Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[nhat]

/confirm

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

[nhat]

LOL - Everyone who is taking this treaty shit seriously

[nhat]

LOL - Everyone who is taking this treaty shit seriously

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.

So, PeterGriffin, are you planning to actually chill the fuck out, or is every post of yours going to be anally analyzing every post that comes up?Settle your overeager ass down. You've got 12 posts on this site and you are trying to criticize people for their pre-game antics.

[nhat]

overkill: nhat

228 in-game posts and you are already acting like you've got a couple thousand. Don't be a snob, don't be a prick, don't be an elitist jerk, please.

Okay, mom

[nhat]

Look, everthing boils down to BM, in jest, developing a pact of sorts, and overanxious cats took it upon themselves to blow it way out of proportion. BM kept the facade because, from my experience with him, he's a feather ruffler, having a laugh at how a lot of you dove right into a pool of horseshit, with PBPA and quote pyramids and all that.

[nhat]

Also, what's killing me is there's a few of you judging people by their pre-game content, or lack thereof. Be lucky that there is some content to go by because nobody has to do anything but confirm.

[nhat]

Also, what's killing me is there's a few of you judging people by their pre-game content, or lack thereof. Be lucky that there is some content to go by because nobody has to do anything but confirm.

Nhat, do you have any thoughts on other players judging by the pre-game content? If so is there anyone you find suspicous?

I'd have to have another look, it's just that one of my pet peeves is players getting worked up and drawing sides on something as asinine and shallow as an in-game voting pact.

[nhat]

I'm gonna have to go back through the pregame, but from what I recall, there were a few people who were already soft-claiming, so I'll have to look again to see who exactly was doing it.

[nhat]

Eh, just one soft claim

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

.

vote - Untitled

[nhat]

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.

[nhat]

[*]Post 101 - Go back to bed, nhat.

Oh god, I accidentally hit submit instead of preview.

I will post the complete version when it's done. Sad

Fission Mailed.

[nhat]

[*]Post 101 - Go back to bed, nhat.

Oh god, I accidentally hit submit instead of preview.

I will post the complete version when it's done. Sad

Fission Mailed.

Cram it.

LMAO, I haven't seen that expression in a dog's age. I'm so used to to the netizens saying "drink bleach," "die now," and the like.

[nhat]

You're answer is in my quote that you posted.

[nhat]

ebwop:

Your

answer is in my quote that you posted.

[nhat]

Nhat: so, if I'd say "

We

should lynch Untitled." I'm scummy? Or what's the difference?

The difference being scum are willing to participate in lynches, but scumhunting is the job of townies. Like I said, I don't like it because it's so subtle, that's my preference. Your mileage may vary.

Also, because players use "our" and "us", I guess I'd have to chalk that one up to Too Townie.

[nhat]

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.

that's just dumb. your theory is that a townie should only ever refer to the town as an abstract concept? I'm sure I could find a

lot

of examples of townies using the words "us" and "our" in reference to the town if you really want me to look.

In this game, yes, please show me some examples. From what I saw, yours was the only one, and that's why it stood out to me.

[nhat]

bottom line: is it a scumtell or not? the number of people that did it in this game is irrelevant.

For me, yes, it is. How the HELL could it be otherwise when I said it then put my vote on you in the same post?

[nhat]

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.

Why with the hard on for me? You take shots at me in your PBPA, calling my post on page 9 trolling when it's clearly my take on the whole pact situation. Then you see others piling up on me and you stick your nose in there, too.

Nobody asked you to agree with me about the Too Townieness of Untitled. If you don't like it, you know what to do, big guy.

[nhat]

Just because something has been written about Too Townie in a wiki doesn't make it gospel truth. I didn't know you guys are stho sthensthitive.

Vote: nhat

He's still not definite scum at this point, but his vote on Untitled is what has me suspicious.

He used a ridiculous argument to justify his wote, and it's made worse by the fact that Untitled was already the subject of votes and suspicions from other players, which makes it seem like he was scum thinking he could avoid suspicion since his actions were on someone who was already disliked.

This, coupled with his defensiveness in the rest of the game, is why I think he's one of our best bets for scum at this point.

Read the bold. That's you right now.

[nhat]

PeterGriffin, your vote reeks of OMGUS.

It's one thing to disagree with me, but if you guys equate disagreement with scumtell and want to pile the votes on, then be my guest.

That's all I need to say about it. I'll have another look through and hopefully pick up on something that won't get me gang raped in Switzerland.

[nhat]

PeterGriffin, your vote reeks of OMGUS.

Where did you attack him to prompt the OMGUS?

Post 101

[nhat]

PeterGriffin, your vote reeks of OMGUS.

Where did you attack him to prompt the OMGUS?

Post 101

"I attacked you during the pregame, so you're not allowed to attack me ever again."

Unvote, Vote: nhat

Did you read PeterGriffin's post, or are you looking for an excuse to bandwagon?

