Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[earthworm]

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)

[Korts]

Really? I called a truce, but I didn't intend to sign up... BM, I'm out if you don't mind, I value individual thought over group hugs.

earthworm, the ANTI-TREATY COALITION is a joke. It was actually funny at first, I like to think.

[Korts]

And anyway, the Pact seems a tad too democratic for me. The coalition has proper hierarchy: there's me at the top, and there's the sheep below.

[OpposedForce]

StrangerCoug, I don't really see the problem with discussion beginning in the pre-game, it's better than starting it with three pages of random votes, this way we'll be able to start placing pressure votes on suspicious people right off the bat when the game starts, rather than starting with random ones.

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. 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, 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.

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. 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.

QFT FTW

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.

yes but there Opposed it at least says that you have to present a case, much like anyone would when hunting scum, then everyone must agree or give a very good reason why they don't. If this is done properly it should work well.

I understand that evidence and cases come into judging a person and how the whole pact can discuss on it however the scum is going to be their maniuplating everybody and while the pact discuss with one another the scum in the pact can just put in whatever he wants to mislead them into lynching a townie. Also like earthworm said the scum in the pact will defend a scumbuddy and try to keep him out of suspicion by misleading the whole pact. 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? If that's the case then scum is on safe grounds to advocate a lynch.

[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.

[PeterGriffin]

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?

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.

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.

[Cephrir]

I don't see why you seem to think this agreement-thingy is going to have a such a big impact, OpposedForce. I actually think that the interactions will provide different interactions than you usually see in a mafia game. Hence, interesting. I fail to see how it is at all FoS-worthy though.

[earthworm]

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?

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.

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.

However, in my opinion there should still be reasoning and cases by the players, especially the one that's starting the bandwagon.

I'm not worried about scum getting the treaty to vote on an innocent, because that would put them under scrutiny. What's disturbing is that Mafia games usually have more than enough false scumtells, scum can just sit back in the treaty and join in when someone unknowingly presents a case for an innocent. When that innocent is lynched they're blameless, because they didn't vote for that person individually, they voted as part of the treaty.

In mafia games people who make cases against innocents aren't usually the most suspicious, the most suspicious are the ones who immediatly jump on the bandwagon. My problem with the treaty is that it's like a pre-built bandwagon that they don't come under suspicion for joining, because they were already members.

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.

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.

People going along with the pact without any comments would be more likely to be lazy town than scum. Scum know enough to be able to blend in with the rest. In normal games the hardest part is joining in on bandwagons and pushing them without attracting suspicion, with those steps removed (they're already a part, and pushing it is being done along with the other signatories), it will be easy to blend in with the other five or so members.

That said, the treaty isn't as bad as I'm making it sound, seeing people's reactions will help us determine alignments down the line, and it's certainly possible that it

will

help us coordinate scumhunting and lynches.

[PeterGriffin]

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?

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.

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.

However, in my opinion there should still be reasoning and cases by the players, especially the one that's starting the bandwagon.

I'm not worried about scum getting the treaty to vote on an innocent, because that would put them under scrutiny.

I wasn't neccesarily saying "vote on an innocent" as much in those pieces as much as I was saying "build a badly made case on a player." IE- Use crap logic, quote-mining, etc.

[What's disturbing is that Mafia games usually have more than enough false scumtells, scum can just sit back in the treaty and join in when someone unknowingly presents a case for an innocent. When that innocent is lynched they're blameless, because they didn't vote for that person individually, they voted as part of the treaty.

That is a very fair point, I would be interested in seeing a response to that from a direct supporter of the treaty.

[In mafia games people who make cases against innocents aren't usually the most suspicious, the most suspicious are the ones who immediatly jump on the bandwagon.

Again, shoddily-made cases often imply a lack of solid scumhunting, which can mean scum. I do agree with you however, just because someone makes a case on a townie, doesn't make them scum. People make mistakes.

My problem with the treaty is that it's like a pre-built bandwagon that they don't come under suspicion for joining, because they were already members.

It's a fair concern, but I would argue that if we examine the relationship of the way that the members of the treaty bandwagon on, it could help find scum. It would certainly be easier if that part of the treaty was modified however.

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.

