Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[MafiaMann]

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

[Battle Mage]

@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.

Actually, erm i didn't. The only time i ever used that term was in reference to your declared opinion.

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.

I never actually said that. If i had, it would be pretty dumb, but you seem to be making this up as you go along!
Nor did i ever make any suggestion that the pact was perfect. If i thought that, then you can probably ascertain that i wouldnt be welcoming and ASKING for criticisms and ways to improve it.

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

You did actually say earlier on that scum would flock to the pact as if it was sanctuary. Your buddy Earthworm said the same thing. Which is why i say that, you have declared that the pact is a good scumhunting method-because clearly, joining it is a scumtell. I will note for the purposes of clarity, that Earthworm does not fall into this second category, as he acknowledged that it was to some extent a town-tell too, and hence, null.

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

This doesnt even come into the REALMS of Mafia-knowledge. This is you being very slow to understand simple logical chains of thought. I'm sorry if i sounded condescending, but there's nothing more irritating than somebody not understanding something that is so simple. I'm sure, from your perspective, you feel that way about me right now.
My original point was, you gave a personal opinion that the pact was a good scumhunting method, therefore you ought to be in favour of it, (but ofc, not in favour of those joining it). Which is why i see your play as vastly hypocritical. PLEASE tell me you understand what i am saying, so we can move on. And ideally, come to a decision. Is joining the pact inherently scummy, or is the pact a bad idea? Because you can't have it both ways...

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

yep, it's just a different way of doing it. And it certainly picks up discussion! I'll have to try this in other games.

BM

[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.)

[Battle Mage]

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.

This is why i love you! <3
If only i was gay, and you weren't so ugly....



BM

[Battle Mage]

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

[Korts]

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.

This is why i love you! <3
If only i was gay, and you weren't so ugly....



BM

Hands on the keyboard, buster.

[Battle Mage]

rofl

[Untitled]

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

reason?

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

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

BM

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

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

BM

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

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

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

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

BM

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

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

[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.

[Battle Mage]

@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.

*facepalm*

I'm not contradicting myself atall. YOU said the plan was fool-proof. Not me. YOU said scum would flock to the pact. Not me. Neither of those views are mine, but both have been indicated by you. But you seem to have got it into your head that we switched roles somehow. Why is this?

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.

OMFG.
You understood it perfectly when Korts said it, and you admitted how your stance was completely inconsistent. Suddenly when i say it, you backtrack completely and play dumb. What the hell, dude? You'd better pray to god that nobody bothers to read this...

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

Did you forget what Korts said already?

I reckon i might be the first guy to be lynched before the end of the confirmation stage. rofl.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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.

did u miss the bit in bold?

BM

[Battle Mage]

/confirm

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

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.

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

Untitled, these are your first 3 posts in this game. You claim i have not responded to your comments, but in reality, YOU HAVE NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS that require any sort of response from me. All you've done this game, literally, is whinge. The only difference is, since i came along, you seem to have found somebody specific to direct your whinging at, rather than the entire playerlist.

HoS: Untitled

until such a time as you buck your ideas up, or adequately explain outright lying.

BM

[Korts]

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

[Battle Mage]

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Basically, though, it comes down to this, in full honesty. I'm against any form of "trust" without basis. Masons, Neighbours I understand, since their role demands some degree of trust towards their partner; but an ad hoc clique of unconfirmeds I do not like, and having a code of sorts to vote together seems to me like an excuse to bandwagon.

Join the COALITION, everyone! We represent freedom of vote and freedom of suspicions! No hierarchy, no trust, just a stance opposite the Pact.

At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

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?

100% spot on. What a legend you are!

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.

Not to mention, players who are in the pact can still be lynched by their comrades.

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.

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

BM

[Korts]

Basically, though, it comes down to this, in full honesty. I'm against any form of "trust" without basis. Masons, Neighbours I understand, since their role demands some degree of trust towards their partner; but an ad hoc clique of unconfirmeds I do not like, and having a code of sorts to vote together seems to me like an excuse to bandwagon.

