EPTNewbie 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 SCUMWhy 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. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 04:57 zebezt wrote: So, for the case against Mocsta: here's the gist of it, my wife needs me so I don't have time for too much detail. At first he seemed pretty townie to me. He was nice n friendly to all and posted a lot. A LOT. The actual content in there is actually pretty useless though. His case against Omni illustrates this VERY well. A GIANT post. But he already says its an association case and that those suck... so what the hell? but there are some gems in there... he says he is 100% sure Laguerta is scum. Awesome scum slip. I'm voting Laguerta myself, but ONLY A SCUM can be 100% certain who is scum he is 100% sure Laguerta is scum, but he isn't voting for Laguerta? WTF? THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL I was already surprised at how upset he got over a small hint of suspicion I had towards him, as demonstrated by the incoherence of his follow up post. + Show Spoiler + On January 15 2013 16:40 Mocsta wrote: Influential? I have been called for my play by almost everyone in this thread (lurkers and actives). I even said today I have to take a step back. Did you not read this from my prime interrogator. (1) Your are dodging others questions; people like Shz have already re-asked you the questions. I think even Mr. King of lurkers (Acid~) wasted one of his few posts to re-ask you questions. Your response: i thought I answered it all.. are you not reading the thread? (2) You then say I am influential.. as if the events of Night 1 didnt happen. Are you not reading the thread.. again? If you haven't, this is very reckless accusations to be making; something I would think only scum would be motivated to do.. (3) I was RB'd.. its not clear whether town or scum.. but as noone else has stepped up to say they were RB'd. I am going to assume for the time being it was scum. (4) The difference between you & (Shz/Myself) is.. we were considering different options for why Oats was killed. You however just assume.. if I would do it.. scum would do it.... WHOAH wait a sec.. if you were scum then of course you could speak with confidence like that. This is a huge concern to me. Please explain how this is town motivated thing to say? Why would he panic so much that he would write a post like this. Even he himself admitted this post sucked. Anyway, I think he is scum. But first the former Laguerta must die If you think Mocsta is scum, I think you should vote him now. Because if he is scum, he is much more dangerous than a lurker at this point. I understand the policy lynch and why it's "safe", I understant that you want to stick to your strongest scum read. I ask you just to review my case against Mocsta and keep an open mind for lynch option. If you are town and you are convinced Mocsta is scum, surely you see the need to consolidate on him ASAP. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 05:55 shz wrote: I would still like to have an answer why the fuck does he not want to lynch laguerta if he is so sure. Why the giant (format wise mess of a) association case instead of voting the one who is associated. That does not make sense, and with Acids case, which does make kinda sense, I think now would be the time for some actual defense and answering of open questions. Omni is definitly one of the dumbest targets to lynch today, and I can't wrap my head around why someone would make a case like that. @Acid: So you would say Mocsta is good scum, instead of crappy town? I can agree, but I'm not sure if laguerta would still be the better candidate for tonight. He should have died D1, did nothing until being modkilled, and his replacement doesn't seem to be around either, or is lurking hard. So I don't know why we shouldn't lynch him now and go after Mocsta later. But for me this depends on how Mocsta handles himself between now and lynch. Well, let's take the best case scenario where both Laguerta and Mocsta are scum. In this case, we should want to lynch Mocsta first because his play style is disruptive to town and will only get more disruptive as town numbers dwindle. I'm all for policy-lynching lurkers, but not when we have great scum reads. Especially an active scum who spreads dissent and confusion amongst town. Now, let's take the worst case scenario where they are both town and we still have to lynch one of them. We should lynch Mocsta because he isn't useful to town. Remember, a townie's greatest power is his vote and look at how he is using his vote. One mislynch, and now Omni. I would argue this is worse than a no-vote at this point. In the other cases, where Mocsta is scum and Laguerta is town, obviously we want to lynch Mocsta. The only case where we want to lynch Laguerta instead is the final case where Laguerta is scum and Mocsta is town. This is why I want players to review my case, because the only way I will advocate another lynch at this point is if we have a strong read on another scum and stronger reason to believe Mocsta is town. Also, the read I have on Laguerta is a lazy/busy guy who got bored of playing before the game started. Not involved in the game. Now I don't play on forums a lot, but in TT games this happens often with veteran players who roll vanilla. Something to think about. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 06:45 zebezt wrote: Acid: look at this logically. If Mocsta is scum are you are convinced (and I'm pretty sold on it too) than why would he switch votes from Laguerta to Mand. The situation at this vote count http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=24#480 was such that Laguerta was to die. If Mocsta is scum and Laguerta is not, why would Mocsta switch? It only puts him in the center of attention, which is what scum usually does not want. Honestly, my guess is that he thought the Lag lynch would still happen and he didn't want to be on the train. I think the last-minute confusion might indeed have gotten to him and he didn't realize Man would be lynched, which would be coherent with his OH FUCK post right after the lynch. It could also be a master scum play, similar to what happened here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=312831¤tpage=5#99 The thing is, our votes are scattered right now, which leaves us open to a situation similar to d1: scum could vote-switch to bandwagon at the last minute and put us in LyLo at the start of day 3. I especially don't like where Mocsta's vote is parked and given his latest post I'm expecting another last-minute vote-switch. We need to consolidate town right now, IF you think Mocsta and Laguerta are equally likely to be scum, you should vote Mocsta because if he is scum, he is much more dangerous. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 07:20 shz wrote: Are you kidding me Mocsta? How the fuck can't you still not vote for laguerta/Jacob? I will stick with laguerta for now. I think he did a great job of either causing confusion in this town, or at playing bad. I hope it's the former. As long Jacob does'nt participate at all, I see no value in keeping him around. I'm not completly sold on Mocsta, but that doesn't I see him as town. ##Vote: JacobStrangelove Please participate in some way before you die, maybe you can explain what the fuck laguertas play was and defend yourself (even if you weren't the one doing this shit). If not, I'll keep my vote on you. Even if Jacob is scum at this point, him not voting makes him essentially useless to the scum team. I would advocate voting for him only if you have no other strong scumread. Have you read my case on Mocsta? If so, do you have any comments? If you're not convinced, please share your doubts. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:07 Spaghetticus wrote: ##Unvote: Zebezt ##Vote: Trotske You need to explain this vote because right now it looks like you're jumping on the easy train. What do you make of my Mocsta case? I know you like to LAL, but we're way past that point now. We don't really have any hardcore lurkers anymore, everyone has posted enough so that we could get a sense of them. If your strongest scumread is Trotske, please explain why. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 07:05 Sn0_Man wrote: Agreed, and Day 1 I thought they might both be scum. Another option is that they are masoned together... On the other hand, the coordination of this sudden jump-on-mocsta train reeks of scum QT planning. Obviously its not certain, but I'm going to examine the circumstances very carefully. Which sucks because I had a pretty hard town read on Acid (probably because he's always had it out for Moc rofl). If nothing else, I still support the theory behind LAL enough to look at lynching laguerta (okay his mute replacement) over Mocsta. @Trotske at least you are posting. And really, your posts are starting to change my mind. I so wanted to lynch you. @Mocsta that last post sounded desperate as hell, although admittedly town don't want to be lynched either. If Trotske and I were both scum plotting together, we would be like the worst scum team ever since my case against him got him leading the vote count right now, which is interesting. Very interesting indeed. It seems my case has produced the desired results, although not in the manner that I had intended. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:26 Sn0_Man wrote: I really would like to hear a real content post from spag pre lynch, although I'm not expecting it. I would really like to hear (read :p) what you have to say about my Mocsta case. I think we need to consolidate hard right now, and not on a lurker. You are right to be suspicious of the Trotske train and I think a Mocsta lynch would be much more beneficial to town. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:27 JacobStrangelove wrote: Well it was pretty! You had exhibits and everything. Could have been a bus style we hate each other thing gone wrong though. The whole if I were scum argument while useful sometimes often is mildly indicative of scum trying to think how a town would. (or trying to leave the impression he is town by saying if ect...) I know you're new to the thread, but surely you see that there are much easier bus targets than Mocsta right now. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
| ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:49 JacobStrangelove wrote: Oh? So who do you know is scum that you could bus over him? Nice try with the loaded question. Just look at the guys who jumped at the chance to lynch Trotske. If that's not a bus, I'm a pineapple. Unless you take 'bus' to mean only scum voting on scum, I mean it as scum all voting on the same target after someone initiated the vote. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:52 shz wrote: @all: Did your opinions about Jacob change? Do you think he is worth keeping around for a while? I kinda feel that he at least contributed somewhat, though the surprise that the lynch deadline is so soon is a bit strange, it is posted with every votecount, and they were already a few of them before he started. Right now, there is too little content to make an informed decision, but he has promised to catch up and he did contribute. I see the no-lynch vote as null, personally. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
I'm thinking we need to look hard at Spag and zarepath now. Spag's LAL policy doesn't apply after d2, by his own admission so now he needs to step up and provide some real content. He also needs to explain his vote on Trotske, as I previously called out. zarepath is slightly suspicious because of his voting and also by association since Mocsta pleaded in his defense. I know this is thin, but it deserves at least some pressure. Concerning laguerta, now JacobStrangelove, I feel confident that scum were not bussing day1 but orchestrated a situation where town had to choose between two mis-lynches, as happened in this game: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=312831¤tpage=5#99 | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 18:04 zebezt wrote: 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. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 17 2013 21:00 zebezt wrote: 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? | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
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. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
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. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
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. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 01:17 zarepath wrote: You say Mocsta wouldn't have been lynched because all 4 mafia would have voted for Trotske? That would look mighty suspicious, but it would save a Godfather. I can understand that. My first game of mafia had 4 mafia out of 13 people, so I still think it' s a possibility (although I concede that 3 mafia seems much more likely.) I don't know how the three possibilities are 6-2 or 4-2-1 (or 5-1-1)... those don't add up. I think the strongest possibility is 6-2 right now, with a possibility for 5-3. If we have an SK in the game and he kills tonight, then it's 4-2-1 or 5-1-1 | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 01:49 zarepath wrote: I should think that me being Mocsta's #1 scum target during N1, when he thinks he has control of town, in addition to his constant following-up on his case of me with multiple other people during D2, should clear me. It does not. The only person who is cleared in my mind is the person that scum actively tried to lynch d2. Mocsta played a good game as GF so I do not doubt that he included his own teammates in his bullshit cases. The fact that he gave an almost positive town read on you later in the day definitely does not clear you. 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#698 Noted, and this will definitely factor in my case on Spag. You're entitled to thinking my N2 contributions are scummy, but it's still a lot more helpful of a contribution than over half of town has contributed over N2. My reads are more of myself thinking out loud trying to reason things through -- it's true they're hypothetical, but they outline each possibility and illustrate why I think each person is worth scrutiny. I haven't reviewed your filter in detail yet, but I will get to it. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 02:54 zebezt wrote: I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean with double bus? Was that aimed at me? I have no beef with you. I just want Jacob voted off. No, forget about the double-bus thing. Just make a real case on Jacob if you want him lynched. Not a case on laguerta. A case on Jacob. You can't analyze laguerta's play because there is no way to know if he was trolling/bored/scum. Make a real case on Jacob and we will discuss it. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
Lynch Spaghetticus. Either he or zare or both of them are scum. This is simple logical deduction from the actions and votes of day 2. Again for the cheap seats: scum would not have split their vote 3 ways and if you think that scum bussed Mocsta it means I am scum. Spag bandwagoned Trotske at the end of day 2, this alone is reason enough for a lynch. He has not provided an explanation for this action, nor had he delivered on his promise to start "taking names". Simply put, while I'm still on the fence about zare there is simply zero town motivation for Spag's actions. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 06:11 Sn0_Man wrote: Lots more sense but I'm still pretty sure you are wrong. Lets say JSL and Mocsta were scum. A) who is #3? B) Why would JSL not vote to save himself day 1 (I guess moc promises to save him in scum QT?) and save mocsta day 2? (Admittedly a smurf *may* be suicidal but that seems weird). Wait, so you think JSL is scum or not? Because your post makes it look like you think he's not, and zare also thinks he's not, so... where's the disagreement? | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 05:53 Trotske wrote: What I Was trying to say was that your townie claim on JSL is not as solid as your posts seems to make clear you think it is. Your reasoning is that he could have voted me and saving his scum mate, but by doing so when I showed up townie the biggest case that was around was on mocsta after I was lynched aka he is next in line of fire even more so since he was pushing for my mislynch. So by hammering me JSL not only would kill mocsta next lynch in the process but would also be under more scrutiny form hammering me. I am not trying to say he is scum just that he is not a confirmed townie like your post said. does that make more sense than my other post? By saving Mocsta and lynching you, all they do is create suspicion around them, they don't guarantee a lynch especially since they go into day 3 with a 3-vote power against 5. Speculation time: yesterday you die, then I get NK. OE is modkilled, maybe replaced, but maybe not. Oh. Suddenly scum are 3 against 4 which means barring a unanimous scumlynch, they win. I think casting suspicions on themselves is a pretty decent tradeoff for winning the game. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
Just so we're clear, Sn0's death doesn't mean anyone gets a free pass re: roleclaiming and explanations. I'll start, since I have the most powerful role with the best power of them all: + Show Spoiler + I'm Vanilla Townie I would like to see all of your claims before making a case. @Zebezt: You need to get off your tunneling of Laguerta and make a case against JSL if you insist on going that route for today's lynch. I also want to hear an explanation of why you didn't consolidate with town on Mocsta when it was clear a JSL lynch wasn't going to happen. In that regard, until you step up... ##Vote: Zebezt | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 09:40 JacobStrangelove wrote: Vt "Lynch Spaghetticus. Either he or zare or both of them are scum. This is simple logical deduction from the actions and votes of day 2. Again for the cheap seats: scum would not have split their vote 3 ways and if you think that scum bussed Mocsta it means I am scum." So why the vote on Zebezt? Because I want to pressure him? Why else? There's like 40+ hours left in the day, I'm not going to park my vote and twiddle my thumbs in my ass for the rest of the day. We require information. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote: 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 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. There's one major problem with your reasoning: Mocsta makes his bullshit case on OE at a point in time where Trotske has 0 votes. After Mocsta votes for OE, this is what happens: - Sn0_Man is the first to pick up on my case and votes for Trotske - zebezt makes a case against Mocsta, then votes for laguerta/JSL - I make my own case against Mocsta, and vote him - Trotske votes for Mocsta - Mocsta votes for Trotske! Look at this sequence here. Why, at this point, would two scum vote for each other when neither of them is on the chopping block? They're each at one vote before they effectively OMGUS each other. What's the strategic value here, if they are both scum? And then, something very telling: - zarepath votes Trotske with no explanation, only a promise - Sn0_Man correctly senses that something is up and unvotes Trotske - zebezt refuses to consolidate on Mocsta - You come in and vote Trotske, again with no explanation - JSL votes no-lynch - Sn0_Man votes Mocsta - Shz votes Mocsta Now, what does this tell us? Couple of things. 1. I don't buy Trotske as scum. My case was good but so were the defenses, including - but not limited to, his own. He was also the first to follow me on Mocsta. Due to his reaction to Mocsta's post, it's possible it was an OMGUS, but even so... scum OMGUSing scum? If you look at the sequence, the last 2 votes on Mocsta come quite late and with a bit of reluctance from the voters. Without Trotske's initial support, there is no consolidation later on. 2. You and zarepath look scummy as hell and the only reason I'm not calling both of you out as the scum team is because 3. Zebezt's refusal to consolidate, despite agreeing that Mocsta is scum and despite his target having virtually no chance of being lynched that day, makes him look very fishy indeed. Another point against you: you are willing to potentially sacrifice a townie, when we are 5-2, only to "100% confirm" someone who is like 90% confirmed. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 19 2013 07:18 zebezt wrote: Lol.. I almost miss Mocsta. It's kinda dead in here. Partly my own fault. Too damn busy. Been reading spag's filter. He doesnt say much useful stuff. He did encourage people to look into a case on Mocsta though. Not really. What he did what suggest that people "tear apart" the case Mocsta made on Omni. This looks scummy to me now that we know Mocsta's alignment, because we know Mocsta's case was misdirection and steering players towards examination of that case is more misdirection: it diverts attention from true scumhunting. Also note that Spag himself doesn't waste any time analyzing the case while asking us to do it. All the little things add up. Slightly positive. On the whole he feels scummy to me though. For someone that said he was gonna contribute a lot, he hasn't really made that happen yet. Tomorrow i'll probably write an overview of my case against Jacob. Tomorrow we'll "probably" lynch you if you don't start being useful, so I suggest you *definitely* make a real case against JSL. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 19 2013 08:40 Trotske wrote: Let's go through our lynch options. Here are my reads on, in my opinion, the viable lynch candidates. JacobStrangelove + Show Spoiler + On January 18 2013 12:07 JacobStrangelove wrote: While this turned out to be true I think this might have been a scum slip, even with all the evidence town are normally far more careful with reads. For example with this evidence I would say most likely town and would think of the possibility of having improved his play to appear more town not remaining scummy to appear more town. (although I haven't seen him play before I don't think?) Also in general Spags meta is way off... he is the only other australian and while he has given reasons for being less active you would have thought he would have at least chimed it (it's almost 1pm Australian time) So in other words his meta is off, he isn't posting much (which is a separate issue from meta while being connected) and he isn't following though on his non LAL policy. A LAL policy is really easy for scum to talk about because it requires no evidence beside from lack of content. Also he posted this Is seems he has taken up the mantle of motivated lurking.... after being so bold and aggressive against them has he realised he can't keep up? FOS# Spaghetticus This is JSL's only post I could find that has any real input into who could be scum. I'm not sure if this makes him scummy or just a lazy town but I do find it odd that laguerta and JSL playing from the same role PM seem to be playing the same style. Well, at least he's not trolling us. The few posts he has made manage to have more sense and quality than Zebezt's entire filter, for example. Spaghetticus + Show Spoiler + On January 18 2013 13:24 Trotske wrote: And yet you offer no specifics in this whole post. Make excuses for your bad play, and you still have not given town any information in this whole thread YOU SCREAM SCUM you have no case and are trying to waste a lynch on a fact finding trip. My FoS of Spaghetticus of which no points have been changed or addressed. + Show Spoiler + 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. ##VOTE Spaghetticus Agree. He talks a lot but there's not substance behind it, and of course the biggest scumtell is wanting to waste a lynch when a mislynch puts us in LyLo the next day with two scum remaining. Zarepath + Show Spoiler + Does this feel like a bus to anyone else? It seems like we are pretty set up on killing spag today so why not jump on the bus and try for the late game. On January 19 2013 01:42 zarepath wrote: The point is that if I were Spag and I knew I weren't scum, I would be looking very closely at Zarepath because he is the only person who voted with Mocsta that I wouldn't have confirmed as town. I can understand why people are suspicious of me, because I voted with Mocsta. That on its own isn't enough reason for me to be scum, but I can totally understand why it would be worthy of looking through my filter and coming up with a case. I can ESPECIALLY understand why it would be worthy of doing if Spag were town -- he would think it very likely for me to be scum. However, he did NOT do that -- that draws attention to the idea that another scum must have voted with Mocsta, and he apparently isn't very confident that I am scum. Because I am town, I am highly suspicious of the other person to have voted with Mocsta, so I looked through his filter and his interactions with Mocsta, and it all builds together (along with his votes and his cases) to a strong case of Spag being scum. The point isn't that we're both scum -- it's that we're both very much worth looking into if you're LOOKING for scum. I submit that Spag is not looking for scum, and that, having now looked, I very much think him to be scum. Also He voted with mocsta last lynch with no explanation saying he would post it during the night this is that post. On January 17 2013 11:15 zarepath wrote: My Vote, Explained by Zarepath Trotske's Day 1 involved few contributions. Most notably, he "pressured" bringaniga, agreed with Mocsta's case on Mandalor while still defending him while still saying he'd vote for him if he acted more scummy (bandwagon ready), and then he also made a case on sno_man and wouldn't let up on trying to get everyone to talk about it: Not necessarily scum-aligned, of course. But also smacks of trying to start a bandwagon. When looking at how Day 1 mislynch went, Trotske went out of his way to call Laguerta a bandwagon and voted for Mandalor because he was the one who started the vote for Laguerta... it seemed a little bit like trying to take credit in advance for the town's mislynch (or non-credit, as it were). As my time was limited today, I decided that the players I'd limit my analysis to were my previous scummy reads and those with lower post counts (Shz, trotske, Acid, zebezt). Trotske stood out to me as I read Acid's case on him, as his defense wasn't exactly stellar, and his other contributions weren't that amazing, either. His vote for Mocsta seemed to be mroe of a deflection than a read. So, prior to Mocsta flip, those were my thoughts on Trotske and my reasons for voting for him. NOw, however, we have a LOT more data with which to look at things, so I am pretty much