Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[armlx]

Raider, the issue at hand is nothing really changed about the Netlava case in between those 2 times except maybe the info of Dynamo's alignment.

[hasdgfas]

I really don't like SC's vote on BM there.

[Tom Mason]

I really don't like SC's vote on BM there.

Well, he did retract it (if you did not see that).

Frankly, I think this reaching at BM for making a vote, claiming it was given with weak reason and then him saying there was no reason is silly. We could have an endless debate back and forth and both sides would be correct. He did not have a formal reason for the vote, just that he was bored. And yes, that is a reason in itself, but from what he is intending to imply, it is not a reason by way of logically thinking about the vote.

I see no reason to jump on him and point fingers to rally a voting wagon.

[hasdgfas]

I really don't like SC's vote on BM there.

Well, he did retract it (if you did not see that).

Frankly, I think this reaching at BM for making a vote, claiming it was given with weak reason and then him saying there was no reason is silly. We could have an endless debate back and forth and both sides would be correct. He did not have a formal reason for the vote, just that he was bored. And yes, that is a reason in itself, but from what he is intending to imply, it is not a reason by way of logically thinking about the vote.

I see no reason to jump on him and point fingers to rally a voting wagon.

It's not about him retracting it, it's the reason he had for voting. Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy. I find that to be a terrible reason for a vote. Calling it 'jumping on him' when all I did right there was point it out is a little bit harsh.

[Tom Mason]

It's not about him retracting it, it's the reason he had for voting. Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy. I find that to be a terrible reason for a vote. Calling it 'jumping on him' when all I did right there was point it out is a little bit harsh.

Oh, I agree with you. The vote in itself was just poorly made by SC. He prodded for something, was given an answer from BM, did not like the answer, so he jumped on him.

It makes no sense.

[raider8169]

Raider, the issue at hand is nothing really changed about the Netlava case in between those 2 times except maybe the info of Dynamo's alignment.

Im not going to do a quote trail as I think it would take forever but feel free to go back and look at these posts. What you say if full of crap. Also if you only read one post read 903. I said in that post that I did not see the case. That alone should have cleared everything up before hand.

Starts at post 849 (page 34). After that read the following posts: 854, 903, 926, 985, 991, 1019, 1022, 1023,

Minor posts that comment on the idea of a Netlava lynch: 855,857,859,871,877,878, 1001, 1003, 1007, 1021

That was all just through page 42. That should be enough for everyone to understand my initial thought, to seeing the case and then agreeing with it. I still waited a while to vote because on top of everything else I wanted to see Netlava post more before adding my vote. A real attempt to defend didnt happen until after my vote but it did not convince me to change.

[StrangerCoug]

Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy.

Why not?

[EGL]

[quote="StrangerCoug"][quote="hasdgfas"]Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy.[/quote]

Why not?[/quote]

That's what I'd like to know.

[hasdgfas]

Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy.

Why not?

I thought it was for a while as well, but there could be many reasons for a vote without stating it right away. Let me just name a couple:
1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

In both of those situations, I wouldn't consider voting without stating a reason to be scummy.
99% of the time there is a reason, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Also, by 'wrong', I meant SC being wrong about BM not giving a reason. Not the best word choice there.

[armlx]

Hascows, I disagree with the first scenario (many better ways to do that), but the second is legit. Votes w/o reasons aren't bad if when the attackee says "Why" you can state a legit reason.

[Cyberbob]

1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

OK, but you're missing one.

3) You're lazy scum trying to hop on a wagon unobtrusively and also avoid making potentially attackable statements.

[Korts]

Just a note that my posting frequency will be going down for a week, I have exams to study for.

[raider8169]

Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy.

Why not?

I thought it was for a while as well, but there could be many reasons for a vote without stating it right away. Let me just name a couple:
1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

In both of those situations, I wouldn't consider voting without stating a reason to be scummy.
99% of the time there is a reason, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Also, by 'wrong', I meant SC being wrong about BM not giving a reason. Not the best word choice there.

It still seems like it makes an easy place for scum to place a vote and blame it on one of those reasons to make them still seem town. If someone doesnt say why then someone, not always the person being voted for, will ask why. The best thing the voter can be hoping for would be an over exaggerated OMGUS vote. It just seems to be that it can give a free pass or a home for their vote.

