You said the content i posted was confusing, which explains why you didn't read it, and you also indicated that this content 'didnt count'. You seem to be under the impression this is solely personal. It is partially, but you are acting scummy, and i never back down from an argument when i know i am right.

From now on I'm just going to ignore you when you say "I am right", because all you're accomplishing with me when you do so is coming of as a selfish and elitist son of a gun.

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

1 word. Actually, i'll make it even easier. 2 syllables:

PRE-GAME.

This is question dodging by means of

argumentum ad lapidem

.

Lol, long word! I'm impressed. In fact, i'm almost inclined to look it up.

Then do so.

Why should i do you the honour of taking your comments seriously when you cant even be bothered to respond to mine?

I am responding to your comments. If you feel that you're not getting the kind of responses you want or that I am ignoring your comments by talking about something that's not the point, then say so.

Were it not for the fact that...

THE QUESTION WAS NOT POSED TO ME IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO HOW THE HELL CAN YOU ACCUSE ME OF DODGING IT?

It may have been, but I was willing to allow anybody to answer.

Oh, gee, thanks! Ya kno, for lettin me play and stuff.
I must've missed the announcement that you were appointed Moderator....

The question was not directed to me, hence you cannot accuse me of avoiding it. By not acknowledging this, it is you who is avoiding the question. lawl

So be it.

Geez man, you need help. Seriously. The fact you can quote clever things shows you do have something going on in that head of yours. I just don't see why it can't be transferred to this game?

I'll explain my point a little more to help you out. You were the guy who said that participation in the pre-game was bad.

Find where I did so, because I remember making no such post.

Use the search posts by player tool, and read the first few posts you made. I dont have the time or inclination to bottle-feed you.

Oh, is this retaliation for me not doing favors for you?

Now, this is a million miles from a case of 'is quality better than quantity', because you are offering NEITHER. It's not like you have a leg to stand on when you attack me for lack of content, because even if only 1 word in each of my 73 posts was useful, and every single word you typed was awesomeness personified, you would still be inferior in terms of quality of posting. And sadly, this is far from the case.

Your question itself seems to be dodging the point in a humourous ironic twist.

Explain my posts not having quality. What do you think about my case on Snaps_the_Pirate, for example?

I'm not talking about since the game has started. I haven't even read past page 11, because there are still unanswered questions about that period. It was THEN that you criticised my lack of participation, and at that point, you had done F*All.

One, if you accused me of not reading, then it would look bad on you if you said you haven't read either, now wouldn't it?

Two, please do not cuss me out, whether you censor yourself or not. It's offensive.

You have already admitted that you:

A. Havent read the most important parts of the game so far.
B. Don't believe in participating unless absolutely necessary.
C. Voted for me solely based on OMGUS.

A. Large games are very hard for me to digest in one go.

Then dont pretend to be aware of whats going on, when you aren't. LaL is by no means a concrete rule, but if you lie about stuff with no protown motive, then you are going to look scummy. Plus it means you end up preaching bs, which makes you look really dumb.

C. You only call it OMGUS because you fail to understand my case on you.

rofl. Actually, i call it OMGUS because that's what you called it.

Fine then!

You really think i'm going to accept YOU telling me that my posts 'suck'?! Dream on kid.

Then prove they don't.

I've created discussion. You hadn't.

Note the verb forms here. You say you

HA

VE

created discussion, while I, on the other hand,

HA

D

NOT

done so. I'm sorry, but you are talking to someone who used to copy edit for his high school newspaper and you now have to convince me that your word usage does not create a straw man argument.

Again, you use the word 'case'. Where is the 'case'? I don't see it. You're scum who is barely paying attention.

Goddamn you, why are you so certain this early!? You seem to have made it your mission to get rid of me at all costs. I'm saving the rest of this paragraph for last, and we're almost at the end anyway.

You commit the scumtells, i call you out on them. Fairly mundane stuff.[/quote]
Sounds simple, actually.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

Stop ridiculing me.

NEVAR!

Get real. Seriously.

Blinded by OMGUS and panic, because you aren't in your comfort zone, and you are slipping up under interrogation, left, right, and centre.

Let's change the subject for just a moment so neither of us end up clawing at each other and winning nothing at the end. I will take a look at the other 24 players in this game and post my opinions of them based on their posts, and I want you to do the same thing. I think we've made it clear that we each think the other is scum, so don't do me and I won't do you.

Sounds good. Analysing everyone at this point is probably a good idea. But, i still want a separate post outlining your case on me. Just for the record.

BM

OK, fair deal.

[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.