Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Battle Mage]

confirm.

Hopefully this will be the first of many confirm posts from me.

BM

[Battle Mage]

wait. The Mood of the game is best suited by...Brown? 0.o lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

right, it's time to start signing secret treaties. Raider, what do you think?

BM

[Battle Mage]

right, it's time to start signing secret treaties. Raider, what do you think?

BM

Hmmm not so secret if we make it in open forum. Maybe no one will read and catch on.

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

[Battle Mage]

Dum dee dum dee dum. I'm just a queer swiss peasant. No need to look in this direction. Dum dee dum.

when i first read this, i was trying to picture a gay pheasant. rofl

[Battle Mage]

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

Sounds like a plan, you vote for scum, I will vote for scum. They die we win!

Alright, i'll draw something up.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

Sounds like a plan, you vote for scum, I will vote for scum. They die we win!

Thats an ingenius plan you have forming together

Ingenius? maybe.

Protown? definitely!

You want in?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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:

^Thats my first draft. Thoughts, comments?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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!

Ok i admit it. I ROFL'd

I think we should get this signed as soon as possible. Preferably before Armlx gets here. By the way, this is only PARTLY a joke. I do actually think it could prove quite insightful.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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 so lets see... pact is scummy smelling... so we should join forces (form a pact?) to kill off people in a pact? LoL

yeh, erm...it's less funny when you break it into pieces like that.

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.

Lol, i think we're all aware of that. That's why:

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

[Battle Mage]

Seriously though BM, I think we should just let everyone make up their own minds. I don't want people following you

It's the RANDOM stage. What exactly are you afraid of?

BM
Attacker of hypocrites and wusses.

[Battle Mage]

But we should follow you in the anti-treaty coalition?

Duh. Everyone who endorses individual thought should join under my flag and vote wherever I do!

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)

How about a merger? That way you dont have to worry about me being an evil swiss dictator, like so many before me.

BM

[Battle Mage]

That pact reminds me of certain games I've read involving Pooky.

/confirm. The delegation from Camelot has arrived. Not really, sadly.

you mean...Swiss Camelot? >.>

FoS: Cephrir

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.

Lol, i think we're all aware of that. That's why:

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

^this.

[Battle Mage]

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

[Battle Mage]

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.

Duh. That's an equally important part of the concept.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Fos: anyone joining the pact

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?

(Heh, it does feel like the game's started already.)

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.

You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?

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

[Battle Mage]

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.

Lol, i'm sure you'll still somehow find an opportunity to kill me.

But seriously, this is quickly becoming my favourite game. And as i'm well aware, i always die pretty quickly in games i enjoy, so i'm gonna damn well make the most of Day 1!

BM

[Battle Mage]

That's four so far for the treaty. I think we should stop at 5 tops, BM.

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?

Also, ROFL at post 74. I love you!

BM

[Battle Mage]

Scumz Die Now Pact

Preamble

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

Consultation

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

Entry/Departure

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

Signed:
Battle Mage
Korts

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

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

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.

BM

As fo your final point, you really felt that was worth saying?? 0.o

[Battle Mage]

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.

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.

Simply put, i'm not selling myself to you.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Fos: anyone joining the pact

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?

(Heh, it does feel like the game's started already.)

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.

You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?

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

Wow and you call my argument ridiculous.

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.

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.

With the silver medal of humorousness, is the fact that you originally claimed that the group would be ridden with scum, and now have completely backtracked on this.

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.

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.

Thanks,
BM

[Battle Mage]

OF, I don't see BM threatening you with a vote.

argh my mistake I meant to pin blame on me as being scum.

same thing, no?

I wouldnt vote at this stage anyway, given the game hasn't started. This is just giving everyone a taster. But i definitely feel your stance was scummy, and i'm waiting to see whether you will recompose yourself and fix your position, or you will continue to fight for something completely nonsensical for a townie. If you choose the latter, be under no pretence that i will not string you up.

BM

@Korts- Career? Lol, i wont survive Night 1, you can bet your (or my) ass on it. Scum REALLY hate people who are un-predictable and spontaneous, so i'm asking for a stabbing here.

[Battle Mage]

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.

Except it isn't. Please read the terms again if you were unclear.

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

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.

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 a

foolproof

(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.

Do you see what i'm saying?

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.

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?

To which the answer, is of course, yes.

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.

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.

BM

[Battle Mage]

If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.

please explain?

[Battle Mage]

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.

Duh. That's an equally important part of the concept.

BM

I'm guessing you have no idea how bad of a concept that is

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.

What you are arguing against, is us playing 'Mafia'. 'Scumbags' are always going to have the chance to manipulate discussion, but this way, the spotlight is on them, and we can force them to give opinions and make mistakes. We'll be watching them like hawks. Does that scare you?

BM

[Battle Mage]

If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.

please explain?

If you're scum yourself, you obviously won't have so big a chance of dying, no?

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!

BM

[Battle Mage]

@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.

You still aren't reading. Lol!
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

[Battle Mage]

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

reason?

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

[Battle Mage]

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

reason?

jumpy?

What response would you have expected? Or considered protown?

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

Pure torture. It's like a dozen BMs and armlxes. Walls of text ftw

Did you know Armlx was in this game? Nope, me neither.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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 a

foolproof

(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.

Bullshit.

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.

LOL!

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

[Battle Mage]

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.

Actually, that's the

exact polar opposite

of what Earthworm said. Literally. Word for word. ROFL.

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.

I don't understand the question.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

reason?

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 short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.

Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.
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

[Battle Mage]

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.

That's wonderful. No, really. I'm dancing on rainbows for you. [/sarcasm]

I've asked him a question. I'm not even going to go into any further discussion with him, until we can move past that. Because, when he has a grip on what is actually being said, most of what he is saying won't be applicable.

BM

[Battle Mage]

What response would you have expected? Or considered protown?

Any response would have evoked the same question, I just have the urge to throw shit at you >_>

I figured as much.

And THIS is why i won't survive to Day 2.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@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.

You still aren't reading. Lol!
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

Wow. Just wow.

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 because

scum hiding in the pact is bad.

GOOD. AT LONG LAST YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMMENTING ON SOMETHING RELEVANT.

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

[Battle Mage]

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 a

foolproof

(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.

Bullshit.

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.

LOL!

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

*slams own head repeatly on wall"

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 hope that knocks some sense into you...

Now, would you care to read my latest post?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

reason?

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 short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.

Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.
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

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.

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?
You've gotta have a sense of humour with this game. If it's a choice between having a chuckle, or punching the monitor, which do you think is more mature?

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?

BM

[Battle Mage]

@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.

You still aren't reading. Lol!
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

Wow. Just wow.

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 because

scum hiding in the pact is bad.

GOOD. AT LONG LAST YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMMENTING ON SOMETHING RELEVANT.

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

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.

Actually, erm i didn't. The only time i ever used that term was in reference to your declared opinion.

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.

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!
Nor did i ever make any suggestion that the pact was perfect. If i thought that, then you can probably ascertain that i wouldnt be welcoming and ASKING for criticisms and ways to improve it.

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

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.

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

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.
My original point was, you gave a personal opinion that the pact was a good scumhunting method, therefore you ought to be in favour of it, (but ofc, not in favour of those joining it). Which is why i see your play as vastly hypocritical. PLEASE tell me you understand what i am saying, so we can move on. And ideally, come to a decision. Is joining the pact inherently scummy, or is the pact a bad idea? Because you can't have it both ways...

BM

[Battle Mage]

I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.

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.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

This is why i love you! <3
If only i was gay, and you weren't so ugly....



BM

[Battle Mage]

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 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.)

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!
I think the concept of a small group within a group puts 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

[Battle Mage]

rofl

[Battle Mage]

@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.

*facepalm*

I'm not contradicting myself atall. YOU said the plan was fool-proof. Not me. YOU said scum would flock to the pact. Not me. Neither of those views are mine, but both have been indicated by you. But you seem to have got it into your head that we switched roles somehow. Why is this?

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.

OMFG.
You understood it perfectly when Korts said it, and you admitted how your stance was completely inconsistent. Suddenly when i say it, you backtrack completely and play dumb. What the hell, dude? You'd better pray to god that nobody bothers to read this...

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 you forget what Korts said already?

I reckon i might be the first guy to be lynched before the end of the confirmation stage. rofl.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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 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.)

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!
I think the concept of a small group within a group

puts 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

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.

did u miss the bit in bold?

BM

[Battle Mage]

/confirm

wtf, 4 pages and we're still in confirms? do I need to read any of the above?

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.

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

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.

HoS: Untitled

until such a time as you buck your ideas up, or adequately explain outright lying.

BM

[Battle Mage]

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

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.

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,

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?

