Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[PeterGriffin]

Viva La Swiss!

In other news, I'm definately interested in this pact, and will be curious to see how it influences the game.

[PeterGriffin]

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.)

[PeterGriffin]

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.

That's fair enough, but not only is there an escape-clause should people believe that scum are driving the treaty, but it's not like a player can't get kicked out if they are believed to be scum.

Entry/Departure

A player may only be granted admittance to this treaty by a unanimous vote of existing signatories.
A signatory may voluntarily leave this treaty at any time, and must say so in thread.

A signatory may be forcibly removed from this treaty by a majority vote of the remaining signatories.

Especially at the beginning of the game, that's not going to take that many votes. If a player tries to push bad cases, seems unwilling to vote for a certain player despite treaty rules without a solid reason and/or just overall acts scummy, most likely they're going to get kicked out. Of course, if the scum have enough members in there to manipulate the majority it won't work, but then most likely they'll have enough to manipulate the treaty itself anyway, and pro-town members should evacuate immediately.

Ohh Ohh

/treaty =]

No. No. No. That is :badposting:. When there is a discussion occuring regarding if a treaty is legitimate, you don't just quickly agree to it. Throughout your posts you have yet to provide reasoning as to why it's a good idea, simply agreeing with the other players. Why will it help catch scum? Why is it an efficient method in your opinion? The other signees after Korts at least provided some slim reasoning for joining the treaty. You gave nothing. If anybody is doing what OF suggested here, it's you.

FoS: DynamoXI

[PeterGriffin]

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

*tears up the pact*

That's fair enough, but if we can get discussion started early, I don't really see why that isn't beneficial for the town. It will simply give us more information to work with when the game actually starts.

[PeterGriffin]

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.

Except that if you're joining with no reasoning, (Like Dynamo and to a lesser extent Cephrir), the other members of the treaty are (Or should, at least) going to put those people under more scrutiny than they would otherwise recieve early in the game. In most cases, all the people of the town are equal at the very beginning of the game. In this case however, we have a group of people that are voting as a pack and therefore have more voting power, so there's definately going to be more pressure on them than most likely there would be if they stayed off the treaty, or if the treaty didn't exist in the first place.

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,

How will being in the treaty "safeguard the town's opinion of you"? I would argue that scum would need to be even more cautious, considering that often your vote will now have the power of five instead of one, and therefore your reasoning for votes and such will be even more carefully dissected than in a usual D1. Care to respond to either my or wolf's rebuttals to OF's points?

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.

You also have to keep in mind that there is both an escape clause and a boot clause, so if there is a player that is making shoddy cases, not making cases at all, or simply acting scummy in other areas, chances are they're going to get the boot. If they don't, then that could actually lower down the field for potential scumbuddies, making the town's job almost easier.

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.

Except that there still should be cases, evidenciary support, etc. If a case is shoddy, the fact that the case-maker is part of the treaty doesn't make the case any better. In fact, I'd argue that it makes it worse. Same for voting for no reason.

Conclusive evidence will be hard to find on any scum too, because they'll have identical voting patterns to the rest of the pact,

Yes, it will be much more difficult to analyze voting patterns. That is one part of the treaty than as of yet I admittedly dislike. However, in my opinion there should still be reasoning and cases by the players, especially the one that's starting the bandwagon.

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.

So? We can still look at the reasons for the lynch, the reasons that the scumbuddy voted for his fellow scum, and if bussing is likely. That doesn't stop us from doing that. If a player is consistently hopping onto the bandwagon due to the treaty without providing any reasoning of his own, I'll be suspicous regardless of whether the person is lynched is scum or not. This is true in any game I will play.

I might as well give my opinion on the treaty while I'm making this post. I think that it could work, but will only be effective as the alignments of the players on it. It could be rather difficult to avoid scum manipulaton, so I want assurance that that is being taken care of before I feel that I would honestly support it. I just find the arguments used against it so far rather lacking, although I do agree with Korts point that trust without basis IS supported in the treaty, and I do dislike it. I am not supporting this treaty, but other than Kort's point regarding trust, I'm not particularly against it at the moment either.

