Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[StrangerCoug]

By request, my review of Battle Mage (who, out of fairness, is now free to do a review of me). Mind you, not counting his confirm vote, he's made 100 posts as of when I started typing, and this is the best way I can condense it without leaving what I feel is important out.

Battle Mage:

Obviously pro-pact since he made the pact. Laughed at Korts's pact made in retaliation to his own. Gives measures as to how he can control the pact. FoS's Cephrir for her Camelot comment. Dismisses OpposedForce's claim that scum will join the pact as ridiculous. States that he dies quickly in games he enjoys. Says OpposedForce doesn't see the similarities between the pact and a Mafia game and that BM would vote him on ridiculous logic. Mentions that he won't survive Night 1. Discusses the pact with earthworm. Asks Korts to explain why he's so willing to string up BM if he survives Night 1. Accuses OpposedForce of never having heard of Mafia. Says that he is vig-meat if he survives Night 1. Accuses OpposedForce of not reading. Asks Untitled why he needs to know how many confirms are left before he can vote BM. States that OpposedForce is the one that said the pact is foolproof and argues that it isn't, then says he said the exact opposite of what earthworm did about the pact. Questions Untitled's accusing him of a distraction. Says that Korts's comment is why BM won't live to see Day 2. Argues with OpposedForce and Untitled about the pact. HoS's Untitled for claiming he hasn't responded to his comments when he has not directed any such comments at him. Agrees with what PeterGriffin has to say about said pact. States that Untitled wants to kill BM for being an annoyance and dismisses the two posts of his Korts brought up as invalid. Asks if Untitled's attack on BM is justified. Accuses Korts of being noncommittal and fence sitting. Jokes with me about the length of the pregame. States that the pact had little chance of being successful. More agreement with PeterGriffin about Untitled, and he takes the same stance as the former on MafiaMann with some exception. More arguments with Untitled. Asks why I want to look at Battle Mage and Untitled and/or why I think the random voting stage can be skipped. Accuses me of tunnel vision. Votes me for being unwilling to participate unless absolutely necessary. Tells me to grow up when I mention my being reminded of one of Stoofer's Laws. Accuses me of hypocrisy and OMGUS. Argues for the pact, which I finally buy in part. Says that, in addition to what I've already covered in this post, I haven't read. Argues that "not a lot of content" and "filler" are two different things. Agrees to do a player review on everybody else while I would also do so, but asks me to review him anyway. Argues MafiaMann's points about his pre-game posts. Argues that wanting someone lynched and thinking someone is the most suspicious is the same thing. FoS's nhat for sheer BS and Cyberbob for being wrong about post #73. Accuses me of attacking one of BM's supporters when I realize pushing him won't work. Asks Netlava if he thinks anybody is scummy and questions his logic for BM being town.

I've taken a good look at the pact now, but I still think it's unnecessary. You've been awfully defensive about it, however. Your early posts aren't as bad on rereading as I thought, but I'm going neutral on you in general now. You do, however, bring up a really good point in your most recent posts...

HoS: MafiaMann

for thinking two people out of 26 in a pact is too many. That's 7.7% of everybody in here. Who's paying less attention about the pact, you or me?

[Cyberbob]

Jesus Christ you guys, would it kill you to use the Preview button when making those xbox hueg posts? EBWOPing a massive post just to fix a few tags should not have been needed. As for BM... you really need to start making sure all your thoughts are down before you click Post.

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to any points before I go to school (I'm leaving in 5). I just wanted to get that off my chest before I left.

[Netlava]

Netlava, my reasoning behind defending you wasn't so much to defend you, but to say where I disagreed with Cyberbob's argument.

If I see an argument that I think is flawed I'm going to point it out.

Fair enough. I consider defending another player only a mild scum tell. However, I'm suspicious of this explanation. It does not seem to match the type of post you were making earlier, meaning that the posts do not imply such a motive.

On the topic of vote-hopping, what do you guys think of this? In five posts, Cephrir made 3 different votes... I'd like to know what people think, because the only other game I'm playing is being moderated by Cephrir, so I'm having a hard time viewing him impartially.