100% spot on. What a legend you are!

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.

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.

Not to mention, players who are in the pact can still be lynched by their comrades.

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.

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.

Conclusive evidence will be hard to find on any scum too, because they'll have identical voting patterns to the rest of the pact,

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.

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.

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.

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.

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lol

BM

Haha, semi-.

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?

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.

He's made 5 posts. How hard can it be? 0.o
The fact is, he had made 2 posts prior to his 'lets kill BM campaign'. When pressed hard for a reason, he declared it was annoyance at me not responding to his comments. Read those first 2 posts and then tell me that there's not something substantial amiss here.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

reason?

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 short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.

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

reason?

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 short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.

Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.
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

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.

In 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 >_>

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 made

after

this stance was declared. If those posts were the ones he is referring to, firstly, i have responded to them both IN FULL, and secondly, i STILL await his reason behind attacking me in the first place, since posts which happened later are not a valid excuse.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Thanks for the comments Cephrir. It's a relief to see that some people are seeing where i'm coming from.

Korts, has anyone ever told you, you are too soft?

BM

[Battle Mage]

do you think Untitled's attack on me is justified?

BM

[Battle Mage]

would you like to pbpa me so far? Or at least, give some indication of how scummy you feel i have been?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

Gee, i'll sleep safer in my bed tonight...

Thanks officer Korts! Which ironically, is where i'll next be seeing you if this goes tits up.

Why do you think i should be followed closely for this pact?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

so you see my suggestion of the concept as scummy?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

so you see my suggestion of the concept as scummy?

BM

why are you trying to paint this black and white?

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.

Please answer the question. It's not like either of us have anything better to do. lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

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...)

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.
Armlx can vouch for that. Because he wasn't far behind.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

so you see my suggestion of the concept as scummy?

BM

why are you trying to paint this black and white?

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.

Please answer the question. It's not like either of us have anything better to do. lol

BM

Yeah I look like I'm on the fence about things because I am. The only thing I feel strongly about is that I won't be joining this pact unless I see it work and not be detrimental. In theory, it could go both ways, and I'm interested to see what happens. And I can see your motivation to propose this pact both as BM-town and BM-scum, and it is much more dangerous potentially if the latter is the case.

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

BM

[Battle Mage]

Has the confirmation stage ever stretched to eight or more pages before? This is making me curious.

Not sure. Shall we bloat it out with some random FoS'ing?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Has the confirmation stage ever stretched to eight or more pages before? This is making me curious.

Not sure. Shall we bloat it out with some random FoS'ing?

BM

Sure! Why not?

FoS: Everybody

.

Aren't you terrified of OMGUS right about now?

[Battle Mage]

Has the confirmation stage ever stretched to eight or more pages before? This is making me curious.

Not sure. Shall we bloat it out with some random FoS'ing?

BM

Sure! Why not?

FoS: Everybody

.

Aren't you terrified of OMGUS right about now?

It was sarcasm anyway.

I just rofl'd at the fact that atm, this game is the most active in the New York Forum.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

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

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

I had hope. It just gradually faded away as we broke what could've been a great ploy, into something so transparent that it would have very little chance of being successful. It's the way it goes. I really don't see the merit in pushing it any further, when it has been dragged out for so long. This is the exact reason i support spontaneity in towns, and why i wanted a voting block in the first place. If people are too afraid to make a small risk in order to gain a massive reward, then we miss alot of great opportunities to really take the game in our hands.

BM

[Battle Mage]

maybe the pact thingie could be saved for later... when we form some opinions about each other... if the pact is controlled better it could really work and help at scumhunting

(btw i will be out of town the next three days, the last time when i would check the forum would be tomorrow morning probably... i think i'll return wednesday)

No, i don't think so. Another time, another place. Another GAME. But i'm happy to say that this was not a wasted exercise- and we haven't left the random stage yet, so it's not like we've even lost TIME.

BM

[Battle Mage]

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game."

While i think about it, it also exhibits a willingness to lynch, as a priority over discussion. Which is scummy.

At the moment however, there's another player that's bugging me even more.

I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.

MafiaMann, here are your other two posts.

BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.

/confirm

The first post provides no content, the second comments on the treaty, which you dismiss as "useless" in your third post. Therefore, you shouldn't be commenting on scumhunting, considering that not only is
A. The discussion and reaction towards the treaty likely going to help us catch scum,
B. If scum were on the treaty, their behavior on it could have helped us catch scum.

The treaty is an important issue, and you simply,

like other players

, make an attempt to stifle the current discussion by saying that we should be "scumhunting", when you haven't even put out the energy to scumhunt yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Major FOS: MafiaMann

Your points here are completely valid. But, i'm not totally convinced, partly because of the part highlighted by me, in italics. MafiaMann is not the only player not really contributing at this point, and i dont find his posts ESPECIALLY scummy. The worst thing is that he is blatantly paddling easier answers, but again, he is not the only one to do this.
One to watch? definitely. One to focus on specifically atm? probably not.

Also, Peter (do you mind if i abbreviated your name to that?) - how many other games are you currently in, in the New York Forum?

BM

[Battle Mage]

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game.", although, to be fair, a lot of the first three pages was just a couple people arguing about the treaty. Then he randomly states that he wishes to vote for Battle Mage, somebody he hadn't even commented on earlier in the game. When pressed for reasoning, he simply says that you're annoying and will be a distraction, which isn't really particularly good reason to vote somebody, even this early in the game. We need to be lynching the scummy people, not the annoying ones.

Untitled then says that you aren't responding to his points, which seems to be totally untrue to me, considering that in his post he

quoted the response where you responded to his argument.

Now, is it possible that he was confused by the post and thought that you didn't respond to his points? Yes. Do I find it likely, not really. Seems like a potentially legitimate scumtell, and I'd reccomend keeping an eye on him.

well he obviously fooled you. for one thing, I said that he'd be a detriment to scumhunting if he continued to act this way once the game started, and he responded as if I'd said that he'd been a detriment to scumhunting already.

That was a joke, because, even though it's early days, i think so far, i've been the most keenly participating player. I'm getting discussion going, and guess what, it's working. You haven't explained your views atall, and seem to think that because you say something, it is true, and everybody stops and pays you heed. It doesn't work like that. You can't just say somebody will be a detriment to the town, and consider it a scumtell. God knows, i could say the same thing about Armlx and Nhat. But if i'm honest, they are both competent players, and will both be valuable to the game. I'll certainly give them a chance before i condemn them. And i WON'T see them lynched because i dont always get on well with them.
As far as i'm concerned, the game HAS started. Am i being a detriment yet? No? Please explain yourself further.

also, he passed off laughing at getting people riled as simply having a sense of humour, when my point was that he seemed to be doing it deliberately for his own amusement.

It's comments like this, that i either laugh at, or get irate about. But, as you have a problem with me trying to ENJOY a game, i'll try the other approach. Simply put, when people make stupid arguments with me, I get irate too. Why do you not take this into consideration? Because you don't actually care about how i feel, and unsurprisingly, the feeling is mutual. Bringing personal feeling into the game is pointless, and you certainly can't apply it to one side and not the other. BUT, if getting people riled up invokes reactions, which it often will, then it is a GOOD thing. I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

his response was close enough to my point to pass a cursory inspection, but it was slanted to present a viewpoint that favoured him.

I dont really understand this. Can you put it into different words?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Ok, i just wondered. Because, one of the benefits of having no life, and watching this game all day, is that i can see when people are online and viewing the thread. And i noticed you on ALOT, without posting. Of course, reading quietly isn't a crime. Just thought i'd mention it, to set a precedent.

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.

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.

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?

[quote-"Untitled"]

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.[/quote]

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?

BM

[Battle Mage]

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?

Don't mock! I think it's really sweet that she's so considerate of our gracious root admin Mith. I might even reccommend her as a mod. So, NOBLE!

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

[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

[Battle Mage]

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.

Woah, dude, don't get pissy because you aren't the only one who is allowed to post alot. That said, this reaction is pretty standard from Armlx.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

why?

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?

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".

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

[Battle Mage]

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.

All i can gather from your early posts is that you are unwilling to participate unless absolutely necessary. Then, are you surprised i find it a tad hypocritical when i get accused BY YOU of not providing content. 0.o

Yeh, it's too much. Looks like i'm gonna blow ma load, eh Armlx!

unvote, Vote: Strangercoug

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

I'm reminded of one of Stoofer's laws here.

Grow Up.

[Battle Mage]

BM, I disagree that the pre-game thing is a reason to not contribute here, but I didn't feel your posts were not contributing, and EA already burned SC on the no content thing.

So do i. I'm merely pointing out that this view is NOT shared by SC.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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'.

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
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.