looking at Trotske completely fresh (and almost confirmed townie, basically, considering his interactions with Mocsta, although that can't be completely assumed.) no hard reasons but the case from Acid. Makes his vote seems a little scummy, something to consider. Yeah, zarepath's play is frustrating to analyze and bears a lot of similarities with Mocsta. Also, scum bussing their buddy today? I buy it. I'm convinced they didn't do it day 1 or 2 but if there ever was a time to bus, this is it. zebezt + Show Spoiler + I really like how he made a case on mocsta pretty early, My only problem is he makes a case on jacob based on a case against lagurata who was practically trolling instead of voting for mocsta. I would really like some more input on him so I can see other points of views on him. The only thing Zebezt has going for him is that he made a case against Mocsta, similar to mine, a few minutes before I posted mine. So, essentially, we both had the same idea at the same time. While this is indicative of town alignment to me, the rest of his play has been abysmal, especially tunneling a lurker when we've had much better lynch targets. These are my current reads, I WOULD LOVE SOME INPUT ON THESE, IT IS DEAD IN HERE. I think spag is still the best lynch candidate. I think you could make stronger, more detailed cases but you've got the general idea. I agree with Spag being the best lynch candidate. My gut feeling is that the scum team intended to lynch you yesterday by bandwagoning Sn0_Man's vote and my case, so that they could point the finger at us when you flipped town. As such, I believe the remaining two scum to be Spaghetticus and zarepath. Simple, yes, but not simplistic and definitely in the realm of possibility. Therefore, since it's unlikely any pressure will come on Zebezt today: ##Unvote: Zebezt ##Vote: Spaghetticus | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
1. Roleclaim. 2. More scumhunting, less defensiveness As of right now, you are the best candidate for a lynch whether you are scum or not, simply because none of what you are doing is actually helping us find scum. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 19 2013 23:31 Spaghetticus wrote: (3) - My reasons for suspecting/voting Trotske are not only that he confirms you as 100% town, though I am someone who factors in such things into his initial estimate of a person. I believe JSL stated it should only be a tie-breaker, this is very conservative and IMHO dead wrong. Trotske has very little contribution, and what he does say is generally fairly weak. He is one of my two biggest reads (the other being JSL, though I'm starting to suspect Zare), and while my post did not explain everything, it was a summary post, not a case. I feel that a lot of the misinterpretations of my content are happening because a failure of people to look at the context (as well as delve into my possible intentions). Trotske's posting can be explained by him being a newbie town player. There are a couple of things that don't match up with him being scum: - Why would Mocsta bus him day 2? After the case I made against Trotske, would the scum team have given up on life so easily and not tried to attack me? There were also other targets that they could have switched us to. Zebezt and Laguerta/JSL were under scrutiny. Mocsta would also not have gained any town cred for lynching Trotske IF Trotske flipped scum, because Sn0_Man originally called for the lynch and I made the case. - And now we can ask the exact same question in reverse. Why would Trotske bus Mocsta? My case against Mocsta had no traction and there were juicier town targets. Even WIFOM doesn't make sense here, because while it could be, in some situations, a good strategy to double-bus, it's stupid in the situation we were in yesterday. They could have easily led town into a mislynch (and I do declare that's exactly what they almost did), in which case we would have entered day 3 at 4-3. Yeah. We didn't know the situation, but there was a chance OE was getting modkilled with no replacement and scum team KNEW that OE was town. I don't think I need to explain how a 4-3 ratio is stupidly more advantageous to scum than *maybe* getting a bit of town cred. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 20 2013 00:36 Spaghetticus wrote: - Mocsta would bus anyone day two. He was WIFOMing like a mad-man. He did it too much and you guys caught him because of it. His actions were calculated to cause confusion, why would he act in such a way that allows us to confirm town? He was and is a bold player, and there is not a croutons chance in hell that he didn't name/mention/act against one of his scum-buddies to create further intrigue. - Trotske probably did not believe the lynch on Mocsta would happen (I certainly didn't). By the time it became a real possibility it was too late for him to back out without being called scummy, and he may as well rack up town cred for the lynch. - it's not as if these were hard buses. A scum's role is not to act predictably, but to win the game. If they thought that neither target would go down (I know Mocsta left enough options open), then why shouldn't they remove themselves from the lynch is it was a reversible maneuver? Honestly my head is getting fuzzy, and your argument is not making as much sense to me as it should. What is your fourth paragraph about? I don't see the double bus play at