|
On January 14 2013 17:44 shz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 17:31 Mocsta wrote: (1) "Was this the bus you were waiting for" No. My mindset was firm on La Guerta due to lying.. not being my top scum read.
If memory serves me right you went to bed and werent available during the last 1 hr. So I appreciate that you have a fresh perspective on this, but you weren't in the moment.
When OmniEulogy unvoted, and then Oatsmaster unvoted they raised raised good points. The lynch for La Guerta was uncontested. Others started to share this opinion and were considering his play as just bad town. And with that, the vote became contested. Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 17:31 Mocsta wrote: Yeah my vote went in last minute.. but why dont you check my post timestamps.. i literally had just got off a post from Acid; its not like I was sitting there ready to post last minute. [As an aside.. I even refer to my confused state of mind with the whole situation when I addressed Acid in the spoilered post]
There is no doubt [only now].. i was wrong about Mandalor, but I built what I consider to be a good and reasoned case on him. And his reactions were indeed over emotional. He admitted it himself. So you were distracted and confused, and because of that the post you quoted before voting for Mandalor convinced you? You made the case beforehand, but still voted for laguerta. Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 17:31 Mocsta wrote: As for the victim card.. i dont know what you are talking about, and dont see how your 2 quotes elucidate that? I am putting myself out there to be questioned.. Who else has done that? I am standing by open and transparent play.. when am I claiming to be the victim? If anything, I am trying to answer your concerns so we can move on and scum hunt. What happened, has happened; did you question my case i built on mandalor? I cant remember you doing so. You are constantly leaving outs and "invite" people to critize you. This could be town who wants transparency, this could also be scum who wants to play it safe for everything he does. If you constantly invite people to correct you, you will never be held accountable, because you said it yourself that you think you could be wrong. If you are the victim, you can't be the perpetrator. If you can't be the perpetrator you are town.
I am going home.. will address your points in 3-4hrs.. im not ignoring you.
FYI.. I had conflicting thoughts on Mandalor, I thought that was clear.. with 2-3mins left I posted in haste.. I thought that was clear too.. I think your looking to make associations out of fabrications.
Why dont you try and think from my point of view with the chaos.. and the potential of missing the vote deadline. You type what you can, as fast as you can.
Speak to you later.
|
@Shz I have read through your commentary in more detail, and cant help but feel you are tunneling me.. trying to fabricate and meld associations to suit your objectives.
I haven't seen you address Oatsmaster regarding this gem.. written in the final heartbeats of the lynch.
On January 14 2013 12:59 Oatsmaster wrote: MOCSTA ARE YOU SURE THAT LAGUARTA IS SCUM? Did you even read through the exchange of posts I had with Acid~ all during the final hour of the lynch.
The fact is.. the last hour of the lynch was a mess. People where throwing accusations around incessantly; and votes were flying too fast to remember. Whilst all this was happening, I had to deal with lurkers trying to engage actively with me.
Should I remind you my stance on policy.
On January 12 2013 13:13 Mocsta wrote:My answers to own questions Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 13:09 Mocsta wrote: 1) Stance on Lurkers: i.e. Do you policy lynch? Yes, if there is no strong scum read, vote off a lurker. If we create a good town environment, where people can contribute and not be scared, there should be no lurkers. That is my goal this game!
My vote on Mandalore can be broken down as follows: He was my number one scum read. i didnt like his play and outlined his scummy motivations very clearly here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=18#358 His responses provided no benefit to his cause. Even lurkers who had a plethora of targets to vote for, recognised this as a scum tell.
Then along comes a lurker.. how do you even read his play with almost zero posts.. .and with such low contribution amazingly manages to be caught in a lie... how does that even happen?
After all the confusion in the thread; the detailed discourse with Acid~; and the uncertainty over whether La Guerta was a sound choice..I was torn between enforcing the policy lynch of a lurker/liar (who could EASILY just be a bad townie); or lynching my top scum read from an entire days worth of analysis.
