Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[OpposedForce]

/confirm

[OpposedForce]

BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.

^ this

[OpposedForce]

You do realize that there's no way of knowing scum at all and even though your pact states not to trust anyone you'll be discussing with people who could be scum and have a chance to manipulate discussion.

[OpposedForce]

EBWOP: I meant manipulate the discussion between your pact

[OpposedForce]

You do realize that there's no way of knowing scum at all and even though your pact states not to trust anyone you'll be discussing with people who could be scum and have a chance to manipulate discussion.

Duh. That's an equally important part of the concept.

BM

I'm guessing you have no idea how bad of a concept that is

[OpposedForce]

Fos: anyone joining the pact

[OpposedForce]

Fos: anyone joining the pact

Geez, the game's not even started yet

It feels like it though doesn't it

[OpposedForce]

Fos: anyone joining the pact

OpposedForce, that seems a little extreme. Afterall, the treaty has an escape clause should any town-players think it scum-driven, so there doesn't seem to be that much incentive to not at least give it a shot. What exactly about joining the treaty itself do you believe to be scummy?

(Heh, it does feel like the game's started already.)

Let's say scum joins the treaty (which most likely they did) to blend in with the townies. The "pact" discusses what to do and who to lynch and if scum is there their going to push for lynches. The pact obviously isn't going to vote for another member of the pact unless they act extremely anti-town so scum can just blend in and not get voted by the other members of the pact. It's pretty much a safe cover for the scum in the pact.

[OpposedForce]

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 thing with the treaty is that right now it seems to be working on a first-come-first-served basis, which is only going to guarantee scum within it, because there's pretty much nothing to judge people with at this point. Personally, I'm with Opposed Force in regards to his FOS on applicants becuase face it, if you were scum seeing the treaty, you would want to get inside, because it's a brand new way to safeguard the town's opinion of you, and another opportunity like that isn't going to come around in a long time, admittedly town would want in too, because as far as I know, a voting pact like this is a new idea that hasn't been used before, but to scum, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Killing without suspicion will also be a lot easier, because most suspects recommended to the pact will inevitably be innocent, and scum can vote on them worry free, since they did it along with the rest of the members. Conclusive evidence will be hard to find on any scum too, because they'll have identical voting patterns to the rest of the pact, since smart scum won't defend their scumbuddies who are brought forwards, since half the time the treaty's votes won't lead to a lynch, and the other half the lynch would be inevitable, and if they could actually prevent a scumbuddie's lynch, it would just hurt them further down the line.

QFT FTW

When 1 signatory feels they have caught the scent of a scumbag, they may request the assistance of other signatories, in running them upto a claim, and possibly a lynch. Other signatories must answer this request affirmatively, or have a very good reason not to. For the purposes of organisation, all willing members will then Proxy their vote to said signatory, for the duration of the wagon.

yes but there Opposed it at least says that you have to present a case, much like anyone would when hunting scum, then everyone must agree or give a very good reason why they don't. If this is done properly it should work well.

I understand that evidence and cases come into judging a person and how the whole pact can discuss on it however the scum is going to be their maniuplating everybody and while the pact discuss with one another the scum in the pact can just put in whatever he wants to mislead them into lynching a townie. Also like earthworm said the scum in the pact will defend a scumbuddy and try to keep him out of suspicion by misleading the whole pact. Also I don't understand the premise of the pact. Won't you be exluding the rest of the town or vote all together when you decide on a lynch? If that's the case then scum is on safe grounds to advocate a lynch.

[OpposedForce]

Fos: anyone joining the pact

OpposedForce, that seems a little extreme. Afterall, the treaty has an escape clause should any town-players think it scum-driven, so there doesn't seem to be that much incentive to not at least give it a shot. What exactly about joining the treaty itself do you believe to be scummy?

(Heh, it does feel like the game's started already.)

