EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXV - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
On January 12 2013 13:36 laguerta wrote: 1) If I dont have a strong mafia read on someone by the end of the day, I will feel compelled to policy lynch and not waste a day with a NL. 2) I think scum would try to get influence by offering bits of analysis but not taking a strong lead on lynching someone until someone else does first, and then supporting that lynch and bandwagonning. 3) I know dude, we have an open pool with no screen around it and I have to skim it every day, and vacuum every other day. Such a bitch. and then proceeds to vote no-lynch. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
On January 14 2013 11:43 Sn0_Man wrote: Admittedly, I've been pretty inactive. Lets just way weekends aren't when I anticipate putting a lot of effort into Mafia. Monday morning I'll finish reading the thread, but for now, Mocsta has done very little to foster a townie atmosphere while working far too hard to throw in subliminal townie claims for my liking. Such as... proof 1 proof 2 proof 3 proof 4... If you had made this case during N1 instead of at the very end of D1... well... you didn't make a case but... I think it would have suited you much better. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
##Unvote | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:35 Mocsta wrote: WTF... you have been lurking this whole time. and now I name you,. you post... This is pretty good timing... lol | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
I don't like the constant vote jumping. Or pulling off Laguerta after jumping around so much. It makes me think you know who the townies are and have been testing to see which wagon sticks. That confidence in nailing Zebezt is bothering me too... I'm biased with my thinking past thing point. Don't wanna screw with anybody else I'll explain it after the lynch. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
 | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
Mandalor (3) - Trotske, glurio, Mocsta, Mocsta, Oatsmaster Laguerta (2) - Mandalor, Shz, Mocsta, Zarepath, Oatsmaster, OmniEulogy, glurio zebezt (2) - Acid~, Oatsmaster Oatsmaster (2) - zarepath, OmniEuology, Mocsta Sn0_Man (1) - Zebezt, Trotske, Mocsta Mocsta (1) - Sn0_Man, Oatsmaster bringaniga (0) - shz, Oatsmaster, Mandalor, Laguerta shz (0) - OmniEulogy Acid~ (0) - Zarepath, OmniEulogy No-Lynch (1) - Laguerta My case on OatsMaster. I was trying to write this up with 20 minutes left during D1, couldn't find the right words / was too pressured and feel like I left it unfinished. I want to explain why I voted for him, my thoughts behind it and why I believe it still makes sense after this lynch. I'll start off at the very beginning, his strange approach to the start of the game. + Show Spoiler + On January 13 2013 00:52 Oatsmaster wrote: Mocsta stop being useless and repeating what other people have already said. On January 13 2013 00:55 Oatsmaster wrote: Question 1. How does a yes/no question start discussion? Thats right, it doesnt. Question 2. How is that relevant in a game of Newbies where everyone is just trying to provide an answer that may not be accurate. Question 3. Please dont mention pool. Again. Instead of answering any of the questions, he deflects them and then becomes defensive, saying "2. I really dont want to answer that. Because I dont think my answer will help town in any way." after being asked about it again. He still refuses to discuss how scum would possibly go about playing this game. I highly doubt it's because he thinks they will use his idea's. I believe it is because he doesn't want us to know how he is going to play scum. This is speculation but should be taken into consideration. Especially considering the massive double standard he sets when accusing Mocsta in the early D1 hours. He attacks Mocsta for asking a question that could potentially be a yes/no question. NOBODY would answer Mocsta's question with a yes/no and get away with it, I don't believe its a town mindset to answer questions like Mocsta's with yes/no answers. Then we have this. + Show Spoiler + On January 13 2013 19:16 Oatsmaster wrote: Turning around and calling him scum for everything he's posted though without any real facts I really dont know what real facts your need to have before you lynch. A scumslip? You leave both of those open to 1 word answers. Just in case you don't know... Hypocrisy: Noun Do you think that Mocsta would answer those with 1 word? Exactly. Its all about context. That's a hard one... not answering questions and getting so defensive to the point of making a terrible case How was I defensive? I didnt even see the FoS before I posted the case as I mentioned above. Ok Omni, What scum reads do you have? He talks about not having any facts before a D1 lynch which is complete bullshit. As we found out there were many things to take into consideration during our D1 lynch. Next up, asks Mocsta two Yes/No questions. Gets Extremely defensive about doing it and says its about context. Wrong. Mocsta could have just as easily answered