|
On January 17 2013 04:57 zebezt wrote:So, for the case against Mocsta: here's the gist of it, my wife needs me so I don't have time for too much detail. At first he seemed pretty townie to me. He was nice n friendly to all and posted a lot. A LOT. The actual content in there is actually pretty useless though. His case against Omni illustrates this VERY well. A GIANT post. But he already says its an association case and that those suck... so what the hell? but there are some gems in there...
he says he is 100% sure Laguerta is scum. Awesome scum slip. I'm voting Laguerta myself, but ONLY A SCUM can be 100% certain who is scum he is 100% sure Laguerta is scum, but he isn't voting for Laguerta? WTF? THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL I was already surprised at how upset he got over a small hint of suspicion I had towards him, as demonstrated by the incoherence of his follow up post. + Show Spoiler +On January 15 2013 16:40 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 16:24 zebezt wrote:
If I was scum I would try to get rid of the most influential townies. You fit this bill much more than Oats. The fact that you didn't get NK'ed makes you look suspicious Influential? I have been called for my play by almost everyone in this thread (lurkers and actives). I even said today I have to take a step back. Did you not read this from my prime interrogator. Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 15:57 shz wrote:
It's not like you weren't challenged in the last days. (1) Your are dodging others questions; people like Shz have already re-asked you the questions. I think even Mr. King of lurkers (Acid~) wasted one of his few posts to re-ask you questions. Your response: i thought I answered it all.. are you not reading the thread? (2) You then say I am influential.. as if the events of Night 1 didnt happen. Are you not reading the thread.. again? If you haven't, this is very reckless accusations to be making; something I would think only scum would be motivated to do..(3) I was RB'd.. its not clear whether town or scum.. but as noone else has stepped up to say they were RB'd. I am going to assume for the time being it was scum. (4) The difference between you & (Shz/Myself) is.. we were considering different options for why Oats was killed. You however just assume.. if I would do it.. scum would do it.... WHOAH wait a sec.. if you were scum then of course you could speak with confidence like that. This is a huge concern to me. Please explain how this is town motivated thing to say? Why would he panic so much that he would write a post like this. Even he himself admitted this post sucked. Anyway, I think he is scum. But first the former Laguerta must die
If you think Mocsta is scum, I think you should vote him now. Because if he is scum, he is much more dangerous than a lurker at this point. I understand the policy lynch and why it's "safe", I understant that you want to stick to your strongest scum read.
I ask you just to review my case against Mocsta and keep an open mind for lynch option. If you are town and you are convinced Mocsta is scum, surely you see the need to consolidate on him ASAP.
|
On January 17 2013 05:55 shz wrote:
I would still like to have an answer why the fuck does he not want to lynch laguerta if he is so sure. Why the giant (format wise mess of a) association case instead of voting the one who is associated. That does not make sense, and with Acids case, which does make kinda sense, I think now would be the time for some actual defense and answering of open questions.
Omni is definitly one of the dumbest targets to lynch today, and I can't wrap my head around why someone would make a case like that.
@Acid:
So you would say Mocsta is good scum, instead of crappy town? I can agree, but I'm not sure if laguerta would still be the better candidate for tonight. He should have died D1, did nothing until being modkilled, and his replacement doesn't seem to be around either, or is lurking hard. So I don't know why we shouldn't lynch him now and go after Mocsta later. But for me this depends on how Mocsta handles himself between now and lynch.
Well, let's take the best case scenario where both Laguerta and Mocsta are scum.
In this case, we should want to lynch Mocsta first because his play style is disruptive to town and will only get more disruptive as town numbers dwindle.
I'm all for policy-lynching lurkers, but not when we have great scum reads. Especially an active scum who spreads dissent and confusion amongst town.
Now, let's take the worst case scenario where they are both town and we still have to lynch one of them. We should lynch Mocsta because he isn't useful to town. Remember, a townie's greatest power is his vote and look at how he is using his vote. One mislynch, and now Omni. I would argue this is worse than a no-vote at this point.
In the other cases, where Mocsta is scum and Laguerta is town, obviously we want to lynch Mocsta.
The only case where we want to lynch Laguerta instead is the final case where Laguerta is scum and Mocsta is town.
This is why I want players to review my case, because the only way I will advocate another lynch at this point is if we have a strong read on another scum and stronger reason to believe Mocsta is town.