While the content of the post itself is fine, I am suspicious of the manner of delivery. I find Cephrir suspicious, but not so much for vote hopping as his previous comments about votes intending lynch. Either way, I am suspicious of the way this the post is delivered. Your post points out something that would be considered suspicious (vote-hopping) and implies guilt, yet you do not make any comment about Cephrir's guilt. I also do not like the excuse about not being able to view Cephrir partially because I don't see how the reason given would obscure an impartial judgment. The whole neutral type feel of this post which contains reasons that you would find someone scummy is the type of post that I normally see from scum - a sort of pot-stirring but noncommittal type of post.

Cass's most recent posts are interesting in light of the overall situation. She goes into detail, unprompted, on why bandwagoning is good and how all the cases are "flimsy." This comes after her vote that looks misplaced - it comes at a time when he is making a vote that is more reasonable than his previous one. More importantly is that the reason itself is shady.

Do you find ANYONE scummy?

I also dont see your logic for me being town?

BM

Currently, I find Cass, earthworm, and Cephrir scummy - for reasons already given. Also, I'm watching snaps now, because he made a post that sounds exactly like the post I made as scum in a different game

[Netlava]

Whoops, forgot the answer the last question.

I also dont see your logic for me being town?

My logic is that many people defended you prematurely and posted as if you were obvtown in this game, some of whom are quite suspect. I don't think scum would be comfortable prematurely defend their scum buddy with so little impetus.

[raider8169]

This game is freaken hard to keep up with. When I can get like an hour set a side I hope to post something worth reading. I am not one for long posts but I need the time to read everything a couple of times.

[MafiaMann]

@ SC at first i believed more people were in the pact than 2 i thought that all the people who /treatied were in and more were to come that was my concern.

[Untitled]

catching up with the weekend's posts.

first off, let's cover all the points from hasdgfas' 439 that aren't just clever, creative ways of saying "I disagree":

Post 143-untitled: You'd rather get rid of a contributor than scum?

how exactly do you know he's not scum?

FoS: hasdgfas

Post 211-untitled: how is theory discussion useless?

not what I said - I said that bm's actual, specific theory was useless.

Post 232-untitled: Good work at pointing out what's blatant misrepresentation.

frankly, I thought it was obvious enough that I didn't need to waste my time writing it out - that was the entire point of the post. I had a strong impression by this point that bm was purposely missing the point to try and get me to react somehow, and by responding seriously to his specious arguments I was just adding fuel to the fire.

I actually find myself agreeing with bm about strangercoug's stance on me vs. bm. I don't necessarily see it as a town vs. scum argument. I do think that bm's being a little egotistical by referring to the pact discussion as "the most important parts of the game so far." I need to read sc's big post(s) properly then think some more.

I guess the nhat wagon served its purpose, but I think a few people took it a little too seriously.

I'd like to know what people think, because the only other game I'm playing is being moderated by Cephrir, so I'm having a hard time viewing him impartially.

I'm not sure why this would be a problem.

here it is folks, the moment we've all been waiting for.

vote: battle mage

eh? 0.o

an actual question would work better.

[armlx]

FOS SC

. Your "full analysis" was 95% summary, 5% you injecting opinions without reasoning behind them.

Pretty much TL,DR'ed the whole SC/BM argument. Seemed pretty irrel to me.

[Cass]

2 people is too big? And in fact, Korts claimed he never officially joined, so the pact never actually had ANY official members. The idea of the pact is to provide the illusion that it can shelter scum, scum then join, and we can assess their play much more than if they were allowed to hide in the shadows.

So do you think Korts is scum then? And the other peple who wanted to join: Dynamo, Wolf? Is there scum among them, are they perhaps

all

scum, or did the idea of your pact fail? Why are you not after any of these people now?
Also, out of curiosity: Did you not admit to your pact Dynamo because you thought he was scum, or because you thought he

wasn't

scum? Or soem other reason?

@Mafiamann: I dont get what you are doing. You post a long PbPa on BM, but I see no conlclusions? Does that mean you decided he's town? Why are you not voting yet? If you had to vote right now, who'd you vote for?

@BM and SC: you two with your constant posting of huge quotes-in-quotes-in-quotes walls of text make this game really hard to follow... (and gives me a headache.) Try keeping it a bit shorter please? Though the large analysis-of-all-players post by SC was awesome, I've no problems with that! Right now I think you're probably both town, and your constant arguing makes it that much easier for the scum to get away with lurking.

