Hopefully this will be the first of many confirm posts from me.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
BM
This is true. Good to see you're thinking! We could always become Nominal Masons. Meaning we work together, as a pair, in nailing these filthy scumbags. So, how about it?raider8169 wrote:Hmmm not so secret if we make it in open forum. Maybe no one will read and catch on.Battle Mage wrote:right, it's time to start signing secret treaties. Raider, what do you think?
BM
when i first read this, i was trying to picture a gay pheasant. roflKorts wrote:Dum dee dum dee dum. I'm just a queer swiss peasant. No need to look in this direction. Dum dee dum.
Alright, i'll draw something up.raider8169 wrote:Sounds like a plan, you vote for scum, I will vote for scum. They die we win!Battle Mage wrote:This is true. Good to see you're thinking! We could always become Nominal Masons. Meaning we work together, as a pair, in nailing these filthy scumbags. So, how about it?
BM
Ingenius? maybe.DynamoXI wrote:Thats an ingenius plan you have forming togetherraider8169 wrote:Sounds like a plan, you vote for scum, I will vote for scum. They die we win!Battle Mage wrote:This is true. Good to see you're thinking! We could always become Nominal Masons. Meaning we work together, as a pair, in nailing these filthy scumbags. So, how about it?
BM
Ok i admit it. I ROFL'dKorts wrote:I'm suspicious of any "pact". It smells too much like an informed minority. SCUMZ DIE NOW PACT IS SCUMZ! We shall not have a self-appointed bunch of leaders manipulating wagons! Let us rebel! Join me in the ANTI-TREATY COALITION!
yeh, erm...it's less funny when you break it into pieces like that.wolframnhart wrote:LoL so lets see... pact is scummy smelling... so we should join forces (form a pact?) to kill off people in a pact? LoLKorts wrote:I'm suspicious of any "pact". It smells too much like an informed minority. SCUMZ DIE NOW PACT IS SCUMZ! We shall not have a self-appointed bunch of leaders manipulating wagons! Let us rebel! Join me in the ANTI-TREATY COALITION!
Lol, i think we're all aware of that. That's why:MafiaMann wrote:BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.
It's the RANDOM stage. What exactly are you afraid of?Korts wrote:Seriously though BM, I think we should just let everyone make up their own minds. I don't want people following you
How about a merger? That way you dont have to worry about me being an evil swiss dictator, like so many before me.Korts wrote:Duh. Everyone who endorses individual thought should join under my flag and vote wherever I do!wolframnhart wrote:But we should follow you in the anti-treaty coalition?
BM, I'm just kidding, I'm actually interested how you'd handle this pact thing. (I'm just saying this so we don't get into this pre-game)
you mean...Swiss Camelot? >.>Cephrir wrote:That pact reminds me of certain games I've read involving Pooky.
/confirm. The delegation from Camelot has arrived. Not really, sadly.
^this.Battle Mage wrote:Lol, i think we're all aware of that. That's why:MafiaMann wrote:BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.
1. the group will be kept small.
2. there is no security agreement for people who have signed, therefore, nobody is safe.
3. New members will be handpicked carefully based on play. (obviously later on anyway)
Remember, the group itself isnt what i'm going for. It's what the group could give us insight-wise into people's play. I'd rather not have this over-analysed for all and sundry atm, so just give me the benefit of the doubt, mmk?
BM
Duh. That's an equally important part of the concept.OpposedForce wrote:You do realize that there's no way of knowing scum at all and even though your pact states not to trust anyone you'll be discussing with people who could be scum and have a chance to manipulate discussion.
You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?OpposedForce wrote:Let's say scum joins the treaty (which most likely they did) to blend in with the townies. The "pact" discusses what to do and who to lynch and if scum is there their going to push for lynches. The pact obviously isn't going to vote for another member of the pact unless they act extremely anti-town so scum can just blend in and not get voted by the other members of the pact. It's pretty much a safe cover for the scum in the pact.PeterGriffin wrote:OpposedForce, that seems a little extreme. Afterall, the treaty has an escape clause should any town-players think it scum-driven, so there doesn't seem to be that much incentive to not at least give it a shot. What exactly about joining the treaty itself do you believe to be scummy?OpposedForce wrote:Fos: anyone joining the pact
(Heh, it does feel like the game's started already.)