On January 14 2013 17:44 shz wrote: You are constantly leaving outs and "invite" people to critize you. This could be town who wants transparency, this could also be scum who wants to play it safe for everything he does. If you constantly invite people to correct you, you will never be held accountable, because you said it yourself that you think you could be wrong. If you are the victim, you can't be the perpetrator. If you can't be the perpetrator you are town. Once again.. tunneling and interpreting quotes to suit your justifications. My open and transparent play style makes me an easy read. I welcome criticism because (1) I said it was a goal to reduce confirmation bias.. this can only help... and (2) I am trying to achieve the first goal of townies as stated in the general guide to playing mafia.
On January 09 2012 15:49 Incognito wrote:Priority #1: Establishing Your Innocence + Show Spoiler +So, you know how to look for mafia and are ready to smoke them out. But unfortunately, just knowing how to find mafia is not good enough. The other part of the equation is convincing the town that you’ve found them. While you may be correct, it takes more than your own vote to properly seal the deal and kill off the mafia. As a townie, your number 1 priority is to establish your innocence. Why? Establishing your innocence does three things: - It gives you a credible platform from which you can push your agenda
- It reduces the mafia’s options for pushing their agenda - they can’t attack you without some serious consequences
- It reduces the number of viable mafia candidates - if the town thinks you are innocent that’s one less person to worry about
To elaborate: 1) It is hard to get people to listen to you if they are unsure of your motives. There are times where townies will ignore persuasive evidence based on an (irrational) fear that you might be pulling the wool over their eyes. Establishing your innocence allows you to focus on hunting the mafia instead of wasting energy defending yourself. 2) Very often, the mafia spreads doubt by inflating the importance of town mistakes. By establishing your innocence, you deny mafia the chance to attack you. 3) Sometimes the best way to find the mafia is by figuring out who isn't mafia. Every player who establishes their innocence gives the mafia less room to hide. The more people acting in obviously innocent ways, the more exposed the mafia become. Furthermore, if you can ensure that you won’t be the lynch target, you increase the town’s chances of lynching correctly and ensure that they don't get distracted debating your innocence. How do you establish your innocence? It is difficult to define parameters for this, but a good start is to know what benefits town, and act on it. As in the previous section, the town benefits from clarity, transparency, and direction. Try to contribute to these goals in whatever way possible. When you post, make sure there is a clear purpose to your post. Don’t repeat points of what other people have mentioned. Read the entire thread before posting, and don’t go back to old points unless you have something new to add to the discussion. Offer conclusions and clear opinions in your posts instead of rehashing information or being indecisive. How is this a safe play anyways? Why won't I be held accountable? I am the one that was here before, and is here now, answering the questions directed to me. All my contributions for Night 1 have been addressing you and Oats.
You are again misconstruing facts to suit your agenda.
|
Shz (1) Frankly, I am over your confirmation bias. Im actually shocked your replied within...
On January 14 2013 23:05 Mocsta wrote:
On January 14 2013 23:16 shz wrote:
10 minutes.
So this whole time, you have just sat here waiting. As soon as I reply.. bang ... you reply.
You even ignore the quote from Oats I posted, which was a CLEAR indication of uncertainty in the thread. This guy is complete chest-out, guns-blazing attitude.. im right your wrong.. and in the final heartbeats of the lynch.. he is asking if im sure.... That you intentionally ignore this proof of chaos is beyond me Shz. -when I even highlighted it for you.
I have been nothing but courteous since you have decided to pressure me. I will still continue to do the same. I have given you complete explanation for my vote. The rational is clear.. why did I not change 1 min or 20 min.. I already told you.. I was involved intensely in discourse with Acid.. Do you bother to check the time stamps when I asked you to?
I gather not.. have a look at this..+ Show Spoiler +On January 14 2013 12:58 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 12:41 Acid~ wrote:On January 14 2013 11:27 Mocsta wrote:On January 14 2013 08:16 Acid~ wrote: (1) 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.
