Newbie Mini Mafia XXXV
Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
| ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
| ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
To answer the question about Policy-lynching lurkers: As far as I'm concerned you are all guilty until proven innocent and anything you don't say will be used against you, so you better start talking. First things first. @Mocsta: I don't have a read on you, but... If you are town, you need to change the way you are playing. If you are scum, keep it right up. You say you want to foster a positive town atmosphere, but you instantly lash out at anyone showing signs of aggression, which is an essential town trait. It is you who hindered discussion on day 1, by drowning inquisitive players in walls of text containing little to no substance. A few posts after agreeing with zare/omni about the need to build strong cases and making attacks based on rationality, you goad Oats into an OMGUS vote, with no other claim than "other people agree with me that you're fostering a bad town atmosphere". http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon The fact that you backed off later doesn't totally excuse you and it sure as hell doesn't explain it. What I want from you: quotes from Oatsmaster showing how he intimidated people into not posting, since this is your claim. OR admit that you were biased against Oats and a victim of confirmation bias @zebezt: Direct quote from you: "We'll have to keep a critical eye on everyone's contributions" I've kept a critical eye on your contributions and found them all wanting. You've done nothing of significance except calling out lurkers and bringaniga supposedly for "lack of content", without providing any content of your own. Your list of "My top 3 scum reads, by Zebezt" are made up of the same three people that Mocsta finds suspicious, except you provide no case of your own. What you are doing right now is simply sucking up to the most active/vocal player. Also, you're asking all of us for our reads, why? This is not a rhetorical question. Answer this. ##Vote: Zebezt @Trotske @laguerta @Sn0_Man @Glurio You have posted nothing of value so far. There is no question here, I just wanted you to be aware of that. Re: bringaniga Just wanted to say that his style of posting is not indicative of alignment either way and that you should look at the content of his posts to make a decision. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
| ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 14 2013 08:24 Mocsta wrote: Lol so u come in the thread after 40hrs of no post and start slinging shit. Why dont u start to earn some town cred before questioning myself and zebezt. U can start by addressing the questions i and others put forward to you in your prolonged absence. U will then be in a position where i can respond to your qustions. There were no questions that were "put to me", you just asked me to post and I did. So, now I have to "earn" town cred before I'm allowed to play? Oh please, pretty please, can I play with you Mr mayor? I find this attitude pretty fucking hypocritical coming from a guy who attacked someone else earlier supposedly because they were intimidating others into not participating. This shit you're trying to pull right there, not only is it exactly the kind of behavior you attacked in others, it's also textbook ad-hominem. So, please, with sugar on top, answer the fucking question. Maybe you'll manage to post your first line of useful content. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 14 2013 08:55 Trotske wrote: @Acid How is Zebezt a better lynch than sn0_man. Sn0_Man hasn't said or done much so far, Zebezt has actually posted quite a bit and every post he digs his scumhole deeper. Read his filter. Also your post + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 08:34 Acid~ wrote: There were no questions that were "put to me", you just asked me to post and I did. So, now I have to "earn" town cred before I'm allowed to play? Oh please, pretty please, can I play with you Mr mayor? I find this attitude pretty fucking hypocritical coming from a guy who attacked someone else earlier supposedly because they were intimidating others into not participating. This shit you're trying to pull right there, not only is it exactly the kind of behavior you attacked in others, it's also textbook ad-hominem. So, please, with sugar on top, answer the fucking question. Maybe you'll manage to post your first line of useful content. seemed to be aimed at getting people emotional near the lynch deadline and you need to stop it now because that won't help people make informed lynch decisions. that post was 100% pointless unless you want to get people emotional. It's not pointless and it's not emotional. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in his play and letting him know I won't be bullied. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 14 2013 11:27 Mocsta wrote: Acid, I welcome your contributions. I know you posted at the 11th hour, but the thoughts and motivations read genuine and original. Town should welcome these type of posts in particular from low post count participants. I am going to address the items you raised. (1) Agree with this completely. Everyone needs to prove with their actions they are innocent. Actions speak louder than words. At the same time, this sentiment has already been shared (myself included) so whilst I value the stance, we will see if your actions reflect your stance overtime. (2) Instantly lash out? My posts to Oatsmaster and Sn0_Man were written very respectfully. I think you are jumping to an unfounded conclusion. If I may remind you: + Show Spoiler [Calling out overt aggression] + On January 12 2013 16:38 Mocsta wrote: @Sn0_Man I appreciate the sense of energy you are giving back to this thread, and I certainly do not want to deter that; town needs this energy. BUT.. you are almost sounding "paranoid" - I know this, because after my last game, many assumed I was "paranoid". I think we both want the same thing, a town environment where people can voice their opinion and join together for the scum hunt. When you say "it seems fair since people like you are jumping in to defend him pretty fast"; that alienates participants from wanting to contribute. You are actually creating an environment scum can thrive in with that attitude - even though I doubt that is your intention. I ask that you please think about the above. On January 13 2013 07:18 Mocsta wrote: EBWOP On January 13 2013 07:14 Mocsta wrote: Wow. Thats it over the night shift. Oats u sound like sno_man. perhaps the aggresion u 2 have shown is why there is a lack of discussion. I think u should read what i posted to him. My questions are ice breakers and i have not a genuine comment from *YOU* to stimulate town conversation. In fact. You are deterring conversation. @oatsmaster Why should i NOT treat is the outcome of your agressive posts [stopping fluid and positive town conversation] as scummy motivations Personally, I do not know how that is lashing out? I think its being respectful. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I don't care how respectfully it's presented, the fact is that you only pointed fingers at people after they started pointing fingers at you, you did this with both Sn0_Man and Oats, now you're doing it with me. If you want a reminder of the posts I responded to here you go + Show Spoiler [Aggressive Posts] + On January 12 2013 14:04 Sn0_Man wrote: Mocsta 2) How do you think scum would try to get influence with us? From what I have seen in my 2 games, it depends on the person. Some have lurked hardcore, some have given minimal contributions. If we have a solid town atmosphere, and people can share opinions freely, I am sure we can reduce the influence! 2) With posts just like your one above 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. (3) How. My posts have plenty of substance. I have followed up my reads and tried to get others to contribute regularly. Where is your evidence to back up your assertion; this looks to me like flinging shit at the most active player Day 1. And how am I drowning out discussion. I am Active, I am Open, and my play is Transparent. My game is completely ab-lib, and Im doing this all whilst figuring this game out. Just because my filter is large does not prevent others from posters. I have been actively asking others to contribute, whilst giving my own input. This looks to me like trying to justify your own woeful activity this game. Remember, you are guilty till proven innocent. Well, your posts do have some substance, but not nearly enough for their size and number. We don't need to be privy to your every thought. A lot of times, you're repeating yourself or paraphrasing someone else, or just talking into the wind - saying we need to do this and that, should do this, but not doing it yourself. (4) When did I GOAD Oatsmaster into OMGUS. Provide evidence to back this up. I call him out of line, and then his beviour did not change. I cast my suspicion on him, and gave benefit of the doubt.. it would be poor townie play to instantly vote, we need to question our reads. .. Since when did casting suspicion count as "goading a reaction" .. its all part of scumhunting and Oatsmaster is accountable for his own actions. I agree we are all accountable for our own actions and Oastmaster, while hot-headed, did not do anything really scummy. His only "crime" was to call you out on a few points that I would have made myself, had I been there. The post where you give him the FoS is cleverly written, you know you are dealing with an emotional player and the way you worded your suspicion seems to me as designed to provoke a reaction. (5) What is even the intention of this question. The fact is.. if people were intimidated they would not post. Oatsmaster himself identifies he is partially responsible the lack of a solid scum read (at the time)... I think if you interpret context at the time, the lack of scum read had to do with the minmal discussion (and you were a large culprit of the lack of contributions) Hence; When I re-read your post I finish my impressions are as follows: You have come into the thread after lurking the entire first day, and have thrown shit around and posted with strong emotions. Regardless, I am still glad your are finally starting to do something, but, as I have broken down above, its not actually scum hunting. So far all I have seen are arguments that are wrong at best, and hypocritical at worst. Some of us would even suggest this is scummy behavior. I am going to watch you keenly over your next few posts and determine whether you are scum or null. What I am doing is the very definition of scum-hunting. 1. I am asking important questions from someone on whom I have doubts (you) in hopes that the discussion will reveal alignment. 2. I am actively campaigning for votes on my strongest scumread (Zebezt), who still has not answered my questions. There are no emotions here, just facts. Pray tell, exactly what should I be doing differently in order to expose scum? What you are doing, on the other hand, is pointing the finger at anyone who doesn't agree with you, which is emotional and the opposite of efficient scum-hunting. I haven't accused you. Yet. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:34 Mocsta wrote: Well.. if you wanted to swap.. im not comfortable with zebezt I read his filter, and OK, he is not the most "direct" scum hunter, but we already have Oatsmaster for that role.. I see him as a townie.. and its got nothign to do with him agreeing with some of my concerns. In fact, he actually questioned me regarding a few. Also.. he didnt share TOWN reads (like some individuals) he shared SCUM reads... remember.. its alot harder for scum to present scum reads as they are openly lying... Town or scum can produce a town read and feel true to themselves. So far, the play from Sn0_man hasnt done anything to suggest zebezt was wrong in naming him as a scum read. If I am confirmation biased with this assessment, let me know? Because I have done my best to take a step back here and consider the information. So far, Sn0_Man hasn't done -anything- at all, really. I don't know about confirmation bias and I have no read on Oastmaster either way, but read Zebezt's filter again: he didn't share scum reads, he repeated/paraphrased someone else's read. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
