Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Erratus Apathos]

This post proves I exist.

[Erratus Apathos]

I expect the pact to implode something like four pages into day 1. For it to work well past the random voting stage, it'll require a level of cooperation and blind trust that I've never seen even masons afford each other, much less players joining together pregame. And even if it lasts I don't expect it to be much different than normal play.

I'm not worried about scum getting the treaty to vote on an innocent, because that would put them under scrutiny. What's disturbing is that Mafia games usually have more than enough false scumtells, scum can just sit back in the treaty and join in when someone unknowingly presents a case for an innocent. When that innocent is lynched they're blameless, because they didn't vote for that person individually, they voted as part of the treaty.

Not only is that a 110% invalid defense, but any player using that as a defense should be lynched on the spot, period. The pact affords players the opportunity to get on a wagon they might not find optimal, but it sure as hell doesn't grant them any measure of unaccountability.

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

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

[Erratus Apathos]

Vote: Netlava

[Erratus Apathos]

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

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

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

*tears up the pact*

SC you're always in my games. lol

Welcome to hell xD

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

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

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

Why is this advantageous?

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

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

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

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

I love Swiss neutrality xD

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

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

Not sure. Shall we bloat it out with some random FoS'ing?

BM

Sure! Why not?

FoS: Everybody

.

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

Not sure. Shall we bloat it out with some random FoS'ing?

BM

Sure! Why not?

FoS: Everybody

.

Aren't you terrified of OMGUS right about now?

It was sarcasm anyway.

yes it does, it's reverse OMGUS.

Reverse OMGUS? What do you mean?

[Erratus Apathos]

EBWOP: @Erratos Apathos, I do see one or two of them. The seventh one was my commenting that I was trying very hard to keep myself in control, and the last one was a legitimate question.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Question number two: does the fact that you had two pregame signal posts out of ten (excluding the confirm obv) tell you nothing about your attack on BM?

At the moment, best option. Large games require a lot of work, and this is my start toward it. We need a lot of team effort to get a good deal of the cases down to size.

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

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

[Erratus Apathos]

Minor FoS: animorpherv1

because this is not the random voting stage.

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

[Erratus Apathos]

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.

I realize he made a mistake. What I'm asking is why did you think that mistake made him more likely to be scum.

Votes generally indicate a willingness to lynch someone.

Unvote, Vote: Cephrir

. You know that statement doesn't apply to the beginning of day 1.

[Erratus Apathos]

PeterGriffin, your vote reeks of OMGUS.

Where did you attack him to prompt the OMGUS?

Post 101

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

Unvote, Vote: nhat

[Erratus Apathos]

PeterGriffin, your vote reeks of OMGUS.

Where did you attack him to prompt the OMGUS?

Post 101

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

Unvote, Vote: nhat

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

I'll go with option number one.

[Erratus Apathos]

Votes generally indicate a willingness to lynch someone.

Unvote, Vote: Cephrir

. You know that statement doesn't apply to the beginning of day 1.

This game is an exception.

Not thirty-six hours after thread opening (when Untitled made the post in question) it wasn't. Yeah it was page 8, but

7.5 of those pages were BM

a great number of players hadn't done anything noteworthy at all, so why should a protown player be ready to lynch? Hell, why would a protown player want to lynch right now for that matter?

Unvote
Vote - Erratus Apathos

His first case against Netlava:

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

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

Then hops off to vote Cephrir for this:

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

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

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

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

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

Oh shit, I forgot that townies have rock-solid unchanging reads on everyone at this stage in the game. You sure caught me, champ.

[Erratus Apathos]

Oh shit, I forgot that townies have rock-solid unchanging reads on everyone at this stage in the game. You sure caught me, champ.

Never rock solid, but not hoppy as that.

Because changing your mind more than once is something only scum would do, right?

[Erratus Apathos]

Because changing your mind more than once is something only scum would do, right?

Based on those reasons, pretty much.

Nobody's attacking the reasons, they're just saying "2 vote hops? SCUM!!!!!"

[Erratus Apathos]

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE is attacking the reasons.

Totally calling this bluff.

[Erratus Apathos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Erratus Apathos]

You know what I mean. A vote in this Day 1 is likely to be more thought out than your standard random vote and probably has some actual suspicion behind it.

Okay... but why would you feel the need to say this in response to Untitled's 211? It was really obvious that his declaring an ITV on BM wasn't random.

[Erratus Apathos]

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

.

The "town wouldn't change their mind more than once" bit was sarcasm, and certainly not a point I'd try to seriously push given that I've been changing my mind more than anyone else here.

Regarding the "putting words in mouths" thing: do we really need to have the exact same discussion we had in Mini 601 when I put words in veerus's mouth? Not only that, but after that discussion, you accepted my point of view. Why don't you now?