(2) @Mocsta: 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. (3) It is you who hindered discussion on day 1, by drowning inquisitive players in walls of text containing little to no substance. (4) 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". (5) 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
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:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 14:22 Sn0_Man wrote: I'm not denying, discussion is good/important and if nobody starts it scum autowin. However, if a scum can get control of town fast, they almost instawin. As a gambit, it seems fair since people like you are jumping in to defend him pretty fast. ... @Sn0_ManI 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 aboveOn 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:Show nested quote +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!)
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).. On January 13 2013 20:59 Oatsmaster wrote: The problem I have with Mocsta isnt that he is 'leading' town, Its that there are less than 12 hours left ( I like to repeat this) And no one has a solid scum read. And I dont think its my fault totally.
. 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. 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.
That was written 2 minutes before the deadline. You act as if I had meticulously decided to post last minute. Fact.. I finished the post to Acid, i saw the posts that were before mine.. and was already torn on policy lynch vs scum read when Omni started suggesting policy lynch was a bad idea. The posts I saw were enough to push my decision the other way. It was obviously I was frantic and panicking to get my revised vote through. yes, there is nothing new here. I have been open about my intentions with this lynch from the moment you started questioning me... you are merely seeking answers to associations that exist.
Why arent you targetting others who got off the La Guerta bandwagon? your focused only on me... how can that not be confirmation bias?
|
EBWOP
you are merely seeking answers to associations that DO NOT exist.
|
Shz
Seriously.. you need to start reading what Im saying...( im not asking you to stop questioning Oats.)
but I did not ask you to question him (as you implied above).. The quote I chose to elucidate was a reference to the chaos in the thread at the time. Oats reaction in context with his personality this game I think is a very good indicator of the disarray all the active participants felt.
I can understand you not feeling this.. after all.. you made a conscious decision not to be involved around lynch time..
|
If I wanted to imply something I would have asked a question.
I was stating fact. You said earlier in the thread you would choose not to be present for the lynch. How is that not a conscious decision?
.. Once again.. its already been answered... you are looking for an response that meets your expectations.. thats called confirmation bias.. I explain my motives quite clearly in numerous posts. You are the one refusing to accept it.
|
Guys im going to bed.. I probably won't be around for the deadline.. if im dead theres no point, and if im alive.. well, hopefully there will be some content to read through.
Overall, I am still confused about the state of this town.. and have no idea who a suitable NK would be. As I have been an active contributor, I assume there is a chance it will be. so these are my last words if that is the case.
(1) + Show Spoiler [Townies make mistakes] +When i flip you will understand all townies make mistakes. Obviously I did with Mandalor.. but please remember, other townies made mistakes during that lynch as well. Please put the goggles away.
The focus of the scum hunt isn't to find confirmed townies.. its to lynch scum. Don't forget this. (2) + Show Spoiler [Support Oatsmaster] + I don't like his methods at all; especially because he reminds me of an enforcer/bully. But; I just can't see a scum player sticking the neck out this hardcore. At the start yes, I thought he was trolling; but since then, I think our differences are due to our methods of scum hunting. Different ideologies. I noticed some have voted him. I ask you to consider Oatsmasters actions, and seriously ask whether scum would behave this way. (3) + Show Spoiler [lurkers are not helping] +I dont know how we actually filled 29 pages of thread.. it feels like its all between a handful of posters. In fact when I do a filter search, only Oats/Omni/myself have more than 2 pages of filter. This is a concern. Guys Day2 it needs to be a priority to engage the lurkers. There *HAS* to be scum sitting there. History has proven this repeatedly.
I would start by looking at what lurkers came in and threw a vote out of no where. Who bandwagoned, who tried to justify an opinion. These actions need to be brought into question; why is that an acceptable way to vote? (4) + Show Spoiler [My current scum read] + My reads have evolved since Day1. zarepath was someone I forgot about Day1. he flew under the radar, and then made his presence by landing a bomb. My reasoning for him is not OMGUS.. its actually due to the mismatch between his actions and his promises. The bomb he landed re-enforces this concept.