Your point is valid, and I agree that perhaps the treaty shouldn't neccesarily be so definitive on the issue. IE- If they can explain why they aren't voting, they shouldn't automatically have to vote.

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.

People going along with the pact without any comments would be more likely to be lazy town than scum.

Wait a second. Earlier you said this-

In mafia games people who make cases against innocents aren't usually the most suspicious, the most suspicious are the ones who immediatly jump on the bandwagon.

I agree that bandwagoners can be extremely suspicious, and yet now you're saying that anybody who goes along with the pact (IE- bandwagons) "would be more likely to be lazy town than scum". Now, you do have the qualifier there, "Without any comment", but in the case of the treaty, scum wouldn't neccesarily have to comment on the issue, simply because later they can simply say, "Well, I'm trying to go along with the treaty", and you'd judge them to be "more likely to be lazy town than scum"!

Scum know enough to be able to blend in with the rest. In normal games the hardest part is joining in on bandwagons and pushing them without attracting suspicion, with those steps removed (they're already a part, and pushing it is being done along with the other signatories), it will be easy to blend in with the other five or so members.

The above is very true, but I'm confused. Surely it's easier to "blend in", if you don't provide any reasoning for your vote, but you said that if a player did so, they would be more likely town than scum. Maybe I'm misunderstaning your position?

That said, the treaty isn't as bad as I'm making it sound, seeing people's reactions will help us determine alignments down the line, and it's certainly possible that it

will

help us coordinate scumhunting and lynches.

Indeed, it could have it's use. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it could help the town for the better, depending on what alignment the players that are on it are.

That said, I do feel that your points have merit.

BattleMage, could you reword the part of the treaty regarding involuntary voting so that the treaty still has purpose, but Scum could still be held accountable for relentless bandwagoning? IE- make it voluntary?

[cerebus3]

/confirm.

I shall pledge my allegience to the scumz die now coalition, if BM has not already decided I am scum.

[Korts]

Alternatively, join the coalition. We don't have any rules or guidelines, we just oppose baseless trust in each other.

I've already got a nice slogan for the Coalition. "Playing it like Mod intended" how's that sound?

[StrangerCoug]

StrangerCoug, I don't really see the problem with discussion beginning in the pre-game, it's better than starting it with three pages of random votes, this way we'll be able to start placing pressure votes on suspicious people right off the bat when the game starts, rather than starting with random ones.

The problem that I see is that it's confusing, and I like the idea of waiting for the game to start much better.

[Cass]

/confirm

dear me, that's some huge posts for a confirmation stage...

[Netlava]

The pact is fun and all, but I think it's sub-optimal play for town. It benefits any baddies that manage to sneak in because the inherent bandwagoning nature makes it more difficult to differentiate between members of the pact than the usual "independent" approach. Still might be interesting, though.

Could we hang on to in-thread discussion until we actually start please?

Why is this advantageous?

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

FOS: Petergriffin

FOS: earthworm

FOS: StrangerCoug

[Cass]

The treaty thing is interesting, but I prefer not to trust anyone yet... It would also become a pretty pointless thing if everyone joined. I'm quite interested if it will lead to anything though.

[StrangerCoug]

Could we hang on to in-thread discussion until we actually start please?

Why is this advantageous?

Sanity reasons and the fact that I'm not used to it.

[PeterGriffin]

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

FOS: Petergriffin

FOS: earthworm

FOS: StrangerCoug

I'm done talking with earthworm unless he wishes to make another reply. In my opinion we've found common ground.

In your opinion, how is being "way too interested in arguing about the pact", scummy? Is there something else we should be talking about?

[Erratus Apathos]

I expect the pact to implode something like four pages into day 1. For it to work well past the random voting stage, it'll require a level of cooperation and blind trust that I've never seen even masons afford each other, much less players joining together pregame. And even if it lasts I don't expect it to be much different than normal play.

I'm not worried about scum getting the treaty to vote on an innocent, because that would put them under scrutiny. What's disturbing is that Mafia games usually have more than enough false scumtells, scum can just sit back in the treaty and join in when someone unknowingly presents a case for an innocent. When that innocent is lynched they're blameless, because they didn't vote for that person individually, they voted as part of the treaty.