Let's say scum joins the treaty (which most likely they did) to blend in with the townies. The "pact" discusses what to do and who to lynch and if scum is there their going to push for lynches. The pact obviously isn't going to vote for another member of the pact unless they act extremely anti-town so scum can just blend in and not get voted by the other members of the pact. It's pretty much a safe cover for the scum in the pact.

You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?

You claim that the pact will be joined by scum. Therefore, the pact will constitute a foolproof method of finding scum. So what exactly are you arguing about?
You claim you want to find scum, and you admit that that is exactly what this pact will help you to do. I'm going to give you 1 shot to think about this, and then admit you are wrong. Otherwise, i will have to see this as scummy.

BM

Wow and you call my argument ridiculous.

The pact is obviously going to help scum blend in. The scum join in and everybody is discussing among the members and the scum can just manipulate among the others which puts them in safe ground. There is no "foolproof" method of finding scum within a group that you can't trust anyone in alignment. That kind of thinking is foolish and idiotic.

Also if you wanted to catch scum then why just create a pact when you can discuss with town? It's pretty much a open gateway for scum to jump in and find themselves safe. You create a pact to find scum but you can just do that with general town discussion instead of giving scum a chance to get a better foothold in the game. Also your going to vote me for disagreeing with the pact? Lol that's kind of obnoxious thinking that your pact is 100% and that I'm wrong for disagreeing with it. If you find me scummy for disagreeing then go ahead and think that because thinking like that will get you nowhere.

[OpposedForce]

OF, I don't see BM threatening you with a vote.

argh my mistake I meant to pin blame on me as being scum.

[OpposedForce]

@Bm-

You've been nothing but close-minded in arguing against me. You state that the pact has a fool-proof method of finding scum and that you find my argument of scum hiding in the pact as trash. Instead of remarking how my argument is trash and how I'm wrong for arguing against the pact how about you look back and consider the possibilities of how scum would go into a pact like this. Think about. Scum will find this kind of pact as a golden chance to come in put themselves in a good position. I fully acknowledge that your pact rule had the no trust rule but then why are you making a pact discussing with a certain amount of people? Your pact wants to catch scum and only limited members are going to join (don't misunderstand what I mean by limited members as in not all people are going to join) so why not just discuss with all town members instead of just a couple of members in a group.

Also you misinterprented me. I'm not arguing against playing mafia. I'm arguing for the fact that the whole pact thing is going to make it easier for scum and hinder the town. You call my logic ridiculous although your whole argument seems to revolve around you being close-minded and thinking that your pact is fail proof so thinking I'm scum for disagreeing and for "ridiculous logic" because you can't see the pact going wrong at all is crap on me.

[OpposedForce]

But, what i don't see, is the view of Opposed Force and yourself, that people supporting the treaty are scum, and then him saying that the treaty is bad, when he is actually, by definition declaring that a

foolproof

(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.

Bullshit.

Your trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that a foolproof (by the way you said that not me so that's even more bullshit saying that was me) scum hunting method was a bad idea. Your pact isn't even foolproof and thinking that is idiotic. There is no way in hell that there is a foolproof method of finding scum in a game variant like this especially since your pact method has so many holes in it. Your whole argument is stating that your method is foolproof and you don't see any flaws which is even more bullshit on your argument. Don't call my argument trash when you misunderstand and put words into my mouth.

[OpposedForce]

@Bm-

You've been nothing but close-minded in arguing against me. You state that the pact has a fool-proof method of finding scum and that you find my argument of scum hiding in the pact as trash. Instead of remarking how my argument is trash and how I'm wrong for arguing against the pact how about you look back and consider the possibilities of how scum would go into a pact like this.

You still aren't reading. Lol!
Seriously man... 0.o

Before you go off in a tizz, at least read what has been said. For the record, i HAVEN'T said your argument of scum hiding in the pact is trash (although it is). What i am really REALLY cross about, is that you stated the following:

A. Scum will hide in the pact.
B. The Pact is bad.

When clearly, the 2 points directly contradict each other.

Now, this really IS your last chance to explain yourself. Because the game hasn't started yet, and already you're letting me down, and getting me irate.