[PeterGriffin]

How will being in the treaty "safeguard the town's opinion of you"? I would argue that scum would need to be even more cautious, considering that often your vote will now have the power of five instead of one, and therefore your reasoning for votes and such will be even more carefully dissected than in a usual D1. Care to respond to either my or wolf's rebuttals to OF's points?

You also have to keep in mind that there is both an escape clause and a boot clause, so if there is a player that is making shoddy cases, not making cases at all, or simply acting scummy in other areas, chances are they're going to get the boot. If they don't, then that could actually lower down the field for potential scumbuddies, making the town's job almost easier.

Except that there still should be cases, evidenciary support, etc. If a case is shoddy, the fact that the case-maker is part of the treaty doesn't make the case any better. In fact, I'd argue that it makes it worse. Same for voting for no reason.

However, in my opinion there should still be reasoning and cases by the players, especially the one that's starting the bandwagon.

I'm not worried about scum getting the treaty to vote on an innocent, because that would put them under scrutiny.

I wasn't neccesarily saying "vote on an innocent" as much in those pieces as much as I was saying "build a badly made case on a player." IE- Use crap logic, quote-mining, etc.

[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.

That is a very fair point, I would be interested in seeing a response to that from a direct supporter of the treaty.

[In mafia games people who make cases against innocents aren't usually the most suspicious, the most suspicious are the ones who immediatly jump on the bandwagon.

Again, shoddily-made cases often imply a lack of solid scumhunting, which can mean scum. I do agree with you however, just because someone makes a case on a townie, doesn't make them scum. People make mistakes.

My problem with the treaty is that it's like a pre-built bandwagon that they don't come under suspicion for joining, because they were already members.

It's a fair concern, but I would argue that if we examine the relationship of the way that the members of the treaty bandwagon on, it could help find scum. It would certainly be easier if that part of the treaty was modified however.

Consultation

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.

Your point is valid, and I agree that perhaps the treaty shouldn't neccesarily be so definitive on the issue. IE- If they can explain why they aren't voting, they shouldn't automatically have to vote.

So? We can still look at the reasons for the lynch, the reasons that the scumbuddy voted for his fellow scum, and if bussing is likely. That doesn't stop us from doing that. If a player is consistently hopping onto the bandwagon due to the treaty without providing any reasoning of his own, I'll be suspicous regardless of whether the person is lynched is scum or not. This is true in any game I will play.

People going along with the pact without any comments would be more likely to be lazy town than scum.

Wait a second. Earlier you said this-

In mafia games people who make cases against innocents aren't usually the most suspicious, the most suspicious are the ones who immediatly jump on the bandwagon.

I agree that bandwagoners can be extremely suspicious, and yet now you're saying that anybody who goes along with the pact (IE- bandwagons) "would be more likely to be lazy town than scum". Now, you do have the qualifier there, "Without any comment", but in the case of the treaty, scum wouldn't neccesarily have to comment on the issue, simply because later they can simply say, "Well, I'm trying to go along with the treaty", and you'd judge them to be "more likely to be lazy town than scum"!

Scum know enough to be able to blend in with the rest. In normal games the hardest part is joining in on bandwagons and pushing them without attracting suspicion, with those steps removed (they're already a part, and pushing it is being done along with the other signatories), it will be easy to blend in with the other five or so members.

The above is very true, but I'm confused. Surely it's easier to "blend in", if you don't provide any reasoning for your vote, but you said that if a player did so, they would be more likely town than scum. Maybe I'm misunderstaning your position?

That said, the treaty isn't as bad as I'm making it sound, seeing people's reactions will help us determine alignments down the line, and it's certainly possible that it

will

help us coordinate scumhunting and lynches.

Indeed, it could have it's use. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it could help the town for the better, depending on what alignment the players that are on it are.

That said, I do feel that your points have merit.

BattleMage, could you reword the part of the treaty regarding involuntary voting so that the treaty still has purpose, but Scum could still be held accountable for relentless bandwagoning? IE- make it voluntary?

