Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Untitled]

/confirm

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

[Untitled]

ok, if the posts after mine are any indication then I don't need to read back. somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game.

[Untitled]

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

[Untitled]

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

reason?

I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o

I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!

BM

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

[Untitled]

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

reason?

I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o

I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!

BM

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

Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.
In case you hadn't noticed, we are still in the pre-game stage. But, if you can explain what you mean by 'annoying' and 'this crap', that'll help you, and me, alot.

BM

exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

[Untitled]

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

reason?

I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o

I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!

BM

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

Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.
In case you hadn't noticed, we are still in the pre-game stage. But, if you can explain what you mean by 'annoying' and 'this crap', that'll help you, and me, alot.

BM

exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

I beg to differ. Certainly my good buddy Opposed Force seems to think so. And i believe the same is true of Earthworm, though he may feel free to correct me here. I think gauging reactions to something like this could potentially be very helpful. But, as with everything, you gotta try it first. If you don't like confrontation, and arguments make you nervous, Mafia probably isn't the game for you. I dont think this is the case though, given that you are keen to contribute to the argument yourself. So what exactly is your qualm with me?
You've gotta have a sense of humour with this game. If it's a choice between having a chuckle, or punching the monitor, which do you think is more mature?

But of course, i'm sorry i've been such a detriment to scumhunting so far, what with my minimal contributions, and *shudder* SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Why don't you, erm, gimme a shout when you've nailed the entirety of the scum, single-handedly?

BM

I like a good argument, but this isn't a good argument. if it were, you'd be responding to things that I actually post instead of constructing an opposing position based on what makes you look best.

in any case, there's no need for me to get angry with you when I have an alternative means of expressing my feelings so readily available to me - at least I will once a couple more people confirm.

[Untitled]

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

BM

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

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

quoted the response where you responded to his argument.

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

well he obviously fooled you. for one thing, I said that he'd be a detriment to scumhunting if he continued to act this way once the game started, and he responded as if I'd said that he'd been a detriment to scumhunting already. also, he passed off laughing at getting people riled as simply having a sense of humour, when my point was that he seemed to be doing it deliberately for his own amusement. his response was close enough to my point to pass a cursory inspection, but it was slanted to present a viewpoint that favoured him.

[Untitled]

I don't think that the game starts until we have a sufficient number of confirmed players. I think this explains a lot of our differences. if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it). likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

But of course, i'm sorry i've been such a detriment to scumhunting so far, what with my minimal contributions, and *shudder* SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Why don't you, erm, gimme a shout when you've nailed the entirety of the scum, single-handedly?

in fairness, I think I slightly exaggerated your dodging in my mind because the last part of your previous post (quoted above) left me with that impression. the first point is not what I said (as noted previously) and the second point is an invalid and irrelevant argument. I don't have to be the world's best scumhunter to know a bad argument when I see one.

[Untitled]

I don't think that the game starts until we have a sufficient number of confirmed players. I think this explains a lot of our differences. if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it). likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

It seems a pretty safe assumption in my mind, as much as a vote is deemed to be an intent to lynch, so is an intent to vote an intent to lynch.

is a vote on page 1 an intent to lynch? because (as I explained in the post you quoted) that's all that I see it as.

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Then don't read it. Nobody is forced to read anything in the game. Personally i dont see why they wouldnt. But if people will skim, they will skim regardless of how much content we actually have. If you really feel bad about the amount of space i've used, i'm sure you can find a way of removing some of the memory used by the site. Maybe you can request the deletion of your account?
If you don't want an active game, then you don't want a game with me in it. It's as simple as that. The fact is, this discussion has made this game different from any other start of a game, in that we all have an OPINION. Even the random voting stage doesnt always provide that. Tell me that getting us off the mark early is a bad thing.

you're strawmanning me, I never said that starting early was a bad thing. I said that this particular argument is pointless and absurd. filling the thread with nonsense makes it harder for everybody else to stay on-topic, hence I see it as being an impediment to finding scum in the game proper.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

It is when you make ad hom attacks with nothing logical to back them up.
Your problem with me is that i post alot. Big whoop. Now are you going to even bother TRYING to explain why that is scummy?