I would still like to hear more from Sn0 regarding this, although it doesn't look good right now. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:58 Mocsta wrote: All you keep saying is Im pointing fingers because you dont like that I found some posters overtly aggressive, and let them know that they may in fact be intimidating posters. Then, look at what your crux is; you are doing the EXACT same thing. You dont like my post style and are calling me out on it. Apparently you are fact, and I am not. As I said before, your arguments are wrong at best, and hypocritical at worst. Look at how quick you were to admit there is substance behind my posts; regardless of whether you think every post is valid, I have managed to elicit responses from more people than you. What have you done for town, other than sling shit over an active poster. You then sling more shit, saying I worded my suspicion funnily. How about instead of slinging shit, you take my post and break it down. I re-read it, and I have no idea what you are talking about. Its clear, concise and rational. Again more hypocritical behaviour. If you want to aid the scum hunt, I suggest you start by removing the hypocrisy from your posts. I'm not slinging any shit, I'm pressuring. This is town play, whether you like it or not. This is just going around in circles and the perfect example for what I mean when I say your posts have too little substance for the space they take. You'll have nothing more from me until you post something new that adds to the scumhunt/discussion. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 15 2013 06:24 zarepath wrote: I am posting all of my reads right now because I'd like to do so before the end of N1 and I'm not confident that I'll be around/have the time to do so closer to the deadline. These are reads, not full claims, and so I welcome any argument/discussion about them. But they're all based on me reading through the entire thread, and the entire filter for each person. Acid + Show Spoiler + Acid is very confident, and when he posts, it doesn't seem as though he's lurked as much as he has. However, everything he's posted has been very narrow-focused and antagonistic -- needlessly so. What gets me is his comment that Mocsta can't ask him any questions until Mocsta contributes more. Withholding information is pretty scummy, and his tunneling of Mocsta, the most active townie when we have around 5 lurkers, seems exactly like the kind of thing scum would want to do. It's not hard to push Mocsta's buttons and he's not alone in going after him, so it's a pretty safe thing to do. His reactions lack rigor; he's "baffled" by sno's vote. The number one thing that makes me think he is mafia is the fact that the time he was tunneling Mocsta the hardest was during the final hours before the lynch, when everyone is switching their votes, analyzing cases, trying to make new reads. What is Acid up to? Tunneling Mocsta, when Mocsta is nowhere near a lynch. He's not even trying to get others to vote for Mocsta, he's just going after him. Reads as SCUM to me. Sorry, but you've got this the wrong way around. It was Mocsta who refused to answer my questions. I didn't answer any of Mocsta's questions because he asked none. Quote: On January 14 2013 08:24 Mocsta wrote: Lol so u come in the thread after 40hrs of no post and start slinging shit. Why dont u start to earn some town cred before questioning myself and zebezt. U can start by addressing the questions i and others put forward to you in your prolonged absence. U will then be in a position where i can respond to your qustions. If you have any questions you want to ask me, fire away. Also, I was never tunneling Mocsta, I was pressuring him because we were both online at the same time and it was possible to have a little back and forth going. My number one scum read, and vote for the day was Zebezt, but Zebezt was not present to engage in conversation. I even said I was not accusing Mocsta, I just wanted him to explain some things. And finally, I was away most of the weekend, as I said previously - that doesn't mean I didn't read the thread when I came back. Why should I be any less confident than anyone else? Sorry, but I'm not playing this game like a popularity contest. I've made my case and no one has refuted it (not with rational arguments, in any case). The accused himself laughed it off without giving any sort of convincing defense. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 15 2013 21:40 Spaghetticus wrote: @Acid I had assumed that when you did start posting, you would be continuing that pattern from now on. The Stuff you posted was seemed good, but you still have the smallest filter. I know this is a backflip since you weren't on my list of people under pressure, but your complete lack of activity is giving you the smallest filter, and a town shouldn't feel that he needs to be pressed into doing town activity. I want to see more from you, so while this is a vote that does have intention to lynch, it is conditional in that I will remove it the second you start contributing properly again. ##Vote: Acid I'm fine with having the smallest filter. For now, I'm reading. I don't feel the need to make you privy to my every inane thought, so when I have something useful to say I will post. Until then, since nothing has changed in this regard: ##Vote: Zebezt | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 16 2013 03:29 zarepath wrote: SnoMan, I'm at work and jumping into the thread between tasks, so my reaction to your analysis is going to be a little piece-meal. 1. Glad you thought my analysis was good and fine -- that has been my largest contribution to the thread and took the most time 2. My analysis of Acid isn't bad at all. What's the town motivation for his posting behavior? And I don't just mean lurking, I mean spending his small amount of posts stubbornly going after someone who already has a lot of attention on them, and doing so not with analysis but with attitude, and while there are other subjects for analysis? I'll just link you to my original reply, which you either missed or willfully ignored: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=30#600 The town motivation behind this? I wanted to pressure Mocsta into giving me a straight answer instead of the vagueness he had been spouting thus far. I also wanted to pressure Zebezt and have other townies look into his filter/behavior so they could either back me up or show me why I was misguided. There was only one person who did this, and he was killed last night. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 15 2013 16:24 zebezt wrote: Nice way to discount yourself there I suspect his vote on me had something to do with me calling his play idiotic as well... Anyway, Oats' death comes as a bit of a surprise to me. 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 I suspect his vote on you comes from reading your filter after I posted an accusation on you. In fact, I don't suspect it, I know it because he said so himself: On January 15 2013 01:20 Oatsmaster wrote: 5. Voted Zebezt, its cause of Acid that I looked at his filter, so scummy. pushed his lynch until the deadline. So everyone, read zebezt filter. Dont be lazy. And more for the road, from his LW: On January 15 2013 08:47 Oatsmaster wrote: 9. Zebezt. + Show Spoiler + Scummy as fuck. His post either contain strategy or sheeping Mocsta's reads. He seems utterly disengaged from the game and has shown no effort to confirm his reads as scum and ask questions. I would like it if you didn't try to refute an attack against you by discrediting the attacker: | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 16 2013 05:33 Sn0_Man wrote: I'd also like to hear why Zebezt is *more* scummy than any other person (Trotske? zare? Laguerta? etc). Saying "nothing has changed" simply isn't true when we have had 1 mislynch and 2 townies NK'ed since you last gave any reasons. I meant nothing has changed in regard to him being my number 1 scum read. In fact, his actions since the lynch convinced me even more. I have a detailed post coming about Zebezt, Trotske and zare. Don't think I haven't looked at them too. Laguerta... there's really not much to go on right now. I really hope his replacement shows up before the end of Day 2. I don't like to make "promise-posts" but I need to do a lot more re-reading before posting my thoughts on trotske and zarepath. If you really want my every thought: I started by looking into Mocsta, because there were a lot of inconsistencies between his promises (I will build rational cases without emotions) and his actions (making emotion-based cases on everyone who challenged him). I spent two hours reading his filter and interactions, and based on his day1 only I would call for a lynch. But, since he hammered the noose for Mandalor, he has changed his play. In fact he has made a good case on zarepath, which I am reviewing and will discuss in my upcoming long post. So, right now to me he could be confused town or scum, 50-50. I want to see more of his new play before taking a stance. If he starts to lurk, I will be the first to call for his head. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
In fact, his defense is convincing - his argument for lack of time makes sense and could explain why he hasn't held himself up to the high standard he required. Additionally, he shared some interesting reads at the end of N1. You don't have that luxury, however. You can't blame lack of time and you actively went against your stated intentions (rational, constructive cases) by being emotionally defensive and attacking everyone who disagreed with you. I'm not sure about you. The amount of inconsistencies between your actions and your words is staggering, yet I am hesitant to call for your lynch based only on that. I'm missing a link. I'm hoping today's lynch will provide that link, whether it absolves or incriminates you. This said, to answer your question: Yes. I think, very simply, that scum whacked Oats to silence him. He wasn't ranting and raving about Zebezt, or even voting for him, but still you could see him getting increasingly suspicious. His last will even tells us that we should all read Zebezt's filter. I have done so, and like I said I will share all my thoughts in an upcoming post but the short of it is yes, I have a major scum read on Zebezt and a minor scum read on Trotske. I don't buy zarepath as scum yet. I will try to stay curteous and polite as I say this, but I think you might be OMGUSing him because of what he said earlier about you having a lot to answer for. I think you should read his filter again with an open mind, be wary of confirmation bias. In the end, I did not pull the trigger on your case because I could not find sufficient scum motivation for acting this way. I ask that you do the same of zarepath before you pull the trigger on him. Instead of asking him "what is the town motivation for X?", ask yourself "what is the scum motivation for X?" and if you can come up with an answer, post about it and we will discuss. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
Exhibit A On January 13 2013 07:45 Trotske wrote: 1. Yea I think it is very easy to intimidate people into thinking they shouldn't post because they might get fingers pointed at them for doing something like starting the conversation that needed to get started anyway or defending someone who they claim is scummy. I think it makes a bad town mindset for getting as much information about everyone was we can if townies are not as eager to post. 2. I think it hurts town so I don't think it is normal if town wants to win but I don't have alot of experience and have pretty much just read some guides. Oh and to your first point I would say fluff posts are just as bad as not posting at all because it just distracts from the real posts that people need to read and I havn't seen bringaniga post anything that wasn't as waste of my time to read. Emphasis mine. Yes, we want people to post but we should also call them out whenever they post something scummy and/or useless, because that is the basis of scumhunting. If we never attack anyone, then we're all just a bunch of carebears waiting around for the mafia to assassinate us all. This post alone from Trotske is not enough for a scum read, but it makes me suspicious. The last sentence especially. You think posting fluff is just as bad as not posting? Good, show us your content. What content, you ask? Yes, my point exactly. Exhibit B On January 14 2013 04:55 Trotske wrote: First I'm going to respond to Mandalor and his read about me. I feel that my posts are pretty good when it comes to Quality and I don't care about Quantity because I feel that if I post fluff it is useless and posting just so people won't try to lynch me is not pro town. I