Another point i will make is that it is typically scum who look at games as simply as to say 'i believe 1 side over the other'. It's normally townies who actually look at the content and can differentiate between the two. This is mainly because townies actually care about who they lynch and for what reason, whereas scum just want to pick the winning side of the argument and cruise to the end.

You just lost the 'Convince the BM' Battle. And we both know what comes next.

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.

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'.

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!

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.

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'.

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. 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?

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. 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.
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.

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

All i can gather from your early posts is that you are unwilling to participate unless absolutely necessary.

What the hell!? "Unwilling"? When I've said over and over that I'm NOT USED TO DISCUSSION IN THE PRE-GAME, which is why I tried to stop it!?

Unvote: Snaps_the_Pirate
Vote: Battle Mage

for continuous misrepresentation of my case.

I'm directly referencing your earliest posts. Whether or not you are 'used' to discussion in pre-game is irrelevant. It is inherently protown to discuss as much as possible, and you argued against this, despite claiming not to really understand what was going on.

Again, you use the word 'case'. Where is the 'case'? I don't see it. You're scum who is barely paying attention. Blinded by OMGUS and panic, because you aren't in your comfort zone, and you are slipping up under interrogation, left, right, and centre.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

Another point i will make is that it is typically scum who look at games as simply as to say 'i believe 1 side over the other'. It's normally townies who actually look at the content and can differentiate between the two. This is mainly because townies actually care about who they lynch and for what reason, whereas scum just want to pick the winning side of the argument and cruise to the end.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

[Battle Mage]

Post twenty-five- the pact my concern is he says that you can only be allowed in by a unanimous vote than continues to just let people in.

Except i don't. That was Korts. At no point did i allow people in officially, and when i finally got to the thread, i emphasised that we would have to vote before people were allowed in.

Post twenty eight- starts talking to Korts bout joining forces: At this point I think BM has took it too far and too many people are involved.

You mean...2? rofl

Post thirty two- I express my concern that pact can shelter scum. BM says pact will be kept small: I still think its too big. Pact members are not safe from other pact members. And again he says more members would be handpicked later on.: What happened to this,

2 people is too big? And in fact, Korts claimed he never officially joined, so the pact never actually had ANY official members. The idea of the pact is to provide the illusion that it can shelter scum, scum then join, and we can assess their play much more than if they were allowed to hide in the shadows.

Post thirty four- Korts expressing their concern that this will cause too much of a mob mentality. BM shrugs off the question really.

There wasn't a question. Korts was worried about whether he could trust me, i said there was little risk because at this stage of the game (pre-random stage) it wasnt as if we were actually going to start rushing through lynches. I should note though, that i do genuinely believe that towns suffer due to lack of united action, and this was probably what led me to come up with the pact idea in the first place. The rest of the benefits were realised later.

Post thirty seven- BM asks for a merger with Korts. Making a pact with IMO too many larger.

I seem to get the impression you are basing the entirety of your misgivings upon an excess of members which do not exist. Please feel free to read again and point out where any member other than Korts was given the unanimous vote (which at that time, was only ME) and allowed into the pact.

Fourty two- I am worried how BM is jokingly throwing an fos at Cephir can cause confusion

It's the random stage. And it was funny to think that Cephrir might have slipped on the locations

Fourty four- reposts the scumz die now pact with his and Korts name added What happened to dynamo.

I dont know. What gave you the impression he would have been admitted?

Fourty seven- opposed raises a very good point once more BM shrugs the question off

Let me just refresh everyone's memory. Opposed's point was 'you will be discussing with scum who might manipulate discussion'. Which, as i pointed out at the time, is exactly what a mafia game IS. If i appeared to shrug off the question, it may have been because i felt it was too retarded for words. Until you understand the concept, it is pretty useless to raise points against it. Of course there is a possibility scum will be involved, and will manipulate things. THAT'S HOW WE CATCH THEM. You dont catch scum without them doing anything scummy, do you? -.-

106- BM sounds annoyed with opposed and makes things more complicated than they should be IMO

I hate blind stupidity. Whether i made it complicated or not, the fact remains that i was right, and he was wrong.

107- commenting on how he wont lat long in the game

The first bit was a private joke with Farside. The second was a general joke based on a recent trend of mine.

108- BM tells kort hold up and says he would like wolframheart in: Finally BM is doing what he said he would good job.

The only reason i hadn't done before, is because I WASN'T THERE.
Even i sleep sometimes..

117- attacks opposed logic. Im beginning to lean towards opposed side because im not liking BMs reasoning it seems like he is making things more complicated.

I've already addressed this above. Complicated or not, Opposed was annoying as hell, and was refusing to answer legitimate concerns.

118- says he thinks opposed is scummy This whole thing kind of looks like a big OMGUS.

If it looks like 'a big OMGUS', you clearly haven't read the content which was posted.

125- says his pact is playing mafia and by attacking the pact you are attacking the game I disagree mafia is not anything like the pact.

Please explain what you mean.

128- goes off on how opposed is being irrational and this whole thing is wrong Im still think opposed is on the right track.

How did you feel when Opposed admitted he was on the wrong track to Korts?

144- says people in the pact are scum basically not making much sense to me

That was Opposed. I was merely relaying his point.

161- BM goes after opposeds argument. As he is getting annoyed his arguments seem worse.

How so?

167- So much multi posting Says peter griffin is playing well; yet again says people in pact not safe from pact

Do you feel that the way my stance on the pact has been totally consistent throughout is scummy, or protown?

180- asks korts why the pact makes him suspect BM you are placing yourself right in the middle of everything how can you not be suspect.

Because i havent done anything SCUMMY. Being in the limelight doesnt make you scummy. It just means you are discussed. The bottom line is, when my play is analysed like this, it brings home how totally protown i am.

182- still trying to find why Korts thinks hes scummy

Notice that Korts claimed i was 'scummy' but didnt give any reasons, falling on the same pedastal as you- that by participating alot, i am more likely to be scum, despite failing to come up with any real scumtells from those posts.

184- says korts is fencesitting I agree but fence sitting isn’t always scummy

True enough, but i see it more often from scum than town, because town has no reason not to commit to opinions.

190- ends pact finally

The pact was already 'ended'. This was just the announcement of it, because apparently not everyone had realised.

205- when peter griffin has case against me points out flaws in case

Scummy or protown?

234- BM wont be able to post for awhile thank god

lol, thanks for the analysis. I anxiously await thoughts from SC, and of course, your responses.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Okay but I agreed to be the second person on that pact,

Not true. Korts was considered on it, and I'm P sure one other person (Wolf?) was on it too.

this is correct. Dynamo was never officially given the go ahead by either me, or Korts. Sorry dude. Wolf was never approved by Korts, but if the pact still existed, he would probably be in on it.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I'm not going to do a megapost with all of them and I'm too lazy to do links right now, but I can't find anything decent in Battle Mage's #2, #4, #12, #13 (which has a weak reason for an FoS), #18–#21, #24 for the most part, #27, #35, #40, #41, #43, #58, #69 besides the "don't mock" part, and #72 in isolation.

They aren't ALL my posts by a long shot. Korts and EA are spot on with their attack on your hypocrisy.

BM

[Battle Mage]

here it is folks, the moment we've all been waiting for.

vote: battle mage

eh? 0.o

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Battle Mage]

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?

Untitled. The guy you named as 1 of 2 suspects, and then, a couple posts later, claimed was beyond suspicions atm.

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.

This is all true. But you have completely missed the point i'm actually raising. Do you really feel that it is possible to accuse somebody of AVOIDING a question which was not directed at them- Open, or otherwise. Because if you feel that is scummy, you should be equally suspicious of those who COMPLETELY avoided the question, rather than tackling it as i did.

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.

Yes it does. Because, when you are town, you aren't especially worried about the prospect of scum voting for you. It happens. It's TOWN that you dont want to be chasing your wagon.

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.

You said "to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact."
Had you READ the pact, you would be more than aware that this was far from the case.

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.

Which is exactly my point. You aren't scumhunting. You simply want me dead because i'm attacking you.

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"?

Yes, because at least now i can kind of see what you are getting at.
And yeh, it isn't always helpful, but because you seem to be proverbially, crapping your pants atm, i figure the extra pressure could be a positive thing for the town.

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?

Of course you can think independently. Just this way, when you have 1 of ur independent thoughts, you have the muscle to carry it through.

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.

selfish? elitist? Can you please explain how either of those words apply to me in this instance?
And i'll keep stating facts, because 1 day you might actually read them, and realise the TRUTH.
Ok, maybe i am a LITTLE elitist.
But Selfish? COME ON!

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.[/quote]
Oh, is this retaliation for me not doing favors for you?[/quote]

I dont know what you mean.

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?