[nhat]

Hey fine, I guess I'm the scummy bad guy in this game. How's this for being a jerk.

The pact was a farce. In no way would it benefit anyone or anything. The pact in and of itself was so flawed, that I felt it was idiotic for anyone to even take it seriously. I'm still dumbfounded that it was so blown out of proportion. Cats are saying I was trying to stifle the discussion. Fine, continue to bicker on about a non-issue.

As for my thoughts about Untitled, it's unanimous that everyone disagrees with me. Many people say that it was flawed. It's what I see. My opinion. For people to vote me for that is plain silly. Disagreement is fine, as I had said before.

Petergriffin had his smart assed comment about my vote count and belittling my game playing ability at the same time reeks of OMGUS because I jumped on him when he tried to criticize me before. That's why.

[nhat]

As for my thoughts about Untitled, it's unanimous that everyone disagrees with me. Many people say that it was flawed. It's what I see. My opinion. For people to vote me for that is plain silly. Disagreement is fine, as I had said before.

Logic as mindnumbingly simple as why the "Too Townie" tell is retarded - not to mention trying to base it on usage of plural pronouns - is not subjective, sorry.

Schooling me yet again with shit that's already been said. Nice one, Sherlock. Now kindly hop off my nuts and find another dead horse to beat.

[nhat]

Quick question to everyone:

Cyberbob has been attacking me nonstop, yet he's ducking my bandwagon. Why's that?

[nhat]

nhat's being all bitchy isn't helping him at all (hinthint, actually discussing with a logical person while they are being wagoned does wonders for the town in so many ways I hear).

When things get repeated like it's something new, I have no choice but to get at people. There's no undoing what's been done, and if you have anything new to add to your case against me besides me flipping out on unoriginal posts, then get to it.

[nhat]

Unvote
Vote - Erratus Apathos

His first case against Netlava:

Netlava wrote:
Also, earthworm and petergriffin are way too interested in arguing about the pact.

Yes, let's discourage argument, that'll help the town. Rolling Eyes
ItV: Netlava

Then hops off to vote Cephrir for this:

Cephrir wrote:
Votes generally indicate a willingness to lynch someone.

Unvote, Vote: Cephrir. You know that statement doesn't apply to the beginning of day 1.

Then changes his vote yet again on me based on this:

"I attacked you during the pregame, so you're not allowed to attack me ever again." Rolling Eyes
Unvote, Vote: nhat

All of your reasons are flimsy. I'd look past it if it was once, seeing it was the start of the day, but twice more looks suspicious.

[nhat]

On the other hand, EA implied that his votes do not mean an intention to lynch (yet). So his vote-swapping is comparable to a load of FoSes for different people, which does not seem scummy to me. I sounds like Nhat has built another very weak case, this time to distract attention.

Unvote
Vote: Nhat

It is a good bandwagon.

So...because I'm under the spotlight it's scummy for me to scumhunt? Also, I'm not feeling how you are comparing my case on Untitled and the one on EA since one is more substantial than the other.

[nhat]

Nhat do you really think that cyberbob is scum just because he has a case on you??

No, not really.

And please excuse the coarse language. I had no idea that there were 10 year olds in the game.

Stay in school!

[nhat]

Unvote
Vote - Erratus Apathos

His first case against Netlava:

Netlava wrote:
Also, earthworm and petergriffin are way too interested in arguing about the pact.

Yes, let's discourage argument, that'll help the town. Rolling Eyes
ItV: Netlava

Then hops off to vote Cephrir for this:

Cephrir wrote:
Votes generally indicate a willingness to lynch someone.

Unvote, Vote: Cephrir. You know that statement doesn't apply to the beginning of day 1.

Then changes his vote yet again on me based on this:

"I attacked you during the pregame, so you're not allowed to attack me ever again." Rolling Eyes
Unvote, Vote: nhat

All of your reasons are flimsy. I'd look past it if it was once, seeing it was the start of the day, but twice more looks suspicious.

Fine EA, let me attack your arguments. In your first vote on Netlava, your reasoning is because he is expressing his disapproval of two players and their long-winded discussion about *sigh* the pact. You equate this with discouraging argument of any kind, prevote him on page 4, then stay silent until the day begins, with your first post of the day being a vote on Netlava with no other comments about anything.

Your second vote is because of Cephrir's comment about a vote being a will to lynch. That's not 100% true in my opinion, votes can be more versatile than that, but you don't really explain why it's a scumtell, and you switch your vote.

Your third vote is silly and opportunistic, basically you putting words in my mouth to paint me even scummier than others already have been doing.

[nhat]

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

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

[nhat]

Fine EA, let me attack your arguments. In your first vote on Netlava, your reasoning is because he is expressing his disapproval of two players and their long-winded discussion about *sigh* the pact. You equate this with discouraging argument of any kind, prevote him on page 4, then stay silent until the day begins, with your first post of the day being a vote on Netlava with no other comments about anything.

