EPTDue to the case above and wrong format.
##Vote: Threesr
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXIII - Page 19
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Due to the case above and wrong format. ##Vote: Threesr | ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
Actual: Townies know their innocence, and are seeking the scum hunt. Threesr, for your benefit in future games (if you dont get modkilled again..) only scum think about trying to appear pro-town. Your interpretation of my behaviour correlates to your role in this game SCUM and in my opinion is a clear slip and to add further insult to injury, is an extremely poor attempt [again] @ fact manipulation. This is retarded and makes no sense. My post is quite clear cut. I advocate Threesr as a threat, but without enough post history, mafia is difficult to ascertain. The stance is also obvious, I think Threesr is a threat to town, but not a top priority. [Based on others also lurking] (Note: I even "implore" town to find another candiate for Day 1) Threesr knows Town will be coming after him, perhaps Day 2 or Day 3, so is trying to negate the threat by targeting me Unfortunately, with all the pressure to mount a case founded upon quicksand, he has had to resort to quote misrepresentation to convey himself. This equates to lying. And is grounds for a vote & lynch come Day 1. This is a complete contradiction, everything you say makes it seem like you are 100% sure I am scum. Spamming the word SCUM in big red font over and over and saying that i slipped (which i still dont understand). Finally say that you still arent sure that I am scum after your rant about how im scum. This proves my point on how you dont take a stance on anything you just flip flop around. | ||
|
Chromatically
United States1700 Posts
On December 20 2012 01:21 Mocsta wrote: Yeah, I thought it was pretty clean cut. Perhaps not. Based on the current status quo, I think its reasonable to assume I will be mafia killed Night 1, unless given some form of protection? I was not asking for a medic to step forward, and will not ask them to step forward. [If exists] Asking for protection this early is not town motivated. Blues can decide what to do by themselves. | ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
After Mocsta's reaction to my FOS I think I dont have any other choice but to vote for him now. | ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
| ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
##Vote: FatChunk | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
cDgCorazon (2): Aquanim, Chromatically threesr (2): FatChunk, Mocsta Mocsta(1): shz, OrangeRemi(1): cakepie shz (0): FatChunk(1): threesr not voting (4): cDgCorazon, Kickstart, OmniEulogy, OrangeRemi | ||
|
Chromatically
United States1700 Posts
| ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
| ||
shz
Germany2686 Posts
On December 19 2012 23:21 cakepie wrote: shz: Tried to provide a case on mocsta as an alternative to cDgCorazon. However, the fast town read was first pointed out by spaghetticus, and OmniEulogy was the one who first pointed to the questions about scum startegy. Not sure the case is viable at this point, but I agree that Mocsta seems a bit too eager. Q: Evaluate my play. Does it look town, or does it look scum? Why? Your analysis is quite thought out and you point out three POIs and try to get something out of it by pressuring them. This is good. At the same time you still trying to get reads on most of the others by asking questions. I don't think these three are your only suspects. All in all I tend towards town as I don't see much evidence which would support you scumminess. I don't agree with your vote for Orangeremi at the moment though. Yes, he did not contribute until now, but I would give him some more hours before lynching him for that. @Mocsta So I'm scum because I said that my case against you wasn't waterproof? What would have happened if I acted so sure about you, as you act about everyone who attacks you? You getting quite defensive and jumping to, rather fast, conclusions about who is mafia and who is not. You changed your vote from me to threesr immediatly to countervote him and then spam a couple of posts saying "how easy it was", "he slipped", in big red bold latter. This is way over dramatized. To top that of you trying to martyr your way into town. I don't like that at all. I'm still not 100% conviced, but this is not helping you. For now my vote stands. And I think threesr, however fishy and rare his posts are at the moment, has a point. You seem quite conviced and at the same you are saying you are not. I don't have an opinion on FatChunk yet, as he did not contribute enough. If we don't find a conses by the lynch-deadline, we should lynch one of the lesser active players, for sure. | ||
|
shz
Germany2686 Posts
Could you elaborate on your scumread for Chunk? | ||
|
Chromatically
United States1700 Posts
Could you elaborate? Do you think my points against him are invalid? I don't like dragging answers out of you like this. | ||
|
Chromatically
United States1700 Posts
| ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:03 shz wrote: @threesr Could you elaborate on your scumread for Chunk? No I dont like writing a lot. | ||
|
shz
Germany2686 Posts
Good thing that you are playing forum-mafia. Even if you are not mafia, this does not help town at all. | ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:08 Chromatically wrote: @threesr Could you elaborate? Do you think my points against him are invalid? I don't like dragging answers out of you like this. I think your points are okay, I just feel there are people who are more likely to be scum than Corazon atm. | ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:12 shz wrote: Good thing that you are playing forum-mafia. Even if you are not mafia, this does not help town at all. You go read his posts and make your own decision. | ||
|
FatChunk
Canada93 Posts