One, i havent PRETENDED to have read past where i have. Unlike your good self.

Two, i have started reading through, as you would see if you had read the posts of mine which aren't directed at you.

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

Then don't get smarmy and don't talk stupid.

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.

Yes, those word choices were deliberate, Mr High School Newspaper Editor, Sir!
Sadly, you've missed a pretty vital point which is, timing. It was alot earlier on when you accused me of having 'sucky' posts. At the time you made that comment, you had provided no content yourself. I don't care if you learnt from your mistakes since then, the fact remains that you are a hypocrite. Because i tend not to lie, i would not say that you have not provided content since then, because i havent finished catching up yet. That's the reason behind my word usage. But, it's irrelevant to my point, as you are well aware.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

Stop ridiculing me.

NEVAR!

Get real. Seriously.

STOP RIDICULING ME! ROFL!

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.

gdgd. Btw, i bet Armlx is getting off on these monstro-posts.

BM

[Battle Mage]

FFS guys. Some of you are complaining about posts being too long, others are complaining about them being too frequent. you cant have it both ways. Sort it out amongst yourselves, because i cant keep EVERYONE happy. -.-

BM

[Battle Mage]

FFS guys. Some of you are complaining about posts being too long, others are complaining about them being too frequent. you cant have it both ways. Sort it out amongst yourselves, because i cant keep EVERYONE happy. -.-

BM

There's an easy way to achieve both. All you have to do is get rid of the quote pyramids and you'll have eliminated 80% of the annoyance right there.

No. Quote pyramids are actually helpful, because people can read just the last post, and be able to follow the conversation. Now, Coug has removed the previous conversation, and with so much being discussed, i can't remember where i was going with things. *facepalm*

BM

[Battle Mage]

If alot of the crap can be cut out of them it might help.

That's what I meant. Only quote the post you're actually responding to, not the one it was quoting and the one THAT one was quoting and so forth.

That's not what he said. lol

And ftr, i DID cut out anything that didnt require response in my last monstro-post.

BM

[Battle Mage]

This is all true. But you have completely missed the point i'm actually raising. Do you really feel that it is possible to accuse somebody of AVOIDING a question which was not directed at them- Open, or otherwise. Because if you feel that is scummy, you should be equally suspicious of those who COMPLETELY avoided the question, rather than tackling it as i did.

So open = all 25 of the other players have to answer or they appear scummy? Directed at you or not, you blatantly shot it off.

So sue me. Dumbass... -.-

Which is exactly my point. You aren't scumhunting. You simply want me dead because i'm attacking you.

Hello? Did you catch my vote switch?[/quote]

irrelevant.

selfish? elitist? Can you please explain how either of those words apply to me in this instance?

"Selfish" for your saying "I'm right" without proving it and "elitist"

Buy yourself a pocket dictionary, and look up the definition of 'selfish'. You're WAY off the mark! lol

And i'll keep stating facts, because 1 day you might actually read them, and realise the TRUTH.

Screw this.

ur mom. roflmao

One, i havent PRETENDED to have read past where i have. Unlike your good self.

Two, i have started reading through, as you would see if you had read the posts of mine which aren't directed at you.

Then why are you taking before you are done?

I assume u mean 'talking'. Reason being, there are points from early in the game which i felt needed addressing, before there was any merit in reading the rest of your play.

Yes, those word choices were deliberate, Mr High School Newspaper Editor, Sir!
Sadly, you've missed a pretty vital point which is, timing. It was alot earlier on when you accused me of having 'sucky' posts. At the time you made that comment, you had provided no content yourself. I don't care if you learnt from your mistakes since then, the fact remains that you are a hypocrite. Because i tend not to lie, i would not say that you have not provided content since then, because i havent finished catching up yet. That's the reason behind my word usage. But, it's irrelevant to my point, as you are well aware.

Your word usage implied that you provided content sometime over the course of the entire game while I didn't provide content before a specific point in said course. Sorry, but this does not get you a get out of jail free card.

I could have used the term 'had' for me too, given that i had been on V/LA ever since.
You're ridiculous, and i HAT you.

BM

*You heard me.

[Battle Mage]

I'm definitely with Cyber on the whole quote pyramids thing.

WTF? 0.o *dies*

[Battle Mage]

From what I've picked up, MafiaMann is town, I'm pretty sure I know his role too.

That's all I know right now.

Stranger Coug- I'm not on all that much, that's why It looks like that.

townie with 14 votes? rofl

Each to their own i guess.

BM

[Battle Mage]

PeterGriffin, your vote reeks of OMGUS.

Where did you attack him to prompt the OMGUS?

Post 101

face + palm......

I'm with armlx.

I wish people would stop saying stuff like this. It just sounds so...pathetic...

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

1 word. IRRELEVANT. BTW the question posed is bad bad and a false dichotomy, but the answer leaves me shaking my head. ... So pretty much what armlx says.

Erm, WTH?
Firstly, i dont recall any comment by Armlx on this. Secondly, the fact that the question itself was irrelevant leads to a pretty slippery slope. Thirdly, you haven't taken into account the context of the comment, which was that SC had declared that participating in the pre-game was pointless, then criticised my participation in the pre-game. -.-

BM

[Battle Mage]

From what I've picked up, MafiaMann is town, I'm pretty sure I know his role too.

How would you know his role? Care to tell us how you came about this information?

fishing much?

[Battle Mage]

BM-I still think he's town, but I haven't liked some of his arguments. It's as though he can't believe anything he does can be wrong at all.

Forgot this when I talked to him about it, but this is why I've called him elitist.

yeh, elitist isnt really the word ur looking for, because as far as i'm aware, if you are elitist, you look for perfection as much in others as in yourself. You are accusing me of simply being arrogant and self-righteous.

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

No, you've never played with me before. I gleaned that from what others said pre-game.

There's a first time for everything.
You shouldn't always trust what others say without knowing their affiliation, or personal position.

BM

[Battle Mage]

wow, we got Lowell! Also, we have alot of people requiring replacement, by the look of it...

Unvote, Vote: Dynamo

His rolefishing combined with his 'why are you attacking me' reaction warrant a pressure wagon.

BM

[Battle Mage]

only an hour? you'd best stop posting in Little Italy then, and get reading, eh?

[Battle Mage]

When you've read the game, you'll realise just HOW much we need you!

BM

[Battle Mage]

When you've read the game, you'll realise just HOW much we need you!

BM

What's with all this nutriding?

nutriding? you obv forgot who this is!

IT'S LOWELL!!!!!


BM

[Battle Mage]

IT'S LOWELL!!!!!

Do you have a list of people that are automaticly town or scum? You got way to excited over one person.

Ok im going back to lurking in plain sight until I can get find enough time to reread everything.

rofl. Since when did i make any comment on Lowell's affiliation?

FoS: Raider

BM

[Battle Mage]

that's Lowell. He's THE MAN.

BM

[Battle Mage]

EBWOP: wow. disregard my first sentence completely. i'm an idiot and i can't think straight right now at all... xD

roflmao!

[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

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

You didnt call it 'excellent' now, did you? I can concede that some people are so blinded by their own arrogance and self-righteousness that they believe whatever they say is always right. But when somebody else buys into it? I'm not standing for it.

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.

I wanted people who were going to be active, so we could actually test the credentials of the pact. Korts seemed to be keen on a similar strategy, and i thought his support would be useful. With a 10+ page pre-game, i think it's fair to say that we will have quite alot of info to go on in a much shorter space of time than with normal games.

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".

Ok, at least you have read the pact. I will just clarify that the 'in for pact' posts mean nothing.

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?

Can scum day-talk? It's irrelevant anyway, as your point was that scum would join the pact, and my retort was that, we can still lynch them, if you are claiming the pact will be over-run by them. If not, then i dont see your concern.

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?

Yes you are. Then you simply look for the sods who claim to genuinely suspect everybody!

BM

[Battle Mage]

@BM: repeating my question: you said scum would join the pact - so why are you not pursuing anyone who joined the pact? It seems rather contradictory.

I'm very disappointed animorph is running off like that. Also that seven people seem not to be playing the game at all (and if they're scum, looks like they're getting away with it too...)

No i didn't lol. People seem to think that when i pick holes in other people's logic, my repeating their logic to do so is a reflection of my personal view.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I do like Animorphperv for possible scum; partly for the inconsistency Snaps just outlined but also for his arguable rolefishing WRT MafiaMann. Highlighting someone as possibly having a power role is pretty damn anti-town as all it accomplishes is painting a nice big target on their backs for scum.

FOS: Animorphperv1

That would've been a vote were it not for my still not having seen anything from Netlava to inspire me to unvote.

