| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 20 2012 18:37 Aquanim wrote: EBWOP to emphasise this: Mocsta, what is your current read on Shz? Personally I dont want to comment on this issue now. As I don't want to detract from the case against Spaghetticus. If you insist on my comments to Shz, I will comply when I wake up ~= 1hr before the deadline (I think..) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 20 2012 13:03 Chromatically wrote: @Mocsta Comments on Corazon/FC after my cases? Same as with Aqua. I would rather comment when the dust has settled on Spaghetticus I learnt from Day 1 0-24hr, that posts can get lost in a sea of other posts. I think it is critical that people read and digest what Aquanim proposed, and then others (including myself) re-enforced. Again, if you must have my commentary prior to lynch deadline, I will do my best to output this. In case this creates a new page Aquanim case against Spag Mocsta Case against Spag | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 01:57 shz wrote: ... I'm not convinced by Spaghettis arguments. Art the Moment I can see him as scum too. I'm not ruling out voting him out. - Aquanim changes his vote from Corazon to make a case against Spaghetti. While I agree that Spaghetti is possible scum, the argument that rational posts = scum is dumb. If anything overly emotional argumemts are Moore scum. Great to hear your input Shz! I think it is of benefit to find holes in the logic of Aqua or myself. If we left a stone unturned, I will learn something to make my next cases even stronger. Considering Spaghetticus does not appear online... May i ask you to fulfill the role Spaghetticus played for Corazon? i.e. Take my case, and mount a defense for Spaghetticus? Mocsta Case against Spag If you need a refresher on Aquas case.. try here..Aquanim case against Spag | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 04:03 FatChunk wrote: his argument against spag needs work '. morning. Woke up to a lot less activity than expected.Kickstarts token case extension was expected though. 1. @kickstart. Lets pretend u are mafia. Which mafia role do you think is powerful enoigh to justify lurking to fly under the radar and bus your team mate... 2. @fatchunk Dont throw out stuff like my case is weak and then proceed to identify zero reasons why. Discuss what you find conflicting or assuming | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
#Unvote ##Vote: Spaghetticus If someone wants me to justify this, I will, but it's all been said already. Has tried to blend in, hard defended another player, has told others to scumhunt without actually doing anything, etc. @chrome Yes. I would appreciate if you can justify your vote. Unlike you for me.. I have valued some of your contributions.. Hence i find it ironic. The person -who like spag has demanded other players to present their thoughts - now is openly bandwagoning. I am happy you have joined us in vote.this is what ma tters most. however considering the knowledge and pedigree exhibited earlier. I and perhaps everyone else expected much more than a token it has been said already | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
im disapointed you raised the issue of sk. the pessimist in me things this is a distraction ploy.. But im optimistic today and instead ask of you... Why you think its relevant to raise this item 1hr before lynch. I assume you will respond in night phase | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
Unfortunately, this flip makes sense, I was suspicious there was no activity when i woke up. Fellow townies, I realise its easy to point the finger at Aquanim or even myself; we both developed cases against Spaghetticus. If you want to question either of us, I suggest action be taken by middle of Night 1. I believe if this matter is not closed sooner than later, it will cloud our ability to constructively look at the sequence of events that led to Spaghetticus. (2) We need to consolidate and stick to a battle plan. I think part of this is absorbing the Day 1 posts before sling accusations at persons. We need to start questioning peoples motives critically; and understand the town atmosphere at the time of key events. (3) For me.. Key Events are: (1) Reactions when Chromatically began targetting Corazon (2) Threesr announcing himself in the thread, in the way he did (3) Reactions to Threesr being top of the vote count (4) Interplay with FatChunk (5) Aquanim/Spaghetticus/Myself Please feel free to add/remove events as you see fit.. I wrote this from recollection. (4) I am going to start examining these events with the following goals (a) Who is pushing these events to occur (b) Who is not posting at all (c) Who is joining the bandwagon,but, not adding original thought When I have had time to answer these questions, I will post again in the thread. I hope you all too... take a step back.. and do a similar process. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 09:42 Mocsta wrote: (1) Fellow townies, I realise its easy to point the finger at Aquanim or even myself; we both developed cases against Spaghetticus. If you want to question either of us, I suggest action be taken by middle of Night 1. I believe if this matter is not closed sooner than later, it will cloud our ability to constructively look at the sequence of events that led to Spaghetticus. (2) We need to consolidate and stick to a battle plan. I think part of this is absorbing the Day 1 posts before sling accusations at persons. We need to start questioning peoples motives critically; and understand the town atmosphere at the time of key events. (3) For me.. Key Events are: (1) Reactions when Chromatically began targetting Corazon (2) Threesr announcing himself in the thread, in the way he did (3) Reactions to Threesr being top of the vote count (4) Interplay with FatChunk (5) Aquanim/Spaghetticus/Myself Please feel free to add/remove events as you see fit.. I wrote this from recollection. (4) I am going to start examining these events with the following goals (a) Who is pushing these events to occur (b) Who is not posting at all (c) Who is joining the bandwagon,but, not adding original thought When I have had time to answer these questions, I will post again in the thread. I hope you all too... take a step back.. and do a similar process. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
I think its great you are being pro-active and finding points to challenge Omni. This will be beneficial to town. May I suggest (from my experiences Day 1) to take a step back, and consolidate your ideas into 1 or 2 logical and well-reasoned posts. I am sure you have good intentions, [perhaps purely prodding for tells] however, the variety of posts targeting different issues, is making it hard to track whether previous items have been addressed (sufficiently/satisfactorily) I hold the same commentary for OmniEulogy. Your defense is extremely passive aggressive. I know Chromatically is apply pressure to you, but reacting in a mannerism similar to "Threesr" is a not conducive to the scum hunt. Again please try and consolidate posts, and address multiple items perhaps with spoilers. ---- Lastly, Chromatically is spot on... On December 21 2012 10:08 Chromatically wrote: Theses are the people that need to post more: -Kickstart -Orangeremi -Sylencia -threesr (during the second half of d1) With 48hrs expired, this is unacceptable. I think it was Corozon who said, lurking can be begin to be classified post ~30hrs. If a potential scum target thinks 30hrs is lurking, well.. that does not bode well for you 4. Please start contributing. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
Do night actions get locked in 1 hr before deadline? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:49 Promethelax wrote: Nope Actions/votes will be accepted up to the posted time, but not after. @Cakepie I refer you to. On December 21 2012 11:42 cakepie wrote: The hunt continues! Continued activity would be nice, but let us also exercise caution lest we give scum too much that will aid them in deciding their night actions. Those who have been relatively inactive should start joining in more, but those who have already had a lot to say may want to save some for later in the night, at least until just before the dawn of day. Mod has confirmed night actions can be placed at the last second. If your intent was to post your commentary after the "lockdown" period to avoid putting a target on your head; well.. this is now null and void. I am very curious to hear your thoughts on how matters proceeded Day 1. I hope the comments above persuade you to enlighten us before late Night 1. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 13:26 cDgCorazon wrote: .... cDgCorazon, congratulations. I want to thank you publicly for taking the time to absorb the thread and offer opinions that from my first read appear logically sound, and UNBIASED For me, this has gone a long way to prove Spaghetticus correct on his assumption regarding you. [Ramble] + Show Spoiler + The problem I am having with the game currently is the amount of people "flying under the radar". I can see 3 points of view. (1) Scared Newbie. In real life some people are natural leaders and appears confident at first attempt. Others prefer to follow the direction of someone who offers leadership. I think this is a legitimate reason to initially "fly under the radar" but now that 48hrs has passed, I do not think this counts anymore. Newbies need to stand up and be counted. cDgCorazon post I think is an excellent structure to imitate. (2) Blue Roles. Blues are worried about getting killed before putting power to use. Again a good reason to fly under the radar. The key differentiation I assume would be that Blue Roles still want Town to win. (3) Mafia. Not all players are witty enough to release retorts in a prompt manner (e.g. Aqua attacked Spag for taking 3 hrs to produce a reply). Hence, it will be natural for some mafia to want to fly under the