yes/no and been asked a ton of follow up questions, he didn't because it would be a dumb thing to do, just like the opening questions which Oats never answered fully. Lastly (and for the 2nd time this game) He asks for somebody elses reads after barely answering any concerns about him and deflecting. He claims scumslip but in reality He's already said "let me tell you why you are scum" to Mocsta. That confidence... with no facts he sure does know what alignment people are. "Also, with your current level of activity, and the way you defended yourself. ##Unvote HOWEVER I really dont like the way you are going around buddying everybody and keep referring to yourself as an excellent town player. " He backs off Mocsta as he realizes that nobody else is getting on this train and he's running out of fuel to throw at him, I don't recall Mocsta ever claiming himself to be an excellent town player either. His next post is this one + Show Spoiler + On January 13 2013 20:49 Oatsmaster wrote: Ok posters with little to no content laguerta Trotske Acid~ glurio Posters that seem to be trolling the shit out of the thread Bringniga ##Vote: bringaniga Its less than 12 hours to lynch and I know that you are active. Please contribute in a manner that will help town Either we lynch them, or lynch an active player. Also, in case you guys didnt read the OP or dont know, its plurality lynch so the person with the most votes at the end of the day will get lynched. THEREFORE there is no need to consolidate to lynch. HOWEVER town should consolidate in order to prevent scum from being able to affect the final vote with a last minute vote switch He goes after somebody I have kept my eye on as a potential for SCUM to try and lynch. Shz has already voted for him out of anger at this point making him an "easy" target. There are many other players who are lurking worse than Bringaniga at this point, AND bringaniga has said repetitively that he will be releasing cases in the future. Everything he has said I could see a very subtle town undertone and his actions make it unlikely for him to be scum. Oats also does exactly what he accused Mocsta of being scum for. He highlights all of the lurkiest players before voting on Bringaniga. Except he doesn't mention anything about them other than that they are lurking. No other insight at all. He starts to go after lurkers with very basic questions that don't probe too deep, accusing Mandalor after he finally becomes active by saying "Manadalor, what makes you different from laguerta and Trotske? As far as I can see you have been about as active as them" The largest difference between Mandalor and them is that he has shared his thoughts and explained exactly why he was not active up to this point. Oats realizes his lynch on Bringaniga is no longer sticking, I've raised my own concerns about him and start to draw attention to players that would vote for him, most people agree he seems town and will not vote for him depending on how he acts for the rest of D1. Oats again switching his targets realizing Bringaniga is no longer a viable option. + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 08:21 Oatsmaster wrote: Mandalor, what changed from earlier? You were not even close to active this time of the day yesterday. So, basically apart from trolling, you want to lynch a lurker which gives us 0 information. Umm you want to lynch a lurker too, laguerta.. ##Unvote ##Vote: Mandalor You too [spolier] ##Unvote ##Vote: laguerta Explain your vote. Now. [/spoiler] Mandalor has made a few mistakes, explaining his top scum reads as "easy" lynches. but it is true that he always stuck with Laguerta as one of his top reads. Oats uses this regardless to jump to Mandalor, using his position as a lurker for the first half of D1 and poor explanation of his vote as reasons. Again Oats does not wait for the play accused to defend himself first, he votes and then waits for the defense AND gauges the response from everybody else to see if a wagon will form on the target. Zebezt makes some comments against Sn0_man and Oats So far I don't have a scum read on Zebezt, I am leaning slightly towards town. He's already said this is his first game, and I'm quite pleased with the little amount he has brought to the table. Oats attacks him for sheeping Mocsta and for Zebezt pressuring him which is exactly what town is supposed to do, take people they think are suspicious and try to apply pressure. Again Oats becomes overly defensive and lashes out at him. Soft claims he's scum by saying "mafia QT must be taking about it" in regards to Kush being found to be Bringaniga. I know Oats has obs/played many games. The fact that he claims he didn't know what would happen to Bringaniga is unbelievable to me. I believe this is his attempt to soft claim town and I'm not buying it. I believe he is setting up another target (Zebezt) on the off chance Mandalor doesn't work out. We then have On January 14 2013 08:33 Oatsmaster wrote: Mocsta, If I wrote the post Acid wrote, what would you do? A useless post with no point. Mocsta attacked Acid for his post already. Soon after, the Mandalor wagon that looked