|
On January 16 2013 17:45 zebezt wrote:
@Spaghetticus: You were the most active player during your last game. You seem to post significantly less now. Why the change of playstyle?
[b].
@Zebest
Several reasons.
Firstly, my prolific post-count has been getting me ignored. I often find when suspicion is placed upon me, I am unable to defend myself because even though my words are logical, there have been far too many of them and people become desensitized and unable to differentiate the important from the unimportant. I have made a meta-decision to remain in the top posters of content, but to take the post-count back a notch.
Secondly, I am having difficulty getting a feel this game. Usually I have two more days to wrap my head around who people are and how they act. The content of this game is low for a lot of players and I'm finding it difficult to tell the lurkers apart.
Thirdly, a lot of people are asking for reads on me, but don't seem interested in asking me questions. While I understand that both:
a) you are asking me a question now
and
b) good town should not need to be prompted into action
The interaction component is not there, and this slows my input.
Fourthly, real world problems. I am having massive oversleeping issue (sleeping 12 hours a day uninterrupted), and spend two hours at the gym almost everyday (though not today). I have less time in the day than I normally would, and so the number of posts goes down.
+ Show Spoiler +I realise that I totally overdid my answer, it was a pretty minimalist question
|
##Unvote: Acid
Well done, I will now read your case 
|
What I think of Acid's case.
(in bullet points)
(1) - I think Trotske's attempt to hinder overt aggression comes off as town. In a game where everyone is experienced would say the opposite, but a big part of getting reads is allowing people to speak, and the aggro was preventing this as a result of people not being used to it.
(2) - His quality and quantity is not up to scratch, and his attacks on other people for their low quality/quantity, is hypocritical, but not scummy. If you take away a lurker's ability to call out other lurkers, you are basically limiting their options for input. This is not good if you want lurkers to step up.
(3) - His case on Sn0 is bullshit from a current perspective, but may not have been terrible fro the time he posted. I don't really want to backtrack that hard into the thread but I will if Trotske's lynch develops, in which case I will need to know where I stand.
(4) - his indecision is scummy in an experienced game, but is also normal for a lot of newbies. I think we should pressure him to make real decisions so he can't backflip, but shouldn't read too much into it unless he continues.
(5) - in regard to his FoS on me. I can only think that he has some idea of my meta, and that I did not meet those expectations. He was right in that I over-reacted, as it was only a FoS. I think instead of a FoS he should have pointed out my single-mindedness and asked me to contribute in a way he can appreciate, but w/e. I understand that if you don't value lurkerbeating, then my contributions would look pretty small.
Other than the five point above I am pretty much in full agreement with your case. Good work. I was already fairly convinced just from his general lack of output (LAL). He's already on my 'dar, and he's already under pressure. I don't think I will vote to lynch him just yet, as with him already pressured, it's my job to pull the next lurker up by the ears, and I'll need my vote threat to do that.
|
Just an update. I have ruled out voting for everyone but the people on this list:
Shz
Zebezt
Trotske
Zarepath
Presence on this list does not mean I have looked into your happenings, it just means I have not eliminated you from my possible lynches yet. If everyone on this list proves themselves then I will draw up a new, more inclusive list.
|
Okay so after trawling filters, Zarepath and Shz have committed to more hard stances than either Zebezt or Trotske. There is still time to change this, but both Zabezt and Trotske are now on my short-list.
@Trostske
I sincerely apologise for reacting to your FoS on me the way I did. Please do not let this discourage you from posting as much as you can. I was wrong to do this, I misread the FoS as something more than it was meant to be.
@Zebezt
I appreciate the etiquette, but you need to drop the kiddie gloves and come out swinging bare knuckle. While shit slinging can be detrimental if it outlives it's usefulness, being too nice makes everyone think you are manipulative. Most people have ingrained heuristics to target nice people, and for a very good reason. In XXXIII I was the nice guy who just wanted town to get along and work together. I was lynched day one, and have since reverted to the asshole internet persona you see before you. I regret that being nice seems to hurt town, but if you wanna play mafia you just need to accept it and move on.
The both of you need to take some hard positions that town can work with in order to read you.
|
##Vote: Zebezt
You are both equal in my eyes, but Trotske is already coming under fire, so I thought I would exert pressure on you instead. The onus is now on you to improve your play beyond Trotske's, and preferably beyond that of Shz and Zare.