Seriously. FORGET ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS, and FORGET GETTING PISSY AT ME. I dont actually care atm, until we can move past this point! Then perhaps, i can answer your questions, and we can get somewhere.

BM

Wow. Just wow.

Let me see where I can start off. Firstly you have stated that my argument is trash because your too close-minded on your pact method. Secondly how are the two points A.Scum will hide in the pact B. The pact is bad contradict themselves? They fit the whole argument because

scum hiding in the pact is bad.

Looks like your the one that need to read.<sarcasm> Oh by the way thanks for commenting what I had to say about you <sarcasm>(close-minded, faulty argument) Looks like I wasted my time even bothering to put some sense into you by trying to make you look into a different perspective but I guess that wouldn't work.

I've already explained myself numerous of times and unforunately you keep thinking faulty points such as your method is foolproof and that me arguing against you is trash even though I've expressed enough points to prove my argument. I don't even think there's a point in contiuning this if your going to be so close-minded.

[OpposedForce]

But, what i don't see, is the view of Opposed Force and yourself, that people supporting the treaty are scum, and then him saying that the treaty is bad, when he is actually, by definition declaring that a

foolproof

(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.

Bullshit.

Your trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that a foolproof (by the way you said that not me so that's even more bullshit saying that was me) scum hunting method was a bad idea. Your pact isn't even foolproof and thinking that is idiotic. There is no way in hell that there is a foolproof method of finding scum in a game variant like this especially since your pact method has so many holes in it. Your whole argument is stating that your method is foolproof and you don't see any flaws which is even more bullshit on your argument. Don't call my argument trash when you misunderstand and put words into my mouth.

LOL!

Read post 128. And ftr, it was you who said the pact was a foolproof method of scumhunting. In my opinion it isn't. But, we aren't talking about me. I'm trying to help you learn something today.

BM

*slams own head repeatly on wall"

In post 128 I STATED YOU HAD SAID THAT IT WAS FOOLPROOF. IT'S EVEN IN POST 106 OF YOUR POST. READ THE THREAD.

[OpposedForce]

@Bm-

You've been nothing but close-minded in arguing against me. You state that the pact has a fool-proof method of finding scum and that you find my argument of scum hiding in the pact as trash. Instead of remarking how my argument is trash and how I'm wrong for arguing against the pact how about you look back and consider the possibilities of how scum would go into a pact like this.

You still aren't reading. Lol!
Seriously man... 0.o

Before you go off in a tizz, at least read what has been said. For the record, i HAVEN'T said your argument of scum hiding in the pact is trash (although it is). What i am really REALLY cross about, is that you stated the following:

A. Scum will hide in the pact.
B. The Pact is bad.

When clearly, the 2 points directly contradict each other.

Now, this really IS your last chance to explain yourself. Because the game hasn't started yet, and already you're letting me down, and getting me irate.

Seriously. FORGET ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS, and FORGET GETTING PISSY AT ME. I dont actually care atm, until we can move past this point! Then perhaps, i can answer your questions, and we can get somewhere.

BM

Wow. Just wow.

Let me see where I can start off. Firstly you have stated that my argument is trash because your too close-minded on your pact method. Secondly how are the two points A.Scum will hide in the pact B. The pact is bad contradict themselves? They fit the whole argument because

scum hiding in the pact is bad.

GOOD. AT LONG LAST YOU ARE ACTUALLY COMMENTING ON SOMETHING RELEVANT.

Let me explain 1 more time, because i'm happy we are finally getting somewhere. You originally stated that all scum would flock to the pact because it offers them sanctity. Or, it appears to. The fact is, it DOESN'T. But that's besides the point. In stating that the pact would be a Scum-Magnet, you emphasise that in fact, the pact DOES help find scum, because in YOUR opinion, people joining the pact are very likely scum, or at least, scummy. This is what i mean by you stating that the pact is a foolproof scumhunting method, because in YOUR opinion, NOT MINE, there is a discernibly scummy reaction, and a discernibly protown reaction.

