Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[nhat]

Nhat do you really think that cyberbob is scum just because he has a case on you??

No, not really.

And please excuse the coarse language. I had no idea that there were 10 year olds in the game.

Stay in school!

[DynamoXI]

Unvote
Vote - Erratus Apathos

His first case against Netlava:

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

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

Then hops off to vote Cephrir for this:

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with your reasoning on this stuff here. His voting patterns look pretty filmsy, and he and he just keeps changing his votes.

Vote Dynamo

The whole jumping on the pact wagon is definitely scummy.

Okay but I agreed to be the second person on that pact, So I can't see how that is getting on a wagon when only one other person is on it (Unless of course your talking about once the treaty is made, then I was just thinking it was pregame) Of course with that apparently I was wrong.

I agree that Dynamo is somewhat fishy. The way he jumped on the treaty, but mostly how he had two cases today, but didn't vote.

Well like I said I never jumped on that treaty because at the time there was no treaty:

This is true. Good to see you're thinking! We could always become Nominal Masons. Meaning we work together, as a pair, in nailing these filthy scumbags. So, how about it?

BM

Sounds like a plan, you vote for scum, I will vote for scum. They die we win!

Thats an ingenius plan you have forming together

Ingenius? maybe.

Protown? definitely!

You want in?

BM

You bet I want in! Not only is this swiss chesse good but I get to eat some and vote for the scum!

I mean I could understand people not detecting sarcasim over the internet. I don't understand how me not wanting to vote is scummy? I had two cases, but in my eyes they weren't

good

cases, hence I was going to hold judgement.

Vote: Erratus Apathos

There you go cass: I voted because I had a case. The question is are you going to call that out and say that thats scummy as well? Because frankly at this point Im profounded at the menial things people call scummy.

[Cephrir]

It's a good EA case, but Cass kinda has a point. I was going to say what she did, but then I read nhat's reply and realized he was right. I still find him scummy but I want to pursue EA for... reasons. Not just nhat's case.

Unvote, Vote EA

[raider8169]

Holy crap!

This was hard to catch up with. With so much to read I had a hard time trying to build something on someone. I was not a fan of a few people but most of the was during the confirmation stage. Nothing really stood out to me but I read like 20 pages so I will need to look at certain people and make something of that.

[Netlava]

Cass calls the case a distraction, which sounds like a conscious decision.

Unvote, vote: Cass

[StrangerCoug]

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

Could you explain nhat's distraction please?

Cass calls the case a distraction, which sounds like a conscious decision.

Unvote, vote: Cass

That's an awfully weak reason for a vote switch.

FoS: Netlava

[armlx]

Okay but I agreed to be the second person on that pact,

Not true. Korts was considered on it, and I'm P sure one other person (Wolf?) was on it too.

I disagree that a vote = always an intent to lynch.

Again, early D1 usually there aren't 10 pages of info like there are. At this point your vote should be on someone that if nothing changes you would not mind seeing lynched. I can understand unvoting so more info can happen like you said, but that is different.

I can see Netlava's logic.

[Battle Mage]

The kind of behavior the pact endorses is terrible for scum hunting. Letting people make their own decisions and be held accountable for them is really good I hear. Not to mention how the plan exacerbates tunnel vision and rushes claims.

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

[rant]BM needs to stop fucking multi-posting for no reason. The material you are posting is ALL IN THE THREAD AT THE TIME YOU ARE POSTING. Be patient enough to put multiple trains of thought in the same post before you blow your load.[/rant]

That said, I want to look at the people who jumped into the plan sorta later on. Plenty of room for abuse there.

Woah, dude, don't get pissy because you aren't the only one who is allowed to post alot. That said, this reaction is pretty standard from Armlx.

BM

[armlx]

Woah, dude, don't get pissy because you aren't the only one who is allowed to post alot. That said, this reaction is pretty standard from Armlx.

The issue is the runner posts just cause the thread to extent longer and longer for no reason, which makes rereads practically impossible. Not to mention reading it the first time is obnoxious.

[Battle Mage]

The first two people I want to look at are Battle Mage and Untitled. I think we can safely forgo random voting.

why?

I think Untitled has done a good job defending his actions for the most part. I am more suspicious of Battle Mage and his pact. First off, I want to say the pact is a null tell, but it's more accurate to say it's misleading to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact. The pact simply won't work, as it's too easy to infiltrate.