felt the I didn't have anything to contribute earlier and then went to bed before like 4 pages of posts came up I Emphasis mine. Talk about low standards. Prior to this post you had done no scumhunting, had posted no analysis of any kind - in fact the only posting you had done was defending Mocsta against Sn0_Man and complaining about bringaniga's style of posting. I feel this is a good place to remind everyone that Mandalor was the first person to attack Trotske on his low-quality posting. I feel that lynching anyone day1 that is active is a waste because the more they talk the more likely there will be a scum slip. The person I want to lynch as of right now is Sn0_man. Sn0_man made a bad environment at the start of the game by attacking players instead of answering questions polity and then hasn't posted in the last 36 hours? Not only is that lurking that also scummy and then not active make him the most useless player in the game only hurting town the leaving. ##Vote Sn0_Man This may change if he posts more before the deadline. Answering questions politely is not scumhunting. While your case on Sn0_Man isn't completely baseless, it's also very thin and since you seem hellbent on hanging a lurker, well there were other lurkers to look at. What I get from this is that you don't care who you lynch, so you pick an easy target: given how he attacked Mocsta, who still had a lot of town cred at the time, no one would be rushing to defend Sn0_Man. He was also not there to defend himself. I don't have much of a read on a lot of other people but If bringaniga doesn't shape up his game I want to lynch him or one of the other full time professional lurkers aka Acid or glurio. I would like to wait to go after the more active players until we can build stronger cases on them. I am honestly having a hard time deciding who looks scummy I plan on going in depth on the people who have posted more in the next few hours Translation from scum to English: "It's so hard to pick which of these townies to falsely accuse, maybe I'll just wait and see if my Sn0 vote gets any traction, if not I'll just pick an easier target." You also conveniently forget to mention laguerta, the worst of them all, in your "professional lurkers" list. Exhibit C On January 14 2013 06:16 Trotske wrote: for some reason I Thought there were more votes on laguerta bringaniga lets assume you are not going to get modkilled please tell me why you like laguerta more than sn0_man. On January 14 2013 08:55 Trotske wrote: @Acid How is Zebezt a better lynch than sn0_man. Also your post + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 08:34 Acid~ wrote: There were no questions that were "put to me", you just asked me to post and I did. So, now I have to "earn" town cred before I'm allowed to play? Oh please, pretty please, can I play with you Mr mayor? I find this attitude pretty fucking hypocritical coming from a guy who attacked someone else earlier supposedly because they were intimidating others into not participating. This shit you're trying to pull right there, not only is it exactly the kind of behavior you attacked in others, it's also textbook ad-hominem. So, please, with sugar on top, answer the fucking question. Maybe you'll manage to post your first line of useful content. seemed to be aimed at getting people emotional near the lynch deadline and you need to stop it now because that won't help people make informed lynch decisions. that post was 100% pointless unless you want to get people emotional. On January 14 2013 09:48 Trotske wrote: I think this post is of a really really bad town player who thinks he needs to defend himself with votes on other people and I think that Mandalor is trying to kill a bad townie. So for that and the post Macosta made stating the reasons for lynching him I am going to change my vote. ##Unvote ##Vote Mandalor Emphasis mine again in the quotes, to demonstrate my previous claim. The vote on Sn0 gets no traction, so again he sheeps Mocsta. This is like Christmas for scum because he can safely attack Mandalor (who, let me remind you, had posted his own suspicions about Trotske) by piggybacking on Mocsta's case without having to do any work. Exhibit D On January 14 2013 10:36 Trotske wrote: I don't think laguerta is scum you guys are pushing a lynch claiming scum when he looks a lot more like a bad townie with no experience and is lazy. what is with this bandwagon on someone who might as well be a lurker In fact a lurker would be a better lynch. I am going to keep my vote on the person who started this ridiculous vote. What is with this 180 now? You are now openly and directly attacking a player for wanting to lynch a lurker. Even though you had spent the whole of day1 arguing in favor of lynching a lurker. Suddenly, this lurker is not good enough for some reason? Exhibit E On January 15 2013 09:59 Trotske wrote: FoS on Spaghetticus I would like some other opinions on him, I feel that most of his posts so far have been only restating that he doesn't like lurkers Literally half of his posts have had some comment about lurkers. His posts seem to me to be saying nothing while looking very large at the same time. FoS on zebezt Mocasta and Oats had made some good points and after going back and looking at his filter I find it highly suspicious that he hasn't added anything of his own to the game so far and has been posting as if to make it look like he is active while not actually contributing anything. I would love for some other opinions on these players. Thanks. You FoS these players because they: 1. Are too insistent on wanting to lynch lurkers. 2. Post no useful content. If those are your criteria, I think you should start fingering yourself. Additionally, the insistence on wanting other players' opinions before you actually turn those fingers into votes reads to me like you don't want to pressure and you definitely don't want to commit to a lynch before you're sure you can get traction to kill another innocent. Closing argument At this point, I still have to review Zebezt's case with a fresh look, so I'm not taking my vote off him and onto Trotske just yet. However, Trotske seems scummy as hell to me and I want his case to be discussed. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