[PeterGriffin]

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

FOS: Petergriffin

FOS: earthworm

FOS: StrangerCoug

I'm done talking with earthworm unless he wishes to make another reply. In my opinion we've found common ground.

In your opinion, how is being "way too interested in arguing about the pact", scummy? Is there something else we should be talking about?

[PeterGriffin]

Why? Because I feel that scum may be more interested about this pact than townies. I'm largely indifferent to whether a pact forms - it is interesting, perhaps, but not the best option.

I fail to comprehend why, considering that this potentially could be a group with the voting power of five. Even if it only lasts for the first few pages, it's pretty big. I feel that it should be discussed and the pros and cons carefully analyzed. Besides, the more discussion the better.

For scum, I think it is more important for their strategy and such - especially for them to get in a pact, if one were to form. I think earthworm described it as a "once in a lifetime opportunity" or something.

Yet I've not even said that I'm for the treaty. At the moment I'm undecided and leaning against. Earthworm is arguing against the treaty. I fail to comprehend how this point could cause either of us to look scummy, because we haven't even made a mention of wanting to sign up.

Also, the amount of debating over a policy that is ultimately inconsequential to finding scum comes at a surprise.

How can you be certain that this treaty is going to be "ultimately inconsequential to finding scum"? Behavior towards the discussion, the points in the discussion itself, and the behavior of the people on it, could definately help us catch scum.

The large chunks of text sound like a bunch of fluff. Now, I don't mind being interested in arguing, but I do hope it carries over to actual scumhunting.

Again, I believe that the discussion regarding the treaty, and the behaviors when it comes to the players in the treaty itself, can definately help us find scum.

The main thing is that this was a great opportunity for scum to appear active, arguing over policy, without actually scumhunting. You guys may have overdone it, though.

We were discussing a piece that potentially could be a key part of the early phase of this game. How exactly do you want us to scumhunt before the game has even started? There are still players that haven't even confirmed yet.

I also don't agree with your stance on the policy. I get the feeling that you are intentionally not getting why a pact is not pro-town in order to further the argument.

It may be because I'm in a rather emotional state right now (Had an argument with my mother an hour ago), but this sounds extremely insulting, like I'd have to pretend to be acting stupid to miss why the pact is not pro-town. It definately has it's anti-town points (Having to unconditionally trust players you have no clarification for, and creating an excuse to wagon), but there is potential for pro-town results as well, and I felt that the points that the other people were trotting out appeared to be rather weak, and so wanted to discuss them.

So wait a second. You want us to scumhunt before the game has even started, and yet you wish to basicially stifle discussion, (Calling the people who were talking about the implications of the treaty scummy, and saying that scum would be more interested in talking about the pact than townies.) After you criticize someone else for reccomending stifling discussion? What?

[PeterGriffin]

EBWODP: That second to last question should be "After you criticize someone else for trying to stifle discussion."

[PeterGriffin]

LOL - Everyone who is taking this treaty shit seriously

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

kill: nhat

:goodposting:.

[PeterGriffin]

LOL - Everyone who is taking this treaty shit seriously

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

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

Wow dude, sorry. Considering that your only two posts were rather ad-hominem laden attacks on BM's treaty and those commenting on it, I felt it neccesary to comment on such and wonder if this was going to become a pattern. I can see however that my post was worded poorly, as was my joke approval of Kort's "daykill". My distinct apologies should you have been offended. I definately could have worded the post better. If this is simply a pre-game thing, it's absolutely fine.

[PeterGriffin]

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. At the moment however, there's another player that's bugging me even more.

I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.

MafiaMann, here are your other two posts.

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

/confirm

The first post provides no content, the second comments on the treaty, which you dismiss as "useless" in your third post. Therefore, you shouldn't be commenting on scumhunting, considering that not only is
A. The discussion and reaction towards the treaty likely going to help us catch scum,
B. If scum were on the treaty, their behavior on it could have helped us catch scum.

