EPTDidnt knwo it would be a problem; and was asleep
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Didnt knwo it would be a problem; and was asleep | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
 Nice one. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
 I italicized the lurk for you | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
P.S. Let it be known to players that have played with me before.. im changing my meta game this one regardless of role. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Newbie 33 (which surely I am allowed to talk about?) Coaches were Hapa & debears. i found the feedback answers.. whilst gave me the same output.. where written in completely different styles. I thought that was good, because some people respond to diff styles. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Mr. Moderator; if I may ask... if the three spots fill up before Newbie 34 finishes.. will this start or wait? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Day 1 for the 48hrs .. i am flat out busy during daylight for both days, so I apologize in advance for not being present during the usual greetings. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Hi the game starts at 12:00 AWST. I assume lynch is 48hrs as well. With Night 1.. will the cycle be 20hrs to reset back to 0800 AWST? Thanks, | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Best of luck to everyone. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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!) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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! 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! 3) [fluff] DONT BUY A POOL. I wasted all my time today with pools and hate it ! AGREED! I won't be around for the next 6 to 8 hrs (DAMN POOL!) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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_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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I actually replied to Sn0_Man before reading this.. if i did read this first, I could have saved myself a post. On January 12 2013 14:51 zarepath wrote: I think you're right, Sno_Man, that it can be instawin if mafia can control the town environment. But instead of auto-suspecting anyone who is proactive, perhaps a better tack is to make sure we have a town environment that mafia cannot control. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Can you guys please confirm GMT so we know what shifts people are keen to discuss at. I am +8, so lynch is 12:00pm for me //fluff back to the pool now  | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
lots of posts are not indicative of any alignment. For me: Its about quality of posts, and whether you are giving information for free, or giving information because asked! Its also about whether the motivations behind the post are towny, or scummy. As an aside: I don't think there is anything wrong with an active contributor - as long as they don't start alienating the rest of town from talking. One of the major problems we had as town last game was that people just stopped talking as the numbers dwindled. Thats why I am aiming for a good town atmosphere where rationalised scum hunting is prioritized. I hope this will give us more incentive to contribute, and more confidence to share ideas. On January 12 2013 17:08 zebezt wrote: Anyway, I read a lot of the previous mini mafia, to get some info on some of the players. Mocsta seems like a very active player in last game and he was town then. p.s. in the last game, I was not the most active poster in the game.. Spaghetticus was (town too) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Just keep in mind, there are typically two shifts of play; Australia/Aisa & America.. Europe typically is inbetween. With the game @ 12pm +8, its quite late for many, and Saturday day is obviously a busy day. I wouldnt take too much out of it (for the first 18-24hrs at least). I have plenty of questions to ask, but am trying to show restraint and give others opportunities to speak. And I 100% agree with with the case rationale, its essential. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Please generate some discussions USA shift ! There are still plenty of players who have not even posted yet. zebezt, trust me.. I know the feeling to want some discussion happening, but, as town we don't want to create spam. Unfortunately now its just a waiting game for some activity. [Unless 24hrs has expired.. thats my personal deadline for lurker calling] | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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 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 | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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 | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 07:05 Trotske wrote: Can you please explain what all your posts are about? your new scum hunting techniques have made it so I have not seen a single post from you that was useful at all. Trotske, I agree his posts are ermm.. "diffferent?".. however, there are still to my knowledge 3 participants who have not contributed at all. Acid, Shz, Glurio @Trotske Since you are here, I may as well try to generate some meaningful discussion. (1) Do you think it was reasonable to mention to Sn0_Man and Oatsmaster that their over-agressive/paranoid type early-game playstyle might actually be preventing people from talking (including the 3 I listed above)? (2) Do you think that behaviour is a normal town approach to the game? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 04:32 zarepath wrote: 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/Omni, I completely agree. I hope town takes this on. Just remember, last game -Night1; I asked everyone to critically read my case on OmniEulogy.. only cDgCorazon reciprocated. (ending with:even though he initially thought it was flawed, after pondering, he was convinced OmniEulogy was high chance for scum @ his death). So.. I say to you, that * I * will make the effort to provide rational, constructive feedback to your cases. With the current town atmosphere, I wouldn't bank on some of the others to help out. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 01:42 Oatsmaster wrote: Lynching a scum read is good because it provides discussion around the lynchee which is helpful in locating scum. For example, a day 1 scum lynch will almost surely not have any scum, depending on the situation so then just lynch everyone who wasnt on the wagon. Really optimistic example. This is funny coming from you. *ALMOST SURELY NOT* Didnt you play in Newbie 32...werent you lynched Day1 as scum? I think its unlikely to lynch scum Day1, and in my 2 games we haven't achieved that. But obviously something went right in your game to lynch you. So far, there havevn't been too many contributions; but a few of us have indicated wanting a combined scum hunt and bouncing ideas against each other. I 100% advocate this as well. Perhaps this will be the key to lynching scum Day1 (after all I dont want you to feel alone ) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 01:28 Oatsmaster wrote: My point was that the question is not a good question because what do we know about optimum scum behaviour? You know I read this, and get a funny vibe. Its almost a soft-town tell... ohh i cant be mafia because I know nothing about being mafia. Now, last game we had a guy do a similar thing, he was town.. so for the time being, I will give you some leniency here. I am going answer this because, I assume in *your-own-way* you are *trying* to contribute to the scum hunt. We are newbies, with a maximum of 3 games. Of course we don't know about optimum behaviour. So what? That means both alignments do not know optimum, and we are at the same playing field. My games are 1-1 for town/mafia, that indicates level playing field too. You are seriously derailing conversation here, but to what agenda? The intention of the post is to start getting us townies to think about ways mafia try to persuade us to think. That way we can start to counter it. If you can not see that, and in combination with the other things you have written, I have to seriously doubt your intentions. @Oatsmaster Why are you so against town collaborating together to prepare for the scum hunt? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. Thanks for the support Trotske. I am happy others agree Sn0_Man and Oatsmaster are creating a bad town environment. Fair comment. For your #2.. in past games feedback the veterans kept saying was.. this is a simple game.. town catch mafia. you ask questions to find scum. its that simple. I wouldn't fret on your experience, to me so far, you are taking a good approach trying to consider if a post is town or scum motivated. Once the votes come through, is when we start to see alignments more clearly (At least in my experience) [p.s] The guides are REALLY useful - make sure you read them again; also speak to the coaches. The feedback is invaluable. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
OK... your not a smurf of Chezinu the brown are you? Anyways, what has everyone posting got to do with the below. Please address these with the same courtesy all other players did. Thank you. On January 12 2013 13:09 Mocsta wrote: 1) Stance on Lurkers: i.e. Do you policy lynch? 2) How do you think scum would try to get influence with us? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Please continue conversations, we need more!! I would give my reason for where I shall be.. but apparently "Oatsmaster" has banned me from using that word. Ahh fuck it.. I have to clean ze pool more. [forgot to put Chlorine in it last week.. and yeah... a little bit infested ] | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 08:42 Oatsmaster wrote: Mocsta, do you have any reads so far? Yeah, and so far my best read has NOT addressed any of my questions to him. Instead, my best read has responded by trying to dodge the questions and put the limelight on other participants. ##FoS: Oatsmaster All you have done is successfully derailed the thread convo, and made people uncomfortable to post. Others have agreed with me. I see no town motivation for your behaviour. You have continued this behaviour, and when asked about it, you dodge the questions and instead ask irrelevant questions to the mods. If everyone had posted, this would be a vote. But because we are still waiting on 3 to 4 people, I will give benefit of the doubt and just lay finger of suspicion. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
<insert sarcasm> Well done, you are obviously a top candidate to lead the scum hunt. Interesting that he doesnt even bother to read the 3 pages of thread since Day1 before laying down his vote. Oatsmaster, you said you answered my direct questions? No you didnt.. If you need a refresher, try here: On January 13 2013 07:18 Mocsta wrote: @oatsmaster Why should i NOT treat is the outcome of your agressive posts [stopping fluid and positive town conversation] as scummy motivations On January 13 2013 07:50 Mocsta wrote: @Oatsmaster Why are you so against town collaborating together to prepare for the scum hunt? As for your points, They are just plain wrong. Your heuristics are weak, and confirmation bias is completely drowning you. That you are willing to lay a case down when:
I know as a townie, my vote is my most important weapon. I don't just throw it around lightly, and *hope* to catch scum. I scum hunt actively, create a collaborating town environment, and *know* I will catch scum. You on the other hand, just throw the vote with wild abandon. In my 2 games, I haven't seen a townie do that, and I still don't think I have seen a townie do it. You have been upgraded from Finger of Suspicion to ##Vote: Oatsmaster | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 14:20 Oatsmaster wrote: This game man.. Explain why you voted me in detail please Mocsta. It feels like you are relying on your previous town games to give you an automatic town read. About a townie throwing their vote in reckless abandon, please read newbie mafia XXXI. I don't think I'm doing it this game though :/ I have voted my scumread and I either push your lynch, or lay off you because I think that you are town. At the moment, YOUR OMGUS vote on me isn't convincing me. Everyone else, comment on the situation please. i already detailed it. That you ignore this is just fuether cause for concern shz is dead right. I fos you. And then you omgus me. I have not omgus. I laid out succintly my concerns with your play. And there is no way what you are doing is contributing positively. Hence the only possible explanation is scum motivation your reaction is case on point. Instead of provide sound reasoning like a townie would. You prefer further emotional arguments trying to demand i explain myself when it was already there for all to see. with your handling of this pressure. You have proven my vote was the right decision. Guess thats 2 scum games in a row that u r uncovered day 1 | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Oatsmaster is out of line and is doing his most to prevent discussions. The thread feels like day3 and we have not even had our first lynch. i think oatsmaster has had a large part to play for this. I can only expect his intentions and attitude have been premeditated. @bringa you still havent answered the first questions or participated in any meaningful discussions. Yet you have posted numerous times. This is not good enough. I am going to expect more from you over the next 20hrs. Your saving grace from me so far is oatsmaster scummy play and that acid is yet to contribute. start contributing bringaniga. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
FYI http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=385389 On December 01 2012 23:39 ghost_403 wrote: FLIPS Oatsmaster the goon was lynched Day 1. This is the game with the famous AxleGreaser. ---------------- Omni, I am used to your concern with me. I know each game is different, but just remember, you spent a lot of last game hounding me, and even JK'd me, which in the end proved I was town. So, I don't have a problem if you are unsure of my alignment. This is smart thought process to take and I return the same to you. I stand by that as town, we shouldnt be calling out weak or strong town reads Day1, the information can only help scum make easier targets. Like I keep saying to you, I am an ab-lib poster; with too much activity to try and bullshit. My motivations and intentions should be clear in my posts. I stand by my actions speaking louder than words. In regards to actions speaking louder than words...Herein lies my problem with Oats - and why I voted him. Initially I gave him benefit of the doubt and said.. hey.. you realise your not helping out town with your attitude .. instead he tries to aggressively intimidate me.. I then ask him 2 sets of questions specifically to him regarding his behaviour... he completely ignores them and tunnels me all over again. His derailing on the thread, when there is already low activity to me, has led to a thriving scum environment (something I am trying to oppose here) - this with all the previous behaviour was grounds for my vote.. he follows up by saying I OMGUS him, which is completely wrong. He is doing his best to try and intimidate me from contributing; and at the same time is not getting anyone else to contribute. In my 2 games, I have never seen town play this move; whether it was Day1/Day2/Day3. I can only read his motives as intentional, and scum aligned. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 19:37 Oatsmaster wrote: Instead you focus on somebody who has been active, playing his previous town meta, and has been trying to promote activity while defending himself from you. I think he is scum. Is that not a good enough reason? Oatsmaster.. I have had enough of your behaviour. You are again completely out of line. Once again, you are implementing emotional arguments and trying to intimidate others from posting. Let it be known, I will not be intimidated by you. I stand for an open environment, not the dictatorship that you seek. When I gave the the FoS I thought maybe you were just trying to cock-block discussion; but your actions since then have been consistent.; consistently reckless. You are doing your utmost to derail the thread with your fast and loose play; obviously a good scum strategy to partake in. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Day1 activity has been extremely poor, even with my best efforts to counter. Who else has stepped up to promote discussion. There have been 1 or 2 other individuals. Perhaps you just decided to target whoever was the first poster to the thread was. Let me guess, after your done with me, you will pursue them as well. You are a MAJOR CULPRIT for the lack of activity this Day 1. As such, let me remind you: On January 13 2013 13:12 Mocsta wrote: You have been upgraded from Finger of Suspicion to ##Vote: Oatsmaster | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 19:44 Oatsmaster wrote: So how do I get people to talk? Theres a variety of methods. Forum Mafia operates a lot like real life, typically if you ask someone a question politely, they will reciprocate with a response - hopefully polite. When you ask questions with your tone; 3 outcomes are standard: 1) They are intimidated, and capitulate to you. I assess your behaviour as seeking this. 2) They answer your question, and do no capitulate.[i]This is me. I am not scared of you. I know I am town, it is you who is trying to create havok where havok does not exist.[i] That you make this play so early indicates, scum see my proactive start to the game as a threat. So I take your tunneling as a complement. 3) They tell you to fuck off. Now that you know why your question technique is poor.. lets try good questions: 1) @Oatsmaster You say you want to target Mocsta because "I think he is scum. Is that not a good enough reason? " So far, all your points are dredged in confirmation bias. You are looking for connections that do not exist. Have you tried thinking, why would Mocsta post what he does if he was town. I think you should, let me know if your points are then countered, and if your perspective has changed. I think thats a good question in this situation. 2) @Oatsmaster You are tunneling one target, Mocsta; yet at least 1 individual is yet to post with 24hrs expired. Are you not concerned with this behaviour? Do you find this behaviour scummy? (to both points, that you ignore others have not posted, and that someone has not posted) I think thats a good question in general | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 20:03 OmniEulogy wrote: Haha Generally I think asking questions is how you have to do it. I know you have been but it's mostly been in regards to the discussion between you and Mocsta. I'm not saying ask the lurkiest of lurkers anything. You might not get an answer back. But I believe most of the other players would answer you. For example I'm curious about how people find Bringaniga's posting. @Everyone Would you be willing to lynch him based on his current posting and why? I personally am against lynching Bringaniga right now. I feel that he has a town mindset behind his actions, and although it is annoying it is not very scummy yet. Im disapointed with Bringaniga output. I have called him to respond as well at least once, possibly twice (yeah I know, I managed to do this, whilst "discussing" with Oatsmaster. Im not sure if a see a townie mindset, or any mindset? seems like a fruitloop. Perhaps hes a bored VT; or TeMiL all over again *sigh*. I think treat him as a priority for Day2. Right now, every time I want to walk away from Oatsmaster, he just keeps baiting me back. I really think the scum gambit for Day1, is to kill discussion and hope it never picks up. So far its working..How is it possible we are 4-5 pages in.. and over 24hrs have passed, this is not normal. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 20:16 OmniEulogy wrote: Mocsta I'd also like you to give your 2 cents about Bringaniga if you would. I'm not looking for anything in depth, just your opinion on him IF things remain the way they have been until the deadline. Even though I touched bases on him last post, to answer your question specifically. If things remain the way they are; Oatsmaster gets my vote over bringaniga. If bringaniga posts nothing meaningful between now and lynch, I am happy to vote him instantly Day2.. I learnt from the last game, if your sure of mafia, and something new pops up, sometimes no point changing. (How many times did we lose voting out TeMiL.. because someone offered a confirmation biased post). | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 19:59 zebezt wrote: Oats seems to be either playing scum or is acting like an idiot. Not easy to decide which it is. I think a scum would not stick his neck out this much so early on though. I think Oats is trying to do 2 things (1) Play "So-Scummy-He-Can't-Be-Scummy" This play has been so effective in past games I played, it allows you to be active, confuse town, but still survive. & (2) Gambit: "Create Chaos by targeting a discussion promoter" I think Oats randomly chose me, possibly because I wrote the first post. Even calls me out for writing the first post On January 13 2013 01:05 Oatsmaster wrote: Hey Mocsta, what was the point of your opening questions? Do you think you achieved your goal? I think the gambit is to derail thread convo as much as possible... I mean right now, who are we actually thinking is genuine scum besides Oatsmaster? Thats exactly what scum want.. they sacrifice one player, and then can win the game by lurking low like the rest of town they intimidated to stop posting. [As an aside.. how is that post even constructive to town... from his first post regarding me, he has decided to be of this aggressive untoward nature.] | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 20:24 OmniEulogy wrote: I'm not sure Mocsta. I think we have a lot more to work with than D1 of our last game. Also, I was a bit impatient sorry  I believe we can use today to get some answers from the EU guys. Shz, Mandalor, Glurio ect. should give us their input. Zarepath should also be around. It wasn't the best 24 hours we could hope for but I'm trying to work a few things out with the limited information. I'll try to have one good case about 5~ hours before the deadline. Two if it's needed. It sucks to have to hope people will respond but most of them have given reasons for their inactivity during the weekend. Now is their chance to prove they want to help town and come in with some fresh thoughts. Agreed. Regardless of my thoughts on Oats, we need to pursue other leads so we are in good stead for Day 2. Good to know we are on the same page; did you want to lead the discussion with the "low post" guys? I would do it, but feel Oatsmaster will just try to derail it.. perhaps if you post, he will ignore it. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 20:29 OmniEulogy wrote: I did the exact same thing last game, or in my first... maybe both. It happens You make an interesting point on Sn0 regardless. I think he's just acting as a paranoid townie though, which I am not implying is a bad thing I believe you should assume everybody is scum and have them prove themselves as town first. His activity level is low however but I'm not sure if I'd put him as #1 scum suspect at the moment. Yeah.. hes not my #1.. its difficult.. the most important lesson I was taught from my first game was to avoid building association cases. Concentrate on 1 scum, you either prove them innocent, or prove them guilty. If innocent move on, if guilty.. lynch. I know this is hard... it is easy to think the way sn0_man/Oatsmaster entered the game was very similar.... but its very hard to pressure two players at the same time very well. Therefore, advice is to choose one, and focus until you get the answers you seek. TL;DR Stay on one target, push them till you are satisfied... | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 20:34 OmniEulogy wrote: @Mocsta I think if you look at it from somebodies point of view who hasn't played with you, allowing a random person to take total control of town is terrifying. I've had slight problems with you doing it in both of the games we've played together but not large enough to complain because generally it moves discussion forward and eventually I get a town read on you. With this in mind I can see Oats being extremely suspicious of you and trying to remove your credibility by making a case on you to be scum trying to take control of town in a newbie game where people are generally more docile so you can get away with it much easier. Although I think Oats was overly aggressive I can see a town AND scum motive behind it. I wouldn't assume he was just trying to derail the conversation. He could have been genuinely worried about letting you take control so early and having most people take your word as gospel truth. I might not like how he did it but I just think we should keep this in mind. Understood. That was a well-reasoned post Omni. I hope people read then if they are umming and ahhing about this situation. I just want to say, I did not think initially he was trying to derail the thread. At first I thought he was concerned about someone being proactive (as you said)... a towny trait for sure. What I want to ask you: @OmniEulogy (This should be a quick answer, his filter isn't THAT large) You said you see Oats over aggression as both town and scum motives. Oats initial posts before I called him out.. in general, did you find them more town or scum aligned? Do you find his subsequent posts (after I called him out) more town or scum aligned? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 22:02 zebezt wrote: Mocsta: You said you were going to play this game differently than your previous one. How exactly? Good question. I have 3 goals for this game. (1) Reduce tunneling / confirmation bias - i.e. try to be more open to reason regarding posters motivations (2) Stop assuming association cases; target one mafia and focus on that guy till cleared innocent or proven guilty. (3) Try and engage lurkers. Im still working out the best way to do this. I had a strategy last game that didn't work. This game i hope that asking them direct questions will elicit a response. Thats how I plan to play differently. I think (2) is going good so far. (3) hopefully my next post will address. and as for (1).. please pass on some constructive feedback. Do you think I was confirmation biased in regards to Oatsmaster, or do you think I raise valid points of concern? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Questions to All Persons Intent: Discussion is quite slow at the moment. I have addressed questions to each participant to promote further conversation, whether directly to myself, or to others. Please take the time and respond to these accordingly. If you have qualms replying to my content, please notify myself and the rest of town, why you deem this unnecessary.
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 23:30 Mandalor wrote: I'm going to write down my thoughts on a couple of people. I don't have any strong reads on anybody so far, but this may be useful for some of you. + Show Spoiler + Mocsta After observing the last two newbie games, I am a little afraid of a scum mocsta. In fact, in Newbie XXXIII I had a strong scum read on him - mostly because, while he contributed a lot, his posts consisted of mostly questions to others. He wrote down very few own reads. His meta so far looks like his XXXIV game, which is a little odd because he said he'd switch things up a little before the game started. He might try to copy his last meta to look town. So far, however, I get a town vibe from his play, but I'll be looking at him more closely. Oats Very agressive stance towards Mocsta. While I disagree with his read on Mocsta, he looks like a very agressive townie. I don't think being the first to attack one of the most vocal players is typical scum behavior. laguerta One of my strongest scum reads so far, which doesn't say a lot. In my first post after the game started, I said I'd look for quiet players with very few quality posts for Day 1. And laguerta is a prime example for this. Just take a look at his filter. Sn0_Man Weird behavior so far. He was _very_ active before the game started and then vanished from the thread. Lots of questions about the SK and then he disappeared. He has some posts after the game started (and I know that this is my second post btw), but other than this post + Show Spoiler + 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. Plus, the use of the word "us" is a pretty ingratiating town claim to make in your first post (if town thinks of mocsta as "us" then he is pretty happy). Either way, that post felt like the opening gambit of a scum whose plan was to utterly control town. Obviously there are other ways to read it, I'm not voting mocsta here (yet). Additionally, the way the 2nd question is asked almost makes me think he is asking "Tell me your scumhunting plans so that I know what you are thinking about and what I can avoid". My 2c not a whole lot of contribution. I would like to ask you to post more. I like the quoted post, but I'd love to hear more of you. So far: null read. Trotske My other top candidate for voting so far. No read from him at all other than his opinion on sn0_man's and Oatsmaster's behavior (which Mocsta asked him to provide). Please give us something to work with, otherwise I'll vote for either you or laguerta. ------- I know this is a newbie game and quiet is not automatically = scum, but you're making it easy for scum to lay low if you don't contribute. laguerta and Trotske, please take your time and give us some reads. Who are your top scum reads so far, and why? Mandalor, thank you for taking the time to go through the filters and contribute your thoughts. This is a good choice from a Day1 lurker. I have some concerns with your