Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[StrangerCoug]

I hereby understand and confirm my role.

[StrangerCoug]

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

*tears up the pact*

[StrangerCoug]

SC you're always in my games. lol

Welcome to hell xD

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

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

[StrangerCoug]

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

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

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

.

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

yes it does, it's reverse OMGUS.

Reverse OMGUS? What do you mean?

[StrangerCoug]

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

[StrangerCoug]

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

[StrangerCoug]

I smell broken logic.

What specifically?

[StrangerCoug]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[StrangerCoug]

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.

Not really. You can be trying to lynch someone from vote #1.

Do you honestly think it is pro-town of me to suggest somebody's lynch this early and with this few posts on Battle Mage when I've repeatedly stated that there are too many posts to manage everybody's case?

[StrangerCoug]

Minor FoS: animorpherv1

because this is not the random voting stage.

[StrangerCoug]

I understand now. Where I come from you know the cop and doc in advance, so you can't kill them! xD (They call the doc the bodyguard there, but the role behaves the same way. You also don't vote out in the open where I come from.)

Un-FoS: animorpherv1

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP:

Minor FoS: animorpherv1

because this is not the random voting stage.

How does random voting make him more likely to be scum?

He picked the wrong time to do it, although he didn't realize it and I just forgave him for his mistake.

[StrangerCoug]

Along with the fact that he mentions that he has played a completly different form of mafia that floors me (It seems that he just interjected something so that he wouldn't just be saying "I understand now"

FoS: StrangerCoug

The "quality, not quantity" post can be debated, but because of the radically different playstyle there, it really did take me time to adapt from that site's thread to this site. Read my MafiaWiki page if you still don't believe me, because anything ever wrong with that page will fit into three categories, in approximate order of how easy it is to catch:

• Outdated information
  
• Things I didn't know
  
• Honest mistakes that I didn't mean to be misrepresentative

I don't lie about where else I go and how else I play, you know.

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: Delete the extraneous [/list] tag from #355 please.

[StrangerCoug]

Post 64-SC: No, game discussion is fine before everyone has confirmed. What's wrong with it?

For the last time, it's not something I'm used to... *grumble*

[StrangerCoug]

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.

Could you explain nhat's distraction please?

Cass calls the case a distraction, which sounds like a conscious decision.

Unvote, vote: Cass

That's an awfully weak reason for a vote switch.

FoS: Netlava

[StrangerCoug]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

.

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.

[StrangerCoug]

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 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.

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.

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.

What else am I supposed to do, sit there?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
B. Yeah, right. You don't pay attention either. I

will

speak up when I have something to add.
C. You only call it OMGUS because you fail to understand my case on you.

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

Then prove they don't.

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.

Town or scum, I will question anything I'm not used to.

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.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

Stop ridiculing me.

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.

[StrangerCoug]

I have to leave at the moment, but I really am doing the player review. As I said, I'm skipping Battle Mage on purpose and told him to skip me in his own review, but I do have the first seven of the other players alphabetically at this point.

[StrangerCoug]

OK, I'm back. Here's the player review that I said I'd do so I have people other than Battle Mage to look at. This took a very long time, but I feel it's well worth it.

armlx:

His first post attacks both the pact and Battle Mage's multiposting. Decides to look at the nhat vs. Peter Griffin case, then FoS's the latter and wolframnhart and votes DynamoXI, presumably for a reason having to do with the pact (I typed this up while looking at each post in isolation, though I also opened another tab with all the posts). He then chips in on the Battle Mage vs. StrangerCoug case, largely on me. Questions nhat's soft claim accusation, then says nhat is confusing a slip with a soft claim. Goes back to me, this time regarding my case against Snaps_the_Pirate. Returns to nhat's case and says soft claims are OK. Asks MafiaMann whether he has opinions or just anecdotal comments. Questions nhat's accusing PeterGriffin of OMGUS, then proceeds to vote the former for misrepresentation. Shifts his attention to cris150 for one vote, then returns to nhat. Buys his case and switches his vote back to DynamoXI for jumping on the pact wagon. Explains to Cass that nhat's first two votes were weak and the third strong. Engages in a discussion about whether votes are necessarily an intent to lynch and argues that it should given the long pregame. Voices an objection to Battle Mage's multiposting, briefly goes back to Battle Mage vs. StrangerCoug, then discusses vote switches with Erratos Apathos. armlx leans pro-town to me.

Cass:

Decides not to trust anybody about the pact at first, then not to engage in discussion about the pact. FoS's nhat because his soft claim accusation doesn't make sense and votes me for hypocrisy and badly stretched logic. Disagrees that soft claiming is a tell. Explains what she thinks is my "badly stretched logic". Asks DynamoXI why he's so hesitant to vote. Votes nhat for creating a distraction with a weak case. Attacks the vote hopping accusation on her by saying she's only voted for nhat and me. I want to say that she's town.

Cephrir:

A lot of his early discussion is about the pact. Announces that he hopes scum joins the pact (this is where I'm getting that scum will infiltrate the pact, BTW). A lot of his discussion about the pact is with Opposed Force. Tells Untitled that "we're all out to get you", then votes him in his next post for craplogic. FoS's nhat for WIFOM and thinking a soft claim is a scumtell, and asks him to look up Too Townie. Decides to vote nhat given that he doesn't want to sift through the game to quote Battle Mage for truth and that Untitled wasn't as bad as he once thought. Attacks Erratos Apathos's voting him because vote = intent to lynch doesn't apply on Day 1 by saying this game is an exception, then votes him two posts later for reasons that I can't exactly make out. Cephrir leans on the scummy side to me.

cerebus3:

Very weak reason if any for voting Untitled. His replacement had better clean up his act.

cris150:

I have a null read on this person as she hasn't contributed much as of yet, but she has gotten attention from armlx to an extent, Battle Mage, Cyberbob, nhat, Untitled, and me, with the latter two of us her suspicions. She has posted a PBPA up to post 330.

Cyberbob:

Implies that he is against the pact. FoS's me based on post #254 and votes Netlava given post #88 and that he hasn't posted much content. Pretty good case on nhat. Voices a dislike of Cass's vote on nhat, but doesn't say why. States that he wouldn't be attacking nhat so much if he weren't acting like a crybaby, but that he is "not going to buy into anything else" until Netlava defends CB's vote on NL. Says that he doesn't object to Netlava's attacking the pact discussion, but rather that he agrees with it after having just done so. I'm getting a town vibe off this guy.

DynamoXI:

Spends a good deal of the pre-game discussing the pact. FoS's nhat for horrible logic. Brings up my "quality, not quantity" argument and dismisses my buying PeterGriffin's defense for his random vote given my unusual-to-this-site other Mafia experience online as what I interpret as a lame excuse to clear him, and FoS's me for both. Defends his not voting as wanting a strong case on someone first. Buys nhat's case on Erratos Apathos and votes the latter. The vote looks like one of appeasement, however, and I already told him that if he doubted my Mafia experiences outside this site he could look them up on my MafiaWiki page.

FoS: DynamoXI

earthworm:

Tells me he sees no problem with extended pre-game discussion, then takes a stance against the pact. Thinks that people who join it without reason are more likely lazy town than scum. Responds to my prediction of someone voting me for not wanting pre-game discussion with a wish he listened to me. Votes nhat because he finds his voting Untitled suspicious. Unvotes three posts later, but still suspects him given he's trying to deflect his case on him by attacking Erratos Apathos. Says he isn't defending Netlava so much as disagreeing with Cyberbob's case on Netlava. Accuses Cephrir of vote hopping. earthworm is acting pro-town here.

Erratos Apathos:

Predicts that the pact will implode four pages into Day 1. Shoots down my accusing Battle Mage of not posting a lot of content in the pregame. Asks Snaps_the_Pirate when I said I wanted to lynch Battle Mage. Asks why I think animorpherv1 is scum for placing a random vote. Votes Cephrir because, according to EA, Day 1 votes never imply an intent to lynch, then switches his vote to nhat for post #101. Says town wouldn't change their mind more than once. Dismisses the argument "you're putting words in my mouth" as worthless and having no business in Mafia. I'm glad I directed my attention away from Battle Mage to take a look at everybody else, because these vote reasons are HORRENDOUS. Not only that, but a pro-town player can and does change his mind more than once, and it is indeed wrong to put words in someone's mouth.

Unvote: Battle Mage

and

vote: Erratos Apathos

.