Also, the read I have on Laguerta is a lazy/busy guy who got bored of playing before the game started. Not involved in the game. Now I don't play on forums a lot, but in TT games this happens often with veteran players who roll vanilla. Something to think about.
|
On January 17 2013 06:45 zebezt wrote:Acid: look at this logically. If Mocsta is scum are you are convinced (and I'm pretty sold on it too) than why would he switch votes from Laguerta to Mand. The situation at this vote count http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=24#480was such that Laguerta was to die. If Mocsta is scum and Laguerta is not, why would Mocsta switch? It only puts him in the center of attention, which is what scum usually does not want.
Honestly, my guess is that he thought the Lag lynch would still happen and he didn't want to be on the train. I think the last-minute confusion might indeed have gotten to him and he didn't realize Man would be lynched, which would be coherent with his OH FUCK post right after the lynch.
It could also be a master scum play, similar to what happened here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=312831¤tpage=5#99
The thing is, our votes are scattered right now, which leaves us open to a situation similar to d1: scum could vote-switch to bandwagon at the last minute and put us in LyLo at the start of day 3.
I especially don't like where Mocsta's vote is parked and given his latest post I'm expecting another last-minute vote-switch.
We need to consolidate town right now, IF you think Mocsta and Laguerta are equally likely to be scum, you should vote Mocsta because if he is scum, he is much more dangerous.
|
On January 17 2013 07:20 shz wrote:
Are you kidding me Mocsta? How the fuck can't you still not vote for laguerta/Jacob?
I will stick with laguerta for now. I think he did a great job of either causing confusion in this town, or at playing bad. I hope it's the former. As long Jacob does'nt participate at all, I see no value in keeping him around. I'm not completly sold on Mocsta, but that doesn't I see him as town.
##Vote: JacobStrangelove
Please participate in some way before you die, maybe you can explain what the fuck laguertas play was and defend yourself (even if you weren't the one doing this shit). If not, I'll keep my vote on you.
Even if Jacob is scum at this point, him not voting makes him essentially useless to the scum team. I would advocate voting for him only if you have no other strong scumread.
Have you read my case on Mocsta? If so, do you have any comments? If you're not convinced, please share your doubts.
|
On January 17 2013 08:07 Spaghetticus wrote:
##Unvote: Zebezt
##Vote: Trotske
You need to explain this vote because right now it looks like you're jumping on the easy train. What do you make of my Mocsta case?
I know you like to LAL, but we're way past that point now. We don't really have any hardcore lurkers anymore, everyone has posted enough so that we could get a sense of them.
If your strongest scumread is Trotske, please explain why.
|
On January 17 2013 07:05 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 06:57 Mocsta wrote:
This guy has gone out of this way to protect La Guerta.. even now in Day 2.. Maybe I was wrong with Omni.. but for this type of protection, there must be a relationship.I cant make sense of it any other way.
Agreed, and Day 1 I thought they might both be scum. Another option is that they are masoned together... On the other hand, the coordination of this sudden jump-on-mocsta train reeks of scum QT planning. Obviously its not certain, but I'm going to examine the circumstances very carefully. Which sucks because I had a pretty hard town read on Acid (probably because he's always had it out for Moc rofl). If nothing else, I still support the theory behind LAL enough to look at lynching laguerta (okay his mute replacement) over Mocsta. @Trotske at least you are posting. And really, your posts are starting to change my mind. I so wanted to lynch you. @Mocsta that last post sounded desperate as hell, although admittedly town don't want to be lynched either.
If Trotske and I were both scum plotting together, we would be like the worst scum team ever since my case against him got him leading the vote count right now, which is interesting. Very interesting indeed. It seems my case has produced the desired results, although not in the manner that I had intended.
|
On January 17 2013 08:26 Sn0_Man wrote:
I really would like to hear a real content post from spag pre lynch, although I'm not expecting it.
I would really like to hear (read :p) what you have to say about my Mocsta case.
I think we need to consolidate hard right now, and not on a lurker.
You are right to be suspicious of the Trotske train and I think a Mocsta lynch would be much more beneficial to town.
|
On January 17 2013 08:27 JacobStrangelove wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 08:22 Acid~ wrote:On January 17 2013 07:05 Sn0_Man wrote:On January 17 2013 06:57 Mocsta wrote:
This guy has gone out of this way to protect La Guerta.. even now in Day 2.. Maybe I was wrong with Omni.. but for this type of protection, there must be a relationship.I cant make sense of it any other way.