1. I don't recall making any ad hom attacks on you.
2. saying that my problem with you is that you post too much is a gross over-simplification of my position.
3. even if that was my position, I never said you were scummy, just that I wanted to vote you.

But of course, i'm sorry i've been such a detriment to scumhunting so far, what with my minimal contributions, and *shudder* SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Why don't you, erm, gimme a shout when you've nailed the entirety of the scum, single-handedly?

in fairness, I think I slightly exaggerated your dodging in my mind because the last part of your previous post (quoted above) left me with that impression. the first point is not what I said (as noted previously) and the second point is an invalid and irrelevant argument. I don't have to be the world's best scumhunter to know a bad argument when I see one.

Well, i'm impressed you can admit when you are wrong. That puts you one step ahead of me. Next time maybe you could go 1 better, and not come up with the bad argument in the first place?

that was a redirect, not a retraction. feel free to answer my actual point at your convenience. I may have overstated it before, but the above post definitely makes me feel like I assessed your playstyle correctly.

[Untitled]

if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it).

The suddenness of the want to vote BM is interesting however.

I fail to see how this is related to wanting to lynch him. surely a fast, unreasoned vote early in the game is

less

likely to reflect a genuine desire to lynch somebody?

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

ok, if the posts after mine are any indication then I don't need to read back.

somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game

.

Belittling of the current topic of discussion.

exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to

start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment

. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

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

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

anything

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

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

Well actually, it kind of is when you don't give logical reasoning for the placement of your vote. People are going to be curious as to the reasoning of said vote. When you make statements like these-

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

I like a good argument, but this isn't a good argument. if it were, you'd be responding to things that I actually post instead of constructing an opposing position based on what makes you look best.

in any case, there's no need for me to get angry with you when

I have an alternative means of expressing my feelings so readily available to me - at least I will once a couple more people confirm

You continue to threaten to vote BM once all the players have confirmed, yet you have yet to give an honestly solid reason as to why. Therefore, BM's question doesn't seem particularly out of place.

yes it does, it's reverse OMGUS. "I didn't attack you, therefore your attack on me is unjustified" is not a logical argument. I explained the reasons for my statements, and they don't rely in any way on personal interactions with battle mage. in fact, the two have next to nothing to do with each other, which is why this question from bm is so off base.

[Untitled]

omgus is "you're only voting me because I attacked you". reverse omgus is "why are you voting me when I didn't attack you?"

(afaik it's not an official term, it's just intended to illustrate my point)

I fail to see how this is related to wanting to lynch him. surely a fast, unreasoned vote early in the game is less likely to reflect a genuine desire to lynch somebody?

It's kinda different since we've had almost 10 pages of discussion already. Day 1 votes won't be nearly so random as they normally are.

by "unreasoned" I mean that minimal reasoning is provided with the vote, not that the vote is random. I might agree with you in general, except that a majority of the 10 pages so far is useless for determining alignment. votes won't be random, but they'll be based on thin cases at best.

[Untitled]

everything in the above two posts that isn't a blatant misrepresentation has been covered in my previous posts. I was initially giving you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point I'm pretty sure that you're just being intentionally dense in an attempt to piss me off.

[Untitled]

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

vote: battle mage

[Untitled]

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

[Untitled]

to put it another way: on which planet is that considered a softclaim?

[Untitled]

ok, but how could "our" be taken to mean anything but "the town's" in that context?

[Untitled]

I mean he's soft-claiming town by including himself in the group who scumhunts. He's labeling himself town, but subtly. I can live with an all out townie claim, even a clever or humorous one. But one under the radar like this rubs me the wrong way.