I am hoping that some action happens soon. I have difficulty keeping track of the different times and not, but I believe the lynch is in Approx 12 hours? This will likely mean more abusive sleeping patterns for me, but I will attempt to be awake three hours prior to the deadline to try and control the lynch. I suggest you all do the same if possible.
|
I will assume you are town and give you some tips to help us. If you make a nice case on someone that will count as contribution and get figuring out who to vote for out of the way. You need to:
1) - Have a vote on someone and a reason why. If you sheep (sheep:// verb meaning to follow someone else's reasoning without contributing, not a spell of polymorph  ) your vote will not count as contribution or taking a hard stance. It is the way of scum to not take hard positions on things, and sheeping is really the absence of a position.
2) - Evaluate the cases against other people who's heads are on the block. You are not looking to simply vote anyone but you, you are trying to establish yourself as town, as well as land a scum lynch. If you manage to survive today but have not contributed any real thought, your head will be on the block tomorrow and we will have to repeat. Having to spend time on hunting lazy town hurts only town. Your number one priority is to establish your innocence, and this is achieved by hunting scum and contributing thoughts.
I would go through your filter and force you to contribute by asking you specific questions, but this would effectively kill Troske. Other than you being likable, I currently have no reason to value you over Troske and so I offer only general tips that apply to you both.
|
Ah Mocsta, welcome back. I was sick of mumbling to myself (though I'm off to bed soon).
I know you love to build suspense, but could you please release some details of who you are planning a case on? It's more time efficient for me since I'm about to hit the sack, I can stop doing sweet fuck all now and start evaluating their input without your influence. I'll have a good idea of where my thoughts lie, and can read your case in the morning.
|
//facepalm
...Mocsta...
I appreciate the effort... I really do, but really? I haven't given it the attention it deserves yet, but a brief overview was all I needed to see more wishful conditionals than a new earth creationism convention. I'm going to bed.
Note to newbies struggling for content: tear this case down.
|
##Unvote: Zebezt
##Vote: Trotske
|
Oh wow... NICE! While there was no way I was voting for Mocsta day two, I can step back and admit when I'm wrong. This worked out well. Hitting the Godfather first is also a biggy, as a Godfather would normally be the one playing for end-game.
Book-keeping: Why did Spag quick-switch?
Let's ignore the fact that I was blatantly wrong not to vote for Mocsta for just a second. Recall that I was:
(1) - Going to lynch one of the lurkiest players
(2) - Was going to wake up in order to control the lynch
(3) - Had already short-listed Zebezt and Troske
When I woke up at 10:00, I believe there was Acid and I on Zebezt, two on Mocsta, and two on Troske. Now, while I did not want Mocsta lynched, I did not particularly care who got lynched between Zebezt and Troske. At two votes each, I could leave it at 2/2/2, or exercise my influence on the vote, and make it 3/2/1 making it significantly less likely that Mocsta got voted.
While I was wrong, and glad I was was, as Mocsta making power plays end-game with no fear of being inspected could pretty much instawin scum the game, my reasoning is the same as pretty much every other day one/two lynch I've ever done. I don't get my first choice of lynch because I don't wield that much influence, so I need to settle for going for the next best thing: protecting the people I consider more catchable/valuable end-game.
Acid is absolutely correct to expect me to step up and start taking names, the time has truly passed for LAL. I will note that I have a commitment to my Mother to go down to my hometown and supervise some Youth reachout gig at 5pm tomorrow for an unspecified amount of time. I don't have a license and the public transport is terrifyingly bad, often taking a lot longer than it should. This will hinder my contribution somewhat, but should not be too big of a deal. I will reallocate my time spent on rousing lurkers to making cases.
I'm going to go and gorge on lasagna and cider to celebrate, this is a big win peops!
|
The lists are useful as you said Jacob. I have already found the first one useful in adjusting my read of Mocsta's JK claim, and you have noted finding at least one useful in your catchup. I have argued the utility of lists, and I can do it again, but I think for the sake of keeping the thread clear I should just give you my conclusion, which is that posting lists is not scummy if the info is useful and the 'perpetrator' does not limit his contribution to lists. It is town play that is too easy to gain towncred for, but is helpful to town so the presence of lists alone should not be pinging your scumdar.