Lol, i'm sure you'll still somehow find an opportunity to kill me.farside22 wrote:Hi all. I'm the back up mod.
Geez 3 pages and this is just the confirmations. O_o
Oh BM is playing no wonder.
I don't recall us voting on applicants yet. As such it is just me, you, and a whole heap of people who want to join. I'd definitely like to see Wolframn in on this, so i'll vote in favour of him. While we dont have enough content to be anywhere near certain of anybody as protown, i think our best bet is to back active and willing people, for it is they who will be the greatest assets to the scheme. Who do you fancy?Korts wrote:That's four so far for the treaty. I think we should stop at 5 tops, BM.
Normally, in a merger, the 2 parties will construct a treaty together, or merge their existing treaties. I'm happy for any criticisms and amendments, but as there were none offered, i assumed Korts was ready to roll.earthworm wrote:I thought you merged, BM has you down here as a signatory.Battle Mage wrote: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'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)
I shouldnt need to convince you, if you have read the terms of the treaty. It's there in black and white, and you've been afforded opportunity to suggest amendments to any terms.Korts wrote:You know, BM, how flattered I am by your offer, I really am. But individual thought and freedom of suspicions I can't bear to be infringed by a treaty that encourages bandwagoning.
Convince me that there won't be any trust or mindless vote following involved, and I may reconsider.
What's funniest is, you don't see the obvious similarities between this treaty and an actual game of mafia. It's pretty accurate to think of this as a microcosm of the game, in terms of the town's objectives. With this in mind, you seem to be arguing against us PLAYING MAFIA, which is rather foolish, and...idiotic, imho. You also haven't really read the full treaty, as you've neglected to comment on the fact that signatories of the pact are no more safe from votes than non-signatories. The reason for which is fairly obvious. Sadly, you are looking out of 2-dimensional glasses, which is tainting the way you see it.OpposedForce wrote:Wow and you call my argument ridiculous.Battle Mage wrote:You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?OpposedForce wrote:Let's say scum joins the treaty (which most likely they did) to blend in with the townies. The "pact" discusses what to do and who to lynch and if scum is there their going to push for lynches. The pact obviously isn't going to vote for another member of the pact unless they act extremely anti-town so scum can just blend in and not get voted by the other members of the pact. It's pretty much a safe cover for the scum in the pact.PeterGriffin wrote:OpposedForce, that seems a little extreme. Afterall, the treaty has an escape clause should any town-players think it scum-driven, so there doesn't seem to be that much incentive to not at least give it a shot. What exactly about joining the treaty itself do you believe to be scummy?OpposedForce wrote:Fos: anyone joining the pact
(Heh, it does feel like the game's started already.)
You claim that the pact will be joined by scum. Therefore, the pact will constitute a foolproof method of finding scum. So what exactly are you arguing about?
You claim you want to find scum, and you admit that that is exactly what this pact will help you to do. I'm going to give you 1 shot to think about this, and then admit you are wrong. Otherwise, i will have to see this as scummy.
BM
The pact is obviously going to help scum blend in. The scum join in and everybody is discussing among the members and the scum can just manipulate among the others which puts them in safe ground. There is no "foolproof" method of finding scum within a group that you can't trust anyone in alignment. That kind of thinking is foolish and idiotic.
No. I'd vote for you on grounds of ridiculous logic. I have plenty of time for people who want to make fair comments and criticisms. But, i have no time for people who aren't paying attention, make half-assed judgements, and then get tunnel-visioned because they cant admit they are wrong. I've pointed out how stupid your original argument (that scum will hide within the bounds of the treaty) is, and i've yet to see you properly answer. So instead of attempting to bombard me with trash, how about you actually explain what i want you to explain.OpposedForce wrote:Also your going to vote me for disagreeing with the pact? Lol that's kind of obnoxious thinking that your pact is 100% and that I'm wrong for disagreeing with it. If you find me scummy for disagreeing then go ahead and think that because thinking like that will get you nowhere.
same thing, no?OpposedForce wrote:argh my mistake I meant to pin blame on me as being scum.Korts wrote:OF, I don't see BM threatening you with a vote.
Except it isn't. Please read the terms again if you were unclear.earthworm wrote: 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.