At the time of Netlava's post, the pact discussion was the only discussion. Netlava tried to discourage that discussion without promoting any other form of discussion, therefore he was effectively discouraging discussion of any kind. It's not a strong point by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a damn sight more suspicious than anything BM or Untitled or even you had done at that point.

Your second vote is because of Cephrir's comment about a vote being a will to lynch. That's not 100% true in my opinion, votes can be more versatile than that, but you don't really explain why it's a scumtell, and you switch your vote.

Cephrir's comment blipped my bullshitometer enough that I felt a vote for additional pressure was warranted (particularly in comparison to my Netlava vote which wasn't accomplishing anything), but not hard enough that I was willing to push for a full-fledged wagon before I got more info from the horse's mouth.

Your third vote is silly and opportunistic, basically you putting words in my mouth to paint me even scummier than others already have been doing.

"You're putting words in my mouth" is a completely worthless argument that has no business in Mafia. Players, particularly scum players, don't always say what they mean; as such, inferring an unspoken motive for any given post is a very legitimate method of hunting scum. If you'd like to disprove the motive I inferred you had for accusing PeterGriffin of OMGUS, by all means, but "I never said that I had that motive" does precisely nothing to convince me that I'm wrong.

As for how I came to that conclusion: PeterGriffin's attack on you in post 345 has no obvious connection to you insulting him in post 101, and you didn't do anything that showed them to be connected, nor did you show anything he said to be wrong. It smacked of trying to use post 101 as a "get out of suspicion free" card.

Your defense for your first vote is fair enough, yet at that point you had sat back and let the game start without further participation for 6 pages just to vote for him.

Your defense for your second post shows that you wanted to pressure him, but not support a bandwagon. Then why not FoS him? You putting your vote on looks like a bandwagon in the making. Bandwagons have to start somewhere.

As for your your third vote's defense, you can explain how you have inferred my so-called motive. Because, indeed PeterGriffin had slyly commented on post-count with his vote on me because I had done so to him during our pre-day spat. If he thought his argument was strong, then he wouldn't have to put in that smarmy comment to make it look like he was getting back at me. But he did, and it looked like some OMGUS.

No reasons I can see to change my vote at the moment.



@Hasd- For my post 400, it references MafiaMann's birthday in his profile.

[nhat]

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

BM

What's with all this nutriding?

[nhat]

Still here, but will be busy with work for the next two days. I'll have a good lookover at that time.

[nhat]

I like EA's case on Armlx, and it's like, an actual case as opposed to his earlier vote hopping escapades. I endorse this bandwagon

unvote

vote - Armlx

[nhat]

1. Basically armlx pushing the hell out of the EA situation that I had brought up without committing the vote. Also him voting Dynamo, then voting for me, then hopping off of me to inexplicably go back to Dynamo.

2. Deadline is coming up, and the armlx bandwagon looks like the best option for lynch. You can't expect like 14 unique arguments for lynching one person. EA summed up well.

[nhat]

This is not a defense. Please try again.

Lol who said I was making a defense? :p

4 more votes till im locked in to lynch or does my math suck?

Yeah, it seems like you have just given up. You could try to at least defend yourself so as to give us more to work with in the coming days. People are begging you to contribute something to the mix, and somehow you feel that you don't need to defend yourself? I don't see this as pro-town at all.

unvote
Vote - DynamoXI

[nhat]

Strangercoug has a point about Netlava. He voted Dynamo, yet the three posts he made before the vote are interesting.

I'm getting a newb feel from dynamo's posts that seems geniune enough. The main thing I don't like is how he gave up on defending himself. The rest, I think, can be explained well enough.

Genuine Newb feeling and subtle coaching

Well, it would be great if Dynamo could defend himself *hint, hint*. Dynamo, who do you think is scummy?

Moves on to outright coaching

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

He feels that Dynamo is probably town, decides to let the town sway his decision.

And then here's his vote post, in it's entirety:

Unvote, vote: DynamoXI

So once he voted:

a) He gave zero reason to why he up and switched his vote.
b) He put Dynamo at L-1


I'm going to

unvote, vote - Netlava

. I'd be okay with either a Netlava or Dynamo lynch, but I think this is something worth looking at before the deadline. Otherwise, I'll put my vote back on Dynamo.

[nhat]

Prod.

Might as well put my vote back onto Dynamo. I'm surprised the amount of FsOS on Netlava, but I guess everyone is waiting for Day two to put their votes on him. So be it.

Unvote
Vote DynamoXI

[nhat]

V/LA from Sunday until Wednesday.

[nhat]

vote - Netlava

per my explanation in post 830.

One of my pet peeves is people jumping on other people about their FoS if it's not detracting from other issues, especially at the beginning of the day. If hasd thought cream's comment was suspicious, then by all means he should call him out on it.

[nhat]

Don't think I posted this here, but will be back on monday.

[nhat]

Sorry to say guys, I won't be continuing and have asked the mod for replacement.

Best of luck!