[Erratus Apathos]

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.

This, however, makes me rethink my position on EA. He had some reasons, yes, but people did comment on them being too weak. I'd say that counts as an attack.

If "Your reasons are too weak" counts as an attack, then here's my defense: No they're not.

See what I did there? The wagon on me fails because, aside from Coug who's on for a different reason entirely, none of the people on it are using their vote to generate useful discussion, which is exactly what wagons should be doing at this stage. I had to drag discussion about my wagon out of nhat, and I

can't

seem to drag any out of Dynamo, Cephrir, or armlx. Speaking of which, armlx's absolutely incessant attempts to push my wagon without actually getting on it himself and without discussing it beyond "your reasons are weak scum" makes negative sense if he's town.

Unvote, vote: armlx

Pop quiz for anyone still riding the "switching votes is anti-town" horseshit: Why should I have kept my Netlava vote rather than switched to Cephrir? Why should I have kept my Cephrir vote rather than switched to nhat? And to preempt your next worthless non-point against me, why should I have kept my nhat vote rather than switched to armlx?

About Animorpher's softclaim: Although not necessary, it really isn't anywhere near as bad as it's being made out to be. What did the post give away about Animorpher's or MafiaMann's role? Nothing? Then why is the post so egregious? What

is

bad is the wave of fishing that followed it. Why in the hell would you criticize him for needlessly claiming, and then demand he elaborate on the needless claim? Please someone tell me I'm not the only one who sees how utterly retarded the top third of page 22 as a whole is.

[Erratus Apathos]

Post 555-EA: Mind going more in-depth on armlx pushing your wagon w/o getting on it? Quotes or something?

Right.

Unvote
Vote - Erratus Apathos

His first case against Netlava:

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

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

Then hops off to vote Cephrir for this:

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

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

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

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

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

You make a good point about the Cephrir vote swap, especially after he had already made a serious vote.

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

Unvote
Vote: Nhat

It is a good bandwagon.

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

I'm with nhat here.

Unvote

armlx encourages nhat to stay on my wagon. His unvote (he was voting nhat) isn't making any sense... nhat makes one attack he agrees with, so he lets nhat off the hook? Yet he doesn't agree with the attack enough to put his vote on me? And then he starts calling my voting pattern flimsy.

@Nhat: of course you're allowed to scum-hunt, but this case is papery-thin. It really feels like an attempt at distraction to me. (And I thought your first case was nonsensical, so I agreed with the votes already on you.)

Cass, his first vote was weak, the second weaker even, and finally the third strong. Whats weak about that case?

Cass, his first vote was weak, the second weaker even, and finally the third strong. Whats weak about that case?

Well, he basically votes EA because EA changed his vote around. On day one. When EA has said literally that vote =/= intention to lynch. I disagree that voting different people at this stage of the game is a scumtell at all.

And Nhat voting based on that is an excellent reason to put a little more pressure on him. (It's not as if he's anywhere near a risk of getting lynched.)

Cass, he votes EA because he is vote flopping after 10 pages of relevant discussion based on weak premises. And vote should = intent to lynch here. Not necessarily end with lynch right there, but want to see a line of action that could lead to that.

Cass disagrees that my vote-switching is scummy. armlx tries to change her mind.

Oh shit, I forgot that townies have rock-solid unchanging reads on everyone at this stage in the game. You sure caught me, champ.

Never rock solid, but not hoppy as that.

Because changing your mind more than once is something only scum would do, right?

Based on those reasons, pretty much.

Nobody's attacking the reasons, they're just saying "2 vote hops? SCUM!!!!!"

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE is attacking the reasons.

In this exchange he seems reasonably confident I'm scum.

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE is attacking the reasons.

Totally calling this bluff.

Although Korts later pointed out where armlx could have got this point of view from, armlx flat out ignored my challenge, which makes me believe he never really had that point of view to begin with.

If i had to vote right now id vote untitled but i dont need to vote now

Yeah, but if you don't vote you don't give info. Not voting is just as anti-town as vote hopping everywhere.

Did you notice the (not-so-)subtle push for my wagon here?

I don't like armlx generalizing things like that. Who's to tell what standard town behaviour should look like?

Thats what the average town player on MS looks like. You miss the point that EA's reasoning behind each hop was loose at best.

First of all, Korts

obviously

didn't miss that point, seeing how he explained it himself in the very same post:

Because changing your mind more than once is something only scum would do, right?

Based on those reasons, pretty much.

Nobody's attacking the reasons, they're just saying "2 vote hops? SCUM!!!!!"

This, however, makes me rethink my position on EA. He had some reasons, yes, but people did comment on them being too weak. I'd say that counts as an attack.

Secondly, as he did with Cass, once again armlx is trying to push someone else onto my wagon.