On January 12 2013 14:51 zarepath wrote:I'm not 100% sure as to the best way to obtain a good town environment, but here are some things that come to mind: 1) Avoiding emotion. Mafia can use emotion as a mask for their bad logic, and if people are acting emotionally, they also tend to overlook better reads. I'd invite everyone to act and think as clearly and logically as possible, and if you feel strongly towards or about anybody, take a step back and think of a rational way to deal with it. Mafia want us to be emotional -- instead, we must be as Spocks. 2) Make clear cases and vote for good reasons. Town has coaches we can use to go over our scum reads and give us pointers before we post them. If our cases are not clear or well thought out, they cannot lead to positive discussion. Mafia want an environment of baseless accusations they can bandwagon onto without having to take the fall for it. Actively trawling filters as your reads evolve will help you to turn a case that started as "For some reason, I'm not sure if he's town" into "Here are the specific reasons I believe this person to be mafia." We're here to help each other's cases, and the more clear and direct they are, the easier it is for town to build up enough logical data to win. 3) Contribute quality posts. I think it is harder to know how to do this at the beginning, when there's fewer people to suspect and you're waiting for the last few people to start posting, but just take some time to look at your own posts before you post them -- does this argument make sense? Is there a purpose to what I'm saying? Mafia want everyone's filters to look fluffy. If we have a standard for quality content, it becomes harder for mafia to look like they're contributing. I hope we can all endeavor to build a strong town environment. And with that, I'm off to bed. So zarepath is advocating how to foster a strong town environment. Notably, anyone can copy/paste these questions. Its about whether his actions support his claims. I don't believe they do, as follows: (1) On January 14 2013 11:49 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 11:49 Oatsmaster wrote: I really dont know who to vote for....... laguerta is scummy, but I really dont feel confident in lynching him... He isnt here to defend himself, so... Also from past experience, scum has always been around at the deadline so... Therefore you are scum? QED Im not really sure what the intention of this post is other than to get a reaction out of Oatsmaster. Its written in a "smart-arse" manner, and the QED claim is intentionally derogatory. We all know from my experience with Oatsmaster, he is officially a hot-head.. so what is the purpose of this? Its definitely contributing to the chaotic environment of Day 1. (2) On January 13 2013 06:40 zarepath wrote: Perhaps you can ask him something specific to talk about? Otherwise all he can do is sit there and talk about Mocsta's pool Again.. how is this fostering any collaborative environment. Its a contribution yes.. but half-arsed.. Why dont you suggest something.. instead of just point out a deficiency. (3) On January 13 2013 04:32 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 03:55 OmniEulogy wrote: I think having people explain the reasoning behind their votes is fantastic but I don't think it goes far enough, I believe we should go through each others cases and not only agree/disagree but see if we can prove the case right or wrong ourselves while waiting for the defense of the person being accused. (it is important to wait for them to defend themselves first, otherwise we give them an escape with no effort on their part) I know this is done to some degree each time a case is made but in both of my last games we've made the mistake of lynching townies due to their arguments not standing up to one persons case. I'm hoping we can avoid that if everybody weighs in with not only their own case but their thoughts on the other cases as well.
It's a lot of extra effort but I believe it's a good way to discuss scum reads with each other and keep conversation strongly focused on scum hunting.
I like this a lot. It puts more work on townies, but it will become very difficult for scum to keep up appearances this way. zarepath. you like this.. but what work have you done to facilitate? You make an easy agreement and then do not follow through. This is exacerbated by your Night 1 accusation on me. You throw shit.. and expect people like Shz to follow through with question time. Why arent you breaking down cases as you alluded to promosing. (4) On January 14 2013 11:25 zarepath wrote: I'm voting for Laguerta because of his inability to pick someone to vote for. Feels pretty scummy, and I haven't had a chance to do real thorough reads today. (NO, goverment didn't confiscate my laptop today, but Sundays are generally my least-available days.)