Agreed, and Day 1 I thought they might both be scum. Another option is that they are masoned together... On the other hand, the coordination of this sudden jump-on-mocsta train reeks of scum QT planning. Obviously its not certain, but I'm going to examine the circumstances very carefully. Which sucks because I had a pretty hard town read on Acid (probably because he's always had it out for Moc rofl). If nothing else, I still support the theory behind LAL enough to look at lynching laguerta (okay his mute replacement) over Mocsta. @Trotske at least you are posting. And really, your posts are starting to change my mind. I so wanted to lynch you. @Mocsta that last post sounded desperate as hell, although admittedly town don't want to be lynched either. If Trotske and I were both scum plotting together, we would be like the worst scum team ever since my case against him got him leading the vote count right now, which is interesting. Very interesting indeed. It seems my case has produced the desired results, although not in the manner that I had intended. Well it was pretty! You had exhibits and everything. Could have been a bus style we hate each other thing gone wrong though. The whole if I were scum argument while useful sometimes often is mildly indicative of scum trying to think how a town would. (or trying to leave the impression he is town by saying if ect...)
I know you're new to the thread, but surely you see that there are much easier bus targets than Mocsta right now.
|
This is it. If Trotske flips town, we need to look REAL hard at all the bussers who jumped on Sn0's original vote without backing it up.
|
On January 17 2013 08:49 JacobStrangelove wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 08:48 Acid~ wrote:
I know you're new to the thread, but surely you see that there are much easier bus targets than Mocsta right now. Oh? So who do you know is scum that you could bus over him?
Nice try with the loaded question.
Just look at the guys who jumped at the chance to lynch Trotske. If that's not a bus, I'm a pineapple.
Unless you take 'bus' to mean only scum voting on scum, I mean it as scum all voting on the same target after someone initiated the vote.
|
On January 17 2013 08:52 shz wrote:
@all:
Did your opinions about Jacob change? Do you think he is worth keeping around for a while?
I kinda feel that he at least contributed somewhat, though the surprise that the lynch deadline is so soon is a bit strange, it is posted with every votecount, and they were already a few of them before he started.
Right now, there is too little content to make an informed decision, but he has promised to catch up and he did contribute.
I see the no-lynch vote as null, personally.
|
Well played. It was a close shave.
I'm thinking we need to look hard at Spag and zarepath now.
Spag's LAL policy doesn't apply after d2, by his own admission so now he needs to step up and provide some real content. He also needs to explain his vote on Trotske, as I previously called out.
zarepath is slightly suspicious because of his voting and also by association since Mocsta pleaded in his defense. I know this is thin, but it deserves at least some pressure.
Concerning laguerta, now JacobStrangelove, I feel confident that scum were not bussing day1 but orchestrated a situation where town had to choose between two mis-lynches, as happened in this game:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=312831¤tpage=5#99
|
On January 17 2013 18:04 zebezt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 17:49 shz wrote:On January 17 2013 17:24 zebezt wrote:On January 17 2013 17:10 shz wrote:On January 17 2013 15:56 zebezt wrote:
Now we can kill off Jacob and we will have only 1 scum left. This is awesome!
Gives us a lot of time for scum hunting. This is plain dumb. This attitude leads to nowhere. It's dumb to be happy? I'm not saying we should sit back and relax. But in my eyes the next lynch is 100% clear. It's sad for Jacob because he didnt get to play much, but Laguerta and mocsta set him up. Evidence against JacobFirst there is Laguerta saying he is not gonna "no vote" and then he "no vote"s. LIESecond there is is Mocsta's voting behaviour. During day 1 he is super late to get on the Laguerta voting train. When that train is looking like it's going to derail, Mocsta gives it the final push by jumping ship and voting Mand. There is no reason for Mocsta to make this switch UNLESS HE IS PROTECTING HIS SCUM BUDDY. Later on Mocsta claims he is 100% sure that Laguerta is scum. Yet he does not vote for him. Instead voting for somebody else. Not once, but TWICE. This looks to me like Mocsta is distancing himself from Laguerta, knowing his lie is out. However he tries to distract the vote away from Laguerta. Any comparison with Temil is useless. This is more than enough PROOF THAT JACOB IS SCUM. I therefore strongly suggest that if we have a roleblocker he RB's Jacob tonight. Your attitude is bad. Don't just say "laguerta 100% kk go". No one will take it serious, and if you are wrong, that doesn't look good. I'm not sure yet how Mocsta tried to play. So you would say that he set this all up to help laugerta? Even if Mocsta couldn't have known that he is gonna lynched? Why help someone with saying "You are 100% scum", even if he didn't vote for him? My attitude is just fine. I'm just wary of people of people that will try to confuse the situation and a scum will get away. They almost succeeded last night. I'm sure Jacob is scum. I'm sure enough to bet my townie life on it. Could you think of another reason why Mocsta would draw attention to himself by switching votes on day 1?