All of this is without him ever once being on my wagon. Also while looking through his posts I noticed that he's been voting Dynamo for most of the day, but otherwise has completely ignored Dynamo. This is another solid scumtell and I'd be happy with an armlx lynch today.

[Erratus Apathos]

nhat was being voted for being unreasonable. He became reasonable, my vote had no backing.

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

Also while looking through his posts I noticed that he's been voting Dynamo for most of the day, but otherwise has completely ignored Dynamo. This is another solid scumtell and I'd be happy with an armlx lynch today.

How is this a scum tell?

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

[Erratus Apathos]

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.

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

1. You haven't shown me how its a scum tell.

2. Everything that I have on Dynamo I've said already. The pact hop was EXTREMELY scummy, possibly worse then vote hopping someone like that.

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.
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.

LYNCH ARMLX PLZ

[Erratus Apathos]

I'm not ignoring it. I've made my point, made my vote, and am working with other discussion that is also happening.

I guess you can

technically

call the few posts you made about Dynamo "not ignoring it", but they were something like two short posts which have 19 pages in between them and this post. Nobody would even have remembered those posts if they weren't a part of this conversation. Which is as good as ignoring it in my book.

From now on I'll just call it

neglecting

, rather than ignoring, to preempt the stupid semantic argument I get the feeling I'm on the verge of.

You know this is false. Especially as Dynamo didn't really respond to the issues raised against him during the time you are accusing me of "ignoring" him.

If his lack of response was the problem, why weren't you pressuring him to respond?

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.

I see what you're saying, but it isn't the same thing at all. I'm inferring that BM gradually went down your suspect list in such a way that you didn't consciously notice it was happening. Gradual shifts in opinion like that are human nature, and I wouldn't doubt it happens to townies even in minis. Conversely, armlx has had Dynamo at the top of his list almost continuously since the pregame. An opinion that rigid is not something he would subconsciously lose focus on.

[Erratus Apathos]

Dynamo, since I have a pretty good feeling that you are in fact town, I just want to remind you that giving up like you're doing now is retarded. Even if it was inevitable that you're the lynch today, and it isn't, it would still help the town more if you don't make it easy for scum to vote you with impunity. And that's exactly what saying "I admit I fucked up go ahead and lynch me I deserve it blah blah blah" does. As it stands, it's impossible to pick out which votes for you are opportunistic and which aren't, because they all look the same.

Everyone on the Dynamo wagon: have you EVER seen scum, particularly newbscum, just give up and resign himself to his own lynch like this? I can point to a few finished games when I've seen a townie do it (sykedoc in Mini 577, vendetta in Newbie 615, and CC09 in Mini 617 all come to mind) but never once have I seen this sort of concession come from scum.

[Erratus Apathos]

Everyone on the Dynamo wagon: have you EVER seen scum, particularly newbscum, just give up and resign himself to his own lynch like this? I can point to a few finished games when I've seen a townie do it (sykedoc in Mini 577, vendetta in Newbie 615, and CC09 in Mini 617 all come to mind) but never once have I seen this sort of concession come from scum.

I have not been in many games yet so I may not be the best one to answer this, however in one of my games one of the scum gave up and self voted himself for the lynch. The game was SSWIII.

Having read through the end of that game, I think I wasn't clear enough in my previous point. Septia did concede, but only after all of his attempts to persuade the town not to lynch him were clearly falling on deaf ears. That is definitely standard scum behavior. In contrast, Dynamo read the case against him and more or less said "Honestly I admit I should be lynched". Scum, especially newbie scum, don't say things along those lines, because it's instinctive for them to lie to avoid the lynch, rather than be honest and die for it.

[Erratus Apathos]

Everyone on the Dynamo wagon: have you EVER seen scum, particularly newbscum, just give up and resign himself to his own lynch like this? I can point to a few finished games when I've seen a townie do it (sykedoc in Mini 577, vendetta in Newbie 615, and CC09 in Mini 617 all come to mind) but never once have I seen this sort of concession come from scum.

I've seen scum do it plenty of times, usually as an attempt to tug at the town's heartstrings in some big old appeal to emotion.

Oh gosh what a useful quote pyramid, especially since it just amounts to "scum do this all the time, just trust us". Good thing there's no evidence or anything else that could be discussed, that'd be too cumbersome to deal with.

Let me remind you all that Dynamo's "go ahead and lynch me" rhetoric wasn't some last-ditch effort to avoid the noose. He absolutely could have put up an actual defense against the things he was being accused of, but instead gave up without even trying. Why in the HELL would scum choose to do that? And I swear if you call that WIFOM I will throw you down a well and tell an official you fell down a different well. For it to be a WIFOM gambit he'd have to think there was a decent chance that a conceding appeal to emotion would actually work, in spite of the minor detail that EVERY FUCKING CONCEDING APPEAL TO EMOTION IN THE HISTORY OF MAFIA WAS AS MISERABLE A FAILURE AS THIS ONE HAS BEEN. There is no emoticon that rolls its eyes like I'm doing right now.