I want to hear your own inputs and interpretations, if I wanted sheep I'd relocate to Wales. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
Specifically, If you could honor your previous engagement to post constructive cases founded in rational argument, that'd be great. Give us some meat, some quotes, something tangible to work with. Regardless of who you choose, I want to see you commit to a read and a vote a long ass-fucking time - pardon my French - before the vote deadline, please. | ||
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
Mocsta, I was not bluffing when I said I had a whole case against you that I was ready to pull the trigger on at the first sign of scummy behavior, so believe me - you asked for this. The case against Mocsta: Exhibit A On January 14 2013 08:13 Mocsta wrote: + Show Spoiler + Thanks forthe feedback mandalor. Remember a townie knows he is innocent. Why do u think i can post on the fly. Because im confident i am town and that my actions will speaker louder than my words. Your overly defensive and emotional case defense sits uncomfortably with me. i dont associate your reactions as a townie defense..it reads to me as a last resort post does anyone else feel this way? I.e. Too defensive and emotional to be confident in his alignment? I find this attack a bit strange coming from you, since at that point every time you had been questioned, you'd responded in an emotional, defensive manner. You want to apply to Mandalor some standards that you feel exempt of? If being too defensive and emotional is scummy behavior, then you are scum #1. Additionally, your aggression towards your detractors creates the opposite of a positive town atmosphere, so while you say you want to create that positive atmosphere, you're actually creating one where the more meek/timid players are afraid to question you. Exhibit B On January 13 2013 07:29 Mocsta wrote: So.. I say to you, that * I * will make the effort to provide rational, constructive feedback to your cases. You sound like a politician running for office. So far, you've behaved exactly like a politician and by this I mean that we have yet to see you deliver on your promise. Day 1: You had your little penis-waving contest with Oatsmaster, which took up a lot of space but was devoid of anything even remotely rational or constructive. All you did was muck up the thread with useless bullshit, which creates confusion and hinders scumhunting - ie, not town behavior. Now, certainly it takes two to tango but your posts were more frequent and also much larger than your detractors'. Both of those guys also ended up posting some things that were useful to town, something I can't say about you. In your vote post on Mandalor, you dismiss his criticism of your play : I have given my reads in spades.. he doubts my contributions, but look at his half-attempts as I list below. (My reads are via the qusetions I choose to pressure with) and the cases I choose to make. I do not put my vote lightly ever. But, at that point in time, you had made no case. All you had done was ask questions, which is neither a read, nor a case. In fact, it's a pretty good scum strategy to ask a lot of inconsequential questions because it diverts attention from real problems, such as the fact that despite being the most active player, you had not made a single valid case yet. Your case on Mandalor itself was weak at best, and included several points which were not attacking his play, but defending your own. Rather, attacking his play through defending your own, essentially saying: "he said this about me but it's not true, therefore he is scum". In other words, ad hominem - a tactic which you tried on me with less success. And then this: On January 14 2013 12:13 Mocsta wrote: @Oatsmaster My vote is sticking on La Guerta. I cant let it go that he lied. it is punishable by lynch. May I ask what made you to start considering zebezt.. if it was the post from Acid, did you see my reply to him here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=22#425 You dismiss Oatsmaster's case which, admittedly thin, was based on mine which was not thin and very much founded in analysis. You willingly disregard rational, constructive feedback in order to pursue an emotional case (you can't "let it go" that he lied). And yes, we've all read the post you linked, it contains a heartfelt defense of your own case - even though I wasn't even attacking you - and doesn't address the issue of Zebezt at all. Rather, you are dismissing my case because you don't like the fact that I questioned you. That's strike three on the ad-homs. Finally, you seem to be able to "let it go" that laguerta lied, on a whim, a few minutes before the lynch deadline. You revert to an older read based on nothing at all. You're sheeping glurio, of all people, giving no argument for the switch and there is simply not an ounce of town in this play. If you were sure that Mandalor was guilty, why didn't you push harder for his vote? If you were sure that Laguerta was guilty, why didn't you stay on the vote? If your vote - your biggest power as a townie - is so easily swayed by a two-line post from a lurker, why are you valuable as town? If you are scum, then well played. You managed to lynch a townie, and immediately after you were like "OH FUCK" and then you played your little victim card, asking us to ask the questions we needed to ask. Yet, when those questions were asked, you again reacted defensively and emotionally. So now, I'm asking those questions again and I will require some straight answers and no more of your ring-around-the-rosies talk. Don't waste your time attacking me, don't bother with the emotional pleas, just answer the questions. The more you try to distract us from constructive discourse with useless bullshit, the more scummy you appear. Night 1: First you invite us to question you because you dun goofed, then you proceed to attack the person questioning you. Again. This is a disturbing pattern. My quest for rationality in your posts has so far turned up nothing but emotions. Then in this post : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#569 You emphasize that our priority should not to confirm town but to hunt scum. You then go on to share your biggest town-read. You also share your biggest scum read, and you back it up with quotes that don't really hold up to scrutiny, as we've seen earlier in