Your point about his small filter is already a known.
Transport has been resolved for my commitment tomorrow, so it shouldn't be too big an obstacle to my continued contribution. I'm going to go to the gym and think. I'll try and pursue my reads when I get back in 2-3 hours.
|
@Jacob
Some of Mocsta's words were undoubtedly intention, while some were used to conceal his machinations.
This
So we pick the parts of his thought process that are conveniant to your theory and ignore the rest?
Presumes that his words were either all fluff or all intention, which is very unlikely.
Theorizing as to which parts were intention and which bits were fluff is sort of all we can do.
|
@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.
|
Okay there have been some developments, seemingly a lot of them on me. I have limited time (two hours before I need to be at the bus-stop), so I'm going to quickly draw your attention to my position and the posts that support it. I will be gone for at least 9 hours, finishing just before midnight, meaning when I do get back my contribution will be limited due to sleep. Once I awaken, I'm hoping my mother has better internet than she used to as it was unstable last time I was there. I should definitely be back to posting full strength by the the last half of Day Two.
My Day Two Voting Explanation Post
+ Show Spoiler +Book-keeping: Why did Spag quick-switch?
Let's ignore the fact that I was blatantly wrong not to vote for Mocsta for just a second. Recall that I was:
(1) - Going to lynch one of the lurkiest players
(2) - Was going to wake up in order to control the lynch
(3) - Had already short-listed Zebezt and Troske
When I woke up at 10:00, I believe there was Acid and I on Zebezt, two on Mocsta, and two on Troske. Now, while I did not want Mocsta lynched, I did not particularly care who got lynched between Zebezt and Troske. At two votes each, I could leave it at 2/2/2, or exercise my influence on the vote, and make it 3/2/1 making it significantly less likely that Mocsta got voted.
While I was wrong, and glad I was was, as Mocsta making power plays end-game with no fear of being inspected could pretty much instawin scum the game, my reasoning is the same as pretty much every other day one/two lynch I've ever done. I don't get my first choice of lynch because I don't wield that much influence, so I need to settle for going for the next best thing: protecting the people I consider more catchable/valuable end-game.
Acid is absolutely correct to expect me to step up and start taking names, the time has truly passed for LAL. I will note that I have a commitment to my Mother to go down to my hometown and supervise some Youth reachout gig at 5pm tomorrow for an unspecified amount of time. I don't have a license and the public transport is terrifyingly bad, often taking a lot longer than it should. This will hinder my contribution somewhat, but should not be too big of a deal. I will reallocate my time spent on rousing lurkers to making cases.
I'm going to go and gorge on lasagna and cider to celebrate, this is a big win peops!
I believe it was Zarepath who complained that I hadn't justified my actions (It might have been Acid). This was wrong. My justification is strong, and I believe that if I had acted any other way I would have been acting to the detriment of Town (with the information available). I have done similar moves in previous games, and given the same scenario I would do the same again.
Someone stated they didn't like me saying I didn't care who died between Zebezt and Trotske. At the time I had equal reads on both, and they are still on my 'dar with the addition of JSL. I really didn't care which one was lynched, I think narrowing my scope down to two people is sufficient. I never have the confidence in my scum reads others seem to have (yes I'm talking about previous games), I am known for my cautious scum reads, and voting for reasons other than tunneling the one person. I believe Shz or Zarepath can give you the meta-read.
The interplay between myself and Mocsta was more cautious than normal. We just threw away XXXIV with in-fighting between Mocsta and myself, his jabs throughout the entirety of that game being damnright nasty. That he approached me with what I interpreted as some composed humour this time around was a relief. I wanted Mocsta around day Three, as I didn't think there was any chance of him slipping past us if he were scum come day three. I mean, could you honestly see him surviving given that last big case? At the time I voted, I had skimmed over it the night before, given some denunciation to make sure that it didn't gain traction in the eyes of some of the newer players, and went to sleep. When I voted in the morning, I voted without rereading the case (it was even worse than what I thought), switched my vote to improve the chances of me getting my way, and went straight back to sleep. I don't know if I would have switched my vote to Mocsta if I had reread the case, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.