Korts:

The majority of the pre-game is one-liners, but he does voice suspicion of the pact. Ironically, he forms his own pact to fight it. Admits to sitting on the fence in terms of the pact. Votes wolframnhart for the same reason that armlx voted DynamoXI. Attacks my case against Battle Mage by saying that 15 out of 73 posts lacking quality is not enough to accuse him of it. Attacks nhat's soft claim accusation by saying everyone claims to be pro-town. His minimal contribution gives me a scum vibe; however, I'll give him the chance to come up with some decent cases when he comes back from V/LA.

MafiaMann:

Of his six posts other than his confirmation, four are one-liners. Objects to the treaty. Asks if I think Battle Mage is scum or my best option. Says that the way a case is presented can help or hurt a player. Asks if nhat suspects Cyberbob (who thinks MafiaMann meant Erratos Apathos) solely because the latter has a case against the former. I need to see more contribution from this guy if I am to believe he is pro-town.

IGMEOY: MafiaMann

.

maxwellhouse:

Disagrees that using the first person plural is a scum tell. Says that pressure votes Day 1, even in a game like this, are possible. Says that, as of 4:43:54 PM MDT on August 21, nhat is the only person anywhere near a lynch with five votes. Argues that some people aren't going to read the pre-game since it's before the actual game. What little he has said so far makes me believe he is town at this moment.

Mr. T:

Post, damn it! All you've done is confirm!

Netlava:

Objects to the pact and FoS's PeterGriffin and earthworm for arguing over it and me for asking not to post in the pre-game. Votes PeterGriffin because pointing out objectionable behavior ≠ stifling discussion. Clears his suspicion of my not wanting pre-game discussion as it being in tune with my play style. Attacks PeterGriffin's question about my play style and why it excuses me from being hypocritical as loaded. Suspects Cephrir. Votes Cass for arbitrarily calling nhat's case a distraction. Frowns on earthworm buddying up to him. I don't like Netlava's vote switch, and my FoS on him at #405 stands, but I will downgrade it to a

minor FoS: Netlava

if only because most of his other posts are reasonable.

nhat:

Appears to be anti-pact. Accuses PeterGriffin of being overeager. Votes Untitled for softclaiming. Says that using the first person plural is Too Townie. Dismisses PeterGriffin's vote on him as OMGUS. Says that the pact was a farce. Votes Erratos Apathos for vote hopping and flimsy reasons for his vote. His early play and overall being a jerk warrants an

FoS: nhat

, but I think he's cleaned up his act since.

OpposedForce:

Objects to the pact and FoS's everybody in it. He engages in a lengthy discussion of the pact with Battle Mage, and it's not until post #227 that he shifts his attention away from it. Votes cerebus3 for skimming the thread and going with whatever's easy for him in lieu of actual scumhunting. Switches his votes to Cass after a reread because, contrary to what she said, not everybody has flimsy cases against people. Says she voted me on her own merit but is now going with the flow and being lazy. OpposedForce is acting pro-town to me.

PeterGriffin:

Starts off neutral in regards to the pact. He accuses OpposedForce of going to extremes with his FoS on everybody in it; on the other hand, he also FoS's DynamoXI for being too eager to join the pact. Shows no initial objection to my saying that discussion should wait until the game starts, but says such discussion is pro-town if started early. Explains the pact to earthworm and says the pact will only be as effective as the alignments of the players within it, so is hesitant to support it. By the time he discusses it with Netlava, he has become slightly anti-pact. States that nhat has been making

argumenta ad hominem

against Battle Mage and the people talking about the pact. FoS's MafiaMann for hypocrisy. Accuses Untitled of threatening to vote Battle Mage for no solid reason, then votes the former for craplogic, then switches to nhat for the same reason as for Untitled and thinking Too Townie is a scumtell. PeterGriffin seems very rational, and I'm OK with him for now.

raider8169:

Pro-pact, but other than that I can't get anything off him.

Snaps_the_Pirate:

Appears to be anti-pact. Implies that I want to get rid of the most talkative player even though I didn't think the player in question was scum at the time. Defends my voting him as his questioning my case on Battle Mage rather than his making a case against me and accuses me of OMGUS (and StP has never voted, mind you). Questions my motivation to vote him. I still don't like his blowing my case out of proportion, and OMGUS only exists when player A votes player B solely because the vice versa happened, so I'm dismissing his accusation here as misrepresentation.

FoS: Snaps_the_Pirate

Tovarish:

Same as Mr. T.

Untitled:

Anti-pact. Lots of discussion about it with Battle Mage et al. and votes Battle Mage for multiple reasons that I'm going to boil down as misrepresentation. Argues that using the first person plural is not softclaiming. Attacks the Too Townie argument as contravening the definition of "scum tell". Says that "I disagree" ≠ craplogic and "generally" allows for exceptions to the rule. I pretty much follow him, and I think he's town.

Veronica13:

Agrees with PeterGriffin about Netlava. Attacks nhat's reasoning as misguided and votes him, then switches to Cass for a lazy reason to vote nhat. I'm neutral on her (I presume Veronica13 is female given her username), but she is levelheaded.

winterbells/animorpherv1:

winterbells never posted. animorpherv1 random votes PeterGriffin and explains it as being from another site (which I am too), and then votes nhat on heresay about his softclaiming. This is the only three things he has done, and he doesn't seem to be trying to participate.

HoS: animopherv1

.

wolframnhart/hasdgfas:

wolframnhart wonders why people should form a pact to kill off people in a pact, but agrees with the latter one. hasdgfas comes in and votes DynamoXI based on post #58. Unvotes given that he shouldn't have voted if he hasn't caught up to everybody yet. Most of what he brings up is pretty good; however, I'm going to go neutral on hasdgfas until he's on the same page as everybody else. However,

mod: hasdgfas is not marked in the first post as replacing wolframnhart.

[StrangerCoug]

Says that he doesn't object to Netlava's attacking the pact discussion, but rather that he agrees with it after having just done so.

Reading comprehension FTW. My vote on him is for his turning around and buying into the discussion after having just attacked it, not for the attack itself.

Sorry.

[StrangerCoug]

Yes I do remember. I'd have to go back and check the discussion in Mini 601 (which is finished, so the mod can't kill us for talking about it), but I don't remember this argument being in the same context as in Mini 601.

[StrangerCoug]

OK, Erratos Apathos, I just finished looking at Mini 601, and it appears I bought your defending putting words in veerus's mouth in that game because I understood it was a joke. Are you saying your putting words in nhat's mouth is a joke as well?

[StrangerCoug]

Mr. T:

Post, damn it! All you've done is confirm!

Tovarish:

Same as Mr. T.

So much for those...

[StrangerCoug]

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

Not worrying about OMGUS makes so sense from a protown stance.

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.

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.

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"?

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?

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.

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?

I am responding to your comments. If you feel that you're not getting the kind of responses you want or that I am ignoring your comments by talking about something that's not the point, then say so.

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

So be 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.

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.

Oh, is this retaliation for me not doing favors for 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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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!

Get real. Seriously.

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[/quote]
OK, fair deal.

Cephrir: A lot of his early discussion is about the pact. Announces that he hopes scum joins the pact (this is where I'm getting that scum will infiltrate the pact, BTW). A lot of his discussion about the pact is with Opposed Force. Tells Untitled that "we're all out to get you", then votes him in his next post for craplogic. FoS's nhat for WIFOM and thinking a soft claim is a scumtell, and asks him to look up Too Townie. Decides to vote nhat given that he doesn't want to sift through the game to quote Battle Mage for truth and that Untitled wasn't as bad as he once thought. Attacks Erratos Apathos's voting him because vote = intent to lynch doesn't apply on Day 1 by saying this game is an exception, then votes him two posts later for reasons that I can't exactly make out. Cephrir leans on the scummy side to me.

This is an accurate summary of what I've done in this game, for the most part. Care to explain why you think it makes me scummy? You kinda did something similar with a lot of people actually. So I'll just ask your entire post: why?

You say you hope scum joins the pact, which sounds a bit like something scum itself would say. It's like saying I hope scum kills Battle Mage tonight if he doesn't get lynched (especially since it would imply that I know Battle Mage is town). It is also not clear to me why you are voting Erratos Apathos.

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.

Wow, does that sound like he is scared of BM?

OK, so it's better for us to engage in an ultimately futile vendetta? I don't get it.

SrangerCoug has said an awful lot, but has not said very much. He mentions his case on me a few times. What case? He has said nothing for me to defend.