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

lot

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

[Untitled]

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

[Untitled]

ok, I just wanted to be sure that was your position - when you mentioned too townie it seemed as though you were contradicting yourself. my response is this:

it's not a scumtell, because it's something that townies commonly do. this contravenes the very definition of the term "scumtell". whether other people did it in this game is only relevant if you're arguing that scum would be more likely than townies to do it in this game than in other games. since you haven't made that argument, I'm assuming that you think it's a universal scumtell, and this theory is disproven by the many examples of townies doing it in other games.

[Untitled]

ebwop: cleaning up the middle sentence.

ok, I just wanted to be sure that was your position - when you mentioned too townie it seemed as though you were contradicting yourself. my response is this:

it's not a scumtell, because it's something that townies commonly do. this contravenes the very definition of the term "scumtell". whether other people did it in this game is only relevant if you're arguing that scum would be more likely than townies to do it in this game relative to other games. since you haven't made that argument, I'm assuming that you think it's a universal scumtell, and this theory is disproven by the many examples of townies doing it in other games.

[Untitled]

"I disagree" doesn't equal craplogic.

Votes generally indicate a willingness to lynch someone.

"generally" is a term that allows for exceptions such as this one.

nhat seems to have overplayed his hand a little here.

that yellow font is damn hard to read.

[Untitled]

Wait, Im confused. How is this game an exception exactly?

10 pages of pregame to go on.

I declared my intention to vote back on page 5 or so, and most of the thread at that point was crap.

animorpherv1: the problem isn't that he's soft-claiming, it's that he voted me for soft-claiming when I obviously didn't.

[Untitled]

catching up with the weekend's posts.

first off, let's cover all the points from hasdgfas' 439 that aren't just clever, creative ways of saying "I disagree":

Post 143-untitled: You'd rather get rid of a contributor than scum?

how exactly do you know he's not scum?

FoS: hasdgfas

Post 211-untitled: how is theory discussion useless?

not what I said - I said that bm's actual, specific theory was useless.

Post 232-untitled: Good work at pointing out what's blatant misrepresentation.

frankly, I thought it was obvious enough that I didn't need to waste my time writing it out - that was the entire point of the post. I had a strong impression by this point that bm was purposely missing the point to try and get me to react somehow, and by responding seriously to his specious arguments I was just adding fuel to the fire.

I actually find myself agreeing with bm about strangercoug's stance on me vs. bm. I don't necessarily see it as a town vs. scum argument. I do think that bm's being a little egotistical by referring to the pact discussion as "the most important parts of the game so far." I need to read sc's big post(s) properly then think some more.

I guess the nhat wagon served its purpose, but I think a few people took it a little too seriously.

I'd like to know what people think, because the only other game I'm playing is being moderated by Cephrir, so I'm having a hard time viewing him impartially.

I'm not sure why this would be a problem.

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

vote: battle mage

eh? 0.o

an actual question would work better.

[Untitled]

sorry, busy few days - posting to avoid replacement. will catch up asap.

[Untitled]

Unvote EA

because deadline is approaching and I never actually wanted to lynch him.

surely this is some kind of joke?

armlx seems to be the hot topic right now, but I don't really see the problem with him. in a game this size it's easy to lose focus on your vote - I just realised that my vote's still sitting on bm for no particular reason at this point.

unvote

vote: cephrir

for the above clanger.

[Untitled]

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

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

[Untitled]

well that was just retarded all round.

[Untitled]

no big surprises there, then.

I agree with cyberbob's point about netlava above, and I still don't like cephrir's inconsistency on day 1. I'd really like to see more acknowledgement of that point.

[Untitled]

I'll most likely unvote once CK answers my question.

seems counterproductive.

[Untitled]

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.

given that you had apparently decided that they weren't masons by this point, I'm not sure why you thought it would be anti-town to put the thought out there. if you didn't believe your own reasons then why would scum follow them?

[Untitled]

I should have read page 46 before posting - looks like skruffs already covered my point above.

I'm not opposed to the netlava wagon at this stage, but korts could use some more attention first.