Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP:

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

But since when is that the issue at hand?

Since I posted this:

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

[Korts]

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

BM made valid more than some points, even though he also generated quite some noise in the process. Do you have evidence or quotes to back up your claim that BM's posts lack "quality"?

[armlx]

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

That law became completely irrelevant upon its naming as a law, as it turned into WIFOM.

[Erratus Apathos]

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.

Pop quiz, hotshot. Identify which of the following posts contain substance and/or quality:

Could we hang on to in-thread discussion until we actually start please?

*tears up the pact*

SC you're always in my games. lol

Welcome to hell xD

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

The problem that I see is that it's confusing, and I like the idea of waiting for the game to start much better.

Could we hang on to in-thread discussion until we actually start please?

Why is this advantageous?

Sanity reasons and the fact that I'm not used to it.

Damn all of you for your mass posts since I last checked the thread ><

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

Just thought I’d weigh in on the whole pact thing. There seems to be a whole lot of discussion of this topic.
First, there is no guarantee that scum won’t join it, so it can’t be completely trusted. Second, it’s not going to be a “scum magnet” either. We will have some scum supporting it and we will have some scum opposed along with town on both sides of the issue. The pact in itself is not going to win/lose the game for us. I don’t see how the pact will either help or hurt the game.

I love Swiss neutrality xD

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

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

.

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.

yes it does, it's reverse OMGUS.

Reverse OMGUS? What do you mean?

[cerebus3]

I smell broken logic.

It is really quite pungent isn't it?

vote: Untitled

Admittedly, I should go back and finish reading the pre-game, but that is where my guts takes me based upon the first 7 or so pages.

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[armlx]

Admittedly, I should go back and finish reading the pre-game, but that is where my guts takes me based upon the first 7 or so pages.

Gut != valid. Explain please.

SC: BM's posts weren't really devoid of content, and the example you are using is flawed. Its not 3 vs 10, its 73 vs 3, in which the 73 add up to actual content, just spread out. Also, I'm interested in why you are insisting on content before there is even a random stage.

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

Also, I'm interested in why you are insisting on content before there is even a random stage.

Once I realized I wasn't going to stop everybody in the thread from posting outside of just confirming, I decided "Ah, screw it" and decided to look for usable content.

[Korts]

SC, explain to me why you consider a low signal:noise ratio a definite scumtell when the post rates are this high.

Also, you seem to have listed fifteen posts out of seventy-plus as lacking quality. That number doesn't give me an impression of overall tendency.

[StrangerCoug]

I counted seventeen (note the dash in between two of them), but in any case, there is no way on earth I can process 262 posts minus the confirmation posts in my brain and have decent cases on everybody who made them this early in the game. That is simply too much to ask, and I have to pick something to go after.

I took out some of the posts I knew to be jokes, but those are the ones I find questionable.

[Untitled]

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

vote: battle mage

[Untitled]

also, I just noticed that bm called me "she" in 214. not sure where that came from, but I'm hoping that the little gender icon will clear up any confusion.

[skitzer]

Vote Count One of Day One

(2) Battle Mage: StrangerCoug, Untitled
(1) Netlava: Erratus Apathos
(1) DynamoXI: armlx
(1) wolframnhart: Korts
(1) Untitled: cerebus3

(20) Not Voting: raider8169, Battle Mage, Cass, DynamoXI, Veronica13, Cyberbob, nhat, Cephrir, cris150, Mr. T, maxwellhouse, Netlava, Tovarish, winterbells, MafiaMann, Snaps_The_Pirate, OpposedForce, wolframnhart, PeterGriffin, earthworm

Last Post Count One of Day One

Key:
Green - posted in last 24 hours
Yellow - posted in last 48 hours
Orange - Posted in last 72 hours
Red - Posted more than 72 hours ago, prodded
Dark Red - Requiring Replacement
Dark Blue - Vacation/Limited Access

raider8169

Battle Mage

cerebus3

Cass

Erratus Apathos

armlx

Korts

DynamoXI

Veronica13

Cyberbob

nhat

Cephrir

cris150

Mr. T

Untitled

maxwellhouse

Netlava

Tovarish

winterbells

MafiaMann

StrangerCoug

Snaps_The_Pirate

OpposedForce

wolframnhart

PeterGriffin

earthworm

Note: these counts may not be totally correct, but it's a good estimate for me.

[MafiaMann]

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

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[Netlava]

So wait a second. You want us to scumhunt before the game has even started, and yet you wish to basicially stifle discussion, (Calling the people who were talking about the implications of the treaty scummy, and saying that scum would be more interested in talking about the pact than townies.) After you criticize someone else for reccomending stifling discussion? What?

