|
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 18:06 JacobStrangelove wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 17:24 zebezt wrote:
Second 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.
Ok I was theorising about this, and as I said before I know there was a double mis-lynch happening on day one. By changing he puts suspicion on me when the lynch goes bad and he probably assumed he would survive day 2 with me dying putting him in good stead. I don’t know why his voting was so funny however. Maybe he wanted to join someone elses train so he wouldn’t look so bad when I went down? Maybe he thought he could get me day 3? Or maybe he did it because hey why not? Omni isn’t here so I wonder why the vote initially was on him. It could be he wanted to get omni and then me because at that point I was likely to get modkilled? I don’t have a clue the problem is you are seeing black and white, the situation is almost never black and white it is a dynamic of really evil colours that sometimes combine for the heck of it. Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 17:24 zebezt wrote:
Any comparison with Temil is useless. This is more than enough PROOF THAT JACOB IS SCUM.
Would like to point out the comparison with TemiL is in my favour... I already pointed out that as far as bad lurker scum go there are several differences in behaviour.
In real life things are not black and white. In this game however, you are scum or you are not. Don't try to sidetrack by bringing up Omni.
Maybe he wanted to join someone elses train so he wouldn’t look so bad when I went down?
This makes no sense. He looked far worse switching to somebody last minute than if he would have kept his vote on you.
Also, "Hey why not" is not a good reason for a scum to make himself look suspicious. He was aware his switch would look suspicious.: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=25#494
|
By the way,
the lynching of Mocsta was made possible by Sn0 and shz who switched to Mocsta relatively late. Trotske would have been voted off otherwise.
This makes sn0 and shz look very townish to me
|
This makes no sense. He looked far worse switching to somebody last minute than if he would have kept his vote on you.
This part was referring to day two.
|
Don't try to sidetrack by bringing up Omni.
So we pick the parts of his thought process that are conveniant to your theory and ignore the rest?
|
@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.
|
Hmm but he did vote for the guy, I mean smaller things maybe but I would have thought votes normally are reasoned.
|
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.
|
Hold up something I just realised. La de da (I refuse to learn his name) wasn’t a bad player.
On January 16 2013 00:44 Stutters695 wrote:
Laguerta was another smurf. Same rules for voting apply that did to bring/kush. Let's leave it at that until after the game
So he was actually a veteran, now why would a veteran play like this, the obvious first thought is to troll but he hardly did. Why bother signing up and joining a game to hardly troll and do nothing? Kush(the other smurf) on the other hand was a troll, his playstyle was completely designed around trolling.
Something that is in a lot of newbie games is you run into too scummy to be scum people, they are sometimes bad town sometimes scum. I think he may have been a player who wanted to try out a too scummy to be scum play style. But couldn’t do it on his main account due to being instantly lynched.
Now the thing is he would do this as scum or town no matter what role he got but at least that means his actions were completely contrived possibly lied directly and thus Null so to speak. The reason I think this is he has obviously played and would know that lying would get him into trouble. This would make all his actions Null, which is why I would like you to give me the chance to prove I am town without harkening back to his actions.
|
My FoSes
by Zarepath
not necessarily in order of strongest reads
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Laguerta/Jacob
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.
4. Trotske
Mocsta's case on Trotske comes after he knows people are onto him, or at least after two cases and one strong vote (two votes? will have to read over it again). The thing about this Trotske vote is it supposedly originates from Acid's case on Trotske. When Mocsta reads over it, he calls 3 of Acid's 5 points slightly scummy and 2 of them null reads, and then says that he'll only vote Trotske if HIS case doesn't get traction tonight (which turned out to be OE). If Trotske isn't town, why wouldn't Mocsta just agree with every point and pressure Trotske and gather town around and onto him? Why does he say, "sure, kind of scummy, I'll only vote for him if people don't like my case that's in the works," instead of, "makes sense to me, sure, I'll bandwagon that crap all day?" The easier mafia tack would be to go right for Trotske, I think; of course, Mocsta wasn't exactly playing the easiest scum game, imo.
I suppose that what I'm describing here is a double bus, where Trotske and Mocsta vote for each other to break associations regardless of who flips. I'm mostly suspicious here and think it's worth looking at because once the pressure is on Mocsta and it looks like he might be voted out, this is the person he chooses to vote for. This case is again weakened by the fact that they voted for each other, which is pretty significant. It would be quite a gamble for scum to use this tactic, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
Note that some of these reads certainly contradict other ones; now that associations are open to us, there's certainly a lot of hypothetical in there. But I consider these four players to be the ones whose associations with Mocsta merit the most analysis and investigation.
(Now back to work.  )
|
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?
|
8.5 hours left on those night actions! Make sure you send them to all three of us, especially Thrawn and Stutters (because I will be super busy today). The deadline is 00:00 GMT (+00:00).
|
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.
|
Well, zare is being nice and active.
I'll draw up a nice big posts with reads and stuff (basically a last will) right before N2 end. I'd rather not get NK'ed but right now it looks like either me or Acid is gonna eat it tonight
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