---
Two out of my three biggest town-reads died in the night: Sn0 and Omni. This leaves only Shz as confirmed town in my eyes. There is no way that he would make the hammer vote on Mocsta if he were scum, the bus was too unnecessary. The only way Shz is scum is if Trotske is also scum. That way, Shz was choosing which of his buddies to lynch, not whether to lynch one of his buddies. If Trotske flips town, Shz is confirmed town 100% no question.
Of who I think is scum, I think at least one is hiding among Trotske, Zebezt, and JSL. I'm leaning towards Trotske in this position based off Mocsta's erratic behaviour. Town was in a bad position prior to Mocsta's lynch, three deaths in one cycle is bad. Why would Mocsta act so erratic if there wasn't another scum on the chopping block? If there was only town up for killing, all he had to do was play consistently and we would dig ourselves an even deeper hole. Instead he stepped up and made a bizarre case against a strongly confirmed town.
Scum are more than capable of bussing their buddies, but why would Mocsta take such massive risks to protect someone that was town? It looks to me as if he was making a distraction to try and destabilize the vote on a buddy.
Voting Troske now also has the benefit of establishing Shz as 100% town if he does flip green, and gives us a strong lead on a third scum if he flips red.
##Vote: Trotske
I will be open to discussion when I get back, but I need to start packing and make my way to the bus-stop.
|
I see Jacob is setting up to bendwagon me. I don't have time to respond, but please appraise his post critically in my absence. Goodluck.
|
Okay guys this isn’t acceptable. I was tied down with family things, and while that is regrettable, it was also unavoidable and unforeseeable. What have you done since I left? Agreed that I haven’t done enough and shamelessly bandwagoned me one after another.
I am absolutely fireoutmyfuckingfingers FURIOUS at the family drama and little brats squealing to One Direction I’ve been dealing with for the last 24 hours, so I apologise in advance for any hurt feelings.
I’m going to try and keep it reasonable, I really just want to go to bed but don’t want to hand this game away. I’ll now go through the somewhat dull two pages of filter that I missed out on.
|
@ Zebezt
"Too scummy to be scum" play happens all the time, and if they are not LALed they generally persist until the endgame. Nobody wants to waste a vote on someone that is THAT stupid.
|
Zarepath
I like lists, I’m glad to see a fellow enthusiast. But should we let our hobbies get in the way of being the extraordinary citizens we aspire to? NO. Your contributions since the lynch have been posting lists, riding my wagon and posting half-hearted reads.
+ Show Spoiler +
Spag
Before Spag, in the beginning, there was Bringaniga, one of the few people that Mocsta was relatively silent on. If I recall correctly, Mocsta even soft-defended Bringaniga, telling people to lay off until we saw what he produced.
Upon Spag's entrance, not much interaction except for Mocsta's enormous "FU" (twice) to him, to which Spag responded fairly meekly. So while Spag was critical of Mocsta, it almost seemed a token resistance, while Mocsta's response was very dramatic but didn't draw an equal response from Spag. If you compound that with Spag's vague criticism of Mocsta's case (after it was clear nobody liked it), and then Spag's voting behavior D2, I can see a Spag scum.
Your ‘deep’ analysis into the interaction between myself and Mocsta is wind. Me and Mocsta were playing our third game in a row, the previous two of which we had both rolled town and Mocsta got my arse mislynched both games. Last game he was absolutely fucking brutal in his smear campaign, and this game it looked like he was going to let me get to day three without calling the lynch squad on me. I was confident that Mocsta would be caught if he was scum, as his play is transparent due to his posting style. There was no need for me to gun him except when he fucked up.
Why would Mocsta not come at me?
Maybe because he knows that drawing the attention of someone who had played two games with him previously would get him spotted?
Maybe he knows that when he comes at me, he knows that he comes off worse due to his arguments being smears, and mine being based on formal logic?
Maybe he was planning on having me killed soon and didn’t want to encourage me to speak up on him?
Maybe he wanted me to look bad by deliberately scumming our interactions?
I don’t know precisely what goes through Mocsta’s head, but I think he knew there was no way he would stay alive come late game if I was in the game. I’ve been watching his style, and he mine. While the kill on Mocsta was massive, it was a day or two earlier than it would have been (at most), and he’s managed to throw town into disarray regardless of the timing. Can you not see why I wanted him around longer? Without me and Mocsta pushing, this thread has died and town has stagnated.