You said that my team effort was to get the most talkative player in the game lynched, which was not my intent.

He also talks about being misrepresented, yet he stated I was anti-pact. My only comment on the pact was that it was null and wouldn’t affect the game one way or the other. How is that “anti-pact”? Who is mis-representing who?

I misinterpreted that comment. Sorry.

StrangerCoug has yet to anwser my simple question “Why did he initially vote BM?”.

When the game started, a lot of discussion was still about the pact. The page it did so, Untitled accused Battle Mage of misrepresentation, and I believed Untitled's case on Battle Mage, hence my vote for the latter.

I know you only asked about the first time around, but the second time around was for accusing me of refusing to participate until absolutely necessary, which is not true since I've been able to post at least every 24 hours and say something at least half-decent.

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP to fix the quote boxes and address some points that I forgot to:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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?

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.

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?

I am responding to your comments. If you feel that you're not getting the kind of responses you want or that I am ignoring your comments by talking about something that's not the point, then say so.

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

So be 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.

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.

Oh, is this retaliation for me not doing favors for 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.

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?

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

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.

Fine then!

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.

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.[/quote]
Sounds simple, actually.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

Stop ridiculing me.

NEVAR!

Get real. Seriously.

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.

[StrangerCoug]

By request, my review of Battle Mage (who, out of fairness, is now free to do a review of me). Mind you, not counting his confirm vote, he's made 100 posts as of when I started typing, and this is the best way I can condense it without leaving what I feel is important out.

Battle Mage:

Obviously pro-pact since he made the pact. Laughed at Korts's pact made in retaliation to his own. Gives measures as to how he can control the pact. FoS's Cephrir for her Camelot comment. Dismisses OpposedForce's claim that scum will join the pact as ridiculous. States that he dies quickly in games he enjoys. Says OpposedForce doesn't see the similarities between the pact and a Mafia game and that BM would vote him on ridiculous logic. Mentions that he won't survive Night 1. Discusses the pact with earthworm. Asks Korts to explain why he's so willing to string up BM if he survives Night 1. Accuses OpposedForce of never having heard of Mafia. Says that he is vig-meat if he survives Night 1. Accuses OpposedForce of not reading. Asks Untitled why he needs to know how many confirms are left before he can vote BM. States that OpposedForce is the one that said the pact is foolproof and argues that it isn't, then says he said the exact opposite of what earthworm did about the pact. Questions Untitled's accusing him of a distraction. Says that Korts's comment is why BM won't live to see Day 2. Argues with OpposedForce and Untitled about the pact. HoS's Untitled for claiming he hasn't responded to his comments when he has not directed any such comments at him. Agrees with what PeterGriffin has to say about said pact. States that Untitled wants to kill BM for being an annoyance and dismisses the two posts of his Korts brought up as invalid. Asks if Untitled's attack on BM is justified. Accuses Korts of being noncommittal and fence sitting. Jokes with me about the length of the pregame. States that the pact had little chance of being successful. More agreement with PeterGriffin about Untitled, and he takes the same stance as the former on MafiaMann with some exception. More arguments with Untitled. Asks why I want to look at Battle Mage and Untitled and/or why I think the random voting stage can be skipped. Accuses me of tunnel vision. Votes me for being unwilling to participate unless absolutely necessary. Tells me to grow up when I mention my being reminded of one of Stoofer's Laws. Accuses me of hypocrisy and OMGUS. Argues for the pact, which I finally buy in part. Says that, in addition to what I've already covered in this post, I haven't read. Argues that "not a lot of content" and "filler" are two different things. Agrees to do a player review on everybody else while I would also do so, but asks me to review him anyway. Argues MafiaMann's points about his pre-game posts. Argues that wanting someone lynched and thinking someone is the most suspicious is the same thing. FoS's nhat for sheer BS and Cyberbob for being wrong about post #73. Accuses me of attacking one of BM's supporters when I realize pushing him won't work. Asks Netlava if he thinks anybody is scummy and questions his logic for BM being town.

I've taken a good look at the pact now, but I still think it's unnecessary. You've been awfully defensive about it, however. Your early posts aren't as bad on rereading as I thought, but I'm going neutral on you in general now. You do, however, bring up a really good point in your most recent posts...

HoS: MafiaMann

for thinking two people out of 26 in a pact is too many. That's 7.7% of everybody in here. Who's paying less attention about the pact, you or me?

[StrangerCoug]

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

OK, I'll bite. I was looking at an either/or situation and I didn't believe both of you were scum. I still don't.

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.

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.

Nobody is confirmed, so as true as this may be, it's irrelevant.

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.

So sue me.

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?

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.

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"

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

Screw this.

Ok, maybe i am a LITTLE elitist.
But Selfish? COME ON!

Then get a life. If you really do suspect me, then tell me who you think are my scumbuddies, because the game is not necessarily over when I die.

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?

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

I hate you. That's the end of this trivial insult feud.

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.

[StrangerCoug]

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

This does NOT look good at all. There is no Night 0, so you can't be cop with an innocent result, and I really don't know how you've deduced what role he has.

Major HoS: animorpherv1

[StrangerCoug]

OK, Erratos Apathos, I just finished looking at Mini 601, and it appears I bought your defending putting words in veerus's mouth in that game because I understood it was a joke. Are you saying your putting words in nhat's mouth is a joke as well?

No, but the one from the other game wasn't exactly a joke either. What I mean is that my nhat fakequote in post 345 does reflect an opinion of mine (that is, I believe nhat was trying to weasel his way out of PeterGriffin's attack), but I'm not trying to pass it off as an actual nhat quote. Which is the same thing I was trying to do with the veerus fakequote in the other game.

Gotcha.

Unvote: Erratos Apathos

.

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

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

Actually, those are better words. Thanks.

And I really need animorpherv1 in here explaining himself. I hate people that make scummy moves and then skedaddle as if nothing happened. That's a cheap way of getting out. I'm sorry.

Pressure vote: animorpherv1

[StrangerCoug]

I do like Animorphperv for possible scum; partly for the inconsistency Snaps just outlined but also for his arguable rolefishing WRT MafiaMann.

"WRT"?

unvote, vote cass

. Why is cass still talking about "the pact"? It's a totally meaningless diversion.

This looks like awfully weak reasoning. Explain please.

[StrangerCoug]

Unvote: animorpherv1

since the vote is accomplishing nothing.

[StrangerCoug]

You say you hope scum joins the pact, which sounds a bit like something scum itself would say. It's like saying I hope scum kills Battle Mage tonight if he doesn't get lynched (especially since it would imply that I know Battle Mage is town)

I don't... exactly follow. Where do you make the connection between the two hypothetical situations?

They're not both hypothetical. Cephrir really did say he hopes scum gets in the treaty, which came off to me as his being scum itself. What would you think of me if I said "I hope scum kills Battle Mage"?

OK, so it's better for us to engage in an ultimately futile vendetta?

Why is it definitely futile to continue? There has been no proof of this.

All it was doing to each other in the long run was giving us tunnel vision. That's why I wanted to stop it.

Laughed at Korts's pact made in retaliation to his own.

Um, you took it seriously?

No, hence why I laughed.

[StrangerCoug]

Cephrir really did say he hopes scum gets in the treaty, which came off to me as his being scum itself.

It's this part that I can't follow. I don't understand how the first part warrants the other.

There are not many scenarios that I can think of where town should be hoping out loud that scum does something specific. It's not a scum direction per se, but it still encourages scum to act in a certain way, which probably won't be beneficial to town.

I know I'm going out of context, but this would also encourage specific scum actions: Let's say I'm the doctor and I announced out loud that I wanted to protect nhat. If scum has a roleblocker, he or she might as well block me while scum offs him. If nhat is scum and/or scum does not have a roleblocker, they will get rid of me that night unless a more dangerous (to them) power role shows up.

Get the connection?

Laughed at Korts's pact made in retaliation to his own.

Um, you took it seriously?

No, hence why I laughed.

Heh. But in the original context, you said it was BM who laughed at my coalition, and you never implied (at least not in the originally quoted post) that you acknowledged it as a joke.

I have a tendency to drop the first person pronoun when it's clear that I'm the one being referred to, but I wasn't ><

[StrangerCoug]

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

I'm confused by the structure of the quotes, so I can't seem to figure it out. Sorry.

[StrangerCoug]

They're not both hypothetical. Cephrir really did say he hopes scum gets in the treaty, which came off to me as his being scum itself. What would you think of me if I said "I hope scum kills Battle Mage"?