post, (1) Early-Game: It is not a good play to discuss town reads. If you want some reasoning, here it is. [Toadestern] See the thing is, ... it is INCREDIBLY hard to tell a townie who's posting a townread apart from a mafia who's posting a townread while both may look like something useful (it's not). A townread is best kept to yourself, especially early on. 1. There's no reason to tell people what the key to making you think someone is town is. 2. There's no reason to tell mafia (if you're town) who you consider to be a likely townie is. 3. There's no reason to tell anybody why you think someone is town at all, unless said person is about to be lynched. On top of that, it is incredibly easy for mafia to look like they're doing something by posting townreads. They know they're right on something, they don't have to make up bullshit, which they have to when they're doing scumreads unless they're bussing. They can get in the thread make 4 townreads about someone, mix in 2 mafiabuddies and tell people they're mafia as well and there's almost no way to distinguish that from a townie. I mean there is, but it's just WAY hader than by looking at peoples mafiareads because again, mafia have to make up some bullshit when doing those, they got confirmation bias and already know they're wrong and all that is making it hard for mafias to talk about mafia-reads. Talking about townreads isn't for them, not at all. This is where the problem lies. You see, you have said, you think myself and Oats are town (very easy to do if you had scum knowledge). Then you call out two lurkers as your top scum read. (very easy to do whether you have scum knowledge or not). The problem I have is.. you identify me and Oats as town, but then.. don't give your opinion on what played on. The comments you make, are pretty much out there to be copy/pasted from a filter read. Good scum hunting requires original thought. So far what you have shared is contributions anyone can DO with 20minutes; yet when it comes to the real meat and potatoes, the real content is lacking. You follow by commenting on my "confirmation bias" with Oats, but do not indicate your opinion on Oats. You don't even give detailed reason why you are saying it is confirmation bias. In fact, i would content your reasoning is drowned in confirmation bias. Do you truly think the heuristic On January 13 2013 23:44 Mandalor wrote: is taking a rational approach and considering all options.. if you are town (so far you are null to me) you need to be more open minded to possibilities in my opinion!Scum likes to make buddies with the most vocal players, not attack them right away. Lastly, you finish off by saying its "OMGUS" when we both clearly did not say we were voting each other as OMGUS... I know the above is a wall of text, but I would appreciate if you could take the time to address these concerns on top of the questions I outlined to you on the previous page. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 00:05 Oatsmaster wrote: Well the reason why I am voting bringaniga is because he is obviously active and reading the thread but he isnt contributing in a way that benefits town at all. I do not want to lynch either glurio or Acid at this point because it does not generate discussion and without discussion, town has a really fucking difficult time finding scum. +1 for this post Oats. Thank you for respectfully answering my question. I will reciprocate with my thoughts on our previous matter. Since your unvote on me, you have tried to scum hunt by ACTIVELY questioning other candidates. With the current climate, I think this is town motivated. I really like your response here and reasoning for not following up on Acid/Glurio. I agree, for Day1 it feels wasted with the limited time we have left. I also think this is town motivated. So.... ##Unvote: Oatsmaster If we were to dig this a bit deeper.. what is your take if Day 2, the situation with Glurio/Acid does not change.. Do you think the plan of attack is to eat the active guys up, or start lighting MORE fires under the lurkers? (Im in favour of lighting more fires.. and will still try to do it Day 1 regardless) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
See you in 8 hrs, hopefully we have a few more pages to read through by then!! Please keep up the discussions. Now that I have unvoted, I am uncertain of where my vote should go. I will have a re-think when I wake up (4hrs before lynch).But below details my current thoughts before sleep (and its been a REALLY long day for me) The majority of us have been fixated on looking for tells in active players (yes, this includes myself).. why.. because he have nothing to read in the lurkers posts so we just cannibalize each other. History tells us, lynching active people Day 1 usually is town. I haven't managed to lynch scum Day1 yet, but, i haven't given up this game. I think our best way to succeed is go for the non-contributors. seriously.. 36hrs and minimal posts is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Some of us are active in our own ways; but posting at least shows interest; which is more of a read than I can give for a hardcore lurker. I think for the time being, my vote will go on ##Vote: Sn0_Man Filter: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615&user=287497 Why?
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I have had a change in heart. ##UNVOTE:Sn0_Man ##Vote: Mandalor This guy is spouting so much crap its not funny. + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 05:33 Mandalor wrote: I also felt weird about Mocsta's play. He likes to ask lots of questions, which is good (don't get me wrong), but that's pretty much all he did in XXXIII for quite a while I need more posts of him and I want him to write down his reads so far. 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. On January 14 2013 00:14 Mandalor wrote: I advocate going for the easy targets first. We might have a really good scum player in the game, but most of them will show characteristic scum traits and I feel like that's what we should focus on for now. On January 14 2013 00:50 Mandalor wrote: Easy targets are more likely to flip scum. Everybody, except Sylencia, last game showed those traits. There is no reason for me to think that all scum players in this game are geniusses. This is all rubbish... this game has approximately 6 or 7 lurkers... that means if all 3 mafia are there... you have 3/7 chance to lynch mafia, and 4/7 chance to lynch scum.... if 6 players is 50/50.. why take this risk (unless you dont care because your two listed are town!) On January 14 2013 01:10 Mandalor wrote: But I'm thinking town is going to lynch Trotske or laguerta? Noone ever mentioned any suspicions on them except for me afaik. ] So because you raise 2 lurkers.. town should lynch them.. What type of thought process is this.. SCum hunting is more than picking 2 names out of a hat.. you need to question them.. Try and prove them innocent (there is a higher likelihood any player is town).. if the act funny.. push them harder (like I am about to do to you) On January 14 2013 05:12 Mandalor wrote: So, basically apart from trolling, you want to lynch a lurker which gives us 0 information. I'm not a huge fan of lynching annoying people to get rid of them, but you make a damn good case for it. ##Vote: bringaniga Shape up and I'll change my vote. Finishes by Giving up on his 2 reads he pushed so far and joining the bandwagon.. what type of serious town play is this . it reads all to me as a guy who doesnt care who the vote goes on.