That you implicated Shz here:
+ Show Spoiler +
Shz
The only times Shz and Mocsta really interact with each other is during N1 directly after Mocsta's hammer on Mandalor. Shz eventually calls it off by saying "whatever," and his questioning wasn't incredibly insightful. I can see a Mafia QT realizing that Mocsta would be the final vote on Mandalor and say, "One of us should be the first to call Mocsta out on it." This, of course, is hypothetical. But note Mocsta later calling Shz his "prime interrogator" a day later, when Shz hasn't interrogated him on anything since. Why is Shz his prime interrogator when others are pressuring Mocsta much more? My thought is perhaps that was a staged interaction that Mocsta is relying on to break associations.
The main problem with this FoS is the fact that Shz was the final vote that brought Mocsta down. Even if this were a choice between two fellow mafia (Mocsta and Trotske, hypothetically), I don't understand why mafia would rather lynch their godfather than a non-godfather (unless it is a RBer and they consider that more useful; although nobody claimed RB N1 but Mocsta, so the likelihood of this goes down).
So his vote certainly makes this a weaker FoS, but he is one of the few people that Mocsta let get away free for much of the game.
Is… ridiculous. Shz is town, why would he be in your top-reads? Do you read anyone, ANYONE, as more town than Shz? If not, why would you mention Shz? If so, who and why?
Next: JSL
+ Show Spoiler +
Mocsta was after Mandalor for much of Day 1, and voted for Mandalor before he voted for Laguerta before switching back to Mandalor. Is it conceivable that Mocsta was bandwagon bussing Laguerta, seeing as how poorly he was performing, and then switched back to Mandalor when the opportunity was there?
Compounding this are Mocsta's reads that he's 100% sure that Laguerta was mafia, but that we shouldn't vote for him; we should vote for Trotske, who was defending Laguerta. (When Trotske flips town, perhaps that will then clear Laguerta?) Others have mentioned this, but only scum know 100% that another scum is scum. He has also called Laguerta a bad townie, showing his stance on him isn't exactly constant. (Which could be true of mafia's stance on any townie, however.)
Compounding this is Laguerta/Jacob's vote for NO ONE Day 2, which makes sense in the circumstances, but also allows him some convenient escape from having to answer for his vote while also not voting for Mocsta.
What are you even saying because I’m not even sure I understand you anymore? Why would you think that Mocsta (a 100% Mafia) would give a 100% read on someone truthfully? Is that what you are saying? How is it not what you are saying? Why thefuckonearth would Mocsta mention another scum in such a way as to draw any attention to them whatsoever?
+ Show Spoiler +Mocsta's first mention of Spag -- defending his list post from Trotske: ________________________________________ On January 15 2013 11:39 Mocsta wrote________________________________________ Personally. I found his attempt at a re-cap: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#580to be the most impartial analysis of the Day1 events. Most people that tried to summarise, had the perception skewed towards their goals.. (e.g. Shz with me.. and Sn0_man with Trotske etc etc). Hence.. I found this post useful, I'm surprised you dont care to mention it as a meaningful contribution?
Further on in the same post, he gives more defense and a soft town read on Spag as he encourages Spag to target lurkers. Note that he claims that Spag's LAL posts include "original thought":
I did have original thought. Part of having original thoughts is looking for them in places others have not drained dry.
+ Show Spoiler +
@OmniEulogy and to a lesser extent Zarepath
Omni you seem to have taken something on board from my defense of Corazon in XXXIII, and Zare you seem to be sheeping the sentiment.
(1) - On day one there was no resistance to a lynch on Laguerta.
(2) - If Laguerta were scum, his scum buddies would be worried and try and make another bandwagon
(C) - Laguerta is not scum.
This mirrors my argument in defense of Corazon precisely, though this may not have been causal. I was wrong in making that argument because Corazon was scum and he was being bussed day one. I wasn't incorrect in thinking that at this skill level people are too thick to bus day one, but I did make a massive error which my good friend DP (he is actually my friend in RL and the reason I started play mafia, he is not my good friend because he coaches scum) was so nice as to point out. DP told me:
"I was coaching scum and told them to bus Corazon"
You see how my theorycrafting failed to take into account that there was a certain level of organisation created by a scum coach being an active participant in both the scum QT, and exerting control via personal messages? If a scum is being bandwagoned hardcore day one, the coach will tell the other scum to let natural selection take its course. I am not going to make a case or vote yet, as I have only read up to [22], but I don't want you thinking for a second that just because Laguerta had seven votes that he is not scum.