Guess what, kiddo? If we can differentiate between scum and town within the first few pages of the game, we've won. Now, can you really tell me that a pact which seals us the game is 'bad for the town'?

BM

*btw, nice sarcasm tags. I wouldve responded to the rest of your post, but as i said to Korts, there isn't alot of point. I'm not babysitting for free. I honestly feel like i'm talking to somebody who has read the mafia wiki, and thinks that they know everything, but is missing 1 relatively important aspect of Mafia. Reading. xD

And this is where it all falls down on itself BM. Please for once listen because I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. You believe that the method is foolproof hell you even said that. You are thinking that scum won't come into the pact which is where your argument falls down on itself because your not considering on any flaws in the pact. And no I don't find everybody joining the pact scummy. Yes I did Finger of Suspicion anybody going into the pact because people where just going in not thinking about the flaws so I at least wanted some discussion before considering going into the pact blindly believing that it's a good scum catching method. I've already stated why the pact is bad and if you bothered to read back on my posts maybe you'll learn something.

And no I don't know everything about mafia but I know your argument against me is one sided and close-minded

[OpposedForce]

OF, let me explain it without the unnecessary BS.

Scum will try to hide in the Pact. Therefore the Pact isn't a bad tool for scumhunting, since the scum will try to be inside. QED the points that A) scum will hide in the Pact and B) the Pact is detrimental to scumhunting are contradictory.

I see where your coming from however I just don't see why we can't just have all the players without a specific pact discuss among ourselves like a normal mafia game. While people in the pact will be scum hunting they'll also be discussing among themselves (I suppose like a mason group in the day except with risks) and so scum has an oppurtunity to just mislead them while they discuss among themselves. I just don't see why there has to be an unnesscary risk of scum ruining discussion within a pact and just play the game normally where scum won't influence specific individuals (now before anyone attacks me yes scum will still try to maniuplate the game even without the pact but within the pact there is a smaller group to maniuplate and mislead them.)

[OpposedForce]

@BM-

Read your own post. You said that scum wouldn't flock to the pact. Now your just contradicting yourself completely. Your whole argument has been trying to prove that it's fail proof and if you check back in your posts and read you've been trying to prove that which makes the whole argument close-minded because your not considering anything else besides thinking the pact is fail proof. If you actually read any of the posts I've been saying then you would understand but your repeating the same argument over and over again.

I'm slow in understanding logic? Well look who's the hypocrite on this one. I never stated that the pact was a good scum hunting method. Now your just grasping at nothing. My play is vastly hypocritical for supporting the pact even though I never did? Wow. Nice to slide in false evidence there. Can confirmation stage end so I can vote for BM XD

[OpposedForce]

OF, let me explain it without the unnecessary BS.

Scum will try to hide in the Pact. Therefore the Pact isn't a bad tool for scumhunting, since the scum will try to be inside. QED the points that A) scum will hide in the Pact and B) the Pact is detrimental to scumhunting are contradictory.

I see where your coming from however I just don't see why we can't just have all the players without a specific pact discuss among ourselves like a normal mafia game. While people in the pact will be scum hunting they'll also be discussing among themselves (I suppose like a mason group in the day except with risks) and so scum has an oppurtunity to just mislead them while they discuss among themselves. I just don't see why there has to be an unnesscary risk of scum ruining discussion within a pact and just play the game normally where scum won't influence specific individuals (now before anyone attacks me yes scum will still try to maniuplate the game even without the pact but within the pact there is a smaller group to maniuplate and mislead them.)

That can happen in the game anyway. It's how Mafia works. You gotta keep an eye on the scum, because, surprising as it may sound, they MAY mislead you!
I think the concept of a small group within a group puts people in the limelight, invokes discussion and forces people to take a stance. Whether or not the pact itself achieves anything more isnt relevant. The fact is, it is very hard to manipulate, if you give townies due credit, and if you DON'T give townies due credit, i'm sure they'd find a way to screw it up anyway!