[MafiaMann]

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

[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?

You were the first two people I was looking at when I made that post. I didn't want the long pre-game that we ended up having, but then again, there's a decent amount of information in there.

That seems rather contradictory. Why did you feel you could 'safely forgo random voting', and subsequently name 2 'suspects', one of whom you declared 4 posts later to be probably protown, and in fact, NOT a suspect?
It seems just like a transparent attempt to bandwagon somebody with little reason. I believe they call it 'Appealing to Stupidity'.

By saying I'm "appealing to stupidity" you've reduced yourself to being insulting. A 10-page pre-game with a lot of discussion may not be something I'm used to, but I fail to understand how that translates into a random voting stage once it's actually Day 1.

I actually agree with you here. But you still haven't explained why you opted to single me out, and perhaps more importantly, TRY TO HIDE THIS BY NAMING AN ADDITIONAL 'SUSPECT'. And ftr, a vote based on no reasoning except personal dislike, is, for all intents and purposes, random.

Again, I was looking at Page 10 when I voted you. Also, who is this additional "suspect" that you speak of?

Untitled. The guy you named as 1 of 2 suspects, and then, a couple posts later, claimed was beyond suspicions atm.

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?

This is delayed OMGUS since you lost the mental "convince the StrangerCoug" battle in my head. I believed Untitled more than you, so watch your step.

Rofl. If i was Armlx, i'd probably say something along the lines of 'Stop wanking', or something equally droll. I'm at least glad you concede that your suspicion of me was solely OMGUS, but seriously... threats? Did you even BOTHER to look where my vote is? 0.o

Ad lapidem

again.

Avoiding a non-existent question? really?

If the question is not directed at you and it is not an open question, then don't respond to it. You can talk about the question if you like, but even though it was directed at one person, it

WAS

open.

This is all true. But you have completely missed the point i'm actually raising. Do you really feel that it is possible to accuse somebody of AVOIDING a question which was not directed at them- Open, or otherwise. Because if you feel that is scummy, you should be equally suspicious of those who COMPLETELY avoided the question, rather than tackling it as i did.

Buddy, in my mind, you are probably scum. At this point, you voting for me is reassuring. It means you're scared enough of me to pit yourself directly against me, which means i am doing my job.

This is tunnel vision and appealing to fear.

For something to be an 'appeal to' anything, it has to be directed at an audience. The fact i was talking directly to you, means that the only person i could be appealing to is you. Do you think i was trying to make you scared of yourself?
And for something to be tunnel-vision, it has to involve some sort of scumhunting and analysis. I merely stated that i felt you were scummy, and thus, was not especially worried at you OMGUSing me. lol

Not worrying about OMGUS makes no sense from a protown stance.

Yes it does. Because, when you are town, you aren't especially worried about the prospect of scum voting for you. It happens. It's TOWN that you dont want to be chasing your wagon.

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".

Give me three useful pro-town purposes of the pact

or

I'm dismissing this argument

as WIFOM

done as an attempt to make me look bad

.

ROFLMAO! It's like you aren't reading what i'm saying. This isn't anywhere

NEAR

WIFOM. It's a fact. You havent read the pact, yet you take it upon yourself to slander it. Skimmy is Scummy. You don't even try to deny this, which proves my point. Maybe you should read it, so you can retract your points, and perhaps save some of your dignity? But far be it from me to make your life easier.

If I hadn't read the pact, I wouldn't have objected to the goddamn thing.

This is why i'm attacking your comments. You cannot say objecting to something you haven't actually read, is a protown thing to do.

Prove that I haven't read the pact.

You said "to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact."
Had you READ the pact, you would be more than aware that this was far from the case.

Other responses:

Underlined:

Only defensive scum will see everything that is said against them as an 'argument'. In fact, in this case it wasn't, but because you instantly see me as the aggressor who is making you look bad, your OMGUS-dar is on overdrive and you cant help but consider it 'war'.

If anything, we have each other's attention.

What?

If your objective was to attract my attention and keep it glued to you, then congratulations, you have succeeded.

Which is exactly my point. You aren't scumhunting. You simply want me dead because i'm attacking you.