But that's not the same thing. Sure, I probably houldn't have said it out loud, but I don't get how that's a tell.

It's not the biggest offense in this game in my eyes, so don't worry too much.

There are not many scenarios that I can think of where town should be hoping out loud that scum does something specific. It's not a scum direction per se, but it still encourages scum to act in a certain way, which probably won't be beneficial to town.

I know I'm going out of context, but this would also encourage specific scum actions: Let's say I'm the doctor and I announced out loud that I wanted to protect nhat. If scum has a roleblocker, he or she might as well block me while scum offs him. If nhat is scum and/or scum does not have a roleblocker, they will get rid of me that night unless a more dangerous (to them) power role shows up.

Noting that X might allow us to find scum better (X being scum in the pact) != declaring who you want t protect when you're the doctor. They are completely different things.

I know, but I bring them both up to show that they can both backfire when scum sees it.

[StrangerCoug]

You voted nhat for misrepresenting PeterGriffin, but then decided he didn't misrepresent PeterGriffin because you liked his attack on me? Not buying it.

I figured nhat was just being unreasonable in general, which is not a scum tell usually, as opposed to being deliberately misrepresentative.

nhat made an attack you considered reasonable, and that give you the impression that he was being unreasonable in general? Riiiiight.

Ditto. armlx is being hypocritical here.

1. Townies do not ignore the player they're voting for

because it defeats the entire purpose of voting.

If they want more information, they ask questions until they change their mind or are convinced they've found scum; when the latter occurs, they convince the town to join them. This is what's known as "scumhunting", and you haven't been doing it. The only reason townies ignore the player they're voting for is that they're lazy or inattentive or just plain gone, and you have shown yourself to be neither.

I also fail to see the reason of voting somebody and letting the vote sit there unattended. If you forget why you're voting (and I have seen it happen), then if you want to gain credibility, I'd prefer you unvote until you have a clue, though asking questions of the person in question is useful as well. Don't sit there.

2. You just don't stop digging your own grave, do you? If the pact hop was EXTREMELY SCUMMY then you have absolutely no excuse whatsoever to be ignoring it. Period.

Not to mention that it's counterintuitive, too.

Unvote

if necessary, but I don't think so.

Vote: armlx

[StrangerCoug]

Sorry also (I'm in olive). Nothing new to add.

[StrangerCoug]

Have we lynched Dynamo yet?

A bit too hasty no?

Thanks for bringing that up. I thought he was asking if he was prodded.

Minor FoS: hasdgfas

[StrangerCoug]

C) None of Dynamo's posts have been pro-town.
D) I haven't seen anyone scummier than Dynamo.

Explain these.

[StrangerCoug]

C) I can do a PBPA on Dynamo if you really want, but it shouldn't really need explaining.

Go ahead.

[StrangerCoug]

OK, I'll have my say on this DynamoXI guy: He's awfully eager to get in this treaty thing, he doubts my unusual-to-most-people-here experience of Mafia elsewhere (it's on my damn Wiki page, for crying out loud!), he claims not to vote until there's a strong case and then votes Erratos Apathos seemingly without thinking twice, he appears to be appealing to emotion, and simply doesn't care about defending himself. I'm happy to go along with the bandwagon here, but I still wish I had better cases on more people at this point.

Unvote: armlx
Vote: DynamoXI

[StrangerCoug]

DynamoXI, claim or die.

[StrangerCoug]

Sigh... I'll dig the dirt up properly. Just not now.

Don't be lazy please.

[StrangerCoug]

Unvote, vote: DynamoXI

Explain this please. Your last post said you thought DynamoXI wasn't scum.

[StrangerCoug]

Sineish can be debated, but I do want to throw an

HoS: Netlava

for, depending on how DynamoXI flips, either helping quicklynch him or bussing him.

[StrangerCoug]

Im thinking of voting myself but Ill see if anyone else wants to vote first.

Uhh... if I'm not mistaken, you're lynched.

[StrangerCoug]

Very well then, I am mistaken (Battle Mage unvoted you), but you are at L-1, so be very careful. I really don't like your temptation to self-hammer.

[StrangerCoug]

Appropriate for the town? What time would be appropriate?

There is no clear-cut answer to this, but ideally, when everybody is happy with lynching you. It hurts the town to rush.

[StrangerCoug]

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

Not to mention that he still hasn't responded to this:

Unvote, vote: DynamoXI

Explain this please. Your last post said you thought DynamoXI wasn't scum.

Unvote: DynamoXI
Vote: Netlava

[StrangerCoug]

Wel, I have to agree that this day has been long enough for my tastes. What I'd like best is a Dynamo lynch and a next day with some actual fact to work with. Dynamo is still not acting as a townie and doesn't show any interest in even trying, so i don't know how letting him live would help the town. More importantly, i think he's scum.

Ditto. Something has to give, a lot of people don't like him, he's not being helpful... I'm lazy, but that's because I'm stressed about something outside of MafiaScum and I don't want to explode on everybody.

Unvote: Netlava
Vote: DynamoXI

The case on netlava is interesting an Armlx is still acting scummy, but I'd prefer to look into all that tomorrow, when we (hopefully) know what Dynamo's alignment is.

Netlava's sudden switch is noted, but that along with armlx is something for tomorrow.

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: What are the rules on deadline lynches?

At deadline, if a majority is not reached on any player, there is no lynch.

[StrangerCoug]

Do we have multiple scum groups? The flavor looks like it.

For the love of Jesus Christ, it's going to take a good while to reread 29 pages not including the pregame, and then I have to remember it starting on page 10.

[StrangerCoug]

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

[StrangerCoug]

The hasdgfas vs. Cream147 case is confusing to me. I don't like hasdgfas's FoS, but I also don't like Cream147's answer to his question.

[StrangerCoug]

I'll go ahead and

vote Netlava

for the same reasons as in post #832.

[StrangerCoug]

I'll go ahead and

vote Netlava

for the same reasons as in post #832.

Reinforce me in my faith, post 832's reasons are the same except one addition as nhat's 830, right?

If I remember correctly, then yes.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm starting to see a couple people rise above Netlava on my scumdar, but I want to see Netlava's defense before I switch. armlx, I'm looking at you.

[StrangerCoug]

I think I've already addressed everything. If there's anything I need to answer in particular, feel free to ask, but hopefully it doesn't involve me repeating myself. FTR, my vote was an attempt to play less conservatively and I tried this before in another game (in which I was also lynched for this), so I've given up on this. I really do not see the big deal of voting for someone I don't think is scum if I see the lynch as being inevitable; this is not some "clever" way of avoiding responsibility. I waited for everyone to say their piece, and since I noticed that most people had voted dynamo and the lynch was pretty much inevitable, except for a bunch of replacements that might take, say, 3 weeks to read the thread, that voting is just a way to move the game along and my stance is already clear. With a couple of people repeatedly posting MOAR VOTES ON DYNAMO I decided "hey, why not, my vote is sitting uselessly around anyway, why not bring meaning to these statements?" Note that hasdgfas in particular made a couple of these posts and as soon as I voted stopped paying any attention to dynamo at all and wanted me lynched (to some extent, over dynamo). So much for fulfilling a request.

Voting out of appeasement is scummy.

And also, why would I, as scum, choose this method to jump on a bandwagon when I could just lie about finding dynamo scummy or whatnot? And before you scream WIFOM you should probably pay attention to risk/rewards. I avoid lying as town since lying is used to determine who is scum. So I decided to adopt a new approach, but I guess it just doesn't work here, and perhaps that might be a good thing. But either way, if you think one frickin vote like this, where I state my intentions CLEARLY before I even do it is scummy, then I can't change your opinion on it.

Because scum generally opts for the easiest lynch they can get away with. You voted DynamoXI with the belief that he was town. Voting for someone you know to be town is scummy, especially given that the only way for scum not to know someone's alignment is if multiple anti-town factions exist.

My vote stands.

That's a long analogy for bullshit. Basically, as far as I understand, it all boils down to an "if I was scum, I would/wouldn't do this" kind of circular logic.

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

Major HoS: Korts

[StrangerCoug]

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

I call it how I see it. If I think it's bullshit, do you expect me to call it nicer names? Prove it to me that what I dismissed as bullshit isn't, then.