The treaty is an important issue, and you simply, like other players, make an attempt to stifle the current discussion by saying that we should be "scumhunting", when you haven't even put out the energy to scumhunt yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Major FOS: MafiaMann

[PeterGriffin]

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."

While i think about it, it also exhibits a willingness to lynch, as a priority over discussion. Which is scummy.

Very fair point.

At the moment however, there's another player that's bugging me even more.

I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.

MafiaMann, here are your other two posts.

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

/confirm

The first post provides no content, the second comments on the treaty, which you dismiss as "useless" in your third post. Therefore, you shouldn't be commenting on scumhunting, considering that not only is
A. The discussion and reaction towards the treaty likely going to help us catch scum,
B. If scum were on the treaty, their behavior on it could have helped us catch scum.

The treaty is an important issue, and you simply,

like other players

, make an attempt to stifle the current discussion by saying that we should be "scumhunting", when you haven't even put out the energy to scumhunt yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Major FOS: MafiaMann

Your points here are completely valid. But, i'm not totally convinced, partly because of the part highlighted by me, in italics. MafiaMann is not the only player not really contributing at this point, and i dont find his posts ESPECIALLY scummy. The worst thing is that he is blatantly paddling easier answers, but again, he is not the only one to do this.
One to watch? definitely. One to focus on specifically atm? probably not.

Meh, I can see where you're coming from. There's just something about his posts that I really don't like. I think it's also the fact that he's commented on the treaty, when he says in his latest post is pointless since "we should be scumhunting", making him a double-hypocrite.

[Also, Peter (do you mind if i abbreviated your name to that?) - how many other games are you currently in, in the New York Forum?

BM

None.

[PeterGriffin]

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.

How exactly will BM be a detriment to scumhunting once the game starts? Although I disagree with his plan for a treaty, it's rather obvious that it has kick-started conversation and quite plausibly the reactions will help us later on in the game. He has made various responses, and overall seems very pro-discussion. Although you did say that he will be a detriment to scum-hunting once the game started, you were implying that the way he was acting now is detrimental to scumhunting, and I'm not sure that I see why at the moment.

his response was close enough to my point to pass a cursory inspection, but it was slanted to present a viewpoint that favoured him.

Well yeah, if somebody makes a response to another person, the response is going to be from their POV, and most likely favor them. I guess I don't completely understand where exactly you are coming from here.

Ok, i just wondered. Because, one of the benefits of having no life, and watching this game all day, is that i can see when people are online and viewing the thread. And i noticed you on ALOT, without posting. Of course, reading quietly isn't a crime. Just thought i'd mention it, to set a precedent.

BM

Yeah, that does happen. It was especially common last night, considering that all that was going on was discussion of you and the treaty, and you were online, so I didn't really see any need to post. If the discussion isn't something that I can answer with certainty, and it isn't a response to a post of mine, I'll most likely just read it, maybe take a couple notes, and then move on. I'll try to keep it to a minimum however.

[PeterGriffin]

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.

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.

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.

[PeterGriffin]

My apologies for not being around the last couple days, have had some school problems. Will make a response to some of the things I missed, hopefully tonight.

[PeterGriffin]

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?

My apologies, I should have been clearer. I was conceding your point regarding the intent to lynch. However, I find the distant suddenness of your want to vote BM intriguing, when your points had occurred throughout Page 4.

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.

Except that having such a detailed discussion in pre-game will simply give us more data to go on during the actual day, something that I for one am willing to live with, although there is plenty of noise there as well. But that's going to happen early game regardless.

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.

... Did you just make up a term? I've never heard "Reverse OMGUS" used before. Ever. (And I've read plenty of Mafia games here.)

"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.

First of all, you're right, it's not a logical argument, but when the reasoning you use to vote for someone is pretty badly flawed, you have to consider that there's another reason that they're voting you. Let's look at the reasons you've poised thus far.

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.

Incorrect. The reactions to the treaty and comments thereof are definately potentially useful for scumhunting ammunition. In fact, this had been discussed before you made this post, so you not even bothering to respond to the case against your point is rather telling.

that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing.