You didnt call it 'excellent' now, did you? I can concede that some people are so blinded by their own arrogance and self-righteousness that they believe whatever they say is always right. But when somebody else buys into it? I'm not standing for it.

This is the single most ironic thing in the history of stuff. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

You probably wouldn't realise it was intentional if you hadn't been reading.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Earthworm's defense of me is much appreciated, but I'm a bit wary. The problem is that typically, with some exceptions e.g. lynch situations, I won't be comfortable defending other players without knowing their alignment. I usually see scum defend other players more than townies defending other players. This situation, in particular, may be a bit premature, which makes me suspect a possible buddy-up attempt.

This post implies to me an Earthworm-Netlava connection more than the initial defense from Earthworm. Netlava seems to be trying to communicate to EW that the defending should stop, and also nipping any attacks based on this in the bud.

You just lost the 'Convince the BM' Battle. And we both know what comes next.

Not the Comfy Chair!

On a different note, BM, why is Skimmy Scummy? It's anti-game, but I'd dismiss that as a valid scumtell. BTW, you're overly antagonizing SC, I feel, which I'm suspicious of you for.

Got sick of the splinters eh? Unfortunately, i think you chose the wrong side to come down on.
Skimming is scummy because protown players are more likely to read stuff in order to understand it and properly comment on it. Scum dont need to hunt scum, and can afford to be lazy. This does not necessarily apply in tl;dr type posts, but in general, i feel it's a pretty sound scumtell.

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.

SC's answer seems very pro-town, and he's reacting pretty level-headedly to BM's provocation. He gets a plus point for style.

really? Somebody else commented that his comment seemed like wimping out from a confrontation, and my view was that it emphasised the conflict was personal, rather than based on the game, which implied he didn't find me scummy. Which is inconsistent given his previous and subsequent comments.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Why was Mr.T replaced here, when he is active elsewhere on site?

BM

[Battle Mage]

If i had to vote right now id vote untitled but i dont need to vote now

Yeah, but if you don't vote you don't give info. Not voting is just as anti-town as vote hopping everywhere.

Did you notice the (not-so-)subtle push for my wagon here?

Erm, no. Not unless your name is 'Untitled' anyway.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Erm, can I sign the treaty?

rofl! This man is clearly protown.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Notice that Korts claimed i was 'scummy' but didnt give any reasons, falling on the same pedastal as you- that by participating alot, i am more likely to be scum, despite failing to come up with any real scumtells from those posts.

BM, BM, don't try to misrepresent me. I never said you were scummy, at least not in this game so far. All I said was that I'm gonna keep my eye on you for a while, because this pact's impact on the game could've been both pro- and anti-town, and you were the one who started discussion about it.

I think that's a bit ridiculous. So you think that something which i started, of which the consequences are NOT inherently scummy, should be a reason for me to be scum, IF it turns out to hurt the town? I cant really explain how ridiculous that sounds in my head... 0.o
Also, how long ago did i make that post? 0.o

FoS: CyberBob for being, just plain WRONG.

Being wrong is suspicious activity how exactly?

You tell me. Ya know, given that you made the same point above.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Again, where have I said that this is a reason for you to be scum? You're trying hard to make this black and white. You're to be watched, but that doesn't equate by far to being actually scummy. You're in the spotlight now, too late for second thoughts, no?

I'm tackling the issue now, in case, later on, you decide to try and vote me, for starting a Pact, which, in 50 pages time, somehow causes the town to go wrong.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I like those jumping on the Cass wagon (it's a good one), but post 625 is weak.

More votes for dynamo would be in order as well. He's been talked about a lot for someone with only 3 votes. Just seems strange.

vote for him then. With you, me, and Armlx, this wagon will surely prevail!

BM

[Battle Mage]

Again, where have I said that this is a reason for you to be scum? You're trying hard to make this black and white. You're to be watched, but that doesn't equate by far to being actually scummy. You're in the spotlight now, too late for second thoughts, no?

I'm tackling the issue now, in case, later on, you decide to try and vote me, for starting a Pact, which, in 50 pages time, somehow causes the town to go wrong.

BM

And you think I could trust you (or anyone else in the town for that matter) not to call me out on such complete BS?

if not, why are you bring up said 'complete BS' as a scenario now?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Mod: Please fix my quote tags. It should be nested Korts/SC/Korts/SC/Korts one inside the other.

rofl. Remind me never to Mod a game for you!

BM

[Battle Mage]

Again, where have I said that this is a reason for you to be scum? You're trying hard to make this black and white. You're to be watched, but that doesn't equate by far to being actually scummy. You're in the spotlight now, too late for second thoughts, no?

I'm tackling the issue now, in case, later on, you decide to try and vote me, for starting a Pact, which, in 50 pages time, somehow causes the town to go wrong.

BM

And you think I could trust you (or anyone else in the town for that matter) not to call me out on such complete BS?

if not, why are you bring up said 'complete BS' as a scenario now?

BM

Oh, haha. Read the quote pyramid you're quoting. You brought up the scenario, I just commented on it. Seriously, BM, you're better than this.

unvote, vote: Battle Mage

Misrepresentation and the lot.

*Facepalm*

Notice that Korts claimed i was 'scummy' but didnt give any reasons, falling on the same pedastal as you- that by participating alot, i am more likely to be scum, despite failing to come up with any real scumtells from those posts.

BM, BM, don't try to misrepresent me. I never said you were scummy, at least not in this game so far. All I said was that I'm gonna keep my eye on you for a while, because this pact's impact on the game could've been both pro- and anti-town, and you were the one who started discussion about it.

That's the post you are looking for. Now try again.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Again, where have I said that this is a reason for you to be scum? You're trying hard to make this black and white. You're to be watched, but that doesn't equate by far to being actually scummy. You're in the spotlight now, too late for second thoughts, no?

I'm tackling the issue now, in case, later on, you decide to try and vote me, for starting a Pact, which, in 50 pages time, somehow causes the town to go wrong.

BM

And you think I could trust you (or anyone else in the town for that matter) not to call me out on such complete BS?

if not, why are you bring up said 'complete BS' as a scenario now?

BM

So BM you have no regrets about our pact idea and you feel its been helpful beacause it has caused the conversation is that what your saying

Regrets? Never. My only regret is that we couldn't properly try it out. But, nonetheless, it has been a very protown exercise, given that discussion is always protown. But that's not what i was saying to Korts. My concern with him, was that later on in the game, he would turn around and say the pact was bad, and because it was so long ago, ignorance would prevail. Which is why i'm trying to commit him to an opinion now. Notice how jumpy he is?

BM

BM

[Battle Mage]

In order to keep the thread relatively clean, I'm not gonna quote the pyramid now.

BM, I said you deserve attention for starting the pact. You say that I said I'd possibly use the starting of the pact as a scumtell against you. Hence the misrepresentation. Don't tell me you're this thick.

On a different note, does anybody else find Cass suspicious for voting Armlx when pressured for only FoSing him?

You still aren't making sense. What sort of attention do i deserve Korts? Are you saying i deserve more attention than a guy who has only made 1 post so far? Why would i deserve more attention than any of the other players here!?

BM

[Battle Mage]

You still aren't making sense. What sort of attention do i deserve Korts? Are you saying i deserve more attention than a guy who has only made 1 post so far? Why would i deserve more attention than any of the other players here!?

BM

You deserve attention because you proposed a plan that could tilt the game either way based on the players inside the pact. Also, I didn't say others deserve less attention, just for other things.

By saying 'BM deserves attention' you imply that i deserve more attention than certain others. Otherwise the statement is merely a pointless iteration of the fact that you arent going to let me lurk till LyLo. The game would not so much be tilted by those inside the pact, as by how the townies in it ran the concept. Even the greatest inventions in the world won't work if you get a chimp playing with it.

I tire of the 'FoS is scummy' argument. It's got to the stage where no scumbag in their right mind would do it. Unless they were trying to go for a meta of non-commitalness. *cough*Korts*cough*

BM

[Battle Mage]

I tire of the 'FoS is scummy' argument. It's got to the stage where no scumbag in their right mind would do it. Unless they were trying to go for a meta of non-commitalness. *cough*Korts*cough*

I don't see how you can dismiss a legitimate scumtell based on the fact that it happens rarely.

That's not what i said atall now, is it?

Also, I'm trying to be non-committal?

Yes. You were happy to admit this earlier. Why do you question it now?

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, the FOS tell is dying out, but similar non-committing tells still exist.

why are you not voting for Korts?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I'm back, although I'm on from a public hotspot right now, no net at our flat yet. I may be short and won't check mafiascum frequently.

I tire of the 'FoS is scummy' argument. It's got to the stage where no scumbag in their right mind would do it. Unless they were trying to go for a meta of non-commitalness. *cough*Korts*cough*

I don't see how you can dismiss a legitimate scumtell based on the fact that it happens rarely.