all, and I'm not even sure of the mislynch you refer to. OK, here's the simple version: Mocsta can't take credit for the lynch if Trotske is lynched and flips scum. Sn0_Man made the first case against him, and initiated the vote. I made the supporting case later on. Mocsta can't take any credit for the lynch, he made no case and just used mine as reference when he parked his vote. What is there to gain from such a bus? None of the bandwagon voters are realistically going to get any town cred for it. Also, at the time the votes were made, none of the bandwagon voters were under any real suspicion. So, yeah, maybe scum aren't supposed to play predictably, but there's unpredictable play and then there's just bad play. And killing one of your own, when you don't need to, and in doing so losing the opportunity to create a LyLo situation for town on day 3, that's just bad. Now look at this play: if Trotske is town instead, what happens when we lynch him and he flips town? 1. Honest mistake guys, really. After all, the case was really convincing and Trotske had made some dubious plays, it's his own fault he got lynched, really... 2. I look bad. Mocsta wouldn't have failed to point out that I made a case and didn't back it up with a vote and then I spend all day 3 explaining why I acted this way and maybe, just maybe I get lynched and then it's GG. At this point, it's not even that one situation is more likely than the other. But one explanation IS simpler than the other, and it also happens to contain a great endgame plan, whereas your explanation... I don't see the strategic value. I don't see the endgame. Judging by Mocsta's play there is 0 doubt in my mind that scum are being coached so I'm taking a little risk and assuming he's not coaching them into doing stupid shit that doesn't advance their gameplan, just to be unpredictable. I buy Shz being scum more than Trotske, because I can see the sequence of plays leading to a scum win in that scenario. Yes, it's ballsy as fuck but it would qualify as good, unpredictable play. For Trotske being scum, I don't see the sequence. Well, actually I see a possible sequence but it would require you to be scum as well. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 20 2013 01:53 shz wrote: Spaghetti, you are pulling a serious Mocsta here. But leaving your will is actually a good thing to do. No matter what you flip. Despite playing the angry victim pretty hard, I don't like this lynch. Why don't you like it? If it's because it seems too "easy", remember that now is the perfect situation for scum to bus. My favorite to lynch today is zarepath. He did nothing all day except from tunneling Spaghetti. He is also AWOL the last 24hs and why shouldn't he be? Spag is going down and he doesn't need anymore attention on him. If nothing happens for the rest of the day, my vote will stay with him. ##Vote: zarepath Zarepath has actually been pretty active this game day. If tunneling Spag is scummy, why am I not suspicious as well? Why does Spag's will read to you as genuine? Why is Spag's will valuable to us if he is scum? | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 20 2013 09:12 zarepath wrote: I am SO glad I did not mistakenly tunnel Spag two games in a row.  So you don't feel the least bit remorseful about throwing your buddy under the bus? | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 20 2013 10:07 zarepath wrote: That's a pretty leading question . . . I can understand why I'm under scrutiny; I am the only surviving person who voted with Mocsta, and my arguments D3 could be seen as a bus. But consider my perspective as a townie who voted with Mocsta on D2... of course I focused Spag, because I have valuable information that nobody else in the game has (unless I've been DTd) -- I know that I am Town, which makes Spag the obvious focus for my attention. To me, the most obvious next people to look at are Zebezt and Jacob, as they're the only people left (other than myself) who didn't vote with Mocsta. If you're going to argue that I bused Spag, I ask that you also analyze those two as well. Sorry for the loaded question, but it was too tempting :p More seriously: your play this last day makes sense whether you are town or scum. Spag flipping scum means that you are not 100% scum at least. And yes, I'm not letting Zebezt or JSL off the hook that easily. We will have a very interesting day 4 indeed. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
1. Tomorrow we lynch zarepath because he is still the most obvious scum. 2. If zarepath flips town, next day we lynch JSL because he's the next best candidate by elimination. You already know my reasoning for Trotske and Shz being town, Zebezt I could see you being iffy about but the fact that he made a case on Mocsta similar to mine at the same time (slightly before, even) shouldn't be ignored. No offense to Zebezt, but I don't think you're *that* good of a scum player :p That leaves zarepath and JSL as the only two possible scum. Sidenotes for the night: A. If we have a roleblocker, RB zarepath B. If we have a JK, Jailkeep Shz or me | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
| ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
I think it's because they used him to carry out the kills since he was flying under the radar and he can't kill and RB at the same time? | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
| ||
| ||