Yes I voted for Sn0_Man.. and I still don't like him... but... I thought as town we were meant to vote not for a lurker.. [b]but for our best scum read. Can you tell me that the points im making are confirmation biased? Can you tell me that the points Im making do not suggest scum motivations? Any town player can make his points.. but.. why would they? Hes trying to looking like contributing.. but is he rerally contributing Mocsta wrote: ##Vote: Mandalor | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 07:14 OmniEulogy wrote: good case Mocsta. The mistake with the 7/7 chance to lynch scum made me laugh though. I know what you meant but why would we give up a 100% chance to lynch scum!!! Anyway it's true that he has gone for easy lurker lynches and his vote on Bringaniga puts me off for reasons I've stated earlier. I thought Bringaniga was a town troll. not a scum one. I think scum would latch on to him because he's annoying and would make for a very easy lynch target and some people have done exactly that. He's basically jumping on a bunch of different wagons, his last one on Laguerta was imo alright, but I still would have liked to see him ask for why Laguerta voted like that and THEN put his vote on him after Laguerta could get in an answer. The way he looks right now is that as you said Mocsta he doesn't care about who gets lynched and keeps jumping targets. I can't tell if its confused townie or scum though. I'm looking through his filter in detail right now. After reading through it I'm leaning towards confused townie. You are right that he isn't contributing very much, but I'd still put him ahead of Shz as far as helpfulness is concerned. thanks for keeping to you word. That was good constructive feedback. I think your plan for town environment is going to work well. Let me know where your vote is going after reading mandalor filter | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 07:36 OmniEulogy wrote: Actually @Mandalor if you haven't gone to sleep yet would you mind explaining why you jumped from Bringaniga to Laguerta. I was close to doing it myself but decided to wait to see what kind of reply he would give me. Admittedly I don't like his answer to me but he also comes off as a bad townie in my eyes with his answers. He could also be an uncaring scum but I'd rather not WIFOM myself to death before we get information from our first lynch. Let me do the same courtesy he showed to me. On January 14 2013 00:29 Mandalor wrote: (this is my 7th mafia game, however the first 6 were several years ago which is the reason I am allowed to play this one to get back on track). He is far from a newbie.. you know what they say. you never forget how to ride a bike! The way he is playing.. confused. look maybe, but i do not see it that way.. purely because he tried to hold his stance with Oatsmaster, and oatsmaster as we know gets pretty aggressive. That he changes suddenly, i interpret as he saw an opportunity, went on it..I mean.. if we curious.. why not just question first.. instead he leads with a vote and minimal to no justification... thats not good town play, and its not confused town play either. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 07:33 OmniEulogy wrote: I think I'd like Shz to comment on my accusations and give us his reads on the situation and defend himself, if he doesn't I'm not sure if my vote will move or not but I get a confused townie vibe off mandalor. Do we know if this is his first mafia game? If it is I can easily see consistent patterns between how I thought during my first game and what he has been doing. However that doesn't take anything away from the fact that he hasn't contributed very much. More than a few people in this game though. I dont think shz will be here to answer unfortunately... unfortunate because I WANT the answers too, but I cant hold a 5am deadline against him ...We just may have to pursue this guy Night 1/Day2. and work with the best we have currently. On January 12 2013 02:42 shz wrote: Will the starting time be the same as lynch deadline? If so, I'll probably not going to make it most of the time. 5 am here. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
How about wait for the replacement and judge from there. I think for him that is the best course of action and will allowed a calculated and rational decision. i agree the vote is too split. We need to consolidate. My best read is mandalor. And that is based on more than emotional reads. Its based on irrational behavior synymous with scum play. i dont consider confused townie because he stuck to his guns with oats. Then caved when bringa was majority or in his words. Easy target. So to me its a calculated play that is not town aligned. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Eitherway its a rule nit to talk about modkills i suggest we stop. Just give the replacement a chance. If he is town we have another vote to consolidate with | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
im not sure how much hand over meeting there will be,so cant guarantee I will be here over the next 4-8 hrs. As it stands; Im still not convinced by Mantador so will leave my vote parked there. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Umm.. look.. i had a read through just then and cant believe I missed out on La Guerta lying about the no lynch. I first thought it was just a scared newbie play, but that he answered before he was against it.. clear scared SCUM play. Good work guys ##Unvote: Manlador (I still question aspects of your play.. but we cant let a participant lie openly, so will follow up with you Night 1/Day 2) ##Vote: La Guerta - Lying is not acceptable as a townie or SCUM. This in itself is grounds for lynch. Acid, I had a think about my post to you. I admit it was venomous and not constructive. You have to realise at the time, noone was consolidating votes, I think at least 5 people had votes on them and when you came in, it just made things even more confusing. Now that I have had a breather (and a pay rise ), I am going to answer your questions in my following post. I welcome all contributions, and certainly do not want to deter yours. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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: @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. 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. (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. (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: . 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)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. 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