That's not what i said atall now, is it?

That's what I gathered. You say "no scumbag would do it" which I took to say that you don't consider it a legitimate point.

I didnt say 'rarely'. I implied 'pretty much never'. Meaning in my mind, it is NOT a scumtell. You seem to think it is, and painted your comment with that in mind.

Also, I'm trying to be non-committal?

Yes. You were happy to admit this earlier. Why do you question it now?

BM

I was on the fence about the pact issue, but to set me up as non-committal overall is misrepresentation. I don't like you much right now, BM.

Aww, didums.
*kuddles Korts*

I'm not even sure if i'm voting for you. Assuming i'm not, i think you're OMGUSing shadows again. If i am, i guess you'll have to learn to live with the fact that this is a Mafia game, and if i think you're scum, i'm gonna try and lynch you- friend or otherwise.

BM, the FOS tell is dying out, but similar non-committing tells still exist.

why are you not voting for Korts?

BM

On what grounds should he? The quoted sentence doesn't accuse me in any way.

Jesus....do you ever stop and think 'is there really any need to get wound up about this?' 0.o

He said non-committing tells existed. I wanted to know what he thought of you, given that that was my view of your approach to this game. Understand? :Roll:

BM

[Battle Mage]

im here. im just reading. i sent u a pm, like 1 minute ago.

and I sent you one back, just now.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I'll

Unvote

too, until i catch up.

BM

[Battle Mage]

lol.

/obligatory 'greet the newb'

BM

[Battle Mage]

you're obviously new. Spamming here IS obligatory.

/report for ignorance.

BM

[Battle Mage]

'm not even sure if i'm voting for you. Assuming i'm not, i think you're OMGUSing shadows again. If i am, i guess you'll have to learn to live with the fact that this is a Mafia game, and if i think you're scum, i'm gonna try and lynch you- friend or otherwise.

Heh, you seem to think I'm taking this personally. No, I meant I'm not liking you especially game-wise.

Because i said you were 'non-commital'? rofl. I'm LOVING you game-wise. Great comic value, before we string your ass up.

Aww, didums.
*kuddles Korts*

Hehheh. Appeal to emotion noted

really? lawl

BM, the FOS tell is dying out, but similar non-committing tells still exist.

why are you not voting for Korts?

BM

On what grounds should he? The quoted sentence doesn't accuse me in any way.

Jesus....do you ever stop and think 'is there really any need to get wound up about this?' 0.o

He said non-committing tells existed. I wanted to know what he thought of you, given that that was my view of your approach to this game. Understand? :Roll:

BM

Your question was pretty much a loaded one. If you're interested in someone's opinion of a person, your first question, in my irrelevant opinion, shouldn't be "why aren't you voting him/her?" However you're rolling your eyes, you're still wrong, haha

granted it was a more aggressive way of wording the question. But that's just how i roll.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Because i said you were 'non-commital'? rofl. I'm LOVING you game-wise. Great comic value, before we string your ass up.

Yeah, you're very funny *pats back* Because you're misrepresenting others, mostly.

No. No..not others- just you, amirite?

BM

[Battle Mage]

just flicking through, i must hasten to add:

DON'T SELF-HAMMER. I STILL WANT TO READ THROUGH AND POST THOUGHTS TODAY. YOU NEVER KNOW, I MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SAVE YOUR ASS, IF YOU ARE TOWN.

Anyone hammering while we are in no real danger of deadline, and there is still more to be had out of the day, will earn my emnity.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Why? Do you think people will jump on this chance to get attacked by BM? Maybe it was a joke, but if so, I don't get it...

he's just being an idiot. Null tell. Sorry about my lack of reading today. Been a busy social day lol.
Tomorrow im off though, so i will look between now and then.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Ugh, i just reread Dynamo and im really not sure. Half of me says that he fits the profile of frustrated townie perfectly, the other says that his laziness is scummy, because someone protown would jump at the chance to defend themselves, and that his attempt to kind of breadcrumb is a rather lazy attempt to make himself look good.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can really CONDEMN his lynch, except for the fact that there are probably scummier people out there. Armlx feels a bit off to me, and Erratus Apathos seems like a good lynch regardless of Dynamo's affiliation.

for the purposes of clarity

Vote: EA

although at deadline, i will hammer Dynamo if nothing changes dramatically in the votes.

Also i just noticed, Pixa replaced Opposed Force. UNLUCKY! lol
To get you started, how about you read the posts of Dynamo in isolation (using the posts by player function) and tell us your thoughts on him?

BM

[Battle Mage]

looking at the last couple of pages, I don't particularly think that dynamoxi is scum.

I'm surprised that cephrir's hypocrisy hasn't garnered more attention.

I think I know what you're referring to, and if you want to call that hypocrisy then go right ahead. It'd be a pretty lame argument though.

You say you're "surprised it hasn't garnered more attention". Yet there's no suspicion to go with it, not even an FoS. So, I can't quite tell if you actually find it scummy or not. Feel free to elaborate. FOr now it looks to me like you're pointing it out and hoping someone else will jump on it for you.

So you think he is distancing from the Dynamo wagon by showing suspicion of you instead, but not following up with a vote?

BM

[Battle Mage]

L-2, and I'm leaning not scum on Dynamo. I'll wait and see what other people think before voting (if necessary)

HoS: Netlava

The only reason this isnt a vote is because this could well be a typo. Other than this incident, i really don't see a case on Netlava, so can one of the voters please summarise for me?

BM

[Battle Mage]

L-2, and I'm leaning not scum on Dynamo. I'll wait and see what other people think before voting (if necessary)

HoS: Netlava

The only reason this isnt a vote is because this could well be a typo. Other than this incident, i really don't see a case on Netlava, so can one of the voters please summarise for me?

BM

Well there isn't a huge case apart from that, that I know of anyway. I just assume it wasn't a typo, and as you said you would vote if it weren't a typo, so I would and have done the same. Admittedly, Netlava's defense, on a reread, does possibly ring that it was a typo.

I don't understand this response to what amounts to appeal to emotion.

You seriously think that Dynamo is still scum?

why haven't you Unvoted then?

BM

[Battle Mage]

how likely do you REALLY think that is? rofl

BM

[Battle Mage]

rofl. EA, rather than respond to your post in full, i'm gonna save you some embarrassment, and simply say, you are stabbing shadows. But my vote stands. Anyone with THAT emotive a response, has something to hide.

And for future reference, if you dont understand why somebody is attacking you, it might be advisable to ask, lest you look quite the fool.

BM

[Battle Mage]

rofl. EA, rather than respond to your post in full, i'm gonna save you some embarrassment, and simply say, you are stabbing shadows.

Spare me the fucking chivalry, embarrass me all you want. As if I'm going to be embarrassed to be proven wrong in a Mafia game anyways. I'd better not show my face on MS any more, or else everyone will laugh at me because I was wrong that one time!!!

You certainly seem to be getting pretty wound up about it. Why is that?
Also, watch your language. If there ARE 12 year olds playing, i dont think it's appropriate that you behave like a violent sex-offender.

But my vote stands. Anyone with THAT emotive a response, has something to hide.

Oh of course, it's pro-town for me to oppose a Dynamo lynch as long as I'm quiet and passive about it, that makes sense. Perchance am I the first non-robot with whom you've played Mafia?

ugh. You still havent even grasped why my vote is on you. Although it doesnt really matter because, it is staying.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I don't like how BM's defense doesn't answer the issues and just says he can.

Defense? Oh! You mean defence?

The reason you may not like my defence, is because said defence does not exist. There is very little defence against an attack whose premise is completely flawed.

BM

[Battle Mage]

The reason you may not like my defence, is because said defence does not exist. There is very little defence against an attack whose premise is completely flawed.

I don't get it. Are you deliberately trying to deflect attention with spelling errors?

humour and logic are not mutually exclusive you know.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I withdraw my point about BM misrepping others, at least not any more than he usually does... You guys just be patient and explain everything nice and slow to him

About this EA thing though, I'd like you to at least address his arguments, BM. My reason for not liking you has changed to you dancing around the issue.

Any excuse eh?

I'm actually going to deign to

Unvote, Vote: Armlx

No issue is being avoided/danced around. It's been a while since the discussion between me and EA, but as far as i can recall, the reason i have not fully responded to his points, was because none of them held any relevance to me. He went off on one about me attacking him over his behaviour towards Dynamo...WHEN THAT WAS NOT THE REASON I WAS VOTING FOR HIM.

What the hell do you expect me to say 'in response to his ARGUMENTS' if none of them make any bloomin' sense!?