radar, to give them time to make that have been checked by the mafia team before being released. I am doing 2 investigations today. (1) Examining the sequence of events, as I posted prior & (2) Trying to provide reasoning to bracket posters as (2) or (3). That aside, I think Cakepie is wrong about delaying posting. And I am concerned a person that has displayed his thought process, and NOT made an attempt to identify the below: We have a critical period now to influence the choices the blue roles make. We have the ability to ensure the ?cop? check is on a mafia. We have the ability to ensure the ?jailer? lock down is on a mafia. We have the ability to ensure the ?roleblocker? prevents a mafia kill! We have the ability to prevent/enable the ?vigilante? to make the right choice! @Cakepie, what are your thoughts on the above? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 16:39 Aquanim wrote: He's quite right here, starting a case on a (now) confirmed town should bring pressure in my direction. All I can really say is that I was as genuinely convinced by my case as the other townies on the wagon. I'd welcome any questions if you have them. I have been waiting for you to come back... Im completely gobsmacked, no one has questioned you.. or I. + Show Spoiler + Perhaps i am over valuing my contribution. I am going to set the ball rolling, since no one else will. @Aquanim (1) You aggressively targeted Spagehtticus seemingly out of no where. Spaghetticus was placed under much duress, and wasnt able to express himself as eloquently as he would have liked to; playing a large part in his demise. Do you think your overall your approach was a success? (2) You say you had no serious motive to maintain a cote on Corazon. However, that can not be said for the Spaghetticus vote. Your case had conviction behind it, thus, I 100% agree you thought he was scum. Did Spaghetticus stick out like a sore thumb to you; or do you think you were lured towards his path? Aquanim, I look forward to your response; and welcome any commentary on my behaviour. I want to maintain a post made at the start Townies can make mistakes! What happened, happened; we need to consolidate and figure out where we went wrong. Ask yourself If I/we chased a gut feeling; we can make sure to consider more facts before posting. If I/we were lead to the evidence; we need to consider motives of who planted it. If I/we purely sheeped; ask yourself "why were you convinced" enough to follow? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 18:04 Aquanim wrote: Mocsta, I don't think you ever got around to saying what your read on Shz is. Could you quote it or make it? Noted. I will have your answer by end of night. I am goign to follow Cakepie suggestion and hold off till a bit later. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 19:48 OmniEulogy wrote: ... I do not mean this to be facetious; however I was genuinely not expecting that type of post from you. Its thrown a spanner in the works for me. I am going to have to digest this before jumping to a conclusion. Man I wish this wasn't Friday night, will look into it when I get home  | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 20:58 Chromatically wrote: @Omni Elaborate on Mocsta? LOL! @Omni Elaborate on Chromatically. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 21:23 Orangeremi wrote: Couldn't the same be said for scum and possible blue roles? And what's the difference between information revealed earlier as opposed to later? It's revealed regardless. I do not mean this to be facetious; however I was genuinely not expecting that type of post from you. Its thrown a spanner in the works for me. I am going to have to digest this before jumping to a conclusion. [Sarcasm is not intended] | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
Do you think there is a difference between a scum read and a scum tell? I do. But I would love to hear the perspective of others first. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
@ALL This is a SERIOUS question Do you think there is a difference between a scum read and a scum tell? I do. But I would love to hear the perspective of others first. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On December 21 2012 22:47 OmniEulogy wrote: I was intending to switch my vote back to Cora after Spag cleared himself because until that point I hadn't actually thought of him as scummy in the least. but I said it a few times, Aqua's case was much stronger than Spag's defense in my eyes. Aquas case didnt actually win me over. (Similar to I believe ?FatChunk?) FWIW, the case was too aggressive, and thus, manifested itself with severe bias. Though solid points were dashed throughout the case, the overall tone suggested turning a blind eye to anything that suggest Spag was innocent. In my opinion, a rational case needs to present both points of view. It is from here, that a fair and well-reasoned case can reach a conclusion. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