the day. Of course, it's harder to make a case when you know your opponent is town... Day 2: Interesting that you call zarepath out for giving a town read on Oatsmaster, when you did the same thing yourself. Even more interesting is the case you make on OE. I will need a separate exhibit to take it apart piece by piece, but in one word, it's bullshit. It's all speculation, association before flip, wild conspiracy theories. If you are town, then you should be pushing for your strongest scum read backed up with evidence, not conjecture. If you think OE is scum by association with laguerta, you should lynch laguerta first. Too bad for his replacement if he doesn't get to play, he doesn't get a free pass. Exhibit C On January 13 2013 20:39 Mocsta wrote: TL;DR Stay on one target, push them till you are satisfied... In the words of Santa Wright: "Ho-ho-hold it!" http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=18#358 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=21#414 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=25#485 At what point exactly during this clusterfuck were you satisfied? Can you show me how you pressured each of your targets and how it led you to a rational, informed decision? Those are things that you promised to do and failed to deliver on. Again, in your own words: "Our actions speak louder than our words." Do you know what your actions say? They say that you are scum. With this most recent development of your bullshit case on OE, it makes sense that you were chosen by the scum team due to your town meta, which has been defended a few times, to create confusion and dissent amidst the town. Exhibit D Now we get to "the bomb" as you would no doubt call it. The mother of all useless, bloated posts which does nothing but waste our time and distract us from true scumhunting. On January 17 2013 00:27 Mocsta wrote: Mocsta: Day 2 - Prime Lynch Candidate PREFACE:After zarepath raised solid points to clear him for Day 2, I had to go back to the chaos of Day 1. I was certain scum was responsible, or at least sowed the seeds for what eventuated. From my perspective I identify/signify three key points to the overall chaos:
To regurgitate the outcome of this chaos. + Show Spoiler + (1) On January 14 2013 08:26 Stutters695 wrote: A widely dispersed vote. Then Oats requests consolidation.bringaniga (1) - shz, Acid~ (1) - Mocsta (0) - Oatsmaster (0) - Sn0 Man (2) - shz (1) - OmniEulogy Laguerta (1) - Mandalor Mandalor (2) - Mocsta, Oatsmaster zebezt (1) - Acid~ No-Lynch (1) - Laguerta Not Voting - everyone else On January 14 2013 10:17 Oatsmaster wrote: Ok guys, its less than 3 hours to lynch, we NEED to consolidate. If you think the leading candidate which is laguerta is scummy, vote for him. If you think someone else is scummier, PUSH FOR THEIR LYNCH. This leads to (2) On January 14 2013 11:59 cDgCorazon wrote: For 13 players, 7 votes on 1 target is a consolidated vote. Especially as everyone else held 1 vote.Laguerta (7) - Mandalor, OmniEulogy, Glurio, Shz, Oatsmaster, Mocsta, Zarepath Sn0_Man (1) - Zebezt, Mandalor (1) - Trotske, zebezt (1) - Acid~ Mocsta (1) - Sn0_Man, bringaniga (0) - Oatsmaster (0) - shz (0) - Acid~ (0) - No-Lynch (1) - Laguerta SOMEHOW this turns into: (3) On January 14 2013 12:56 thrawn2112 wrote: Laguerta (3) - Mandalor, Shz, Mocsta, zebezt (2) - Acid~, Oatsmaster Mandalor (2) - Trotske, glurio, Oatsmaster (2) - zarepath, OmniEuology, Sn0_Man (1) - Zebezt, Mocsta (1) - Sn0_Man, bringaniga (0) - shz (0) - Acid~ (0) - No-Lynch (1) - Laguerta I don't know if the chaos was pre-mediated (After all you can not predict what lurkers will do OR who they will vote), but I think mafia took full advantage of the chaos. At the end of the Day1, there are THREE players with 2 votes, and 1 player lynched with 3 votes. Even though I ended up being the hammer, realistically, ANYBODY could have been the hammer with how it all turned out. Just for fun, I copy/pasted this introduction in Word. Word count: 570. Content: 0. Thank you for submerging us in recaps and data. These have no value without analysis. This is just bloating, giving the appearance of content while not having to actually do any work. To any lazy townie, this is impressive. Especially with the formatting. "Wow, there's a well thought-out post", should we think. But no, if we look close we can see that underneath the bolded font and bullet points, the balloon is full of air. How did we get here, and importantly, why did we end up here? This is answered in the proceeding case. Ah, finally! Answers to questions that no one cares about. I would rather see you write about who you think led us here. ACT I: The phoenix rises from the ashes - TeMiL 2.0 + Show Spoiler + (1) For those that did not play Newbie XXXIV, TeMiL was a very low post count, low quality player with an output almost identical to La Guerta. TeMiL's highlight of contribution was the following: + Show Spoiler + On January 05 2013 00:02 TeMiL wrote: ive just make a chart with your connections. i want to know for each one your nationality and the country of residence, or maybe everyone are native from each country that TL says: TeMiL - Peru Sylencia - Australia Spaghetticus - Australia Mocsta - Australia StriX - Australia OmniEulogy - Canada jampidampi - Finland cDgCorazon - USA zarepath - USA i need to make some conclusiones with this information Suffice to say, TeMiL was defended as bad town (this included me ). I do not know why we felt sympathetic to him, but we did. The story with TeMiL ended with him being modkilled Day2 for not voting. In fact I don't think he said a vote during Night 1 either. He ended up flipping SCUM Why am I referring to this? Because, for what ever reason, La Guerta has been interpretted widely as "bad town" and now that I have had a clear mind to revisit the past... it resets the now. I do not think La Guerta is bad town. I think his play is akin to TeMiL and therefore is SCUM This is useless, unless TeMiL is a smurf for Laguerta or vice-versa. You can't meta a player based on another player's play, that's just nonsense. I think you know this. In fact, I know you know this because your play so far suggests that you're not a total idiot. This is blatantly scummy play now, designed to sow confusion in our minds. (2) [spoiler=Filter Analysis] This guys posts is full