I'll make a mental note to buy you a t-shirt later on in the game. But, in all seriousness, i really don't see how you could think a signatories existence would be 'safe-guarded' when in reality, no such measure has even been hinted at. I'd say reactions to the treaty are a null-tell at this point. Obviously there is an incentive for scum to join, but because of this, WIFOM dictates that scum may NOT join, and could instead push for the lynch of a bunch of innocent townies who DID join.Earthworm wrote: 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
Sound familiar? You've just exhibited the same Mafia microcosm that Opposed Force did. Most people strung up in Mafia will be innocent. It's how the game works mathematically. Our aim then is to gauge reactions to the lynches. Admittedly scum will have the opportunity to tag along, but in this, you pretty much answer your own question. If scum tag along blindly to lynches, will this help us find out who is scum?Earthworm wrote: 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.
I doubt it will work out like that. But if the pact is small, it wont matter much anyway. Ooi, i'd like to point out that in the above paragraph you state that "smart scum wont defend their scumbuddies who are brought forwards" and yet earlier in the same post you indicated that having scum in the group would distort the outcome of the lynches.Earthworm wrote: 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.
please explain?Korts wrote:If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.
You clearly haven't heard of a little game called 'Mafia'. It's lots of fun, but the basic concept is, a few innocent people called 'townies' and a few guilty people called 'scumbags'. During the so-called 'Day Phase' these townies and scumbags must discuss TOGETHER in order to achieve their respective win conditions.OpposedForce wrote:I'm guessing you have no idea how bad of a concept that isBattle Mage wrote:Duh. That's an equally important part of the concept.OpposedForce wrote:You do realize that there's no way of knowing scum at all and even though your pact states not to trust anyone you'll be discussing with people who could be scum and have a chance to manipulate discussion.
BM
oh, i see. Yeh, i guess. Won't happen though. If for some reason the scum dont get me, i'm vig-meat for sure!Korts wrote:If you're scum yourself, you obviously won't have so big a chance of dying, no?Battle Mage wrote:please explain?Korts wrote:If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.
You still aren't reading. Lol!OpposedForce wrote:@Bm-
You've been nothing but close-minded in arguing against me. You state that the pact has a fool-proof method of finding scum and that you find my argument of scum hiding in the pact as trash. Instead of remarking how my argument is trash and how I'm wrong for arguing against the pact how about you look back and consider the possibilities of how scum would go into a pact like this.
reason?Untitled wrote:how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?
What response would you have expected? Or considered protown?Korts wrote:jumpy?Battle Mage wrote:reason?Untitled wrote:how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?
Did you know Armlx was in this game? Nope, me neither.Korts wrote:Pure torture. It's like a dozen BMs and armlxes. Walls of text ftwBM wrote: I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o
I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!
BM
LOL!OpposedForce wrote:Bullshit.Battle Mage wrote:But, what i don't see, is the view of Opposed Force and yourself, that people supporting the treaty are scum, and then him saying that the treaty is bad, when he is actually, by definition declaring that afoolproof(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.
Your trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that a foolproof (by the way you said that not me so that's even more bullshit saying that was me) scum hunting method was a bad idea. Your pact isn't even foolproof and thinking that is idiotic. There is no way in hell that there is a foolproof method of finding scum in a game variant like this especially since your pact method has so many holes in it. Your whole argument is stating that your method is foolproof and you don't see any flaws which is even more bullshit on your argument. Don't call my argument trash when you misunderstand and put words into my mouth.
Actually, that's theOpposedForce wrote: Also like earthworm said the scum in the pact will defend a scumbuddy and try to keep him out of suspicion by misleading the whole pact.
I don't understand the question.OpposedForce wrote:Also I don't understand the premise of the pact. Won't you be exluding the rest of the town or vote all together when you decide on a lynch? If that's the case then scum is on safe grounds to advocate a lynch.
Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.Untitled wrote:in short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.Battle Mage wrote:reason?Untitled wrote:how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?
I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o
I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!
BM
That's wonderful. No, really. I'm dancing on rainbows for you. [/sarcasm]Korts wrote:BM, one thing I don't want you doing is being condescending. OpposedForce is making pretty good arguments in my irrelevant opinion, and all you have to do is point out the plotholes, you don't have to add how gullible/stoopid/foolish he is etc.