Pointing out questionable behavior =/= stifling discussion. In fact, it may even encourage it or shift the topic to something more useful. I'd prefer a discussion about scum over some policy debate, but, I don't expect anyone to have a case at this point. The sudden enthusiasm over some policy was what I found suspicious.

Vote: PeterGriffin

as my not quite random vote.

[DynamoXI]

Okay I wasnt able to get on for all of yesterday and wow I missed 10 pages of discussion? haha and it was all pregame! Thats I first for me. I find it funny how everyone could generate such an amazing controversy over something that seemed so meaningless at the time (considering it was pregame)

Im gonna go back and read up before I vote.

[PeterGriffin]

My apologies for not being around the last couple days, have had some school problems. Will make a response to some of the things I missed, hopefully tonight.

[Veronica13]

Oh my. I was looking for this game in the wrong forum. I'm here now. I will catch up tonight. Sorry!

[Snaps_the_Pirate]

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.

So your team effort is to lynch the player that is generating the most discussion, even though you don't really think he's scum, just because he is making alot of nosie early in the game? Doesn't really make sense to me.

[maxwellhouse]

gahhh.

i have to read pre-game =/ damn you all!

[Erratus Apathos]

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?

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.

So your team effort is to lynch the player that is generating the most discussion, even though you don't really think he's scum, just because he is making alot of nosie early in the game?

Praytell, when did Coug say he wanted to lynch BM?

[PeterGriffin]

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?

My apologies, I should have been clearer. I was conceding your point regarding the intent to lynch. However, I find the distant suddenness of your want to vote BM intriguing, when your points had occurred throughout Page 4.

likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

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

.

Belittling of the current topic of discussion.

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.

Dismissal of the current topic of discussion without providing an alternative. Since you refuse to give an idea as to what we would talk about if we following your advice and stop discussing the treaty issue, it does seem like you're cutting off discussion.

[it's still pre-game, we don't need to have an in-depth conversation about

anything

. if we were half way through day 1 and I'd done what you say I've done then you might have a case for me cutting off discussion, but we're nowhere near that point.

Except that having such a detailed discussion in pre-game will simply give us more data to go on during the actual day, something that I for one am willing to live with, although there is plenty of noise there as well. But that's going to happen early game regardless.

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.

... Did you just make up a term? I've never heard "Reverse OMGUS" used before. Ever. (And I've read plenty of Mafia games here.)

"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.

First of all, you're right, it's not a logical argument, but when the reasoning you use to vote for someone is pretty badly flawed, you have to consider that there's another reason that they're voting you. Let's look at the reasons you've poised thus far.

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.

Incorrect. The reactions to the treaty and comments thereof are definately potentially useful for scumhunting ammunition. In fact, this had been discussed before you made this post, so you not even bothering to respond to the case against your point is rather telling.

that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing.

I disagree with BM's posting style as well. I dislike that he often flavours his responses with ad-hominem attacks. However, this is simply his posting style, and from my meta, this is the way he usually acts. Therefore, I don't see it as a legitimate reason for a vote. At all.

unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

Except that not only has BM encouraged discussion during the pre-game, he came up with a strategy that was sure to create contraversy and reactions, which can be essential to scumhunting. Again, I often dislike the way he encourages the discussion, but he has definately done so. I fail to see how BM is going to be a detriment to the town's scumhunting.

Things I am not sure I should just laugh at or should note for later:

So, nhat, are you planning to actually provide content after the game starts, or is every post going to be like this? Your other post was also just a pointless jab at BM's teaty.

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.

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

What exactly is notable about it? I ask Nhat if he is going to provide content in the future, he attacks me, I apologize for some of the tone in the post. And then why do you FOS me in another post, when the only thing you have said about me is this, which you admit isn't even a legitimate point against me until "much later"?

So wait a second. You want us to scumhunt before the game has even started, and yet you wish to basicially stifle discussion, (Calling the people who were talking about the implications of the treaty scummy, and saying that scum would be more interested in talking about the pact than townies.) After you criticize someone else for reccomending stifling discussion? What?

Pointing out questionable behavior =/= stifling discussion. In fact, it may even encourage it or shift the topic to something more useful. I'd prefer a discussion about scum over some policy debate, but, I don't expect anyone to have a case at this point. The sudden enthusiasm over some policy was what I found suspicious.

Vote: PeterGriffin

as my not quite random vote.

But you didn't even provide another topic for us to discuss, you specifically called the people who were discussing the current topic as scummy. I wasn't particularly "enthusiastic", I simply found the arguments against the treaty to be inadequate, and felt that responding would promote discussion regarding the treaty, an interesting topic, which could impact the game, especially early on.

For the moment,

Vote: Untitled

as a result of his craplogic case against BM, and not providing any solid other reason for his vote.