like it was taking off gets stopped. Nobody else is joining it and other players are starting to look much scummier, players are discussing the lurkers and how suspicious Laguerta is. + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 10:10 Oatsmaster wrote: I dont think lynching Mocsta is a good idea today. ##Unvote ##Vote: laguerta Mandalor, you get a pass today but you better start scumhunting. Since that you dont need to defend yourself anymore. The fourth vote during D1. It's starting to look like he doesn't care who gets lynched. He votes for Laguerta because of his no-lynch (I assume, it's never really stated). On January 14 2013 11:49 Oatsmaster wrote: I really dont know who to vote for....... laguerta is scummy, but I really dont feel confident in lynching him... He isnt here to defend himself, so... Also from past experience, scum has always been around at the deadline so... He begins to back track on Laguerta as I have shown my unwillingness nearly the entire time up to the point where I finally cave when I realize Laguerta has lied about his no-lynch policy. With so little information I find this very incriminating and convince Mocsta on board with it as well. Oats claims scum is always around at the deadline from his past experience. Is this past experience in his game as scum? I've played three games so far and its fairly random if scum will be there during the lynch or not. I've had 1 there in both games, two not there in my 1st game and 1 never there in my 2nd. I think this might be a scum slip, although Zare made a joke about it and its faulty logic, I believe it was a subconscious slip. He then follows up with On January 14 2013 12:43 Oatsmaster wrote: Glurio, do you think that laguerta is scum? @Mocsta, I dont think its really scummy in itself, we are nearing lynch and people will start to show up. What?! You just said... scum is always around near the lynch... Do you know their alignment or something? You can pick which players who are around at the time of the lynch are scummy or not? It doesn't make sense. There are so many contradictions. On January 14 2013 12:54 Oatsmaster wrote: 7 minutes to vote, If you guys think that laguerta is scum, by all means, vote for him. If you cannot justify scum behaviour in his posting, vote for someone else, preferably zebezt cause he is scum. This post is another one that bothers me, You just finished saying Laguerta is not scum, you just finished saying if you have a scum read PUSH for them hard. Saying "go ahead and vote for Laguerta but I KNOW Zebezt is scum" makes no sense! You don't care who gets lynched. You softly imply you know Zebezt's alignment again... this is the third time you've done this. + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 12:58 Oatsmaster wrote: Constant vote jumping? Voting 3 players in a 15 hour span is called constant vote jumping. Right. I am reasonably sure because Zebezt has scum motivation for posting how he does. I voted laguerta cause lying is bad, but upon reading his filter, I feel that he is newbie town/null. Why does it matter how many people you voted for in a 15 hour time span? It matters how many people you have voted for over all... I don't care if you've only voted for 3 people in 15 hours. You have voted for 5 players during D1. Without a good reason on any of them. Without explaining why you were suddenly switching. I looked over the votes and who they were on for nearly the entire last 20 minutes and noticed that 4 of your 5 votes were on the "easiest" targets. Players who all had the potential to be lynched if people started to make cases on them. Most people voted for at least two of them. You hit all of them. This is not town oriented play. This is scum looking to hide in the crowd. Warning: Confirmation bias / Association case. + Show Spoiler + This is where I started to lose my mind so close to the deadline and noticed something I wish I hadn't. It is the sole reason I hadn't been able to get my case out on time. Oats defends Sn0, Sn0 and Oats attacked mocsta, Zebezt voted for Sn0, Oats finds Zebezt scummy for reasons that he is active but not contributing a whole lot. Plus he set his vote to lynch Zebezt up earlier when Zebezt made a comment about Sn0 being the scummiest player. Oats asks Sn0 a REALLY odd question with + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 12:38 Oatsmaster wrote: Mocsta, you are confirmation biased. I dont think Sno is scummy for attacking you, it created conversation which was a good thing and I had similar concerns as him. How stupid is it as scum to vote you? Sno-man, why are you voting Mocsta? Is it because you dont like him? Or because he is scum? Does this indicate Oats believes Mocsta is still scum? Is he leading Sn0 to be able to leave that option open to him? + Show Spoiler + I HIT BACK INSTEAD OF ENTER AND ALMOST DELETED THIS WHOLE THING HOLY SHIT. Also I'm aware that my last paragraph is confirmation biased to hell, an association case, and just all around things you NEVER want to do... but I saw it and I can not unsee  | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6592 Posts
| ||
| ||