I've seen town give up and I've seen scum give up, and Dynamo is textbook town giving up.

[Erratus Apathos]

I agree with you here actually. I'm almost certain that Dynamo is town, based on his actions. Unfortunately, this 'appeal to emotion' stuff doesn't ever help, as you say, so it's unlikely that the obviousness of the fact that he is town will cause a change of lynch for today. Of course, this could all be WIFOM *shot*

Don't get me wrong, I don't think discussion about it being WIFOM should be off limits or anything. It's just that all too often, I see someone waving off arguments like the one in my previous post on the simple basis that he

could

be trying to WIFOM, as if that refutes the argument that he isn't.

[Erratus Apathos]

Ugh, i just reread Dynamo and im really not sure. Half of me says that he fits the profile of frustrated townie perfectly, the other says that his laziness is scummy, because someone protown would jump at the chance to defend themselves, and that his attempt to kind of breadcrumb is a rather lazy attempt to make himself look good.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can really CONDEMN his lynch, except for the fact that there are probably scummier people out there. Armlx feels a bit off to me, and Erratus Apathos seems like a good lynch regardless of Dynamo's affiliation.

for the purposes of clarity

Vote: EA

although at deadline, i will hammer Dynamo if nothing changes dramatically in the votes.

Oh gee, you don't see how I can condemn his lynch? Because I only plastered my explanation all over my past few posts, nice reading skills there Oprah. Instead you pretend like I didn't post a reason (bullshit) and then decide that I therefore don't have a reason (bullshit within bullshit) so you say my stance on Dynamo couldn't possibly be pro-town, all while your amazingly pro-town stance on Dynamo is 100% waffle (bullshit within bullshit within bullshit).

And I'd be a moron to not also mention how BM conveniently ignores others who oppose a Dynamo lynch. Cream and Cephrir also took the stance that townies can't take, why doesn't he attack them too? You think I'm the easiest target, don'tcha opportunistic scum?

Unvote, Vote: Battle Mage

Hmm, this is a bit disappointing. I announced my intentions clearly enough. It's not a typo - I don't actually think Dynamo is scum. Sometimes, though, I vote people who I don't think are scum simply for the sake of a lynch. Tis just a playstyle.

But since this is regarded as scummy, then that's fine, I'm won't be doing this in the future. I'll just let my vote sit uselessly on someone who I do think is scummy. I'll gladly wagon my current suspects though (Cass, earthworm, hasdgfas, cephrir, and pimhel).

Unvote, vote: cass

I like cass's, cephrir's, and hasdgfas's recent reactions *cough* scum *cough*

The vote didn't strike me as scummy, but the way you're looking to take the path of least resistance when confronted about it does.

FoS: Netlava

[Erratus Apathos]

rofl. EA, rather than respond to your post in full, i'm gonna save you some embarrassment, and simply say, you are stabbing shadows.

Spare me the fucking chivalry, embarrass me all you want. As if I'm going to be embarrassed to be proven wrong in a Mafia game anyways. I'd better not show my face on MS any more, or else everyone will laugh at me because I was wrong that one time!!!

But my vote stands. Anyone with THAT emotive a response, has something to hide.

Oh of course, it's pro-town for me to oppose a Dynamo lynch as long as I'm quiet and passive about it, that makes sense. Perchance am I the first non-robot with whom you've played Mafia?

And for future reference, if you dont understand why somebody is attacking you, it might be advisable to ask, lest you look quite the fool.

BM

I used the "say something ambiguous, then call the misinterpreter stupid" gag all the time when I was 12 years old too.

[Erratus Apathos]

rofl. EA, rather than respond to your post in full, i'm gonna save you some embarrassment, and simply say, you are stabbing shadows.

Spare me the fucking chivalry, embarrass me all you want. As if I'm going to be embarrassed to be proven wrong in a Mafia game anyways. I'd better not show my face on MS any more, or else everyone will laugh at me because I was wrong that one time!!!

You certainly seem to be getting pretty wound up about it. Why is that?
Also, watch your language. If there ARE 12 year olds playing, i dont think it's appropriate that you behave like a violent sex-offender.

But my vote stands. Anyone with THAT emotive a response, has something to hide.

Oh of course, it's pro-town for me to oppose a Dynamo lynch as long as I'm quiet and passive about it, that makes sense. Perchance am I the first non-robot with whom you've played Mafia?

ugh. You still havent even grasped why my vote is on you. Although it doesnt really matter because, it is staying.

BM

It's obvious you're cornered scum when the focal point of your retort is that your adversary rapes children.