He doesnt like my methods, and I dont like his methods.. BUT.. I can openly acknowledge he is scum hunting. That is definitely more than some of the 12 remaining people. So he is off my scum-dar. But Sn0_Man... i just don't know what to make of this vote. It could be OMGUS; but then theres that timing and lack of contributions.. and even more so, lack of substance. Compare his first post to Acids.. huge difference in quality.. I think lets stick with La Guerta.. he lied, and we shouldn't forget that. I think Sn0_Man is showing some pretty suspicious behaviour that we can look into Night 1/Day2. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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 | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
[Im trying to constructively address your reasoning] | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Do you not find it odd, lurkers have been able to come here and just bandwagon someone freely? What do you make of those intentions? (if you want me to highlight an individual.. there are a few.. but I think it is ?Glurio? that springs to mind | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:33 glurio wrote: I came in really late in the first day, a lot of arguments were already made, in this situation its highly unlikely to make a completely new argument for someone who was overlooked. And i do believe there is never a reason to lie as a town player. WTF... you have been lurking this whole time. and now I name you,. you post... | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
he is aggressive yes.. and persistant yes... but if he was mafia. i think hes just sticking his neck out too far.. not a good play for Day 1. Even though he didnt say it.. i think Acid post suggested him to look into zebezt.. But yes.. it is concerning there has been no contention to La Guerta. @all What do you make of Glurio suddenly making an appearance when called into question? Is this scum trying to justify his vote? On January 14 2013 12:35 Mocsta wrote: WTF... you have been lurking this whole time. and now I name you,. you post... | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:41 Acid~ wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:54 glurio wrote: It's stupid to lie as town, but the arguments (mafia doesnt defend, stupid newbie play) kinda swayed me. He might just be a bad town player. ##Unvote ##Vote: Mandalor I'll go with my number one scum ready. He just got too emotional for my taste. Also you look scummy to me oats. I ACTUALLY agree here! | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
##vote: mandalor | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
must mean scum are happy for him. mandalor was my big scum read from before, the only reason i swapped was the lie. lets challenge la guerta for this information night 1. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Ask what you need to ask. Im going to take a walk, and clear my thoughts, and will respond to your questions when I get back. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
(1) As I said before.. I realise its easy to blame me for the hammer vote; I even developed a case against Mandalor. So ask what you need to ask. Point what fingers you need to point. Just remember Night 1 is 20 hrs (not 24hrs). I do not want this action to cloud our ability to constructively look at the what happened Day 1. (2) @zarepath If you doubt my intentions, please have the courtesy and address some questions to me. You have identified 3 items that you think apply to me, can you please detail what the concerns are; and I will go about addressing them. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 15:25 Oatsmaster wrote: Except he sheeped you hardcore on those reads Mocsta.. Personally I don't read it that way.. but perhaps I am not in the best position to comment .. (conflict of interest) In case you are interested in my comment to that its below + Show Spoiler + On January 13 2013 19:59 zebezt wrote: Good morning all. Seems there is finally some activity going on. Oats seems to be either playing scum or is acting like an idiot. Not easy to decide which it is. I think a scum would not stick his neck out this much so early on though. My top list of people to vote for is: 1: sn0_man 2: bringaniga 3: oats There is still very little activity by some people so of course I don't have all the info I want yet. My explanations: 1: Sn0_man was the first one to attack mocsta in a way that would lead to a bad town atmosphere. After oats took over this case he conveniently hung back though. A nice way to not draw attention to himself. He makes excuses for himself: Being this apologetic, but not actually doing anything: pretty scummy. Another hint: He does not seem interested in the town/scum ratio. Both of his options seem fix the scum/townie ration at 1:4. He would know this ratio if he is scum. As a townie there is no need to know the ratio's anyway. As a scum it is important to know how many blues you have to hunt for though. 2: bringaniga seems to be hiding behind his little act. No idea if he is scum, but he isn't helping. His professor doesn't turn up in google except for someone that lived a few centuries ago, making bringaniga a vampire?! 3: Oats' idiocy has been outlined by mocsta and omni already. Even for scum play it seems pretty bad though. Therefore he is not so high on my list. He has 2 reads shared with me (at that point in time....) Sn0_Man & Oatsmaster. In regards to Sn0_Man / Oatsmaster.. is it a crime he also thought you guys have a very aggressive tone. The problem with Sn0_Man was that when someone commented on him.. he instantly accused them of going into super defensive mode.. that type of instant pressure certianly can make individuals feel uncomfortable. Who wants to be singled out on the first page of the Day1 thread? Seriously? I see no issue with that. If anything, it sounds to me like you guys are accusing him of the same thing he is accusing you.