Not only is that a 110% invalid defense, but any player using that as a defense should be lynched on the spot, period. The pact affords players the opportunity to get on a wagon they might not find optimal, but it sure as hell doesn't grant them any measure of unaccountability.

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

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

[Netlava]

Why? Because I feel that scum may be more interested about this pact than townies. I'm largely indifferent to whether a pact forms - it is interesting, perhaps, but not the best option. For scum, I think it is more important for their strategy and such - especially for them to get in a pact, if one were to form. I think earthworm described it as a "once in a lifetime opportunity" or something.

Also, the amount of debating over a policy that is ultimately inconsequential to finding scum comes at a surprise. The large chunks of text sound like a bunch of fluff. Now, I don't mind being interested in arguing, but I do hope it carries over to actual scumhunting. The main thing is that this was a great opportunity for scum to appear active, arguing over policy, without actually scumhunting. You guys may have overdone it, though.

I also don't agree with your stance on the policy. I get the feeling that you are intentionally not getting why a pact is not pro-town in order to further the argument.

[earthworm]

Not only is that a 110% invalid defense, but any player using that as a defense should be lynched on the spot, period. The pact affords players the opportunity to get on a wagon they might not find optimal, but it sure as hell doesn't grant them any measure of unaccountability.

The problem is that they'll all be pretty much equally accountable, so it'll be nearly impossible to single out a scum among the four people who voted for someone after the case for them was presented to the pact.

[PeterGriffin]

Why? Because I feel that scum may be more interested about this pact than townies. I'm largely indifferent to whether a pact forms - it is interesting, perhaps, but not the best option.

I fail to comprehend why, considering that this potentially could be a group with the voting power of five. Even if it only lasts for the first few pages, it's pretty big. I feel that it should be discussed and the pros and cons carefully analyzed. Besides, the more discussion the better.

For scum, I think it is more important for their strategy and such - especially for them to get in a pact, if one were to form. I think earthworm described it as a "once in a lifetime opportunity" or something.

Yet I've not even said that I'm for the treaty. At the moment I'm undecided and leaning against. Earthworm is arguing against the treaty. I fail to comprehend how this point could cause either of us to look scummy, because we haven't even made a mention of wanting to sign up.

Also, the amount of debating over a policy that is ultimately inconsequential to finding scum comes at a surprise.

How can you be certain that this treaty is going to be "ultimately inconsequential to finding scum"? Behavior towards the discussion, the points in the discussion itself, and the behavior of the people on it, could definately help us catch scum.

The large chunks of text sound like a bunch of fluff. Now, I don't mind being interested in arguing, but I do hope it carries over to actual scumhunting.

Again, I believe that the discussion regarding the treaty, and the behaviors when it comes to the players in the treaty itself, can definately help us find scum.

The main thing is that this was a great opportunity for scum to appear active, arguing over policy, without actually scumhunting. You guys may have overdone it, though.

We were discussing a piece that potentially could be a key part of the early phase of this game. How exactly do you want us to scumhunt before the game has even started? There are still players that haven't even confirmed yet.

I also don't agree with your stance on the policy. I get the feeling that you are intentionally not getting why a pact is not pro-town in order to further the argument.

It may be because I'm in a rather emotional state right now (Had an argument with my mother an hour ago), but this sounds extremely insulting, like I'd have to pretend to be acting stupid to miss why the pact is not pro-town. It definately has it's anti-town points (Having to unconditionally trust players you have no clarification for, and creating an excuse to wagon), but there is potential for pro-town results as well, and I felt that the points that the other people were trotting out appeared to be rather weak, and so wanted to discuss them.

So wait a second. You want us to scumhunt before the game has even started, and yet you wish to basicially stifle discussion, (Calling the people who were talking about the implications of the treaty scummy, and saying that scum would be more interested in talking about the pact than townies.) After you criticize someone else for reccomending stifling discussion? What?

[PeterGriffin]

EBWODP: That second to last question should be "After you criticize someone else for trying to stifle discussion."

[nhat]

LOL - Everyone who is taking this treaty shit seriously

[Korts]

kill: nhat

[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.

kill: nhat

:goodposting:.