Let's break his example down:

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

Personally, if I were a drug dealer at a rave and I knew there were undercover cops, I would pack up my stuff and get the hell out of there. It simply arouses the least suspicion, if any at all. If I'm not mistaken, most raves happen at night, so to an innocent bystander I may simply be tired and want to go home so I can get some sleep.

Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

No; it makes arbitrary, baseless assumptions. The person flailing around has the same odds of being a drug dealer as anyone else on the dance floor, whether or not I know those odds. Drug dealers are more likely to do certain things than other people that might go to a rave, but beating people up is not one of them.

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house??

No, there's a story to be covered and it has to be done. I am a former high school journalist, and I know better than to report news in a way that's biased toward one side, belief, etc.

Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

I can't find any evidence in his example that suggests that the cop is corrupt.

The moral Skruffs is trying to teach you is that in a Mafia game, assumptions are your enemy, especially if you are town (but scum can suffer from wrongly assuming things too). "If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion. For example, "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch," where Z is someone that flipped scum, does not work because scum can and does get their buddies lynched. That's called bussing. "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

[StrangerCoug]

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

Personally, if I were a drug dealer at a rave and I knew there were undercover cops, I would pack up my stuff and get the hell out of there. It simply arouses the least suspicion, if any at all. If I'm not mistaken, most raves happen at night, so to an innocent bystander I may simply be tired and want to go home so I can get some sleep.

"If I were scum, I would stay quiet." (I hope you do know why "if I were scum"-type statements are generally WIFOM.)

I do know, but keeping as quiet as possible so as not to arouse too much suspicion is simply common sense. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a noisemaker for a Mafioso, but I'm ironically the only person I'm able to think of where that's the case. If you know of a game I wasn't in (that's been completed, mind you) with vocal scum, please let me know.

Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

No; it makes arbitrary, baseless assumptions. The person flailing around has the same odds of being a drug dealer as anyone else on the dance floor, whether or not I know those odds. Drug dealers are more likely to do certain things than other people that might go to a rave, but beating people up is not one of them.

"You shouldn't lynch the guy being obviously scummy."

If no other options are feasible, then to use a term I have a dislike of, the most obvscum player should probably be lynched. The operative word, however, is "if". The cop should probably go after the guy that's flailing, but he shouldn't assume he's the drug dealer.

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house??

No, there's a story to be covered and it has to be done. I am a former high school journalist, and I know better than to report news in a way that's biased toward one side, belief, etc.

"You shouldn't question why it's not WIFOM" is the most I could make of this one. Seriously, Skruffs (or SC because you seem to know what's going on), what does this mean in context of a mafia game exactly?

Skruffs can probably answer this better than I can, but think of the journalist as scumhunting town. You don't report news by saying "Oh, so and so committed such and such, so he must be guilty!" News reporters don't decide who's guilty or not; jurors do. I find it easier to explain jurors than news reporters when using a real-life example to explain Mafia.

In theory, news reporters can go out on their own on the story they're supposed to cover, though in my actual journalism experience we sometimes had two people working on the same story. Jurors, however, must work as a team: As valuable as they are, they still must reach a consensus (in Mafia, the majority is sufficient, though in the real court it must be unanimous) to get a verdict (in mafiaspeak, a lynch)—no one person decides it. The failure to be able to decide on a verdict is called a hung jury; its Mafia equivalent is a no lynch. If you watch a lot of court cases, you will be familiar with the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt". Jurors must prove that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; until then, he or she must be assumed innocent. If the jury has reason to believe that the person did not in fact commit the crime or has a legal justification for his actions, then they must announce the verdict as "not guilty". Juries have been known to make mistakes (that's why we have the term "mistrial", which is the equivalent of a mislynch), but if you have rational, educated jurors that shouldn't be a problem.

Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

I can't find any evidence in his example that suggests that the cop is corrupt.

"Or was it scum who lynched Dynamo?" I think is most appropriate.

I'm pretty sure scum did lynch DynamoXI, and I'm after Netlava in particular.

The moral Skruffs is trying to teach you is that in a Mafia game, assumptions are your enemy, especially if you are town (but scum can suffer from wrongly assuming things too).

In my irrelevant opinion, Skruffs is asking the town questions derived from a bad analogy that boils down to circular logic (a.k.a. WIFOM).

I see no proof of this.

"If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion.

Exactly. So I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being WIFOM.

I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being common sense.

For example, "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch," where Z is someone that flipped scum, does not work because scum can and does get their buddies lynched. That's called bussing.

Why the mafia lecture? I asked why the analogy made sense, not to explain the basic dynamics of the game.

I'm adding on to what Skruffs said here.

"If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

Also WIFOM is "If I were a drug dealer (scum), I wouldn't start punching people (act scummy)", plain and clear.

If I knew of undercover cops, I wouldn't. If I had reason to believe that I can get away with it, then I would probably do it, but if I knew I could get into trouble that way, I would avoid it.

[StrangerCoug]

I understand why Korts is responding to Skruffs the way he is, so I'll downgrade to just an

FoS: Korts

. His shooting off cases without much of a good reason is still noted.

[StrangerCoug]

Whoops—our talking about Skruff's posts got me to mistake you for BlakAdder, and Skruff accused him of shooting cases off like that. My apologies.

Un-FoS: Korts
FoS: BlakAdder

[StrangerCoug]

And on that note.

unvote, vote: Cass

Next.

For her following Skruffs around, or what?

[StrangerCoug]

No. I changed my mind about Skruffs. Cass is the next in line on my list of suspicions.

Why Cass?

[StrangerCoug]

I dont trust anything that moves fast

As understandable as it is... why not?

[StrangerCoug]

unvote, vote: Skruffs

Also, nice OMGUS, Cass I'm gonna do a PBPA on you, because you stink to me.

Something doesn't ring right to me. You vote Skruffs for the analogy, then you "changedyour mind about" him, dropped it, and switched back to Cass. 19 hours, 12 minutes, and 17 minutes later, your vote is back on Skruffs again. What changed about Skruffs that made you do this?

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP:

19 hours, 12 minutes, and 17 minutes

That should read "19 hours, 12 minutes, and 17 seconds".

[StrangerCoug]

I think the connection I saw between you and SC isn't as sure as I thought yesterday, SC wouldn't be acting this obviously.

Explaining further wouldn't be really pro-town. I think I already blew it, though.

EBWOP:

I think I already blew it, though.

Meaning I probably explained it too much already.

Translation: "I don't see StrangerCoug as suspicious as Skruffs, but I have something to hide from the former. I'm also pessimistic scum that has said something the town shouldn't know about and have therefore thrown in the towel."

Unvote: Netlava
FoS: Netlava
Vote: Korts

[StrangerCoug]

Me inquisitive, yes. Me scum, prove it.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm fairly sure now that it isn't the case that I thought it was, and really, scum would be able to find it pretty easily now, so it wouldn't really be anti-town to say that I thought Skruffs and SC were masons on account of SC following Skruffs around like a puppy and defending him whenever he got the chance.

Somebody tell me this isn't rolefishing please.

[StrangerCoug]

It isn't.

Whew. Was afraid so.

But then again, when are masons dangerous at this point in the game? xD

[StrangerCoug]

I'm fairly sure now that it isn't the case that I thought it was, and really, scum would be able to find it pretty easily now, so it wouldn't really be anti-town to say that I thought Skruffs and SC were masons on account of SC following Skruffs around like a puppy and defending him whenever he got the chance.

Somebody tell me this isn't rolefishing please.

How could you see this as rolefishing?

His mentioning the possibility that Skruffs and I are masons is what set me off.

[StrangerCoug]

The fact that you've been against both wagons on scummy players, the first being a townie, is beginning to concern me. I did agree with you about Dynamo but I'm fine with the Netlava wagon. Will be looking at you esp. if Netlava is lynched as town.

This is some seriously shady business here.

Could you explain?

[StrangerCoug]

Please. Read Skruffs' analogy and tell me it's not BS. Read SC and tell me there's no connection between them.

For the love of Jesus Christ, Korts, player X agreeing with player Y's explanation ≠ player X being connected to player Y per se!

[StrangerCoug]

I don't remember saying that the connection had to be scum or mason.

[StrangerCoug]

I don't remember saying that the connection had to be scum or mason.

An agreement is a connection.

OK, I understand the logic here.

I just can't accept that you would agree that such obvious WIFOM is actual contribution, SC. Please, read the analogy again. And then, please explain, in detail, how it

isn't

circular logic to the core.