+ Show Spoiler +
(3) - OmniEulogy is confirmed town. He has changed his meta from scummy to actual pro-town. This is a read from a more complex dialogue outside of the game, but put simply:
- he has played deliberately scummy in previous games in order to give himself room to work with when he actually rolls scum
- I warned him that while I have been avoiding him in game I had decided to tunnel him as I could no longer take the bullshit, along as communicating several reasons for why a better player would play to the best of their ability every game
- He improved his style when he did not need to. I was not in the game to tunnel him, and if he rolled scum he would have had three games worth of established scummy play to work with, all but guaranteeing him a scum victory if he rolled scum.
If he rolled scum he would be under zero pressure to change his style and we would be looking at a clusterfuck of WIFOM and OMGUS instead of the rational play he is demonstrating.
+ Show Spoiler +
@Mocsta.
I am certain that Oats killed Glurio. He asked several probing question to town about whether they were suspicious of Glurio. It looks to me as if he wanted to hit the lurker that was garnering the lest attention, and I think he was right in doing so.
These are all things I say first. I fucking changed your mind on Laguerta being confirmed town. How do I do that by repeating posts?
On top of this shit you post you go on to talk about reaction scales between myself and the MocFather. This is garbage based on the super-scientific art of Tunneling like a wombat. There is nothing wrong with applying pressure, but this is wasting time. I’ll take this back if a single person comes forward and agrees that your step by heart-throbbing step analysis to our interaction is useful in confirming their opinion of me.
+ Show Spoiler +Further on in the same post, he gives more defense and a soft town read on Spag as he encourages Spag to target lurkers. Note that he claims that Spag's LAL posts include "original thought": ________________________________________ On January 15 2013 11:39 Mocsta wrote: @Trotske Spaghetticus identified you as as a low post count, low quality contributer. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#570You have reciprocated by saying he is only targetting lurkers, and therefore he is a cause for concern. Why would this behaviour be scummy motivated? ________________________________________ @Spaghetticus I want to see more from you. I think coming in as a replacement and providing a through summary - that includes original thought is a good sign of your alignment. However, we are now in Day2, and I am going to be watching your actions carefully. Its easy to say you are targeting lurkers, but I want to see this followed through. Actions need to speak louder than words. I ask that you begin to lead the discussions on one your identified scummy-ish lurkers. i.e. ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Now, the next time he interacts with Spag (directly or indirectly), it's quite different: ________________________________________ On January 15 2013 13:30 Mocsta wrote: ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ [Let me clear my system] Go fuck yourself.. (thats for you antagonizing me constantly in Newbie 34 I have spent the whole Night1 under the gun, and explaining my actions. And you come into the thread and say im scumming the thread up.. + Show Spoiler + [System cleared] ________________________________________ ________________________________________ This was Mocsta's second mention of Spag, and it's QUITE strong. Note Spag's soft town claim of Mocsta mixed with a criticism, within quotes. Note that while Mocsta strongly rejects Spag's criticism of him, he doesn't call HIM out for being overly critical of active townies and suggest he's scum, as Mocsta did with Oats and Acid and Zarepath and Shz (although this was mostly implied). When someone responds with an enormous "FU," twice, to your criticism of them, what's the appropriate reaction? It's apparently to not call him scummy: ________________________________________ On January 15 2013 13:43 Spaghetticus wrote: WTF RLY? How does ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ elicit a response like ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ I want you to be active, but cut the crap. Are you so certain that the entirety of your contribution is crap that in order to cut said crap you must stop posting? I want you there on day three because you are active, and if you are scum you will slip as a result. If you downgrade your activity I will shit on you for motivated lurking. It is clear that I want you to stop wasting time being a victim, and I am not the only person with these thoughts. You are not responsible for other people lurking, but you are responsible for hiding their posts with tirades of self-pitying crap. ________________________________________ I read disproportionate reactions from these two to each other, both in relation to what the other person said and in relation to their normal reactions to others in the game. This post (mine, here) does not even attempt to go into Spag's endorsement of Mocsta's case on me, or his voting behavior, or lack of cases on who the other 2 scum are. (Really, if he were actually going after scum, he would ASSUME I were scum, because if he supposedly knows he's not scum, then he has to assume that I was backing Mocsta up by voting for Trotske. Where is Spag's case on me? Shouldn't I be the most obvious scum to him if he's NOT scum? NO, instead he has a convoluted case which main goal is to confirm someone town.) I post this now because I think people are overlooking the importance of analyzing his interactions with the one person we KNOW to have been scum.