I figured as much.Korts wrote:Any response would have evoked the same question, I just have the urge to throw shit at you >_>Battle Mage wrote: What response would you have expected? Or considered protown?
GOOD. AT LONG LAST YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMMENTING ON SOMETHING RELEVANT.OpposedForce wrote:Wow. Just wow.Battle Mage wrote:You still aren't reading. Lol!OpposedForce wrote:@Bm-
You've been nothing but close-minded in arguing against me. You state that the pact has a fool-proof method of finding scum and that you find my argument of scum hiding in the pact as trash. Instead of remarking how my argument is trash and how I'm wrong for arguing against the pact how about you look back and consider the possibilities of how scum would go into a pact like this.
Seriously man... 0.o
Before you go off in a tizz, at least read what has been said. For the record, i HAVEN'T said your argument of scum hiding in the pact is trash (although it is). What i am really REALLY cross about, is that you stated the following:
A. Scum will hide in the pact.
B. The Pact is bad.
When clearly, the 2 points directly contradict each other.
Now, this really IS your last chance to explain yourself. Because the game hasn't started yet, and already you're letting me down, and getting me irate.
Seriously. FORGET ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS, and FORGET GETTING PISSY AT ME. I dont actually care atm, until we can move past this point! Then perhaps, i can answer your questions, and we can get somewhere.
BM
Let me see where I can start off. Firstly you have stated that my argument is trash because your too close-minded on your pact method. Secondly how are the two points A.Scum will hide in the pact B. The pact is bad contradict themselves? They fit the whole argument becausescum hiding in the pact is bad.
I hope that knocks some sense into you...OpposedForce wrote:*slams own head repeatly on wall"Battle Mage wrote:LOL!OpposedForce wrote:Bullshit.Battle Mage wrote:But, what i don't see, is the view of Opposed Force and yourself, that people supporting the treaty are scum, and then him saying that the treaty is bad, when he is actually, by definition declaring that afoolproof(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.
Your trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that a foolproof (by the way you said that not me so that's even more bullshit saying that was me) scum hunting method was a bad idea. Your pact isn't even foolproof and thinking that is idiotic. There is no way in hell that there is a foolproof method of finding scum in a game variant like this especially since your pact method has so many holes in it. Your whole argument is stating that your method is foolproof and you don't see any flaws which is even more bullshit on your argument. Don't call my argument trash when you misunderstand and put words into my mouth.
Read post 128. And ftr, it was you who said the pact was a foolproof method of scumhunting. In my opinion it isn't. But, we aren't talking about me. I'm trying to help you learn something today.
BM
In post 128 I STATED YOU HAD SAID THAT IT WAS FOOLPROOF. IT'S EVEN IN POST 106 OF YOUR POST. READ THE THREAD.
I beg to differ. Certainly my good buddy Opposed Force seems to think so. And i believe the same is true of Earthworm, though he may feel free to correct me here. I think gauging reactions to something like this could potentially be very helpful. But, as with everything, you gotta try it first. If you don't like confrontation, and arguments make you nervous, Mafia probably isn't the game for you. I dont think this is the case though, given that you are keen to contribute to the argument yourself. So what exactly is your qualm with me?Untitled wrote:exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.Battle Mage wrote:Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.Untitled wrote:in short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.Battle Mage wrote:reason?Untitled wrote:how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?
I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o
I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!
BM
In case you hadn't noticed, we are still in the pre-game stage. But, if you can explain what you mean by 'annoying' and 'this crap', that'll help you, and me, alot.
BM
Actually, erm i didn't. The only time i ever used that term was in reference to your declared opinion.OpposedForce wrote:And this is where it all falls down on itself BM. Please for once listen because I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. You believe that the method is foolproof hell you even said that.Battle Mage wrote:GOOD. AT LONG LAST YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMMENTING ON SOMETHING RELEVANT.OpposedForce wrote:Wow. Just wow.Battle Mage wrote:You still aren't reading. Lol!OpposedForce wrote:@Bm-
You've been nothing but close-minded in arguing against me. You state that the pact has a fool-proof method of finding scum and that you find my argument of scum hiding in the pact as trash. Instead of remarking how my argument is trash and how I'm wrong for arguing against the pact how about you look back and consider the possibilities of how scum would go into a pact like this.