Before I do, tell me how you yourself are not guilty of WIFOM here:

I think the connection I saw between you and SC isn't as sure as I thought yesterday, SC wouldn't be acting this obviously.

[StrangerCoug]

Very well then, let's bring up the analogy that I still fail to see as WIFOM:

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

If the drug dealer is aware of the cop, it's common sense for him or her not to flail at anybody (I said that I'd personally scram, and I suppose that's WIFOM, but while you suspect me, I'm not your primary WIFOM suspect).

Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

If the cop sees somebody flailing, by all means suspect that person, but by no means assume he or she is a drug dealer.

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house? Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

The journalist's job is to be unbiased and get it right.

Now tell me specifically where we're guilty of circular logic.

[StrangerCoug]

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

If the drug dealer is aware of the cop,

it's common sense for him or her not to flail at anybody

(I said that I'd personally scram, and I suppose that's WIFOM, but while you suspect me, I'm not your primary WIFOM suspect).

This part. See bolded.

Translated, this means that because the scum know the town's out looking for scum, the scum will be trying not to act anti-town.

Common sense, yes. WIFOM, absolutely. "If I were scum, I would/wouldn't..."-type logic is useless. Reason: scum will try to act counter-intuitively simply because of the town speculating on intuitive scum behaviour.

I'd buy this if the back of my head weren't screaming "Korts is accusing me of supporting the 'Too Townie' argument" from what I've marked in blue.

[StrangerCoug]

Whatever. Vote stands.

[StrangerCoug]

Whatever. Vote stands.

So now you're OMGUS'ing Korts? Because if he's not attacking you for the reason you voted him for, why are you voting?

FoS: SC

How am I OMGUS'ing Korts when 1.) he hasn't voted me once this game and 2.) his current case on me wouldn't exist if I hadn't butted in supporting Skruff's analogy?

[StrangerCoug]

2) yet you did, therefore my case exists. You confirming your vote now amounts to you saying "damn you and your logic, KILL HIM"

Not until I chimed in about Skruffs. That's what I'm telling hasdgfas.

Chronological order:

1. Skruffs presents his analogy.
   
2. You dismiss it as BS and get on his case.
   
3. I support the analogy.
   
4. You get on my case too.

How, therefore, am I guilty of OMGUS?

[StrangerCoug]

SC: he doesn't have to vote you for you to OMGUS him. It's not that you're voting for him, because voting for him at the time you did was for a reason that he has since refuted. Because you're still voting him, it looks to me like it's just because he's gotten on your case.

I don't know why he even referenced Skruffs and I possibly being masons, but just because he refuted my vote reason does not mean I no longer suspect him. I think we've established that we each think the other is guilty of craplogic.

[StrangerCoug]

I am not masons with StrangerCoug, for the record.

I confirm this.

[StrangerCoug]

Also, many people seem to find my posts scummy. I'm not sure why this is, but I'm guessing it has something to do with this being the biggest game I've played yet, and I have trouble getting involved in all the discussions and keeping track of everyone in the game (especially with all the replacements ). It gives me the feeling that the scum are simply all lurking somewhere in the backgorund where I'll never even notice them...

Don't feel bad—I find myself feeling the same way in larges.

[StrangerCoug]

The case on Korts isn't going anywhere anymore, so I will

unvote Korts

if I haven't yet

vote Netlava

for the same reasons as previously. I don't see the case on Cass.

[StrangerCoug]

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum. So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC.

Wait just a minute. You're asking someone to defend your case on him so you can vote me? I'm sorry, but you are not using Skruffs to make me into a scapegoat.

Unvote: Netlava
Vote: Korts

[StrangerCoug]

Korts, I like Skruffs's analogy, as you know quite well by now. You got suspicious of me for defending it as common sense, and I explained why I think so more than once. If your thoughts that we are either both masons (which we said we're not, at least with each other) or scum (neither of us are confirmed) are based solely on the analogy and my agreeing with it, I'm sorry, but I'm not sold here.

I know what I am, and Skruffs knows what he is, but two people agreeing with each other ≠ those two people having related roles. For example, at least seven people agree that Netlava is scum. Are all of them town? We hope so, but the truth is we don't know yet. It is possible for scum to be either trying to mislynch or bussing Netlava right now. In addition, chances are not everybody voting for Netlava as of this post is scum.

[StrangerCoug]

I said already for this time around. Using Skruffs to scapegoat me.

[StrangerCoug]

I said already for this time around. Using Skruffs to scapegoat me.

I really don't see that, SC. Unless you can explain it better, this looks like plain OMGUS to me.

Then tell me how this isn't scummy, especially the part I've bolded:

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum.

So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC.

[StrangerCoug]

TBH, I haven't been looking too much into the armlx-korts-sc-skruffs thing right now, but that's because I think they are town.

Be

VERY

careful about clearing people like that.

[StrangerCoug]

Skruffs, why are you avoiding the analogy topic? Please either admit that it's circular logic, or prove to me that it isn't. SC, I don't want an answer from you, let your scumbuddy do the explaining.

So be it, Mr. Tunnel Vision *sticks tongue out at you*

[StrangerCoug]

Lowell, your PBPA is lacking a little bit (the one thing I've caught is that you're inconsistent with mentioning unvotes), but I don't expect you to include every little detail and I like the rest of your post. I'm still good with my voting Korts, but I see the case on Cass now.

[StrangerCoug]

This looks like a day of competing wagons. Given the choice,

Vote: Cass

Why her as opposed to the other suspects that have been brought up?

[StrangerCoug]

And I said those things about Dynamo because he really annoyed me and I hoped he was actually scum and not a village idiot. I don't see how that's scummy.

Wishful thinking (out loud, anyway) doesn't help as town.

[StrangerCoug]

The inside of me thinks that Netlava is being lynched pretty much out of policy, even though I do agree that what he did was scummy. Again, I see the case against Cass.

[StrangerCoug]

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.

[StrangerCoug]

Sorry I was without internet access for a couple days.

I forgot you were playing xD

[StrangerCoug]

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

[StrangerCoug]

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?

[StrangerCoug]

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.

I think he was absent earlier than the time he speaks of.

[StrangerCoug]

Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy.

Why not?

[StrangerCoug]

I'll

vote: Netlava

for the same reasoning as before. I haven't posted in awhile, and I don't want an idle vote for too long.

[StrangerCoug]

Just so I don't have to lurk any more, does anyone have any questions for me, or want to know my stance on anything?

Tell us your stance on everything xD

Well, everything relevant to the game. We're not concerned about who you want to be president, for example.

[StrangerCoug]

If it can be proven that the Battle Mage vs. raider8169 case is more than just semantics, I'll consider a vote on the latter.

[StrangerCoug]

Unvote Netlava

and

vote raider8169

then.

[StrangerCoug]

@Netlava, first on my list is you. Thats obvs though, next is now SC for his opportunistic vote.

I gave a warning that I'd consider voting you if the thing with you and Battle Mage wasn't just semantics. You originally said you were OK with his lynch, then you claim not to understand his case, and now, for some reason or other, he's your #1 suspect. How does that work?

[StrangerCoug]

Post #991:

I agree with the netlava bandwagon. I just dont want to see the bandwagon get that large so fast. I would like to see how Netlava posts today before adding my vote.

Post #1353:

If you recall when I said I dont see the case. That means I didnt understand was the fuss was about. It was explained and then I agreed with it. Not seeing a case one someone means just that. If I didnt agree with the case I would have said I dont agree with it. Just because I didnt catch on as fast as other people did means nothing.

It really does not look like that to me. I don't know anyone who dismisses cases that they don't understand as not 'real'. I myself, dismiss cases which I think have poor justification as not real. And speaking of poor justification!

This is a good point. All I can really say is that my intention behind it was that I did not see the case. For me not seeing the case makes the case not real but that how I look at it. I can understand how someone else can see that and think I mean that there is no case. They are 2 different things and can be interperated 2 different ways. Unless that is just my way of looking at it.

Post #1452:

How many times do I need to say that is not flipping? Not seeing a real case is me not understanding the case as I have said I think 3 times now.

[StrangerCoug]

@SC The posts would have to be before 849 for it to hold any ground.

Tell me the first time, damn it!

[StrangerCoug]

Seriously, why do you trust Skruffs so much as to follow his judgement?

That only applies in context with the analogy, which is what your cases on both of us ultimately boil down to, and for the last goddamn time, I saw the analogy as common sense. Give me something new to talk about.

I also don't like how you jumped on me the second I questioned the analogy.