The thing about Mocsta that you seem to forget is that while he self-destructed this game, he is not and idiot, and he WAS SCUM when all of these interactions occurred. I pulled Mocsta up when I thought he was wrong. Every read you have on me from interactions with him is based on post-hoc reasoning that for some reason assumes his intention was innocent when HE WAS THE MOTHERFUCKING GODFATHER.
+ Show Spoiler +
Contradictions in Spag's defense and case of Trotske
________________________________________
On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote:
The interplay between myself and Mocsta was more cautious than normal. We just threw away XXXIV with in-fighting between Mocsta and myself, his jabs throughout the entirety of that game being damnright nasty. That he approached me with what I interpreted as some composed humour this time around was a relief.
________________________________________
Mocsta's composed humour to Spag:
________________________________________
On January 15 2013 13:30 Mocsta wrote:
[Let me clear my system]
Go fuck yourself.. (thats for you antagonizing me constantly in Newbie 34
I have spent the whole Night1 under the gun, and explaining my actions. And you come into the thread and say im scumming the thread up..
+ Show Spoiler +
[System cleared]
________________________________________
There's some dissonance between how Spag just described Mocsta's interactions with him in his defense, and how Mocsta ACTUALLY interacted with him.
Other contradiction: Spag's number one town read:
________________________________________
On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote:
Two out of my three biggest town-reads died in the night: Sn0 and Omni. This leaves only Shz as confirmed town in my eyes...
If Trotske flips town, Shz is confirmed town 100% no question...
...Voting Troske now also has the benefit of establishing Shz as 100% town if he does flip green, and gives us a strong lead on a third scum if he flips red.
________________________________________
Note that of his three strongest town reads, two just died, and he's so certain of his other town read that he wants to go confirm him town by lynching someone(?). Again, disproportionate responses. And again, if he were actually looking for scum, he'd be all over my filter because I was the other person to vote with Mocsta, and surely SOME other mafia would have voted with Mocsta to defend him, right?
What the shit are you speaking? How is my description not apt? If you think Mocsta was in any way antagonising me you are dead fucking wrong. When Mocsta comes at me he comes at me with Ad Hom in the left hand and an aids corrupted needle in the other. He was posturing to defend himself without starting war.
As for the reads on Omni and Sn0, this was no big claim. Omni WAS on my town list and I came under fire for saying so. Sn0 was very obviously town once he came out of lurker phase, and of you read any different then you are desperately bad at mafia. Shz is confirmed town based on his actions pertaining to Mocsta’s death. These were all knowns to me. Wouldn’t a mafia try and throw their town read out before the guys dies, then reap the benefits? Why would I CHOOSE as a mafia to let someone die, and then call them a strong town read, when I would have the power to do better? This was a small explanatory claim for me, the state of the game was changing faster than my understanding of it, making it difficult to make strong reads of quality.
You keep saying this word: disproportionate responses. It appears to me that every time I want to DO something it is a disproportionate response, and every time I don’t I am lurking and breaking promises.
|
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. Note that Spag was one of the only people to really back Mocsta's case on me, and while he did so, he defended Mocsta from Sn0: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=35#698You'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.
And what the fuck is this? Let’s disregard the horrible start logic, the bit in the middle where he says I defended Mocsta from Sn0:
I can’t even remember backing a case on you by Mocsta, though I imagine I had reason. The bit I’m really interested in is the link, and your description of it: “he defended Mocsta from Sn0”
In what way was the post you linked implicating me in anything? I was FUCKING RIGHT. Look how dead this thread is. You are being a moron. I am allowed to acknowledge the good someone does in order to further my already transparent agenda. The fact that he later flipped red (accompanied by the thread shuddering to a grinding halt) is irrelevant and your conclusion that I am scum because I was insightful is non-sequitur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