Italics:

You really don't need any help on that score. You've dug a big enough hole for yourself that we can bury you now. Keep going and we'll have enough graves for your buddies too!

Tunnel vision again.

This falls into the same category as your failed attempt at labelling tunnel-vision earlier.

If you instead asked "Would you like enough graves for your buddies too?" then I would accuse you of a loaded question, but since you were not asking a question I decided to call it tunnel vision. I don't know the difference between the two besides the existence of a question anyway. Would you prefer the more accurate "loaded statement"?

Yes, because at least now i can kind of see what you are getting at.
And yeh, it isn't always helpful, but because you seem to be proverbially, crapping your pants atm, i figure the extra pressure could be a positive thing for the town.

Orange:

Because i relish making you look the fool, i accept your challenge, however off the wall it was.

1. It brings certain players to the forefront much like you would expect from the traditional 'case and bandwagon' style of Mafia. Those players can be assessed more easily, and it prevents them lurking to victory.

2. For the first day at least, scum dont know what to make of it. Everybody has an opinion on it, and it makes a great starting discussion topic to get the game moving. We get people taking sides, which we can really assess later on.

3. If implemented, it would allow us to move bandwagons quickly, keeping the scum on their toes. How they'd react is interesting and i think we could learn alot from who followed orders unconditionally, who did what was in their heart, and what people's limits were.

1 and 3 I'll buy, but 2 doesn't answer my infiltration concern.

Your infiltration concern is flawed because the pact is as much a method of creating a scumhunting system, as a scumhunting system in itself. But again, until you've actually read the treaty, there's not alot else i can do to help you.

And we are not allowed to think independently because?

Of course you can think independently. Just this way, when you have 1 of ur independent thoughts, you have the muscle to carry it through.

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

Content that's not confusing based on my prior experiences, which in the pre-game is everything besides confirmations. I'll accept a little bit of small talk, but it really took off, and I'm used to Day 1 starting somewhere on page 1 or 2. Not page 10.

Hi. I'm BM. I'm a little different to people you might have met before. I don't always do what everyone else does. I can be a bit wacky. I'm really sorry if you have such trouble with things being different, but it's the only way you can really learn in Mafia. But you still haven't answered my question. What did you mean by 'not alot of substance'? And no, i won't accept the "I get confused easily, and anything i don't understand doesn't count as participation'.

By "not a lot of substance" I mean "filler". And where on Earth did you get "anything I don't understand doesn't count as participation"? If I'm slandering you as you say I am, then you're slandering me back, and this is a lose-lose proposition unless we can settle our differences.

Those are two completely different things. I can give you 12 pages of filler, but if i have 12 pages of content to go with it, i still have alot of substance. You said the content i posted was confusing, which explains why you didn't read it, and you also indicated that this content 'didnt count'. You seem to be under the impression this is solely personal. It is partially, but you are acting scummy, and i never back down from an argument when i know i am right.

From now on I'm just going to ignore you when you say "I am right", because all you're accomplishing with me when you do so is coming of as a selfish and elitist son of a gun.

selfish? elitist? Can you please explain how either of those words apply to me in this instance?
And i'll keep stating facts, because 1 day you might actually read them, and realise the TRUTH.
Ok, maybe i am a LITTLE elitist.
But Selfish? COME ON!

I'll explain my point a little more to help you out. You were the guy who said that participation in the pre-game was bad.

Find where I did so, because I remember making no such post.

Use the search posts by player tool, and read the first few posts you made. I dont have the time or inclination to bottle-feed you.[/quote]
Oh, is this retaliation for me not doing favors for you?[/quote]

I dont know what you mean.

Now, this is a million miles from a case of 'is quality better than quantity', because you are offering NEITHER. It's not like you have a leg to stand on when you attack me for lack of content, because even if only 1 word in each of my 73 posts was useful, and every single word you typed was awesomeness personified, you would still be inferior in terms of quality of posting. And sadly, this is far from the case.

Your question itself seems to be dodging the point in a humourous ironic twist.

Explain my posts not having quality. What do you think about my case on Snaps_the_Pirate, for example?

I'm not talking about since the game has started. I haven't even read past page 11, because there are still unanswered questions about that period. It was THEN that you criticised my lack of participation, and at that point, you had done F*All.