If BM really wanted to end the day it would have been faster to add to a bandwagon instead of starting a new one. The vote also seems kind of random simply because I was the person being looked at when he posted. Had someone else been looked at then he could have jumped that way just the same.

[Battle Mage]

Also, im still happy with my vote after reading Raider's posts in isolation. I cant see what changed in the space of 5 days and a night phase that would make him completely change tack regarding Netlava.

It was closer to 14 days. You would have to read everything in between the posts in order to see what made me change my mind. Feel free to do that when you have some time. I am not sure how well you have been keeping up with the game as you were gone for a while.

Rofl. It was not 'closer to 14 days'. It WAS 5 days. I'm not including the night phase, for obvious reasons. Why are you lying about something which is not only barely relevant, but also available to be seen as concrete by anyone playing?

Confirm Vote: Raider

And i can do without the patronising bullcrap.

BM

[Battle Mage]

1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

OK, but you're missing one.

3) You're lazy scum trying to hop on a wagon unobtrusively and also avoid making potentially attackable statements.

The latter might be valid, except here is what actually happened:

1. I voted for Raider.
2. I was asked if i had a reason for voting Raider.
3. I gave my reason.

This kinda thing happens quite alot in Mafia. It's like, how the game works!

As far as 'trying to hop onto a wagon unobtrusively' goes-there was no wagon.
I was the first and only vote on Raider.

BM

[Cream147]

Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy.

Why not?

I thought it was for a while as well, but there could be many reasons for a vote without stating it right away. Let me just name a couple:
1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

In both of those situations, I wouldn't consider voting without stating a reason to be scummy.
99% of the time there is a reason, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Also, by 'wrong', I meant SC being wrong about BM not giving a reason. Not the best word choice there.

It still seems like it makes an easy place for scum to place a vote and blame it on one of those reasons to make them still seem town. If someone doesnt say why then someone, not always the person being voted for, will ask why. The best thing the voter can be hoping for would be an over exaggerated OMGUS vote. It just seems to be that it can give a free pass or a home for their vote.

Nevertheless, BM hasn't alluded to those reasons mentioned since his vote, and has actually put legitimate reasons forward for his vote. I don't see any problem with his vote anymore.

[raider8169]

Post in question: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:52 pm
Day end un Sep 14, 2008 11:04 am
Day 2 start Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:17 am
Other post in question Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:00 am

I should add that I voted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:46 pm

So from 8 Sept to 14 Sept is over 5 days. Then it was still almost another day before I only said I agree with the case.

You said I lied about something, what was that?

[Skruffs]

I got prodded, and will post more when I have my next available chance, which will be after I close the store tonight, so around 1:30 or so AM

[Lowell]

prod received. not much has changed in my thinking.

[armlx]

So from 8 Sept to 14 Sept is over 5 days. Then it was still almost another day before I only said I agree with the case.

So you were both wrong? Definitely not 14 days.

[hasdgfas]

1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

OK, but you're missing one.

3) You're lazy scum trying to hop on a wagon unobtrusively and also avoid making potentially attackable statements.

fine, but getting questioned about the vote should still happen before getting voted for it. If they don't provide a satisfactory reason when questioned well, then they can be voted, but immediately voting someone for not giving their reason is really, really iffy to me.

[EGL]

[quote="hasdgfas"][quote="Cyberbob"][quote="hasdgfas"]1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.[/quote]

OK, but you're missing one.

3) You're lazy scum trying to hop on a wagon unobtrusively and also avoid making potentially attackable statements.[/quote]

fine, but getting questioned about the vote should still happen before getting voted for it. If they don't provide a satisfactory reason when questioned well, then they can be voted, but immediately voting someone for not giving their reason is really, really iffy to me.[/quote]

It may be "iffy" but I don't see it as being necessarily anti-town or a scumtell.

[raider8169]

So from 8 Sept to 14 Sept is over 5 days. Then it was still almost another day before I only said I agree with the case.

So you were both wrong? Definitely not 14 days.

I was counting the night as days. It is something I didnt think to take out. The 8th to the 22nd is still 14 days though.

[killa seven]

Sorry real life has me behind in my games, read and thoughts coming..

[Citizen Karne]

Life is a pain in the behind at the moment; I still like Netlava to be scum.