Seriously man... 0.o
Before you go off in a tizz, at least read what has been said. For the record, i HAVEN'T said your argument of scum hiding in the pact is trash (although it is). What i am really REALLY cross about, is that you stated the following:
A. Scum will hide in the pact.
B. The Pact is bad.
When clearly, the 2 points directly contradict each other.
Now, this really IS your last chance to explain yourself. Because the game hasn't started yet, and already you're letting me down, and getting me irate.
Seriously. FORGET ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS, and FORGET GETTING PISSY AT ME. I dont actually care atm, until we can move past this point! Then perhaps, i can answer your questions, and we can get somewhere.
BM
Let me see where I can start off. Firstly you have stated that my argument is trash because your too close-minded on your pact method. Secondly how are the two points A.Scum will hide in the pact B. The pact is bad contradict themselves? They fit the whole argument becausescum hiding in the pact is bad.![]()
Let me explain 1 more time, because i'm happy we are finally getting somewhere. You originally stated that all scum would flock to the pact because it offers them sanctity. Or, it appears to. The fact is, it DOESN'T. But that's besides the point. In stating that the pact would be a Scum-Magnet, you emphasise that in fact, the pact DOES help find scum, because in YOUR opinion, people joining the pact are very likely scum, or at least, scummy. This is what i mean by you stating that the pact is a foolproof scumhunting method, because in YOUR opinion, NOT MINE, there is a discernibly scummy reaction, and a discernibly protown reaction.
Guess what, kiddo? If we can differentiate between scum and town within the first few pages of the game, we've won. Now, can you really tell me that a pact which seals us the game is 'bad for the town'?![]()
BM
*btw, nice sarcasm tags. I wouldve responded to the rest of your post, but as i said to Korts, there isn't alot of point. I'm not babysitting for free. I honestly feel like i'm talking to somebody who has read the mafia wiki, and thinks that they know everything, but is missing 1 relatively important aspect of Mafia. Reading. xD
I never actually said that. If i had, it would be pretty dumb, but you seem to be making this up as you go along!Opposed Force wrote:You are thinking that scum won't come into the pact which is where your argument falls down on itself because your not considering on any flaws in the pact.
You did actually say earlier on that scum would flock to the pact as if it was sanctuary. Your buddy Earthworm said the same thing. Which is why i say that, you have declared that the pact is a good scumhunting method-because clearly, joining it is a scumtell. I will note for the purposes of clarity, that Earthworm does not fall into this second category, as he acknowledged that it was to some extent a town-tell too, and hence, null.Opposed Force wrote: And no I don't find everybody joining the pact scummy. Yes I did Finger of Suspicion anybody going into the pact because people where just going in not thinking about the flaws so I at least wanted some discussion before considering going into the pact blindly believing that it's a good scum catching method
This doesnt even come into the REALMS of Mafia-knowledge. This is you being very slow to understand simple logical chains of thought. I'm sorry if i sounded condescending, but there's nothing more irritating than somebody not understanding something that is so simple. I'm sure, from your perspective, you feel that way about me right now.Opposed Force wrote: I've already stated why the pact is bad and if you bothered to read back on my posts maybe you'll learn something.
And no I don't know everything about mafia but I know your argument against me is one sided and close-minded
yep, it's just a different way of doing it. And it certainly picks up discussion! I'll have to try this in other games.MafiaMann wrote:I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.
This is why i love you!Korts wrote:OF, let me explain it without the unnecessary BS.
Scum will try to hide in the Pact. Therefore the Pact isn't a bad tool for scumhunting, since the scum will try to be inside. QED the points that A) scum will hide in the Pact and B) the Pact is detrimental to scumhunting are contradictory.
That can happen in the game anyway. It's how Mafia works. You gotta keep an eye on the scum, because, surprising as it may sound, they MAY mislead you!OpposedForce wrote:I see where your coming from however I just don't see why we can't just have all the players without a specific pact discuss among ourselves like a normal mafia game. While people in the pact will be scum hunting they'll also be discussing among themselves (I suppose like a mason group in the day except with risks) and so scum has an oppurtunity to just mislead them while they discuss among themselves. I just don't see why there has to be an unnesscary risk of scum ruining discussion within a pact and just play the game normally where scum won't influence specific individuals (now before anyone attacks me yes scum will still try to maniuplate the game even without the pact but within the pact there is a smaller group to maniuplate and mislead them.)Korts wrote:OF, let me explain it without the unnecessary BS.