One, if you accused me of not reading, then it would look bad on you if you said you haven't read either, now wouldn't it?

One, i havent PRETENDED to have read past where i have. Unlike your good self.

Two, i have started reading through, as you would see if you had read the posts of mine which aren't directed at you.

Two, please do not cuss me out, whether you censor yourself or not. It's offensive.

Then don't get smarmy and don't talk stupid.

You really think i'm going to accept YOU telling me that my posts 'suck'?! Dream on kid.

Then prove they don't.

I've created discussion. You hadn't.

Note the verb forms here. You say you

HA

VE

created discussion, while I, on the other hand,

HA

D

NOT

done so. I'm sorry, but you are talking to someone who used to copy edit for his high school newspaper and you now have to convince me that your word usage does not create a straw man argument.

Yes, those word choices were deliberate, Mr High School Newspaper Editor, Sir!
Sadly, you've missed a pretty vital point which is, timing. It was alot earlier on when you accused me of having 'sucky' posts. At the time you made that comment, you had provided no content yourself. I don't care if you learnt from your mistakes since then, the fact remains that you are a hypocrite. Because i tend not to lie, i would not say that you have not provided content since then, because i havent finished catching up yet. That's the reason behind my word usage. But, it's irrelevant to my point, as you are well aware.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

Stop ridiculing me.

NEVAR!

Get real. Seriously.

STOP RIDICULING ME! ROFL!

Blinded by OMGUS and panic, because you aren't in your comfort zone, and you are slipping up under interrogation, left, right, and centre.

Let's change the subject for just a moment so neither of us end up clawing at each other and winning nothing at the end. I will take a look at the other 24 players in this game and post my opinions of them based on their posts, and I want you to do the same thing. I think we've made it clear that we each think the other is scum, so don't do me and I won't do you.

Sounds good. Analysing everyone at this point is probably a good idea. But, i still want a separate post outlining your case on me. Just for the record.

BM

OK, fair deal.

gdgd. Btw, i bet Armlx is getting off on these monstro-posts.

BM

[Battle Mage]

FFS guys. Some of you are complaining about posts being too long, others are complaining about them being too frequent. you cant have it both ways. Sort it out amongst yourselves, because i cant keep EVERYONE happy. -.-

BM

[Cass]

Just stop building those quote-monsters and I will be much happier. They're really not necessary

[Cyberbob]

FFS guys. Some of you are complaining about posts being too long, others are complaining about them being too frequent. you cant have it both ways. Sort it out amongst yourselves, because i cant keep EVERYONE happy. -.-

BM

There's an easy way to achieve both. All you have to do is get rid of the quote pyramids and you'll have eliminated 80% of the annoyance right there.

[raider8169]

FFS guys. Some of you are complaining about posts being too long, others are complaining about them being too frequent. you cant have it both ways. Sort it out amongst yourselves, because i cant keep EVERYONE happy. -.-

BM

There's an easy way to achieve both. All you have to do is get rid of the quote pyramids and you'll have eliminated 80% of the annoyance right there.

I like the quote pyramids so I know what post he is responding to and I dont have to look up that post to remember. If alot of the crap can be cut out of them it might help.

[Cyberbob]

If alot of the crap can be cut out of them it might help.

That's what I meant. Only quote the post you're actually responding to, not the one it was quoting and the one THAT one was quoting and so forth.

[StrangerCoug]

Untitled. The guy you named as 1 of 2 suspects, and then, a couple posts later, claimed was beyond suspicions atm.

OK, I'll bite. I was looking at an either/or situation and I didn't believe both of you were scum. I still don't.

This is all true. But you have completely missed the point i'm actually raising. Do you really feel that it is possible to accuse somebody of AVOIDING a question which was not directed at them- Open, or otherwise. Because if you feel that is scummy, you should be equally suspicious of those who COMPLETELY avoided the question, rather than tackling it as i did.

So open = all 25 of the other players have to answer or they appear scummy? Directed at you or not, you blatantly shot it off.

Yes it does. Because, when you are town, you aren't especially worried about the prospect of scum voting for you. It happens. It's TOWN that you dont want to be chasing your wagon.

Nobody is confirmed, so as true as this may be, it's irrelevant.

You said "to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact."
Had you READ the pact, you would be more than aware that this was far from the case.

So sue me.