BM

[Battle Mage]

In fact, i cant even remember why i was voting for EA. *facepalm*

Thats what happens when you arent here for 3 days. lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, do you have reasoning behind your vote, or are you just trying to shoehorn yourself into a tertiary wagon before deadline.

I've already given my stance regarding Dynamo. I'm pretty indifferent. There are scummier people, and i want my opinions on record in the event of my death.

You still havent explained what you meant by your attack on me regarding EA.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I respect the way Dynamo defied Stoofer.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I don't like how BM's defense doesn't answer the issues and just says he can.

The reason you may not like my defence, is because said defence does not exist. There is very little defence against an attack whose premise is completely flawed.

I don't get it. Are you deliberately trying to deflect attention with spelling errors?

BM, do you have reasoning behind your vote, or are you just trying to shoehorn yourself into a tertiary wagon before deadline.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Replacing in for Pixa, anything specific I should look for in my re-read?

Scum?

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're asking your scumbuddy (?) to point out things you should avoid addressing etc.

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're making mountains out of molehills to make Surye look suspicious.

Minor FoS: Korts

qft.

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, thoughts on Has v Cream?

Cream deserves an FoS, but not for the reason Cow gave.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Armlx:

Right then, so

Much as i hate to be the grammar analyst, the use of connectives rings true of someone who is unsure how to react to the developments. Gives me bad vibes.

as we all knew would happen, Dynamo flipped town. I have no sympathy for him, but I feel that scum must have constituted a reasonable bit of his wagon. I'm going to reread his wagon I think, and also the talk that we had when the wagon started to dissipate, and then the following section where it increased into a hammer. I'm sure I can find scum somewhere in there. Netlava's vote has already been picked up on and noted, and I think it's possible that there's more in that wagon.

This section is a description of how he intends to use yesterday's result in order to set up a lynch today. Not a scummy act as such, but why would he feel the need to spell it out like so? Feels very devious.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Replacing in for Pixa, anything specific I should look for in my re-read?

Scum?

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're asking your scumbuddy (?) to point out things you should avoid addressing etc.

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're making mountains out of molehills to make Surye look suspicious.

Minor FoS: Korts

qft.

BM

Seriously. Is your point that I shouldn't point out things only slightly suspect?

No. My point is that you completely over-reacted, and came to a ridiculous conclusion, with a logical anti-town motive.

Vote: Armlx

The Netlava wagon strikes me as weak.

BM

[Battle Mage]

L-2, and I'm leaning not scum on Dynamo. I'll wait and see what other people think before voting (if necessary)

I think we established that this was just a typo. Is there any other case?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I think we established that this was just a typo. Is there any other case?

I stated my intention in my previous post to vote dynamo. I checked the vote count, and it seemed that most of the people left were fresh replacements/inactives, so rather than wait for them, I decided that it's better to move the game along.

Hmm, this is a bit disappointing. I announced my intentions clearly enough. It's not a typo - I don't actually think Dynamo is scum. Sometimes, though, I vote people who I don't think are scum simply for the sake of a lynch. Tis just a playstyle.

But since this is regarded as scummy, then that's fine, I'm won't be doing this in the future. I'll just let my vote sit uselessly on someone who I do think is scummy. I'll gladly wagon my current suspects though (Cass, earthworm, hasdgfas, cephrir, and pimhel).

There is this other case. The one that actually happened.

and? newb-tell at best.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Voting for somoene you don't tihnk is scum is a newb tell?

what else can it be? it's not like he wasn't open about it..

BM

[Battle Mage]

what else can it be? it's not like he wasn't open about it..

It can be scummy. I hear scum like to vote people they don;t think are scum.

what the hell?
Please start making sense.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Battle Mage may be replaced because of inactivity.

*is here*

Sorry guys-keep dropping off because of RL priorities. Will try and do better.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Not much seems to have changed in my absence. Netlava is still a bad wagon, and Armlx should be put under more pressure.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Unvote, Vote: Raider

Getting kinda bored of today. Netlava is obviously a bad lynch, but i guess the wagon itself has reaped something. Nonetheless, i think we are dragging things out a little...

BM

[Battle Mage]

You can get your IC status stripped for it.

wtf? This discussion has been done to death over the history of MS, and the conclusion is, Self-hammering is a controversial policy, but one that does have merits. As far as i'm aware, you can't have your IC status stripped for how you play. I've self-hammered twice since being part of the site (although neither of those in the last year). In fact, i dont even think you can have your IC status stripped for repeated modkills.
In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

BM

[Battle Mage]

At any rate, this game probably needs Sarc in it.

Unless i failed to detect the inherent sarcasm within this statement, i'll go as far as to say that you just lost any credibility you might have had in this game. I've yet to see a game on MS which would benefit from having Sarc playing, and even if there was, why would you make that comment? Is it likely to encourage Sarc to play? -.-

BM

*And why is that a funny name?

[Battle Mage]

Unvote, Vote: Raider

Getting kinda bored of today. Netlava is obviously a bad lynch, but i guess the wagon itself has reaped something. Nonetheless, i think we are dragging things out a little...

BM

So, I gotta ask. Why are you voting me?

Armlx noted a seemingly valid inconsistency in your comments, and your defence was 'read the thread'. That's a lazy response, and until you defend yourself properly, i'm happy to vote for you.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Unvote, Vote: Raider

Getting kinda bored of today. Netlava is obviously a bad lynch, but i guess the wagon itself has reaped something. Nonetheless, i think we are dragging things out a little...

BM

FoS: Battle Mage

for weak justification of a vote.

Umm. Can you please explain how that post can be considered 'weak' justification of a vote, as opposed to 'NO' justification of a vote, given that my post offers no real reasoning for my vote atall?

BM

[Battle Mage]

And speaking of poor justification!

Unvote, Vote: Raider

Getting kinda bored of today. Netlava is obviously a bad lynch, but i guess the wagon itself has reaped something. Nonetheless, i think we are dragging things out a little...

BM

Am I to understand that you voted Raider because you were bored? Interesting reasoning. Also, people have criticised me for a lack of reasoning whilst defending Netlava, but come on! Saying it's 'obvious' is just an easy way out. 7 people clearly disagree with you, so you might want to think about expanding on that as well.

Same question as above can be answered by Cream. I have trouble following your wording. There's a major difference between half-baked reasoning, and no reasoning atall. 7 people disagree with me? By my normal standards, that's fairly good odds. 7 people can think again. I have already assessed the Netlava lynch. If i thought it was a good lynch, i'd be on it. Because my vote is not on Netlava, Netlava is not, imo, scum.

This is fairly straightforward stuff.

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM: Self hammer in newbies = IC ban. Its viewed as slightly violating the "Play to win" rule as town, and situational enough as scum its not worth exposing newbies to as "good play".

Raider: I pointed out a contradiction. Nothing else really needed to be said. You, on the other hand, were in the position of defending yourself. More did need to be said.

Thank god i dont have a sudden urge to play newbie games.

How can you be banned from being an IC? Won't you just, ya know, stop playing newbie games? lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

Unvote, Vote: Raider

Getting kinda bored of today. Netlava is obviously a bad lynch, but i guess the wagon itself has reaped something. Nonetheless, i think we are dragging things out a little...

BM

FoS: Battle Mage

for weak justification of a vote.

Umm. Can you please explain how that post can be considered 'weak' justification of a vote, as opposed to 'NO' justification of a vote, given that my post offers no real reasoning for my vote atall?

BM

Because you claim boredom and throw out the fact that you think the Netlava lynch is bad, but say nothing about your being suspicious of raider8169.

I also love how you say you didn't justify your vote at all. Seriously, that's not pro-town to say.

Unvote: Korts
Vote: Battle Mage

Lol, we arent dealing in vibes here. This isnt scumhunting. It's statement of fact. I didnt justify my vote atall. That doesnt mean my vote had no reasoning behind it, just that i didnt state the reasoning at the time. In case you haven't been paying attention in all the games we've played together, it's something i do alot, because it gets reactions. Like yours.

I should also note that i have since justified my vote. Whether this justification is satisfactory or not, is something you've yet to assess. But voting me for no-justification is a factually null reason to vote. In other words, your own vote lacks effective justification. Ironic really.

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, as far as I've gathered, SC's reason to vote you wasn't that you didn't justify your vote, rather that you

stated

the fact that it wasn't weakly justified but not at all. Which is, frankly, BS.

I believe i tackled this issue in my previous post.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Found his vote reason.

Unvote: Battle Mage

.

Korts and Cass remain my top suspects for now.

Not justifying a vote is anti-town. Saying that that's what he did isn't.

What's the difference between doing something and admitting you did it in terms of scumminess?

The difference is the same as the difference between lurking sneakily, and openly lurking. It doesnt change the act, but it's far more up front, i guess.