Scum will try to hide in the Pact. Therefore the Pact isn't a bad tool for scumhunting, since the scum will try to be inside. QED the points that A) scum will hide in the Pact and B) the Pact is detrimental to scumhunting are contradictory.
*facepalm*OpposedForce wrote:@BM-
Read your own post. You said that scum wouldn't flock to the pact. Now your just contradicting yourself completely. Your whole argument has been trying to prove that it's fail proof and if you check back in your posts and read you've been trying to prove that which makes the whole argument close-minded because your not considering anything else besides thinking the pact is fail proof.
OMFG.Opposed Force wrote: I'm slow in understanding logic? Well look who's the hypocrite on this one. I never stated that the pact was a good scum hunting method.
Did you forget what Korts said already?Opposed Force wrote: Now your just grasping at nothing. My play is vastly hypocritical for supporting the pact even though I never did? Wow. Nice to slide in false evidence there. Can confirmation stage end so I can vote for BM XD
did u miss the bit in bold?OpposedForce wrote:So what's the difference between making a pact and not making a pact? All the reasons you just given can apply to just playing the game normally without a pact. I may be misunderstanding this but care to elaborate a bit.Battle Mage wrote:That can happen in the game anyway. It's how Mafia works. You gotta keep an eye on the scum, because, surprising as it may sound, they MAY mislead you!OpposedForce wrote:I see where your coming from however I just don't see why we can't just have all the players without a specific pact discuss among ourselves like a normal mafia game. While people in the pact will be scum hunting they'll also be discussing among themselves (I suppose like a mason group in the day except with risks) and so scum has an oppurtunity to just mislead them while they discuss among themselves. I just don't see why there has to be an unnesscary risk of scum ruining discussion within a pact and just play the game normally where scum won't influence specific individuals (now before anyone attacks me yes scum will still try to maniuplate the game even without the pact but within the pact there is a smaller group to maniuplate and mislead them.)Korts wrote:OF, let me explain it without the unnecessary BS.
Scum will try to hide in the Pact. Therefore the Pact isn't a bad tool for scumhunting, since the scum will try to be inside. QED the points that A) scum will hide in the Pact and B) the Pact is detrimental to scumhunting are contradictory.
I think the concept of a small group within a groupputs people in the limelight, invokes discussion and forces people to take a stance. Whether or not the pact itself achieves anything more isnt relevant. The fact is, it is very hard to manipulate, if you give townies due credit, and if you DON'T give townies due credit, i'm sure they'd find a way to screw it up anyway!
BM
Untitled wrote:/confirm
wtf, 4 pages and we're still in confirms? do I need to read any of the above?
Untitled wrote:ok, if the posts after mine are any indication then I don't need to read back. somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game.
Untitled, these are your first 3 posts in this game. You claim i have not responded to your comments, but in reality, YOU HAVE NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS that require any sort of response from me. All you've done this game, literally, is whinge. The only difference is, since i came along, you seem to have found somebody specific to direct your whinging at, rather than the entire playerlist.Untitled wrote:how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?
we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?Korts wrote:HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...
At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lolKorts wrote:Basically, though, it comes down to this, in full honesty. I'm against any form of "trust" without basis. Masons, Neighbours I understand, since their role demands some degree of trust towards their partner; but an ad hoc clique of unconfirmeds I do not like, and having a code of sorts to vote together seems to me like an excuse to bandwagon.
Join the COALITION, everyone! We represent freedom of vote and freedom of suspicions! No hierarchy, no trust, just a stance opposite the Pact.
100% spot on. What a legend you are!PeterGriffin wrote:Except that if you're joining with no reasoning, (Like Dynamo and to a lesser extent Cephrir), the other members of the treaty are (Or should, at least) going to put those people under more scrutiny than they would otherwise recieve early in the game. In most cases, all the people of the town are equal at the very beginning of the game. In this case however, we have a group of people that are voting as a pack and therefore have more voting power, so there's definately going to be more pressure on them than most likely there would be if they stayed off the treaty, or if the treaty didn't exist in the first place.earthworm wrote: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.