Which is exactly my point. You aren't scumhunting. You simply want me dead because i'm attacking you.

Hello? Did you catch my vote switch?

Yes, because at least now i can kind of see what you are getting at.
And yeh, it isn't always helpful, but because you seem to be proverbially, crapping your pants atm, i figure the extra pressure could be a positive thing for the town.

selfish? elitist? Can you please explain how either of those words apply to me in this instance?

"Selfish" for your saying "I'm right" without proving it and "elitist"

And i'll keep stating facts, because 1 day you might actually read them, and realise the TRUTH.

Screw this.

Ok, maybe i am a LITTLE elitist.
But Selfish? COME ON!

Then get a life. If you really do suspect me, then tell me who you think are my scumbuddies, because the game is not necessarily over when I die.

One, i havent PRETENDED to have read past where i have. Unlike your good self.

Two, i have started reading through, as you would see if you had read the posts of mine which aren't directed at you.

Then why are you taking before you are done?

Then don't get smarmy and don't talk stupid.

I hate you. That's the end of this trivial insult feud.

Yes, those word choices were deliberate, Mr High School Newspaper Editor, Sir!
Sadly, you've missed a pretty vital point which is, timing. It was alot earlier on when you accused me of having 'sucky' posts. At the time you made that comment, you had provided no content yourself. I don't care if you learnt from your mistakes since then, the fact remains that you are a hypocrite. Because i tend not to lie, i would not say that you have not provided content since then, because i havent finished catching up yet. That's the reason behind my word usage. But, it's irrelevant to my point, as you are well aware.

Your word usage implied that you provided content sometime over the course of the entire game while I didn't provide content before a specific point in said course. Sorry, but this does not get you a get out of jail free card.

[Cephrir]

Cephrir: A lot of his early discussion is about the pact. Announces that he hopes scum joins the pact (this is where I'm getting that scum will infiltrate the pact, BTW). A lot of his discussion about the pact is with Opposed Force. Tells Untitled that "we're all out to get you", then votes him in his next post for craplogic. FoS's nhat for WIFOM and thinking a soft claim is a scumtell, and asks him to look up Too Townie. Decides to vote nhat given that he doesn't want to sift through the game to quote Battle Mage for truth and that Untitled wasn't as bad as he once thought. Attacks Erratos Apathos's voting him because vote = intent to lynch doesn't apply on Day 1 by saying this game is an exception, then votes him two posts later for reasons that I can't exactly make out. Cephrir leans on the scummy side to me.

This is an accurate summary of what I've done in this game, for the most part. Care to explain why you think it makes me scummy? You kinda did something similar with a lot of people actually. So I'll just ask your entire post: why?

You say you hope scum joins the pact, which sounds a bit like something scum itself would say. It's like saying I hope scum kills Battle Mage tonight if he doesn't get lynched (especially since it would imply that I know Battle Mage is town).

Meh. You can think that, I guess.

It is also not clear to me why you are voting Erratos Apathos.

It's not supposed to be.

FOS SC

. Your "full analysis" was 95% summary, 5% you injecting opinions without reasoning behind them.

This.

I find Cephrir suspicious, but not so much for vote hopping as his previous comments about votes intending lynch.

I must have missed the part where you explained why you thought this was scummy instead of wrong (which it's not, either).

[armlx]

[quote=MafMann]
If i had to vote right now id vote untitled but i dont need to vote now
[/quote]

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

[MafiaMann]

right now i dont feel comfortable with an untitled lynch so i refrain from voting him

[armlx]

right now i dont feel comfortable with an untitled lynch so i refrain from voting him

Its like 13 to lynch you realize?

[Cass]

Exactly! Nobody has answered me yet to explain why it is so bloody scary to vote for someone already. Your single little vote isn't going to kill anyone now, this is a large game - it's hardly even pressure. To kill, you're going to need to join a proper lynch mob

[MafiaMann]

well yes but i still dont have enough confidence in untitled being scum to make me vote him.

[Cass]

No matter what some people here say, intent to lynch isn't the only reason to vote for someone.

[animorpherv1]

From what I've picked up, MafiaMann is town, I'm pretty sure I know his role too.

That's all I know right now.

Stranger Coug- I'm not on all that much, that's why It looks like that.