of fluff as indicated by: What is there to say? Literally. In the process he even lied; as he said he was against the "No-Lynch" People say zebezt or Trotske might be bad town.. well if they are the bar of high quality, La Guerta is still in the shit. I think for whatever reason, the turning point for bad town was due to this post: Again; even if zebezt/Trotske are the benchmark for quality.. La Guerta is still in the shit. This guy has done NOTHING for town, and as I stated in the preface, I think his No-Lynch vote was a major contributor to the chaos of Day 1. Further to this he outright lied. Town has no reason to do this Day 1. I had a slight problem with this already on day1, but now with the rest of your play it has become a big problem. You throw the word "lie" around, as if Laguerta had purposely deceived us in order to pursue his own scummy agenda. But that's not the case. All that his play reveals is an inconsistency between his stated intentions and his actions. If this is a scumtell, then you're the biggest scum of them all as you repeatedly did this all throughout both days of play. In fact, yours is much worse because your actions did influence other players and in turn led to the lynch of a townie. I understand I have advocated not to do this. But with the current town environment, Dire Circumstances call for Dire Measures. As I am 100% certain La Guerta is scum. If that is the case even though his posts may be useless to find associations. I think the chaos he raised will have presented an opportunistic scum to take advantage of the situation. Hence my focus for the association was related to who led/followed the band-wagon OFF La Guerta. The find is as follows... So by now you're aware that you're acting in a way that contradicts your stated intentions, an act which you deemed a lynchable offense from Laguerta, but somehow you just don't GAF anymore. All this bullshit suspense-building, this style of impending doom, this is just white noise designed to distract us from the fact that you have NOTHING. But still, all this is nothing compared to what follows. And here comes an avalanche of bullshit: ACT II - (Forced) Scum Read - The solution required to the ?problem? - INCEPTION I say ?problem? because I think the intention for La Guerta was always to be lynched Day 1. The gambit being to destroy town productivity over multiple days. As a strategy I can see validity in this. It didnt matter if he was alive or not, because he would never be productive for town. It could even be incorporated for scum to lynch La Guerta by uncovering the lie to get town cred for free. Obviously though its always better to keep up numbers, so I think mafia planted a seed (inception) they hoped someone else would develop (the idea being a luxury but not essential )... Therefore when Trotske threw this out there: I think this was the advantage scum were waiting for to receive a solution to problem that didnt really exist (i.e. save La Guerta), but would be a nice-to-have. Now, my scum read (by association) I think saw this opportunity and decided to pounce. The response to Trotske is here: (I have intentionally removed the name to remove bias when reading) I think this person setup the play and pulled the strings for La Guerta to be freed. The strings were pulled so hard, even narrow-sighted Oatsmaster was led to say this in the final heartbeats of Day 1: I think this quote summarises the state of confusion for town in general, and La Guerta uncertainty. We all know Oats is a straight shooter, so for him to be in this disarray is saying something. So, you think that the scum strategy was this complicated mishmash - for which you have absolutely not a shred of evidence, only convoluted conjectures. I have a better solution. It's called Occam's Razor. The scum strategy was to lynch a lurker that they knew was townie because LAL strategies are always good and YOU set up this possibility with your first post in the active thread: On January 12 2013 13:09 Mocsta wrote: Hi All. From other games, it seems the best 3 questions to ask are: 1) Stance on Lurkers: i.e. Do you policy lynch? 2) How do you think scum would try to get influence with us? 3) [fluff] DONT BUY A POOL. I wasted all my time today with pools and hate it ! I won't be around for the next 6 to 8 hrs (DAMN POOL!) After everybody responded positively to a lurker policy lynch, you set the plan in motion. I believe Mandalor was your first target and that you switched to Laguerta, an easy target, when Mandalor started to fight back. I believe that Omni correctly identified the situation and that you were put at an impasse by the circumstances. You could stay on Laguerta and appear scummy when he flipped town by being the deciding vote, or you could switch to Mandalor, a previous read and try to play the victim card. This is, of course, what you did and you even tried to blame me for the "confusion" you were in at lynch time. Now, again, you have put your vote on a person unlikely to put up a strong defense. You have not voted for Laguerta, because you don't know how his replacement could play. You know OE won't be here for a bit because of his computer issues, so he is the perfect target. Despite my case against Trotske, your own convictions on Laguerta, my previous case against Zebezt, you have chosen to put your vote on someone who won't be able to reply. Thus, we will be unable to generate meaningful discussion, grinding the scumhunt to a halt. I'm not even going to reply to the rest of your post, which is just more of the same bullshit. I'm not falling into your trap and distracting my attention from what needs to be done. Closing Argument If you are town, you have not helped us in any significant way. You derailed discussion on day one, lynched one of our own, cluttered the thread with your incessant emotional whining every time someone interacted with you and now you make the worst possible case you could have made. If you are scum, I want to see you hang. ##Unvote: Zebezt ##Vote: Mocsta I would like all townies to review this case and post their thoughts. If you agree with me, I want you to vote Mocsta and state your personal reasons for doing so. If you don't agree with me, I want you to point out the flaws in my reasoning and explain why your preferred target is a better choice. | ||
| ||