Sure I can, I even linked you to a previous game where the exact same thing happened and led to a win for scum. As that play was nominated for a best play award it's not unreasonable to think that scum coach advised them to try this play.
Could you think of another reason why Mocsta would not vote for someone he says he is 100% sure is scum? The fact that he didn't vote Jacob was one of the biggest tells that gave him away.
I'm being extra vocal about this since I think because I don't post as much as some, my opinion gets overlooked. I also risk getting nightkilled, so I wanna get my point across before that happens.
I'm not saying we can sit back. We can already start trying to find the third scum.
|
On January 17 2013 21:00 zebezt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 20:37 Spaghetticus wrote:
@Zebezt
Switching last minute is not as scummy as people think. There are plenty of town motives that explain such action. I have done it in every game I remember (all of them town). Your heuristic that most vote switches are scummy is incorrect. I'm not saying it's 100% scum proof. But we aren't trying to proof that Mocsta is scum. What I am saying is that is at least something that draws negative attention to yourself if your vote switch makes the killing blow to a townie. Staying on his target would be more safe for Mocsta. So there must have been a good reason for his switch. The only good reason is to protect a scum.
Why are you deliberately ignoring the point I have made again and again concerning this?
|
On January 18 2013 00:36 zebezt wrote:
I'm sorry Acid,
regarding your point:
It seems farfetched to me, but is possible.
However if you also consider that Mocsta in D2 said he was 100% sure that Laguerta was scum, yet he would not vote for him, then it makes less sense.
The move you linked to was aimed at making the person doing look like town. When Mocsta named Laguerta scum but did not vote for him, this made Mocsta look scummy.
My reasoning is actually quite simple. It would be farfetched if everyone in this game was in fact a newbie and we did not have coaches. However, that isn't the case.
Also, while I believe this was their plan at the start, I think they saw a juicier plan on day 2 which would both lynch a townie, discredit me and clear Mocsta by association.
Aside from Sn0_Man who made his own case, the Trotske voters all cited my case against him as the reason for their vote.
Yet, as you know, I did not vote for Trotske in my own case. I think that scum saw an opportunity there to make me appear scummy:
I post a case but don't vote, others vote, Trotske flips town - who looks scummy now?
Making me appear scummy discredits my case on Mocsta by association and it's Christmas in scumland with no one left to oppose Mocsta's endgame play.
Simple, efficient.
You know what *is* farfetched? The ridiculous notion that scum would double-bus on day 2 after orchestrating a double-mislynch on day 1. They had no reason to bus, let alone double-bus.
Especially since I'm the one who pulled the trigger on Mocsta. If you say that scum double-bussed d2 then you need to make a solid case against me since I voted for Mocsta first and originated the case against Trotske.
|
On January 18 2013 00:52 zarepath wrote:
There will be 8 of us by the start of D3, assuming mafia get a kill through (seems likely). There may have been up to 4 mafia max (I can't see more than 4), considering how certain Mocsta was that there were most likely 3 mafia. We did have a vigilante, and it's a 13 person game, so I am going to operate on the assumption that there are still potentially 3 mafia left.
With 5 town and 3 mafia, if we mislynch D3 we're end-gamed, no? We'd start D4 with an even 3-3 split, and although theoretically 3 town could immediately all vote for a mafia and reach plurality first, there was a similar possibility for a 1-1 D4 in Newbie Mafia XXXIV and we simply just lost after our mislynch.
So I think it's possible that we HAVE to get this next lynch correct. I will go looking around to see how common it is for there to be 4 mafia in a 13 person game.
If there were 4 scum in this game, Mocsta would not have been lynched yesterday. If all night actions go through unimpeded, we will be 6-2 or 4-2-1 (or 5-1-1, lol) tomorrow.
|
The more I look at how the votes went down yesterday, the more I am convinced that we threw a big wrench in the scumteam's plans and that the remaining scum team lies outside of the Mocsta voters. At least one of them is among the final Trotske voters. I think this is obvious, but in case it's not: it would be counter-productive for scum to split their vote 3 ways. Maybe they would split 2-1 to evade suspicion, in which case the 1 vote would be either on Mocsta (ballsy move I don't believe in, but still possible at say.. 5% rate) or Jacob/Laguerta.
Following this reasoning, and assuming the scum team were 3 to start with (standard setup, + if they were 4 they'd have had an easier time consolidating), this leaves us the following options:
FoSes, in order of suspiciousness (is that even a word?):
1. zarepath
zarepath played a similar game to Mocsta on day 1, although slightly less active and obvious. He started by giving us some general advice on how to play a good town game, that's nice but he never actually participated in the discussions that he advocated. He was not much active day 2, but since the lynch his activity has picked up.