Join the COALITION, everyone! We represent freedom of vote and freedom of suspicions! No hierarchy, no trust, just a stance opposite the Pact.

At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lol

BM

Haha, semi-.

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?

BM

I think you're blowing it out of proportion, since after his first three posts, he actually said some things. I'll need to read him properly, though, to be able to evaluate whether he's been misleading us/lying about himself.

[Korts]

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

reason?

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

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

BM

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

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

reason?

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

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

BM

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

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

BM

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

In these two posts, BM, Untitled raises some points. In all honesty, you do reply to them, contrary to his statement that you don't, but I think that your posting style may be misleading him >_>

[Cephrir]

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?

Exactly. I hope scum do join the treaty; maybe they'll use it as a bussing tactic. And even if not, I think scum who are in the treaty will be more visible and potentially easier to catch.

But individual thought and freedom of suspicions I can't bear to be infringed by a treaty that encourages bandwagoning.

It doesn't have to be

mindless

. Obviously it would help if whoever wanted to begin a wagon presented an actual case, or at least their reasoning was obvious.

What's funniest is, you don't see the obvious similarities between this treaty and an actual game of mafia. It's pretty accurate to think of this as a microcosm of the game, in terms of the town's objectives.

Good point.

You've been nothing but close-minded in arguing against me. You state that the pact has a fool-proof method of finding scum

He never claimed that.

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.

/disagree. The whole town will be discussing first of all, it's not like the treaty can make themselves masons. And I don't see how you think scum could take such advantage of this. Here's what I want you to explain: Let's say a scum joins this pact. What advantage could this really give them? It allows them to bus better? I'm fine with that thank you very much.

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 keep saying that, but it seems to me you really can't back it up.

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?

No? Five people isn't enough to get a lynch without help?

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.

Except not, because everyone can hear them.

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.

QFT.

Can confirmation stage end so I can vote for BM

Why would this argument translate into voting for BM. Do you really think a scum would come up with an elaborate plan like this that draws so much attention to themselves? At worst it's a nulltell.

Apologies if I repeated BM a bit, I typed as I went.

[Battle Mage]

Basically, though, it comes down to this, in full honesty. I'm against any form of "trust" without basis. Masons, Neighbours I understand, since their role demands some degree of trust towards their partner; but an ad hoc clique of unconfirmeds I do not like, and having a code of sorts to vote together seems to me like an excuse to bandwagon.

Join the COALITION, everyone! We represent freedom of vote and freedom of suspicions! No hierarchy, no trust, just a stance opposite the Pact.

At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lol

BM

Haha, semi-.

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?

BM

I think you're blowing it out of proportion, since after his first three posts, he actually said some things. I'll need to read him properly, though, to be able to evaluate whether he's been misleading us/lying about himself.

He's made 5 posts. How hard can it be? 0.o
The fact is, he had made 2 posts prior to his 'lets kill BM campaign'. When pressed hard for a reason, he declared it was annoyance at me not responding to his comments. Read those first 2 posts and then tell me that there's not something substantial amiss here.

BM

[Battle Mage]

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

reason?

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

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

BM

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

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

reason?

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

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

BM

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

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

BM

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

In these two posts, BM, Untitled raises some points. In all honesty, you do reply to them, contrary to his statement that you don't, but I think that your posting style may be misleading him >_>

I dont think either of those 2 posts are valid, because i'm asking why his stance was Anti-BM in the first place, and both those posts were made

after

this stance was declared. If those posts were the ones he is referring to, firstly, i have responded to them both IN FULL, and secondly, i STILL await his reason behind attacking me in the first place, since posts which happened later are not a valid excuse.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Thanks for the comments Cephrir. It's a relief to see that some people are seeing where i'm coming from.

Korts, has anyone ever told you, you are too soft?

BM

[Korts]

Okay, five posts, but in seven pages, and those damn quote pyramids...

Actually, the only thing I feel amiss is that he doesn't think the discussion about the pact and its validity is a discussion at all. Otherwise he seems to think discussion doesn't belong in confirmation stage, which is pretty much a null tell.