In a game where opinion and discussion are encouraged, you seem to be quite reluctant to contribute. Your respones to questions are often dodged or ill-presented out of laziness, and I think this is not acceptable. You have to be able to develop your reasoning, and the type of posts you create paint a picture of someone trying to get the attention off himself. My attempt to be consistent is important because as town we need to structurally build arguments and if those compounding arguments contradict one another, we cannot make a logical FoS or lynch. Without consistency, why did we discuss policy on LAL and lurking? My opinion on corazon is the following: he's relatively new to the game and any form of aggression toward him will be met with a stiff upper lip. I know this because I am new to the game too. Thus my read on him is questionable at best. My read for threesr stands as per my previous posts and is only amlipified by his recent comments. Mocsta's decision to confirm threesr as scum was a little bit hasty and agressive in my eyes, yet also I don't think that mafia would come out so early as to present a confirmed scum. Thus I lean against the vote for Mocsta, and toward lurkers (Sylencia, aquanim, OrangeRemi?) and threesr as a possible lynch. | ||
|
cakepie
985 Posts
On December 20 2012 00:05 Chromatically wrote: Comments on Corazon? On December 20 2012 00:32 Chromatically wrote: On Corazon, I'm focusing more on his defensiveness and excuse-making as reasons for why he is scum. Do you agree that the things I have highlighted in his posts are more likely coming from mafia? My read of his scant content is just slightly scummy. The lack of contribution is a bigger concern for now, and so I think two pressure votes plus the credible threat of more should hopefully cause a reaction one way or the other. I am waiting to see how he will address my questions to him. (may need to update questions though.) ----- So, we’ve got some shit starting to hit the fan. Mocsta with a bunch of posts, voting shz. Threesr the self-proclaimed lurker stops lurking and FoS Mocsta, triggering a voteswitch by Mocsta that does not look completely well-reasoned, even somewhat omgus. Then threesr himself switches to FatChunk before clamming up again. On December 20 2012 00:25 threesr wrote: ##FOS: Mocsta ... Then he keeps spamming the thread with questions, but not actually taking a stance on anything himself. Seems like he is trying to become the "town moderator" and by asking a million questions in order to appear pro-town without providing any substance. ... This is something I have noted myself. Looking at Mocsta’s filter, for all the prolific output and various questions posed -- hardly any of the questions apply pressure on anyone, only fluff about policy, scum strategy, what environment allows Mafia to thrive, how to stimulate discussion, etc, rather than scumhunting questions. Now, this is not to say that Mocsta has not openly presented (or tried to) his reasoning for suspecting people, and responded to questions and accusations. But his two votes were in response to others suspecting him, and there is no original scumhunting to be seen. Things seem to start going really haywire with the deathwish post: On December 20 2012 00:22 Mocsta wrote: Im dead regardless. End of Night 1, I suspect I will be shot. Hopefully we have a medic that likes me *sigh* It is way too early in the game for this nonsense. It is not only poor form to appeal to blues -- even if Mocsta earnestly believes that his play has singled him out as target for scum, I would consider it overrating his own contributions. Then, in response to the FoS from threesr: Counter-arguments (1) and (3) are fine at refuting the accusations from threesr, but I am not completely convinced by (2) as I do indeed find a lack of substance in the questions posed by Mocsta. Mocsta seems to swiftly conclude that threesr is seeking to misrepresent what he had said, and quickly switches his vote on the basis of lynching liars. I offer an alternative explanation: the weak aspects of the case put forward by threesr could be merely lazy scumhunt by someone who has been accustomed to lurking and not following closely, but has been forced to participate under pain of lynch. (This is by no means defending threesr or offering an excuse for his behavior.) Mocsta You’re definitely getting too excited with the flurry of posting and you need to cool your head. Try to consolidate your posts more, it also gives you time to reflect and digest things. I hope you take another fresh look at things when you wake up in the morning. Q: Consider: if threesr is lazy "scumhunting" because he simply doesn’t know any better -- how would that measure against your case against shz for sheeping, and poor vote justification i.e. lack of critical analysis before voting based on "questions raised by others"? especially @ Aquanim, Chromatically, Kickstart, Spaghetticus, shz Q: what do you think of mocsta’s flurry of posts and vote switch? Is he merely overly excited, or could there be merit in the accusation that his incessant questions were noise without substance? ----- On December 20 2012 00:09 Spaghetticus wrote: I am someone with a natural inclination to lurk. So far I'm on my 6th page of notes, and once I have more than a 30% read on anyone as scum I'll make a case. Until then I just trawl through the data and try to keep others on track. I'm reluctant to play aggressively until I have a foot to stand on. I think you’ll have plenty to work with by the time you wake up  On December 20 2012 00:09 Spaghetticus wrote: Personally I would like people to focus their efforts away from Mocsta and Cakepie, and focus almost exclusively on the lurkers. If they do happen to be scum then at this rate they will leave a trail and we will nail them day two. This, very, very much. Keep in mind: if I were to be mislynched or killed by scum, what could you infer from the trail that I am leaving? What about Mocsta? Or anyone else for that matter? | ||
|
threesr
73 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:55 cakepie wrote:I offer an alternative explanation: the weak aspects of the case put forward by threesr could be merely lazy scumhunt by someone who has been accustomed to lurking and not following closely, but has been forced to participate under pain of lynch. (This is by no means defending threesr or offering an excuse for his behavior.) Sounds about right. | ||
| ||