Oh, so you'd rather assume stuff arbitrarily and get yourself in trouble when your assumptions turn out to be wrong? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this?

[StrangerCoug]

Seriously, why do you trust Skruffs so much as to follow his judgement?

That only applies in context with the analogy, which is what your cases on both of us ultimately boil down to, and for the last goddamn time, I saw the analogy as common sense. Give me something new to talk about.

And for the last time, common sense does not apply to mafia here.

Fine.

Unvote: raider8169
Vote: Rich

for being one of the least logical people to vote for at this stage of the game.

*gets booed and yelled at*

...Maybe not.

Unvote: Rich
Vote: raider8169

But since common sense, according to you, does not apply, how would you respond if I really did vote Rich (or any other player without a case on them, for that matter) at this stage of the game?

I also don't like how you jumped on me the second I questioned the analogy.

Oh, so you'd rather assume stuff arbitrarily and get yourself in trouble when your assumptions turn out to be wrong? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this?

What do you mean by assuming stuff arbitrarily?

Come up with a certain belief, pursue it like mad, and don't think about the consequences of doing the latter. The less reasoning behind the belief, the better.

[StrangerCoug]

I think that this common sense argument is dumb.

Thank you ><

[StrangerCoug]

Oops, missed that ><

Netlava - two bloody good examples right there in that post - it's not like I'm not giving evidence. You flip-flop onto whichever wagon is convenient, and so far today, you've been pushing the raider case, then backing off it, then pushing it again, but you've never committed to it with a vote: your vote has stayed solidly on the wagon with the most chance of overtaking yours: Cass.
Still loving my vote.

Unvote: Cass

There.

Original Roll String: 1d26 (STATIC)

1 26-Sided Dice: (18) = 18

18. Citizen Karne (replacing Tovarish)

Vote: Citizen Karne

Oh come on. Whether or not voting with dice is scummy can be debated in the random voting stage, but well in Day 2, it's cheaper than dirt. Mafia ≠ Russian roulette.

Unvote: raider8169
Vote: Netlava

[StrangerCoug]

Strangercoug, I'm ot asking you to remove your sudden L-2 vote, just bringing attention to it.

Noted.

Tha aside, why did you move away from armlx?

I didn't because I don't remember suspecting armlx for this entire game.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm in a truckload of other games and it's easy for me to forget stuff, so I'm the kind of person that needs occasional reminders.

I'll go back and look at the context of my vote.

[StrangerCoug]

OK, I see why I voted him now (hypocrisy, ignoring the player with his vote); however, I unvoted armlx on September 3, not September 12. My only post on the latter date is to ask the mod about deadline lynches.

[StrangerCoug]

Strangercoug, I'm ot asking you to remove your sudden L-2 vote, just bringing attention to it.

I find this to be scummy. Why bring attention to it just to bring attention to it.

Scummy on whose part, Skruffs's or mine?

[StrangerCoug]

Is Netlava at L-1 or L-2 now?

L-2.

[StrangerCoug]

FoS: Knight of Cydonia

for OMGUS.

[StrangerCoug]

To heck with scum meta. Using meta to determine alignment is pretty much as good as useless. If I ever use it, it's only to determine how someone plays in general.

Battle Mage knows what he's talking about. I honestly don't see it as anti-town per se to say that it's best to withhold a claim until L-1, but there are exceptions to that rule, and large games are one of them. If I remember correctly, I told DynamoXI to claim or die when he was at L-2 and got zero suspicion for doing so.

To snap at him for being right about strategy makes no sense, and of the two of you, you are scummier.

[StrangerCoug]

Your case didn't look like it was made up of actual scumtells, and that's what confused me.

ANYTHING can be a scumtell. It depends on context, player, game, all sorts of variables. Just because it's not on some sort of list of scumtells doesn't mean you can't vote someone for it.

Something about your response reminds me of meta, but I am against using meta to try to determine alignment.

[StrangerCoug]

Not using meta is just a bad idea. Its better to recognize where it can go wrong and when it does.

I didn't say I was against meta period. If someone wants to use meta to determine how someone plays in general regardless of alignment, that's fine by me.

[StrangerCoug]

Firstly, welcome to all of our replacements.

Secondly, I'm puzzled as to how we lost two townies and two Mafia (presumably from opposing factions). I'm pretty sure we have at least one vigilante at this point, likely two. I also see a serial killer as a possibility.

I'm not asking the vigilante(s) or the serial killer to claim; I'm thinking out loud so people can comment on it.

[StrangerCoug]

Since when was slanton2's name spelled with an omega? xD

I'm not sure if we should be attempting to match MO's with anti-town factions; however, we do know that two people so far have been poisoned and two have been drowned while the other two MO's (cremation and dismemberment) were used only once, so the first two

MIGHT

be the two Mafia MO's there, but it doesn't explain two poisoning deaths Night 2.

[StrangerCoug]

I think the opening scene Day 2 implied two Mafia teams, but I don't expect that to be uncommon in a large.

[StrangerCoug]

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. Hence we have confirmation that the Anti-Treaty Coalition was also Anti-Town, and thus, the original Treaty was of protown design.

Whoever said this treaty shizzle was bad??

I remember saying I was anti-treaty until you hammered its point quite deep in my head. Keep in mind, however, that you can just as easily be Portuguese as Swiss.

[StrangerCoug]

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

It's an answer to your question.

[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?

[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

[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.

[StrangerCoug]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[StrangerCoug]

Scumlist:
Part 1:
Armlx
StrangerCoug
----------
These two have strong ties in regards to Korts, yesterday. Korts pretty much attacked me for pointing out that Armlx is not playing his usual town self, and when StrangerCoug 'blindly' followed me, he said that SC was probably my scum buddy, but continued to push against me (even after it was pointed out that it would be more likely that SC was scum than me with the way he was buddying up to me). When the "issue" was resolved, he half heartedly voted StrangerCoug, but then slipped as quietly as he could to focus on the NetLava wagon.

As for the blind following, I did try to make it clear that I was not clearing you based solely on your analogy. I simply agreed with you on the analogy. In no way was my intent to pass you off as pro-town (despite my thinking you are) solely because of it. Too many factors are involved for that to be a smart move.

As you bring up, the fact that we thought the same about the analogy in no way implies that we think the other one of us is town. I think you're town; you have me as a suspect. I am not going to question why you suspect me, however, this is brought up to emphasize my point.

Part 2:
Speculators (BlakAdder, EGL, Armlx, StrangerCoug)
IT sounds like there's a lot of scum fishing around to see what everyone else knows. Page 67, especially, is full of paranoid scum trying to get info from each other without revealing who they are. If you guys really want to speculate, you should go back to the beginning of Day 22 and see who was speculating about the night kill *then*, because it *looks* that one player was both drowned and burned alive, which means that either both mafias targeted the same person, or a mafia and someone else did, and the other mafia's kill didn't go through. Which means that the mafia who's kill didn't go through (if that's what happened) knew at the beginning of day two that there was another mafia, but the one who's kill *did* go through (if it wasn't both of them) may *not* have realized as much.

I'm pretty sure you mean Day 2 and not Day 22, but that's minor.

Where do I factor into page 67? Battle Mage asked me a question; I answered it. In fact, it's quoted below. What else on that page makes me suspicious?

Secondly: Mafia tend to try to over exaggerate their own threat in an attempt to unnerve townies. Trying to force townies to think that there are more mafia then there really is (especially closer to endgame) makes townies paranoid, and begin to look for 'conspiracies' rather than 'partnerships'. There are 26 people alive at the beginning of the game, which means that there are (with the 25% theory) 6.5, or 7 scum alive. Two groups of 3 with one SK makes sense based on the 25% theory but it SHOULDN'T BE ASSUMED that there are this many or that many alive, especiually if that assumption is the basis for suspicion of one person. Armlx screwed up, again, with that.

Exactly why you don't try to outguess the mod.

PArt Four, and finally:
This is also crap:

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. Hence we have confirmation that the Anti-Treaty Coalition was also Anti-Town, and thus, the original Treaty was of protown design.

Whoever said this treaty shizzle was bad??

I remember saying I was anti-treaty until you hammered its point quite deep in my head. Keep in mind, however, that you can just as easily be Portuguese as Swiss.