##Unvote Acid~ ##Vote Laguerta
Acid will be modkilled, and while replacing him isn't necessarily a good thing, we do know Laguerta is spineless. So, there it is. I'll be doing a more thorough filter read N1. Note the context.. when this vote was issued.. La Guerta was already the front runner.. i think 5 to 2. He moves from a no-post lurker.. to the current town flavour for bandwagon. The justification being modkill... how is this town behaviour or jsutification? I played with town zarepath last game. we were down to the final three. I know his game.. and so far.. its not matching up. (5) On January 14 2013 13:55 zarepath wrote: Mocsta has a LOT to answer for -- omgusing, over-defensiveness, and hammering Mandalor, who seemed especially not-scummy. Seriously.. WTF is this for a post.. Why is this fostering a good town environment... I dont care this is adressed to me.. its not a suitable post to be addressed to ANYONE.. Its completely open to interpretation and gets us no where. He conveniently doesnt add anything further to this, whilst Shz/Oats question me.. How curious.. Sow the seeds and then lurk away... I re-iterate.. this is in no way OMGUS.. look at the behaviour.. Do you find this acceptable? Why would town act this way? I cant see it. (6) On January 15 2013 00:13 zarepath wrote: Fair enough, Spag. I can see, based on his overtly scummy behavior, a scum coach telling the rest of scum to bus him hard. I will have to leave that option open in my analysis, then. So hes actually been reading and keeping up to date with the thread. So even though he says throws my name in the shit.. he lays silent when Im getting questioned.. and decides to randomly post for the new guy... If he didnt post. I would say.. OK. this guy is asleep. But that he posted to the new guy (who entered convo WAY after I was being questioned).. it suggests he is up to date. TL;DRGuys.. zarepaths post count is limited and many of his responses allow him to fly under the radar. Having said that.. in his short filter he has numerous actions which do not align with his quoted thoughts on how to achieve a good town atmosphere; and he has clear actions which do nothing to aid the confusion that was present near lynch time. I would contest he added fuel to the fire. This is why he is my top scum read.
|
(1) I was roleblocked... did anyone else receive a roleblock?
(2) GG Oats
(3) Im in meetings most of the day. Will try to pop in and check what happened after I left last night, maybe at lunch in 4 hrs.
|
On January 15 2013 09:27 zarepath wrote: Wait..... so Oats must have shot Glurio? How do we have two deaths?
I have to be quick not much time.
must is a strong word. We don't know that.. Look i think its pointless assuming Serial Killer this early, thats like making association cases.
Its likely Oats shot Glurio.. but his last post points out a few scum reads.. why glurio out of all of them? Just keep that in mind.
Gotta go.
|
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.
Saw this just as I was about to go.
Im not going to comment on Spag yet, he just started. I think he has correctly identified a problem though.. there is too many lurkers in this game. I pointed this out in my last post as well.. @Trotske is there a reason you are against him calling out lurkers?
As for zebezt.. well.. it is concerning he has not directly handled the discourse sent his way Night 1.
I gotta go, will try to add more later.
|
On January 15 2013 10:19 Trotske wrote: I do when that is pretty much all his posts have said the whole game. Personally. I found his attempt at a re-cap:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#580
to be the most impartial analysis of the Day1 events. Most people that tried to summarise, had the perception skewed towards their goals.. (e.g. Shz with me.. and Sn0_man with Trotske etc etc). Hence.. I found this post useful,
I'm surprised you dont care to mention it as a meaningful contribution?
@Trotske Spaghetticus identified you as as a low post count, low quality contributer.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#570
You have reciprocated by saying he is only targetting lurkers, and therefore he is a cause for concern.
Why would this behaviour be scummy motivated?
@Spaghetticus I want to see more from you.
I think coming in as a replacement and providing a through summary - that includes original thought is a good sign of your alignment. However, we are now in Day2, and I am going to be watching your actions carefully. Its easy to say you are targeting lurkers, but I want to see this followed through. Actions need to speak louder than words.
I ask that you begin to lead the discussions on one your identified scummy-ish lurkers. i.e.
On January 15 2013 01:20 Spaghetticus wrote: - Zebezt - Trotske - Zarepath - Laguerta - Sn0_man - Glutio
|
@zarepath I have outstanding statements against your character I would like to see you address.
This is directly out of my last will: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#569
[I appreciate theres not direct questions here... but I would like your take on what I have provided. please explain to me why the actions I have noticed below are not scum-motivated.]
