Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Battle Mage]

I dont understand what your first sentence is meant to achieve?

It's an answer to your question.

ah ok.

BM

[StrangerCoug]

FOS EGL

Nice job helping out a slipping scum buddy....

This reeks somewhat of a stretch. I do agree that we should be worrying more about scum hunting than figuring out the scum (at least in the long run), but I don't see how his answer hurts the town?

Its not pro-town to answer that question directed at BA.

In that case, why aren't you FoS'ing the person asking in the first place?

[Lowell]

Still catching up.

vote sensfan

. Welcome.

[StrangerCoug]

Still catching up.

vote sensfan

. Welcome.

If you're catching up, then why are you throwing out a vote with no given reason?

Vote: Lowell

[Battle Mage]

@bm,

ok so i finished reading the treaty arguments and i have a few questions,

1) the treaty its self would either work like fly paper atracting scum to it thus making it easy to se them correct?

It can work in two ways. Either it becomes a body in the way i originally intended, which can be used to put players under scrutiny, and gauge interactions, and most of all, differentiate between townies and scumbags by how strictly they will stand by the treaty. The argument put forward against the treaty, was that scum would dominate it-in which case, my retort was that we would then be able to nail them very easily.

2) by making the treaty small say less than 6 it cares no real danger power? but it does break the large group up into small peices,

the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. 6 people can be quite an influential force, if they comprise 50% of a majority, they dont need much outside support to comprise a formidable looking wagon.

I'm also inclined to agree with Armlx. As a general principle, EGL, you should have let him defend his own statement first, and jumped in later if necessary. That said, i dont think it's especially scummy.
In any case, i'm inclined to think the Poisoner(s) are protown, or neutral.

@Skruffs- what do you mean?

BM

[Lowell]

^^^ continuation vote. Haven't seen anything to suggest I was wrong about Cass yet.

[StrangerCoug]

Unvote: Lowell

That was a quick response, although it's still suspicious in my mind that he's voting when he's not caught up.

[Battle Mage]

Its not pro-town to answer that question directed at BA.

In that case, why aren't you FoS'ing the person asking in the first place?

wtf? 0.o

Lowell bandwagon suits me for now.

Vote: Lowell

BM

[Battle Mage]

not so much a bandwagon any more.

FoS: SC

- easily pleased much?

BM

[StrangerCoug]

I could ask almost that same question of you, Battle Mage. Why are you so easily pleased with a Lowell bandwagon?

[Tom Mason]

Still catching up.

vote sensfan

. Welcome.

I agree with a

FOS

, given all the time put into Cass in the last day.

Not sure how quick dropping votes will help any.

Definitely want to here from Sensfan on everything. There is a lot to catch up with, so hopefully SF has something sooner than later to say.

[Tom Mason]

I could ask almost that same question of you, Battle Mage. Why are you so easily pleased with a Lowell bandwagon?

You seem awfully antsy and ready to jump onto people right now...

Something for us to worry about?

[Battle Mage]

I could ask almost that same question of you, Battle Mage. Why are you so easily pleased with a Lowell bandwagon?

Erm, you COULD. Except my question was 'Why are you so easily pleased with Lowell's response, which really, resolved nothing?'

BM

[armlx]

In that case, why aren't you FoS'ing the person asking in the first place?

You misunderstand. The point was for BA to explain himself reasonably, not be thrown an out by someone else.

[StrangerCoug]

I could ask almost that same question of you, Battle Mage. Why are you so easily pleased with a Lowell bandwagon?

Erm, you COULD. Except my question was 'Why are you so easily pleased with Lowell's response, which really, resolved nothing?'

BM

Because he was voting SensFan for Cass's actions, and I saw her as scummy.

[Battle Mage]

I could ask almost that same question of you, Battle Mage. Why are you so easily pleased with a Lowell bandwagon?

Erm, you COULD. Except my question was 'Why are you so easily pleased with Lowell's response, which really, resolved nothing?'

BM

Because he was voting SensFan for Cass's actions, and I saw her as scummy.

If you felt Sensfan was a worthy target, why did you jump on Lowell in the first place?

BM

[StrangerCoug]

If you felt Sensfan was a worthy target, why did you jump on Lowell in the first place?

I believe I said something along the lines of thinking it scummy to vote while you're playing catchup.

[tubby216]

2) by making the treaty small say less than 6 it cares no real danger power? but it does break the large group up into small peices,

the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. 6 people can be quite an influential force, if they comprise 50% of a majority, they dont need much outside support to comprise a formidable looking wagon.

@ bm
the point i failed to make was that by entering the pact it would force the townie member to root the scum out of his pact first ,, like narrowing the search rather than lookin at all 20 some odd people they would first look at their members to clear or accuse them ??

but pretty much the pact thing is a moute point and i need to move on

back to reading noob lol,, i'll just let the grown ups talk awhile now

[Battle Mage]

If you felt Sensfan was a worthy target, why did you jump on Lowell in the first place?

I believe I said something along the lines of thinking it scummy to vote while you're playing catchup.

Which he still was after his explanation. What changed to make you remove your vote?

HoS: SC

BM

[Tom Mason]

Nothing changed... And I do not like it one bit.

BM and SC's' votes for Lowell are entirely different as I see it. BM has never come out to challenge Cass, while SC's already admitted to being speculative of her.

So BM's vote against Lowell does not bother me like SC's vote does/did.

Someone else needs to chime in, though. I want to hear some other thoughts, namely on this.

[EGL]

Its not pro-town to answer that question directed at BA.

Okay I guess in that instance you're right. My bad. I just knew what he was talking about having read about it on that site previously and having contemplated using the role in games I've run, so it struck me as odd that people DIDN'T know about it. Since I already knew about the role myself, in my eyes he just knew what he was talking about and had adequately answered questions about the role, although he didn't provide a link to the game where he saw it used. My thinking was that it would benefit the town to be able to read about and understand the role, but I can see your point.

[armlx]

I've seen poisoner as pro-town before, but never as a mafia role and felt that needed to be looked into more. The way its described, it seems like double kills which is pretty rediculous.

The issue is that was a potential slip, showing BA knew more about the kills then he should.

[Battle Mage]

^thats pretty much where i am.

BM

[StrangerCoug]

If you felt Sensfan was a worthy target, why did you jump on Lowell in the first place?

I believe I said something along the lines of thinking it scummy to vote while you're playing catchup.

Which he still was after his explanation. What changed to make you remove your vote?

Other than that, I'll be damned if I really know.

Vote: Lowell

There.

[Cyberbob]

^thats pretty much where i am.

So you're suspicious of yourself for knowing too much about the nightkills than you should?

Huh.