BM

So what's the difference between making a pact and not making a pact? All the reasons you just given can apply to just playing the game normally without a pact. I may be misunderstanding this but care to elaborate a bit.

[OpposedForce]

Still here. This game moves way too fast (Damn people were still in confirmation stage :/) I still have my opposition to the pact and stand by it and no matter the argument it's not going anywhere (especially with BM) Post my thoughts later.

[OpposedForce]

Still here. This game moves way too fast (Damn people were still in confirmation stage :/) I still have my opposition to the pact and stand by it and no matter the argument it's not going anywhere (especially with BM) Post my thoughts later.

EBWOP: Read the thread. How convenient to call the pact off as BM feels that scum are more likely to come in because of the argument. Fair thinking I would say. And to my knowledge it's not going to continue just for that reason. Good maybe we actually play mafia without the silly argument.

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.

Do we have a limited amount of space, perchance?

Well if we did we'd be in alot of trouble.

[OpposedForce]

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

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

[OpposedForce]

Things I am not sure I should just laugh at or should note for later:

So, nhat, are you planning to actually provide content after the game starts, or is every post going to be like this? Your other post was also just a pointless jab at BM's teaty.

Things that I will vote for:

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.

scum hiding in the pact is bad.

I only really read this because it was bold. It would be blatantly obvious if anyone tried to divest themselves of responsibility because of the pact. (in fact, I would go so far as to postulate that the people

not

in on the pack are the ones who should be watched for hiding. Anyone outside of the pact that tries to blindly follow it should be scrutinized.)

Erm... I got to about post 150 before I was buried under all of the big posts, but from what I have read the award for scummiest pre-game shenanigans goes to.... Untitled! Is this old news for the people who are actually keeping up?

I smell broken logic.

It is really quite pungent isn't it?

vote: Untitled

Admittedly, I should go back and finish reading the pre-game, but that is where my guts takes me based upon the first 7 or so pages.

Instead of actually going on gut and skimming the thread so you don't have to post anything big why don't you actually scum hunt instead of going along with whatever is easy for you and don't have to post any evidence.

Vote:Cerebus3

[OpposedForce]

Picking up prod. Doing a re-read now. Also

Unvote:Cerebus3

[OpposedForce]

Cass: Seems to just be leaning whatever way looks popular recently.

This feels like an odd accusation. I voted SC first, that was the first (or maybe second?) vote on him. I then voted Nhat and caught some flak for that. Didn't make me feel so popular

@Nhat: I don't think EA had good reasons for switching his votes, but I disagree with you that is a scumtell.

We are all voting based on flimsy cases right now, simply because the game has barely started

. Yep, there's ten pages pregame, but those only contain information on some of the 26 players. I happen to disagree with both your 'scum-tells', and so you seem a good place for my vote. Your defensiveness is potentially interesting too.

@A lot of players: it is

14

votes to lynch, people. Why are you so phobic of votes & bandwagons? I find all the unvoting and the unwillingness to put pressure on people slightly disturbing.
I personally will start thinking about 'intent to lynch' by the time someone hits ten or so votes. Right now, I have other priorities than lynching someone. So do my votes.

Vote:Cass

I don't like your argument here. Not all players have a "flimsy cases" as you put it. I've re-read the thread and for what I've seen there's been alot of good evidence agaisnt players and there's been intersting reactions from players when they get pressured. The game has had 18 pages worth of information and yet you state that it's barely started? Granted that in this case Day 1 has barely started but there's been ton of information regarding pre-game and I don't understand why some players here feel the need to ignore whatever happened pre-game and get right into Day 1.

Also I've taken note of your voting record. You seem to be going with the active bandwagons and not really scumhunting. Yes you did vote SC on your own merits but now you seem to just go along with whatever is out there. I detect some laziness within your play. On another note your defense when you say "that players are not willingly to pressure with votes and cases" seems to try to justify you going along with the nearest bandwagon.