On January 15 2013 01:02 Mocsta wrote:(4) My reads have evolved since Day1. zarepath was someone I forgot about Day1. he flew under the radar, and then made his presence by landing a bomb. My reasoning for him is not OMGUS.. its actually due to the mismatch between his actions and his promises. The bomb he landed re-enforces this concept.
Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 14:51 zarepath wrote:I'm not 100% sure as to the best way to obtain a good town environment, but here are some things that come to mind: 1) Avoiding emotion. Mafia can use emotion as a mask for their bad logic, and if people are acting emotionally, they also tend to overlook better reads. I'd invite everyone to act and think as clearly and logically as possible, and if you feel strongly towards or about anybody, take a step back and think of a rational way to deal with it. Mafia want us to be emotional -- instead, we must be as Spocks. 2) Make clear cases and vote for good reasons. Town has coaches we can use to go over our scum reads and give us pointers before we post them. If our cases are not clear or well thought out, they cannot lead to positive discussion. Mafia want an environment of baseless accusations they can bandwagon onto without having to take the fall for it. Actively trawling filters as your reads evolve will help you to turn a case that started as "For some reason, I'm not sure if he's town" into "Here are the specific reasons I believe this person to be mafia." We're here to help each other's cases, and the more clear and direct they are, the easier it is for town to build up enough logical data to win. 3) Contribute quality posts. I think it is harder to know how to do this at the beginning, when there's fewer people to suspect and you're waiting for the last few people to start posting, but just take some time to look at your own posts before you post them -- does this argument make sense? Is there a purpose to what I'm saying? Mafia want everyone's filters to look fluffy. If we have a standard for quality content, it becomes harder for mafia to look like they're contributing. I hope we can all endeavor to build a strong town environment. And with that, I'm off to bed. So zarepath is advocating how to foster a strong town environment. Notably, anyone can copy/paste these questions. Its about whether his actions support his claims. I don't believe they do, as follows: (1) Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 11:49 zarepath wrote:On January 14 2013 11:49 Oatsmaster wrote: I really dont know who to vote for....... laguerta is scummy, but I really dont feel confident in lynching him... He isnt here to defend himself, so... Also from past experience, scum has always been around at the deadline so... Therefore you are scum? QED Im not really sure what the intention of this post is other than to get a reaction out of Oatsmaster. Its written in a "smart-arse" manner, and the QED claim is intentionally derogatory. We all know from my experience with Oatsmaster, he is officially a hot-head.. so what is the purpose of this? Its definitely contributing to the chaotic environment of Day 1. (2) Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 06:40 zarepath wrote: Perhaps you can ask him something specific to talk about? Otherwise all he can do is sit there and talk about Mocsta's pool Again.. how is this fostering any collaborative environment. Its a contribution yes.. but half-arsed.. Why dont you suggest something.. instead of just point out a deficiency. (3) Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 04:32 zarepath wrote:On January 13 2013 03:55 OmniEulogy wrote: I think having people explain the reasoning behind their votes is fantastic but I don't think it goes far enough, I believe we should go through each others cases and not only agree/disagree but see if we can prove the case right or wrong ourselves while waiting for the defense of the person being accused. (it is important to wait for them to defend themselves first, otherwise we give them an escape with no effort on their part) I know this is done to some degree each time a case is made but in both of my last games we've made the mistake of lynching townies due to their arguments not standing up to one persons case. I'm hoping we can avoid that if everybody weighs in with not only their own case but their thoughts on the other cases as well.
It's a lot of extra effort but I believe it's a good way to discuss scum reads with each other and keep conversation strongly focused on scum hunting.
I like this a lot. It puts more work on townies, but it will become very difficult for scum to keep up appearances this way. zarepath. you like this.. but what work have you done to facilitate? You make an easy agreement and then do not follow through. This is exacerbated by your Night 1 accusation on me. You throw shit.. and expect people like Shz to follow through with question time. Why arent you breaking down cases as you alluded to promosing. (4) Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 11:25 zarepath wrote: I'm voting for Laguerta because of his inability to pick someone to vote for. Feels pretty scummy, and I haven't had a chance to do real thorough reads today. (NO, goverment didn't confiscate my laptop today, but Sundays are generally my least-available days.)