Coincidentally, his style of posting now is strikingly similar to the late Mocsta's: posting lots of raw data without analysis and bullshit cases founded on farfetched conjectures.
I don't have time to make a case against him for now and I don't really expect to survive the night, so if I can't get to his case before biting it, I urge town to look long and hard at zarepath's filter and see if there's a case to be made. IMO there is one just based on his n2 posts.
2. Spaghetticus
I don't like the fact that he stated he did not care which of zebezt or trotske got lynched. He promises to step his game up next day and I intend to hold him to that promise.
3. Zebezt
Aside from my day 1 case on him, I don't like how he is still tunneling Jacob for laguerta's play.
Side note, speculation: If we have a confirmed SK in the game at any point, he is my primary suspect.
4. JacobStrangeLove
Right now, he's all promises. My FoS is very weak and based solely on his no-lynch vote. Might as well be a null read, BUT since I still believe everyone who hasn't voted for Mocsta to be a suspect, he's there.
|
On January 18 2013 01:17 zarepath wrote:
You say Mocsta wouldn't have been lynched because all 4 mafia would have voted for Trotske? That would look mighty suspicious, but it would save a Godfather. I can understand that. My first game of mafia had 4 mafia out of 13 people, so I still think it' s a possibility (although I concede that 3 mafia seems much more likely.)
I don't know how the three possibilities are 6-2 or 4-2-1 (or 5-1-1)... those don't add up. I think the strongest possibility is 6-2 right now, with a possibility for 5-3.
If we have an SK in the game and he kills tonight, then it's 4-2-1 or 5-1-1
|
On January 18 2013 01:49 zarepath wrote:
I should think that me being Mocsta's #1 scum target during N1, when he thinks he has control of town, in addition to his constant following-up on his case of me with multiple other people during D2, should clear me.
It does not. The only person who is cleared in my mind is the person that scum actively tried to lynch d2. Mocsta played a good game as GF so I do not doubt that he included his own teammates in his bullshit cases.
The fact that he gave an almost positive town read on you later in the day definitely does not clear you.
Noted, and this will definitely factor in my case on Spag.
You're entitled to thinking my N2 contributions are scummy, but it's still a lot more helpful of a contribution than over half of town has contributed over N2. My reads are more of myself thinking out loud trying to reason things through -- it's true they're hypothetical, but they outline each possibility and illustrate why I think each person is worth scrutiny.
I haven't reviewed your filter in detail yet, but I will get to it.
|
On January 18 2013 02:54 zebezt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 00:57 Acid~ wrote:On January 18 2013 00:36 zebezt wrote:
I'm sorry Acid,
regarding your point:
It seems farfetched to me, but is possible.
However if you also consider that Mocsta in D2 said he was 100% sure that Laguerta was scum, yet he would not vote for him, then it makes less sense.
The move you linked to was aimed at making the person doing look like town. When Mocsta named Laguerta scum but did not vote for him, this made Mocsta look scummy.
My reasoning is actually quite simple. It would be farfetched if everyone in this game was in fact a newbie and we did not have coaches. However, that isn't the case. Also, while I believe this was their plan at the start, I think they saw a juicier plan on day 2 which would both lynch a townie, discredit me and clear Mocsta by association. Aside from Sn0_Man who made his own case, the Trotske voters all cited my case against him as the reason for their vote. Yet, as you know, I did not vote for Trotske in my own case. I think that scum saw an opportunity there to make me appear scummy: I post a case but don't vote, others vote, Trotske flips town - who looks scummy now? Making me appear scummy discredits my case on Mocsta by association and it's Christmas in scumland with no one left to oppose Mocsta's endgame play. Simple, efficient. You know what *is* farfetched? The ridiculous notion that scum would double-bus on day 2 after orchestrating a double-mislynch on day 1. They had no reason to bus, let alone double-bus. Especially since I'm the one who pulled the trigger on Mocsta. If you say that scum double-bussed d2 then you need to make a solid case against me since I voted for Mocsta first and originated the case against Trotske. I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean with double bus? Was that aimed at me? I have no beef with you. I just want Jacob voted off.
No, forget about the double-bus thing. Just make a real case on Jacob if you want him lynched. Not a case on laguerta. A case on Jacob. You can't analyze laguerta's play because there is no way to know if he was trolling/bored/scum.
Make a real case on Jacob and we will discuss it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