Also, im still happy with my vote after reading Raider's posts in isolation. I cant see what changed in the space of 5 days and a night phase that would make him completely change tack regarding Netlava.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Also, im still happy with my vote after reading Raider's posts in isolation. I cant see what changed in the space of 5 days and a night phase that would make him completely change tack regarding Netlava.

It was closer to 14 days. You would have to read everything in between the posts in order to see what made me change my mind. Feel free to do that when you have some time. I am not sure how well you have been keeping up with the game as you were gone for a while.

Rofl. It was not 'closer to 14 days'. It WAS 5 days. I'm not including the night phase, for obvious reasons. Why are you lying about something which is not only barely relevant, but also available to be seen as concrete by anyone playing?

Confirm Vote: Raider

And i can do without the patronising bullcrap.

BM

[Battle Mage]

1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

OK, but you're missing one.

3) You're lazy scum trying to hop on a wagon unobtrusively and also avoid making potentially attackable statements.

The latter might be valid, except here is what actually happened:

1. I voted for Raider.
2. I was asked if i had a reason for voting Raider.
3. I gave my reason.

This kinda thing happens quite alot in Mafia. It's like, how the game works!

As far as 'trying to hop onto a wagon unobtrusively' goes-there was no wagon.
I was the first and only vote on Raider.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Post in question: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:52 pm
Day end un Sep 14, 2008 11:04 am
Day 2 start Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:17 am
Other post in question Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:00 am

I should add that I voted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:46 pm

So from 8 Sept to 14 Sept is over 5 days. Then it was still almost another day before I only said I agree with the case.

You said I lied about something, what was that?

Are you really quibbling over 1 day?
Let's get this straight. I claim you changed your mind within a 5 day time window. You claimed it was 14 days? And it turned out to be 6 days.

BM - 5
Raider - 14
Actual Answer - 6

Who is more guilty of lying?

My vote stands. And i'm really at a loss as to why you aren't dead yet. Obviously some people aren't really following this conversation.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Are you really quibbling over 1 day?
Let's get this straight. I claim you changed your mind within a 5 day time window. You claimed it was 14 days? And it turned out to be 6 days.

BM - 5
Raider - 14
Actual Answer - 6

Who is more guilty of lying?

My vote stands. And i'm really at a loss as to why you aren't dead yet. Obviously some people aren't really following this conversation.

BM

This conversation is retarded. Why are are pushing it is beyond me. I am still right with 14 days mind you. I just included the night in the time frame.

Why people have not joined with you is because you have still yet to show anything. People are allowed to change their mind once they are informed of more information then when they started.

Including the night is only valid if your change in stance was due to a night choice. In which case, you wouldnt count the day phase anyway. -.-

I'm done for now.

BM

[Battle Mage]

raider, it's not that you changed your mind. That's fine, and expected, or this game would go no where. But it's the fact that you tried to re-write history that is suspicious. Armlx's quote showed just that.

This is my point. I'm not quite sure where Armlx said it, but oh well.

And Raider is right, regarding the fact that this is not a circular argument. The way nobody is fully reading (myself included in fairness) means we dont make any progression. That's why we need to either string him up, or not.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I'm not quite sure where Armlx said it, but oh well.

I never directly said it, but the post I made juxtaposing the 2 quotes shows the point.

That's why we need to either string him up, or not.

I lol'ed.

Lol, so did i. I dont even remember where i was going with that point..

BM

[Battle Mage]

Btw, cyberbob post is scummy. explanation later

A little bit of an explanation when you said this would have been nice instead of us having to wait for it.

I agree.

Gee, thats helpful. Nearly as helpful as this post in fact.

[Battle Mage]

and yeh, the beauty of acronyms is, they can represent pretty much anything that corresponds to the letters given as the first letters of each word, in the correct sequence.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Big Mac?

exactly.

[Battle Mage]

still here. anything else need doing?

BM

[Battle Mage]

ffs. How am i near to being prodded again?
This game needs to go to night. Has Netlava claimed yet?

BM

[Battle Mage]

No, claim should be at L-1, no earlier.
Okaaay... unvoting as soon as I draw attention to it, failure to defend oneself in any way, and then a random vote on P63?
I'm spooning my vote, that's how much I love it.

wth? Why would you wait till -1 for a claim on a guy who is as good as dead. Netlava has 24 hours to claim.

And

FoS: KoC

for promoting anti-town practices.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Not exactly anti-town to wait until L-1 for the hammer, IMHO: seems to be the norm in most games, so why you're calling it scummy now I can't imagine.

This is exactly what bugs me. Back in the day, waiting till -1 for a lynch was normal. Indeed, it would be seen as a towntell. Sadly, in this game, the same isn't true. In practice, leaving someone at -1 before they claim, and there are no real counter-wagons, leaves them open to a hammer if they claim a power role. Fairly basic stuff i know. But, if you were genuinely town, you'd realise this, and see that Netlava is BOUND to reach -1 at some point. Hence, Netlava should claim NOW, while we have the opportunity to stop him/her being quick-hammered.

But you follow a policy that in theory, makes you look really protown, and in practice, does not help the town atall. Consider my FoS a HoS, and assuming Netlava can work a miracle with a claim, consider yourself next on my list of people to run up. I wonder when you would want to claim then?

BM

[Battle Mage]

What do you mean, too easy? At best, it's a desperate WIFOM to try and discourage voting ("Oh, surely scum wouldn't do something so scummy at this point...").

You make the assumption that Netlava is scum with this comment, thus making your point null.

BM, Has-cow: point taken. Although the fact BM is HoSing me for followign something that I would do in most games bemuses and worries me: if that's going to be your case on me tomorrow... Well, enough said.

Not only do you assume that I will survive till tomorrow, but also that you will. Why is this?

Confirm HoS: Knight of Cydonia

I know that you have a meta of appearing scummy, but it's getting to the stage where i cant ignore it here.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Because I have such a scummy meta that it's more convenient to let you lot lynch me? [/sarcasm]
But seriously, big ol' leap from me saying "If that's going to be your case on me tomorrow" to read it as "I'm definitely going to be around tomorrow, so don't even try using that."
Have a

HoS: BM

on the house.

lol. Is there anything here that merits response?

Blakadder - what in particular do you want clarified?

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, Has-cow: point taken. Although the fact BM is HoSing me for followign something that I would do in most games bemuses and worries me: if that's going to be your case on me tomorrow... Well, enough said.

Not only do you assume that I will survive till tomorrow, but also that you will. Why is this?

Confirm HoS: Knight of Cydonia

I know that you have a meta of appearing scummy, but it's getting to the stage where i cant ignore it here.

BM

BM, I really don't like your overreaction. You're making mountains out of molehills, and the molehill wasn't even a scumtell in itself. Seriously, is it only a HoS because you're afraid to have a very poorly reasoned vote against KoC on your voting record?

Go die in a fire.

You clearly have been skimming, and if you really want to make an attack on someone, and expect it to be taken seriously, you should probably at least read the relevant posts. I've already explained why i havent voted for KoC, and the reason is this:

Unvote, Vote: Netlava

Let's end this day already.

BM

[Battle Mage]

He clearly has read the relevant posts, what with him HAVING QUOTED THEM IN THE DAMN POST HE MADE.
Also, way to dodge that bullet, BM. Way to dodge.

Lol, i guess you need to read better too. I miss where it says in the quote he made that i intended to vote for Netlava in 24 hours if no claim was made. *major facepalm*

I guess if i dodge a bullet tonight, i'll be held accountable tomorrow. Though for WHAT, im not exactly sure.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Trying to set up a case on me based on something that isn't even a scumtell - considering this is my first "proper" large game (Lover's Multiball not included, since it was nightless and only townies, scum and wolves), that's what.

Firstly, something doesnt have to be a commonly used 'scumTELL' for it to qualify as a case against someone. Secondly, i'm not the one using OMGUS as an argument for your lynch. I'm suspicious of you for wording which strongly suggests you are scum, and at the same time, for needlessly trying to look as protown as possible.

And ftr, i can appreciate your meta on me from Multiball. I was scum there, but what i should note is that it was a Mafia + Wolves game. And yes, i GENUINELY thought you were part of the other scumgroup.

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, my point wasn't that you weren't voting KoC (though thanks, I didn't see the thing with the Netlava vote), it was that the case against him is not enough to warrant even a FoS, IMO. You made a point of being suspicious of him for a thing you admitted was a thing newer players tend to do. Your avoidance of my main point, which wasn't that easy to miss, has caused my eyebrows to be raised. You, sir, are also skimming.

But, Knight of Cydonia isnt a newer player. I've played in a large game with him before, and he was perfectly comfortable understanding how things work. Why would you put the dummy back in his mouth?

BM