##Unvote Acid~ ##Vote Laguerta
Acid will be modkilled, and while replacing him isn't necessarily a good thing, we do know Laguerta is spineless. So, there it is. I'll be doing a more thorough filter read N1. Note the context.. when this vote was issued.. La Guerta was already the front runner.. i think 5 to 2. He moves from a no-post lurker.. to the current town flavour for bandwagon. The justification being modkill... how is this town behaviour or jsutification? I played with town zarepath last game. we were down to the final three. I know his game.. and so far.. its not matching up. (5) Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 13:55 zarepath wrote: Mocsta has a LOT to answer for -- omgusing, over-defensiveness, and hammering Mandalor, who seemed especially not-scummy. Seriously.. WTF is this for a post.. Why is this fostering a good town environment... I dont care this is adressed to me.. its not a suitable post to be addressed to ANYONE.. Its completely open to interpretation and gets us no where. He conveniently doesnt add anything further to this, whilst Shz/Oats question me.. How curious.. Sow the seeds and then lurk away... I re-iterate.. this is in no way OMGUS.. look at the behaviour.. Do you find this acceptable? Why would town act this way? I cant see it. (6) Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 00:13 zarepath wrote: Fair enough, Spag. I can see, based on his overtly scummy behavior, a scum coach telling the rest of scum to bus him hard. I will have to leave that option open in my analysis, then. So hes actually been reading and keeping up to date with the thread. So even though he says throws my name in the shit.. he lays silent when Im getting questioned.. and decides to randomly post for the new guy... If he didnt post. I would say.. OK. this guy is asleep. But that he posted to the new guy (who entered convo WAY after I was being questioned).. it suggests he is up to date. TL;DRGuys.. zarepaths post count is limited and many of his responses allow him to fly under the radar. Having said that.. in his short filter he has numerous actions which do not align with his quoted thoughts on how to achieve a good town atmosphere; and he has clear actions which do nothing to aid the confusion that was present near lynch time. I would contest he added fuel to the fire. This is why he is my top scum read.
Since my last will, you also posted a summary of your current reads.. Now thats Oats is dead, i noticed your passage
On January 15 2013 06:24 zarepath wrote: Oats I voted for him yesterday, but after going through his filter today, he oddly seems to be the most valuable townie we have right now. He has pressured more people than anyone else, which HAS led to discussion. I don't see scum motivations for his behavior other than the free use of his voting power, and erratically switching it around until he finally liked where it rested. That seems to fit with his play style, however, so I don't think that is enough for a scum read, even along with the fact that he was immediately aggressive towards Mocsta -- that seems to be a trend in this game, and it's not necessarily unwarranted. Feels like TOWN
Lets recall your vote for Oats here:
On January 14 2013 12:35 zarepath wrote: ##Vote Oatsmaster
Has not been helpful towards town, was an active scum player in another game (so not necessarily a lurker scum), has unvoted FOUR times, most recently very late in the day when it was almost assured that Laguerta would be lynched regardless. His reasoning? "He's scummy but he's not here to defend himself. I'm gonna go vote for someone that nobody else is voting for and will definitely not get lynched, so when Laguerta flips town, I look good." (Okay, so not his literal read, but a possible motivation was thrown in there.)
His timing and his lack of reasoning worry me, and I find him to be far more likely to be scum than Laguerta.
If I break these 2 posts down. You firstly admit you voted for Oats, and then proceed to dramatically declare him as town "MVP" even though in your vote for him you said "has not been helpful towards town". You give a brief explanation on the 180' flip... but you never explain why you got over the multiple votes, which I think was a crux in your decision to vote him.
Convenient you choose not to address this.
Now.. if your actions above are indeed scummy-motivated; is it a simple affair to conclude: if you thought he was so valuable, I think its also straight forward to conclude that a scum zarepath would treat him as a suitable NK.
