Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Untitled]

/confirm

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

[nhat]

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.

[Korts]

overkill: nhat

228 in-game posts and you are already acting like you've got a couple thousand. Don't be a snob, don't be a prick, don't be an elitist jerk, please.

[nhat]

overkill: nhat

228 in-game posts and you are already acting like you've got a couple thousand. Don't be a snob, don't be a prick, don't be an elitist jerk, please.

Okay, mom

[Korts]

Geez, man. What I'm saying is this: what the fuck's post count got to do with anything?

[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.

[Battle Mage]

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.

You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?

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?
You claim you want to find scum, and you admit that that is exactly what this pact will help you to do. I'm going to give you 1 shot to think about this, and then admit you are wrong. Otherwise, i will have to see this as scummy.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Hi all. I'm the back up mod.
Geez 3 pages and this is just the confirmations. O_o
Oh BM is playing no wonder.

Lol, i'm sure you'll still somehow find an opportunity to kill me.

But seriously, this is quickly becoming my favourite game. And as i'm well aware, i always die pretty quickly in games i enjoy, so i'm gonna damn well make the most of Day 1!

BM

[Battle Mage]

That's four so far for the treaty. I think we should stop at 5 tops, BM.

I don't recall us voting on applicants yet. As such it is just me, you, and a whole heap of people who want to join. I'd definitely like to see Wolframn in on this, so i'll vote in favour of him. While we dont have enough content to be anywhere near certain of anybody as protown, i think our best bet is to back active and willing people, for it is they who will be the greatest assets to the scheme. Who do you fancy?

Also, ROFL at post 74. I love you!

BM

[Battle Mage]

Scumz Die Now Pact

Preamble

This is a treaty of mutual assistance between the signatory players, who agree to consult each other and make collective decisions regarding placement of votes, with the intention of intimidating the heck out of the scum, and using their collective influence to run the evil do’ers outta town.

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.

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.

Signed:
Battle Mage
Korts

I thought you merged, BM has you down here as a signatory.

I'm against the whole idea of pacts until they stop being so exploitable by scum. And as far as I can tell, your ANTI-TREATY COALITION seems more like an alternate treaty than an ANTI-TREATY COALITION. (no offense)

Normally, in a merger, the 2 parties will construct a treaty together, or merge their existing treaties. I'm happy for any criticisms and amendments, but as there were none offered, i assumed Korts was ready to roll.

BM

As fo your final point, you really felt that was worth saying?? 0.o

[Korts]

You know, BM, how flattered I am by your offer, I really am. But individual thought and freedom of suspicions I can't bear to be infringed by a treaty that encourages bandwagoning.

Convince me that there won't be any trust or mindless vote following involved, and I may reconsider.

[OpposedForce]

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.

You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?

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?
You claim you want to find scum, and you admit that that is exactly what this pact will help you to do. I'm going to give you 1 shot to think about this, and then admit you are wrong. Otherwise, i will have to see this as scummy.

BM

Wow and you call my argument ridiculous.

The pact is obviously going to help scum blend in. The scum join in and everybody is discussing among the members and the scum can just manipulate among the others which puts them in safe ground. There is no "foolproof" method of finding scum within a group that you can't trust anyone in alignment. That kind of thinking is foolish and idiotic.

Also if you wanted to catch scum then why just create a pact when you can discuss with town? It's pretty much a open gateway for scum to jump in and find themselves safe. You create a pact to find scum but you can just do that with general town discussion instead of giving scum a chance to get a better foothold in the game. Also your going to vote me for disagreeing with the pact? Lol that's kind of obnoxious thinking that your pact is 100% and that I'm wrong for disagreeing with it. If you find me scummy for disagreeing then go ahead and think that because thinking like that will get you nowhere.

[Korts]

OF, I don't see BM threatening you with a vote.

[Battle Mage]

You know, BM, how flattered I am by your offer, I really am. But individual thought and freedom of suspicions I can't bear to be infringed by a treaty that encourages bandwagoning.

Convince me that there won't be any trust or mindless vote following involved, and I may reconsider.

I shouldnt need to convince you, if you have read the terms of the treaty. It's there in black and white, and you've been afforded opportunity to suggest amendments to any terms.

Simply put, i'm not selling myself to you.

BM

[OpposedForce]

OF, I don't see BM threatening you with a vote.

argh my mistake I meant to pin blame on me as being scum.

[Untitled]

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.