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?earthworm wrote: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,
Not to mention, players who are in the pact can still be lynched by their comrades.Peter Griffin wrote: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.earthworm wrote: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.
i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?Peter Griffin wrote: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.earthworm wrote: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.
Yes, it will be much more difficult to analyze voting patterns. That is one part of the treaty than as of yet I admittedly dislike. However, in my opinion there should still be reasoning and cases by the players, especially the one that's starting the bandwagon.earthworm wrote:Conclusive evidence will be hard to find on any scum too, because they'll have identical voting patterns to the rest of the pact,
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.earthworm wrote: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.
I might as well give my opinion on the treaty while I'm making this post. I think that it could work, but will only be effective as the alignments of the players on it. It could be rather difficult to avoid scum manipulaton, so I want assurance that that is being taken care of before I feel that I would honestly support it. I just find the arguments used against it so far rather lacking, although I do agree with Korts point that trust without basis IS supported in the treaty, and I do dislike it. I am not supporting this treaty, but other than Kort's point regarding trust, I'm not particularly against it at the moment either.
He's made 5 posts. How hard can it be? 0.oKorts wrote:Haha, semi-.Battle Mage wrote:At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lolKorts wrote:Basically, though, it comes down to this, in full honesty. I'm against any form of "trust" without basis. Masons, Neighbours I understand, since their role demands some degree of trust towards their partner; but an ad hoc clique of unconfirmeds I do not like, and having a code of sorts to vote together seems to me like an excuse to bandwagon.
Join the COALITION, everyone! We represent freedom of vote and freedom of suspicions! No hierarchy, no trust, just a stance opposite the Pact.
BM
I think you're blowing it out of proportion, since after his first three posts, he actually said some things. I'll need to read him properly, though, to be able to evaluate whether he's been misleading us/lying about himself.Battle Mage wrote:we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?Korts wrote:HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...
BM
I dont think either of those 2 posts are valid, because i'm asking why his stance was Anti-BM in the first place, and both those posts were madeKorts wrote:Untitled wrote:in short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.Battle Mage wrote:reason?Untitled wrote:how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?
I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o
I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!
BMIn these two posts, BM, Untitled raises some points. In all honesty, you do reply to them, contrary to his statement that you don't, but I think that your posting style may be misleading him >_>Untitled wrote:exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.Battle Mage wrote:Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.Untitled wrote:in short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.Battle Mage wrote:reason?Untitled wrote:how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?
I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o
I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!
BM
In case you hadn't noticed, we are still in the pre-game stage. But, if you can explain what you mean by 'annoying' and 'this crap', that'll help you, and me, alot.
BM
Gee, i'll sleep safer in my bed tonight...Korts wrote:lol I'm not suicidal, you know. PBPA? It's only confirmation stage and you're already over fifty (!) posts...
Overall, I'd say you should be followed closely because of this pact, but you haven't been scummy per se. I'm just sayin', Untitled calling you "annoying" isn't a tell either way. Him threatening you with a vote for it is, however worth note, and I did note it. It's safely tucked away in a txt file.
so you see my suggestion of the concept as scummy?Korts wrote:Haha
I suppose I'm just wary of anything that involves any amount of baseless trust, which the voting clause basically implies. You especially should be watched because you proposed it.
I see you as kinda non-commital, sitting on the fence atm. Not really committing to concrete opinions, in order to avoid offending anyone. I know it's early days, but you clearly have more opinions than you are currently revealing, so i want to see them out in the open.Korts wrote:why are you trying to paint this black and white?Battle Mage wrote:so you see my suggestion of the concept as scummy?Korts wrote:Haha
I suppose I'm just wary of anything that involves any amount of baseless trust, which the voting clause basically implies. You especially should be watched because you proposed it.
BM
Lol, it's gonna be tough to beat my record in Return of the Mafia. I posted so much there that i broke the 'view posts by' tool.Cass wrote:Four to go. As far as I can see, we're waiting for Armlx, Veronica, Cyberbob & Winterbells.
@BM: over fifty posts before the game even starts... are you trying to set a record here?? (You probably already have...)