(To paraphrase your choice of words when voting Oats) Therefore, by declaring dramatically Oatsmaster is town "MVP".. I think you made a play to gain town cred as per:
".. so when Oatsmaster flips town, I look good"
|
On January 15 2013 13:03 Spaghetticus wrote: @Mocsta I know you’ve come under fire from a lot of vets outside the game for your controlling methods (I also criticised you). At this moment in time, I think the energy you give town is invaluable, so please stop being so damn defensive about every upstart resistance and contribute the best way you know how. Up until now you’ve been so involved in positive self-evaluation and crushing dissenters that you are derailing town and filling the thread with whiny victimised bullshit. While I do have a meta-read on the causal reasons for your butthurtedness, that shit can just as easily be used as a cover for scumming the thread up deliberately.
[Let me clear my system] Go fuck yourself.. (thats for you antagonizing me constantly in Newbie 34
I have spent the whole Night1 under the gun, and explaining my actions. And you come into the thread and say im scumming the thread up.. + Show Spoiler +Go fuck yourself (thats for antagonizing me now in Newbie 35) [System cleared]
Now that I have had my vent and can think rationally. Yes.. several people this game are saying im being too reactive. I think its easy to see though that Oatsmaster pushed my buttons and perhaps that is the explanation for my defensive tone recently. I recognise that numerous people have said im trying to be mayor; so I will take a step back. I still think however:
We need to move on, from Day1/Night1 consolidate and focus on the scum hunt. I have poised a series of character analysis to zarepath and am awaiting his feedback.
In the meantime, I am going to take a step back from trying to lead discussion, I hope this will give others the incentive to step up and contribute more.
|
|
On January 15 2013 13:43 Spaghetticus wrote:WTF RLY?How does Show nested quote +At this moment in time, I think the energy you give town is invaluable, so please stop being so damn defensive about every upstart resistance and contribute the best way you know how elicit a response like Show nested quote +In the meantime, I am going to take a step back from trying to lead discussion, I hope this will give others the incentive to step up and contribute more. I want you to be active, but cut the crap. Are you so certain that the entirety of your contribution is crap that in order to cut said crap you must stop posting? I want you there on day three because you are active, and if you are scum you will slip as a result. If you downgrade your activity I will shit on you for motivated lurking. It is clear that I want you to stop wasting time being a victim, and I am not the only person with these thoughts. You are not responsible for other people lurking, but you are responsible for hiding their posts with tirades of self-pitying crap.
Look.. I am still going to be active.. its just more so.. im going to contribute my providing cases and questioning my leads (as I have done with zarepath).
I am going to step away from prompting others to lead the discussion, because, enough people have voiced they don't like my methods. I said I wanted a positive town environment, and if people dont believe in the way I lead, i need to step back and re-focus on other ways to contribute to town.
To me the best thing I can do now is follow my leads and pressure my targets. - as I suggested in the previous post.
|
On January 15 2013 13:50 Sn0_Man wrote: I'm curious to see what zarepath has to say, not because Mocsta has a decent case but because I have some other suspicions. I'll have to reread too many filters in light of the NK.
Are you planning to share your thoughts on my case for zarepath? or by saying it was decent.. that is the extend of your share?
|
On January 15 2013 13:51 Sn0_Man wrote: To clarify, I'll have to reread too many filters to post any serious accusations now
Kinda left out the important part.
You still left out the important part Sn0_Man..
if your not going to post serious accusations NOW.
WHEN will you? Thats the important part.
|
|
@Shz
On January 15 2013 09:10 Mocsta wrote: (1) I was roleblocked...
Since you are one of the few who is actively trying to fit the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together.
What do you make of this action?
Personally I thought I would be higher chance for the NK than RB, so I don't know what to make of it.
|
On January 15 2013 12:15 Trotske wrote: It is cause for concern when the only scum hunting he has done is point out that lurkers are bad.
@Trotske I hope we are just having communication breakdown here; as you did not address my question.
Im not asking why it is a cause for concern.
Im asking you to explain why the behaviour that YOU have identified is scummy motivated.
I do not think what you have provided so far is a sufficient response.
|
|
|
|