1st of all: Shame on BattleMage for such a poor attempt at trying to 'clear' people by saying that scum didn't like something and that there fore it must be GOOD. Korts involvement in the Anti Treaty Coalition was obviously because he wanted to detract from that coalition because he thought it was bad for *his team*. However, that does NOT Mean that the Treaty was organized by town; it could just as well have been the other mafia aiming for an early 'grip' on the game to get rid of some of the players they thought were most suspicious. CONSIDERING That you formed the initial "Treaty", and reading through the actual treaty (quoted below), I think that it's possible the later is more likely the case.

I like your case on Battle Mage, but I don't understand why you're quoting my response if you're attacking the question.

[StrangerCoug]

Lol! SC, you really are shameless

Now,

Skruffs

, i temporarily rescind my questions to you, and instead want to hear from StrangerCoug

what exactly he thinks the case on me is

.

Please allow him to answer before responding yourself-i want to see what he comes up with.

BM

I don't have much that hasn't been said already. I'm making sure you know that we cannot automatically pin everyone against the treaty as scum just because Korts was against it and flipped scum. In addition, you are unconfirmed. I don't see you as having bussed Korts, but we have two Mafia teams (at least) and it cannot be ruled out that the treaty was the idea of somebody in one scum group and opposed by somebody in another.

I didn't see a point to a treaty. I still don't. But that doesn't mean I'm uninterested in seeing what effect it has on the game.

I'm neutral on you at this time.

[StrangerCoug]

and i still don't see what the big deal was for netluva other than the dice roll vote and jumpin off of cass?

Have you read Day 2 yet?

[StrangerCoug]

Sc: I think you explained already, bt iwas going to as why bm could be port or swiss but not the third option, the second mafia?

You named the two mafias we know of. What do you mean second.

Sc- are you a survivor?

I refuse to answer, and I don't see why you need to know at this point.

HoS: Skruffs

for rolefishing.

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP: Actually, no, Skruffs didn't name both Mafias, but we already know it's Icelandic.

Battle Mage being Icelandic is not something I'm convinced of given Korts flipping Icelandic and Battle Mage's talking about the treaty, but I need to go back and check if Korts and Battle Mage were at any time attacking each other. Besides the treaty, I don't remember so, but I'm not going to remember everything in 69 pages.

[StrangerCoug]

Sc: I think you explained already, bt iwas going to as why bm could be port or swiss but not the third option, the second mafia?

You named the two mafias we know of. What do you mean second.

I think he meant how you said BM "just as easily be portuguese as [he] could be swiss." Portuguese is one mafia, Swiss is town, and he wanted to know why you left Icelandic (second mafia) out as an option.

At first I was wondering the same thing but then I think I figured out the answer as to why. At any rate, I'll leave that for you to explain.

I realized that, and you and I crossposted.

[StrangerCoug]

Do you think that both mafias have a doctor and a tracker?

I doubt it.

Do you think they both have proper Godfathers?

I don't know enough about multiballs to have an educated guess at this question.

[StrangerCoug]

Sc: I think you explained already, bt iwas going to as why bm could be port or swiss but not the third option, the second mafia?

You named the two mafias we know of. What do you mean second.

Sc- are you a survivor?

I refuse to answer, and I don't see why you need to know at this point.

HoS: Skruffs

for rolefishing.

Confirm Vote: SC

Regardless of the fact i have no clue why Skruffs asked that question, that you couldnt even deny being a NEUTRAL suggests you are really keeping your options open. Fishing for neutrals is hardly scummy imo.

BM

I'm having a very hard time trying to figure out what benefit a claimed survivor has on the town. If a survivor is driven to claim, the town has nothing to lose in lynching him or her. In LYLO with one town, one Mafia, and one survivor, the chances of a quicklynch are higher than with two townies. At the same time, I'm trying to imagine why a survivor wouldn't be NK bait.

All that this town knows about my role is that I am not a mason with Skruffs, and I only said this to confirm his saying we're not masons together. I could still be a mason, just with someone else. I will claim when it comes time. Now is not the time. Until then, I am not narrowing my role down further than it already has been.

I know what I am, but I simply do not see why I should answer a scummy question.

[StrangerCoug]

All of the sentences in bold are in direct contradiction with the unbolded sentence. Does not compute.

Let me clarify: I don't see what benefit town has to keep a claimed survivor alive.

[StrangerCoug]

Keeping a survivor alive over a mafia member is more of a benefit, would you not say so?

I'd rather off a Mafia than a neutral, if that's what you're saying.

But your hostility towards answering a "Yes" or "No" question, whether you lie to us or not, draws more skepticism -- at least on my part.

One, why should I answer a scummy question? (That's exactly why I refused to answer it—because the question was scummy.) Two, why should a survivor lie?

[StrangerCoug]

In fact, what are you saying exactly? Are you claiming survivor or what?

I'm not claiming anything and I have said I won't claim anything until the time comes.

Lol, so you're worried that claiming survivor might get you killed?

No, I'm accusing Skruffs of rolefishing and using my limited knowledge of the survivor role to explain how I see a claimed survivor as detrimental.

THEN DONT CLAIM SURVIVOR. *facepalm*

I never did so.

One, why should I answer a scummy question? (That's exactly why I refused to answer it—because the question was scummy.) Two, why should a survivor lie?

If your defense is that you do not have to defend yourself, then I would say you are not going to benefit from dodging the question.

I'm not refusing to defend myself; if I were, I would let the entire survivor issue slide. I'm specifically refusing to answer the question "Are you a survivor?" because I do not see the question as pro-town.

Sc- why do you need to keep your options open? If you are pro-town, you have no reason to need having a survivor as a valid claim, unless you are a miller and think that survivor is more survivable than miller is. If you are survivor, there's nobody to claim to be a mason with later, and acting like you do just brings more attention on yourself (like it already has).

In a way, I am keeping my options open. I will not reveal about my role before it comes time for me to do so. I personally think playing Mafia with an open mind works better regardless of alignment.

I know that I have nobody to claim mason with if I am a survivor. In fact, I asked why a survivor would lie, because I don't see a reason to do so that would benefit one.

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: The wireless adapter on my computer is acting funny at the moment, so if I go too long without a post, that's why. I do have access to other computers, however, so I won't consider myself V/LA.

[StrangerCoug]

Let me ask the other way. Explain to me how it is advantageous to refuse to deny being a survivor from a town perspective? I do not see it.

Part of my attack on Skruff's rolefishing involves the refusal to deny it. If he thinks there is a survivor and he's looking for it, to deny being one narrows the pool down to who it could be. It's both the question and the context that I'm concerned about, and one cannot adequately be explained without the other. It's about the same as asking out of the blue if a specific player is, for example, a doctor. The question is scummy and the person asked has the right to refuse to answer. The doctor does not need to claim without a good reason to do so, and the question alone is not a good reason.

We all know what Skruffs is like.

Actually, this is my first game with him.

[StrangerCoug]

well, you'll have to trust me on this then. I expect we've played more than 20 games together on MS.

OK, if that's his general play...

[StrangerCoug]

On the other hand, both you and tubby are trying to use the suspicion that me and mason are trying to distract from the sc wagon AS a distraction to the SC wagon.

Your post in its entirety is interesting, but this is what most caught my attention. If you're going to accuse somebody of doing something, don't do it yourself.

Unvote: Lowell
Vote: Battle Mage

for hypocrisy.

[StrangerCoug]

@StrangerCoug: How does hypocrisy apply to scum?

I thought I made it obvious. If you are accusing somebody of doing something scummy, then doing that same thing yourself is scummy.

[StrangerCoug]

SC, claiming might be your best move right now.

Fine. Swiss townie.

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: I now believe that the wireless adapter problem is fixed.

[StrangerCoug]

Unvote: Battle Mage

as I like his case against Skruffs here.

[StrangerCoug]

has SC claimed?

Yes I have.

[StrangerCoug]

Why would he be so secretive about his role as a vanilla townie?

Claiming vanilla too early makes it easier for the scum to hit power roles.

[StrangerCoug]

Why would he be so secretive about his role as a vanilla townie?

Claiming vanilla too early makes it easier for the scum to hit power roles.

This is a terrible reason. Is this your excuse for not denying to be a survivor as well? If so, that's even worse.

Perhaps you would like the vanillas to massclaim? [/sarcasm]

I didn't have a lot of votes on me when Skruffs asked if I was a survivor. I took Battle Mage's question as asking why I didn't say "No, I am a vanilla" in response to Skruffs's question, hence the comment.

I have chores right now, so I'll talk more about this later.

[StrangerCoug]

BAH!