[Korts]

lol

I'm gonna be watching your career in this game closely, BM. This treaty is an interesting proposition, and it seems too formal to me to work properly and without bias in a game of mafia.

[Battle Mage]

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.

You do realise how ridiculous your argument is, right?

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?
You claim you want to find scum, and you admit that that is exactly what this pact will help you to do. I'm going to give you 1 shot to think about this, and then admit you are wrong. Otherwise, i will have to see this as scummy.

BM

Wow and you call my argument ridiculous.

The pact is obviously going to help scum blend in. The scum join in and everybody is discussing among the members and the scum can just manipulate among the others which puts them in safe ground. There is no "foolproof" method of finding scum within a group that you can't trust anyone in alignment. That kind of thinking is foolish and idiotic.

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. With this in mind, you seem to be arguing against us PLAYING MAFIA, which is rather foolish, and...idiotic, imho. You also haven't really read the full treaty, as you've neglected to comment on the fact that signatories of the pact are no more safe from votes than non-signatories. The reason for which is fairly obvious. Sadly, you are looking out of 2-dimensional glasses, which is tainting the way you see it.

With the silver medal of humorousness, is the fact that you originally claimed that the group would be ridden with scum, and now have completely backtracked on this.

Also your going to vote me for disagreeing with the pact? Lol that's kind of obnoxious thinking that your pact is 100% and that I'm wrong for disagreeing with it. If you find me scummy for disagreeing then go ahead and think that because thinking like that will get you nowhere.

No. I'd vote for you on grounds of ridiculous logic. I have plenty of time for people who want to make fair comments and criticisms. But, i have no time for people who aren't paying attention, make half-assed judgements, and then get tunnel-visioned because they cant admit they are wrong. I've pointed out how stupid your original argument (that scum will hide within the bounds of the treaty) is, and i've yet to see you properly answer. So instead of attempting to bombard me with trash, how about you actually explain what i want you to explain.

Thanks,
BM

[Battle Mage]

OF, I don't see BM threatening you with a vote.

argh my mistake I meant to pin blame on me as being scum.

same thing, no?

I wouldnt vote at this stage anyway, given the game hasn't started. This is just giving everyone a taster. But i definitely feel your stance was scummy, and i'm waiting to see whether you will recompose yourself and fix your position, or you will continue to fight for something completely nonsensical for a townie. If you choose the latter, be under no pretence that i will not string you up.

BM

@Korts- Career? Lol, i wont survive Night 1, you can bet your (or my) ass on it. Scum REALLY hate people who are un-predictable and spontaneous, so i'm asking for a stabbing here.

[Korts]

BM, you're pretty much demanding a N1 kill now

[Korts]

If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.

[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 it isn't. Please read the terms again if you were unclear.

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

I'll make a mental note to buy you a t-shirt later on in the game. But, in all seriousness, i really don't see how you could think a signatories existence would be 'safe-guarded' when in reality, no such measure has even been hinted at. I'd say reactions to the treaty are a null-tell at this point. Obviously there is an incentive for scum to join, but because of this, WIFOM dictates that scum may NOT join, and could instead push for the lynch of a bunch of innocent townies who DID join.

But, what i don't see, is the view of Opposed Force and yourself, that people supporting the treaty are scum, and then him saying that the treaty is bad, when he is actually, by definition declaring that a

foolproof

(his words) method of scumhunting is a bad idea.

Do you see what i'm saying?

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.

Sound familiar? You've just exhibited the same Mafia microcosm that Opposed Force did. Most people strung up in Mafia will be innocent. It's how the game works mathematically. Our aim then is to gauge reactions to the lynches. Admittedly scum will have the opportunity to tag along, but in this, you pretty much answer your own question. If scum tag along blindly to lynches, will this help us find out who is scum?

To which the answer, is of course, yes.

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

I doubt it will work out like that. But if the pact is small, it wont matter much anyway. Ooi, i'd like to point out that in the above paragraph you state that "smart scum wont defend their scumbuddies who are brought forwards" and yet earlier in the same post you indicated that having scum in the group would distort the outcome of the lynches.

BM

[Battle Mage]

If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.

please explain?

[Korts]

If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.

please explain?

If you're scum yourself, you obviously won't have so big a chance of dying, no?

[OpposedForce]

@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. Think about. 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.

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 call my logic ridiculous although your whole argument seems to revolve around you being close-minded and thinking that your pact is fail proof so thinking I'm scum for disagreeing and for "ridiculous logic" because you can't see the pact going wrong at all is crap on me.