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

Vote: Battle Mage

4 posts ago, you said that you wanted to look at Untitled. Evidently this was just an attempt to conceal an obvious attempt at tunnel-vision right?

But, whilst i'm here, i'll point out that the "misleading" thing is that you clearly haven't actually READ the pact. If you had, you wouldnt make comments like, "to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact".

And if there was any chance of you salvaging any credibility, you lost it when you said "73 posts in the pre-game and not a lot of substance to go with it". Are you kidding me? Name somebody who provided more 'substance' in the first 10 pages of the game. And hell, in your words, it's the fricking PRE-GAME. What sort of content do you want??

Jesus christ....

BM

[raider8169]

Woah, dude, don't get pissy because you aren't the only one who is allowed to post alot. That said, this reaction is pretty standard from Armlx.

The issue is the runner posts just cause the thread to extent longer and longer for no reason, which makes rereads practically impossible. Not to mention reading it the first time is obnoxious.

I find that if it is broken up its easier to read. I hate quote trains they just get confusing to me. Then again maybe its just me and if that is the case I will shut up.

[Cass]

Cass calls the case a distraction, which sounds like a conscious decision.

Uhm what? I don't get what you're saying. Yes, calling it a distraction was a conscious decision... I usually type my posts when conscious...
Nhat had the largest wagon against him yet - not very large, but if he's scum, he might have gotten paranoid and made a case on just anyone, based on something not very relevant, like, in this case, vote switching. That was my impression when I read the case. It felt papery thin, and thus fake.

[Battle Mage]

Which do you find more credible: three posts that all make a good case or ten posts that suck?

1 word. Actually, i'll make it even easier. 2 syllables:

PRE-GAME.

All i can gather from your early posts is that you are unwilling to participate unless absolutely necessary. Then, are you surprised i find it a tad hypocritical when i get accused BY YOU of not providing content. 0.o

Yeh, it's too much. Looks like i'm gonna blow ma load, eh Armlx!

unvote, Vote: Strangercoug

BM

[Battle Mage]

SC, BM likes these dumb "Lets all gang up and vote someone to proceed the game" things regardless of alignment I think.

As for him posting infinite, he also has a tendency to be killed early on because a vig or scum group finds him too damn random/annoying to play the game with. You know its bad when a scum group targets you because.

I'm reminded of one of Stoofer's laws here.

Grow Up.

[armlx]

BM, I disagree that the pre-game thing is a reason to not contribute here, but I didn't feel your posts were not contributing, and EA already burned SC on the no content thing.

[Battle Mage]

BM, I disagree that the pre-game thing is a reason to not contribute here, but I didn't feel your posts were not contributing, and EA already burned SC on the no content thing.

So do i. I'm merely pointing out that this view is NOT shared by SC.

BM

[Erratus Apathos]

Votes generally indicate a willingness to lynch someone.

Unvote, Vote: Cephrir

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

This game is an exception.

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

7.5 of those pages were BM

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

Unvote
Vote - Erratus Apathos

His first case against Netlava:

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

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

Then hops off to vote Cephrir for this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[armlx]

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

Never rock solid, but not hoppy as that.

[Erratus Apathos]

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

Never rock solid, but not hoppy as that.

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

[armlx]

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

Based on those reasons, pretty much.

[Veronica13]

While a vote does not always equal an intent to lynch, it should definitely mean a willingness to lynch. You never know what will happen.

And I'm not a big fan that nhat put in some effort to go through people's posts and come up with his reasoning and Cass called that a flimsy case and voted for him. Seems like a lazy move on her part to me.

vote: Cass

[Veronica13]

oops. I hate it when I miss an entire page when posting. I hope my vote makes sense still. /goes back to catch up

[armlx]

While a vote does not always equal an intent to lynch, it should definitely mean a willingness to lynch. You never know what will happen.

This is probably the best explanation of my point yet.

[Veronica13]

Woah, dude, don't get pissy because you aren't the only one who is allowed to post alot. That said, this reaction is pretty standard from Armlx.

The issue is the runner posts just cause the thread to extent longer and longer for no reason, which makes rereads practically impossible. Not to mention reading it the first time is obnoxious.

I find that if it is broken up its easier to read. I hate quote trains they just get confusing to me. Then again maybe its just me and if that is the case I will shut up.

I agree with you. I hate the long runner posts. My attention starts to drift after a while.

[Erratus Apathos]

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

Based on those reasons, pretty much.

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