I disagree with BM's posting style as well. I dislike that he often flavours his responses with ad-hominem attacks. However, this is simply his posting style, and from my meta, this is the way he usually acts. Therefore, I don't see it as a legitimate reason for a vote. At all.

unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

Except that not only has BM encouraged discussion during the pre-game, he came up with a strategy that was sure to create contraversy and reactions, which can be essential to scumhunting. Again, I often dislike the way he encourages the discussion, but he has definately done so. I fail to see how BM is going to be a detriment to the town's scumhunting.

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.

Please provide reasoning why this post should be "laughed at or noted later." Here are nhat's two posts before I made the comment

/confirm

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

LOL - Everyone who is taking this treaty shit seriously

He didn't bother to make any response to why he felt that BM's treaty was a bad idea, he just made attacks on it, and the people discussing it, hence my comment. I was wondering if he was going to provide content in the future, if this was normal pre-game behavior for him.

The Nhat-Peter Griffin thing is possibly notable for later. But much later.

What exactly is notable about it? I ask Nhat if he is going to provide content in the future, he attacks me, I apologize for some of the tone in the post. And then why do you FOS me in another post, when the only thing you have said about me is this, which you admit isn't even a legitimate point against me until "much later"?

So wait a second. You want us to scumhunt before the game has even started, and yet you wish to basicially stifle discussion, (Calling the people who were talking about the implications of the treaty scummy, and saying that scum would be more interested in talking about the pact than townies.) After you criticize someone else for reccomending stifling discussion? What?

Pointing out questionable behavior =/= stifling discussion. In fact, it may even encourage it or shift the topic to something more useful. I'd prefer a discussion about scum over some policy debate, but, I don't expect anyone to have a case at this point. The sudden enthusiasm over some policy was what I found suspicious.

Vote: PeterGriffin

as my not quite random vote.

But you didn't even provide another topic for us to discuss, you specifically called the people who were discussing the current topic as scummy. I wasn't particularly "enthusiastic", I simply found the arguments against the treaty to be inadequate, and felt that responding would promote discussion regarding the treaty, an interesting topic, which could impact the game, especially early on.

For the moment,

Vote: Untitled

as a result of his craplogic case against BM, and not providing any solid other reason for his vote.

[PeterGriffin]

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.

You haven't even read a thread entirely yet and you are perfectly willing to vote for someone, after quoting one of their posts? Make a case. Present evidence, definately, but explain why it's scummy. Don't just quote a player, and then feel justified making statements like the above and this comment-

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!

If you aren't going to support it, it's worthless.

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.

Umm... what? Simply saying that someone is going to interfere with our scumhunting isn't scummy. At all. I mean, there's no reason why someone should have to always seperate themselves from the town, and always refer to it in second person if you are a townie. That's just craplogic. What makes it worse is that you're hopping onto a bandwagon using this logc, which really makes it scummy.

Too Townie is not a scumtell at all either. The person might be scum pretending to be a townie, but more likely they're just a townie acting townie. We're trying to find people that are acting scummy, not acting townie. As you would put it, you've made 256 posts. You should know this.

StrangerCoug looks ok, his explanation for not wanting pre-game discussion seems in tune with his overall play style.

Not liking this. What "play style" are you referring to? Why does this playstyle excuse him for his hypocritical behavior later in the game, and the fact that he did in fact make posts in the pre-game, they were just utterly devoid of content, and then says that "Mafia is about a game of quality, not quantity"? (I suppose that would fall under "Hypocritical behavior"

Not really like SC so far, for the reasons I stated above, and that others have stated. The only thing that seems pro-town so far is his analysis of Snaps, in that he could have a point there.

Liking my case against Untitled much less now considering that I find hs recent posts very reasonable and in his debate against nhat he honestly seems to be trying to scumhunt so for now,

unvote

.

Vote: Nhat

,

FOS: SC, Netlava

IGMEOY: DynamoXII

I'm still finding the reasons I posted earlier scummy about him- his quick jump onto the treaty when it's usefulness had recently become under debate. Since my post his only comment has been an "I'll analyze later" post, which I never like.