In regards to Oats, he admits oats isnt high on the list. I think he felt the need to call out logic as flawed. So his 2 (actual reads) are Sno and bringa. Out of those 2.. Sn0 was the target we shared at that point in time. I don't see how this specifies scum behaviour? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I thought everything was based on the the scum name post (Acid attention seemed to focus on this?) On January 14 2013 12:45 Acid~ wrote: but read Zebezt's filter again: he didn't share scum reads, he repeated/paraphrased someone else's read. So far, i dont think that is accurate. But will re-evaluate with your suggestions. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 15:48 Oatsmaster wrote: (1)My point is that the long reads post is really fucking easy to make as scum and it shouldnt give him a town read on its own. Firstly, I agree some aspects of the post are easy to write. But please remember for scum it is harder to give a genuine scum read than town read. I have supported this concept from the start, and agree with it here. Zebezt isnt starting his town reads (at least from what I gathered). He shared his 2 scum reads.. and then asked others to share as well.. Again I don't see what is wrong with this? Lastly, yes, that post should not give a town read. Its about consistency of actions, and whether actions are town motivated. I think he is keeping his eyes open in a rational way. Look he refers to your style as "idiocy" and then adds that i was "confirmation biased" in regards to our discussions. I dont see that as sheeping me.. he questions you and I equally as well? (2)He has no original thoughts other than stratagies to play, which again, is easy to make as scum. That one is tough, I dont think he has been the initial instigator of any scum hunting; so perhaps the original thought is lacking. But then again.. there are plenty of people who have bandwagoned; I think this makes the comment overall: null. My personal opinion on the matter is that, there can be only one instigator but original content doesnt have to stop there. Original content can be taking that information and progressing it further applying a new thought process. Did he do this.. I dont think so.. but like i said before, not many in this game actually have either.. (3)I think he is scum because he doesnt actually care to find out who is scum. Didnt ask specific questions, didnt pressure people, didnt even follow up on his original list of questions. Didnt ask specific questions Thats a matter of interpretation. You are obviously a straight-to-the-point personality, not shy of a confrontation. Not everyone else is inclined that way... Considering he too thought your posts were intimidating ("unwarranted hostility"), it can be assumed with some degree of reliability he will not ask confrontational pressure questions. I think he is trying to extract information the best way he can/knows how to. So to me i lean: null Didnt pressure people Again I think it is a matter of interpretation. I dont think he pressured either; but perhaps in his mind he did. I suggest you take your concerns and ask him directly... @zebezt Do you you think the questions you addressed to Oats/Mocsta, and your two scum reads were pressuring them; do you think you asked them questions to gain specific information? etc Didnt follow up on his original list of questions It does appear that way.. I would give him a bit more time to post, i Dont know where he is from, bu he said goodmorning when my timestamp reads 19:59, so I assume he is sleeping now. This one I think is valid and would definitely follow up on. @zebezt Zebezt, now that Day1 has transpired; please lead the discussions with your top scum read. I suggest you start by identifying an action you find scummy, and asking them why it is NOT scummy | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 16:35 Oatsmaster wrote: @Troske, Why is Mandalor's vote bad considering 6 other players voted for Laguerta? Oatsmaster.. I aprpeciate the direction you are giving here.. and I assume I am next on your interrogation list. However, we need to post without skewing perspective. When I read that post in your context i was like WTF.. thats a complete scum slip.. great find oats.. so i went to check the quote agian. 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 Hes actually calling out laguerta as a bad town player; and thinks "mandalor is trying to kill a bad townie". Im not against you continuing to question Trotske.. please go ahead.. Im just pointing out I think your first question has been interpretted incorrectly. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 16:55 shz wrote: + Show Spoiler + First of all: WHAT THE FUCK. On January 14 2013 12:30 OmniEulogy wrote: In fact, it was mentioned earlier... not enough of a fight from mafia to keep Laguerta in the game... the fact that the only two votes that aren't on him are on two different people makes me highly doubt they are both mafia either... guys I think we fucked this up ##Unvote And 1,5h later, laguerta is not dead, but Mandalor, the vanilla town. Was this the bus you were waiting for? On January 14 2013 12:13 Mocsta wrote: My vote is sticking on La Guerta. I cant let it go that he lied. it is punishable by lynch. How the fuck does this post convince you (after you said you can't get over the fact, laguerta lied) that Mandalor was scum? This post adds nothing new, that wasn't said before. How can you agree then 1(!) minute before lynch? Also: On January 14 2013 13:12 Mocsta wrote: Look.. obviously I rode the train and hammered the vote. Ask what you need to ask. Im going to take a walk, and clear my thoughts, and will respond to your questions when I get back. On January 14 2013 12:34 Mocsta wrote: 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. Stop playing the victim card. If you are confirmation biased, people will tell you. You also obivously fucked this up, and people will tell you. Stop victimizing yourself in an attempt to look innocent. This will not fly. Just because you leave yourself an out with "am I biased?", "I admit I messed up" you are not less suspicious if this backfires. I would love to answer how glurios post actually changed your mind one minute before lynch with nothing new added to the table? Thanks for taking the time to trawl through the Day1 events. I will address your questions as follows. (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. I then became entrenched into words with Acid~, which did distract me I must admit. The timing was terrible. My justification for voting La Guerta was because he lied; and yes.. it was striking me as odd that there was no opposition. You also dont add, that when I voted for La Guerta, I still said I suspected Mandalor to a high degree and would follow up on him. + Show Spoiler [Vote La Guerta but still suspect Manda…] + On January 14 2013 10:41 Mocsta wrote: Guys im back.. farkn hell, being promoted Umm.. look.. i had a read through just then and cant believe I missed out on La Guerta lying about the no lynch. I first thought it was just a scared newbie play, but that he answered before he was against it.. clear scared SCUM play. Good work guys ##Unvote: Manlador (I still question aspects of your play.. but we cant let a participant lie openly, so will follow up with you Night 1/Day 2) ##Vote: La Guerta - Lying is not acceptable as a townie or SCUM. This in itself is grounds for lynch. Acid, I had a think about my post to you. I admit it was venomous and not constructive. You have to realise at the time, noone was consolidating votes, I think at least 5 people had votes on them and when you came in, it just made things even more confusing. Now that I have had a breather (and a pay rise ), I am going to answer your questions in my following post. I welcome all contributions, and certainly do not want to deter yours. 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. 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 17:16 Oatsmaster wrote: + Show Spoiler + Mocsta On December 21 2012 09:42 Mocsta wrote: (1) Fellow townies, I realise its easy to point the finger at Aquanim or even myself; we both developed cases against Spaghetticus. If you want to question either of us, I suggest action be taken by middle of Night 1. I believe if this matter is not closed sooner than later, it will cloud our ability to constructively look at the sequence of events that led to Spaghetticus. (2) We need to consolidate and stick to a battle plan. I think part of this is absorbing the Day 1 posts before sling accusations at persons. We need to start questioning peoples motives critically; and understand the town atmosphere at the time of key events. (3) For me.. Key Events are: (1) Reactions when Chromatically began targetting Corazon (2) Threesr announcing himself in the thread, in the way he did (3) Reactions to Threesr being top of the vote count (4) Interplay with FatChunk (5) Aquanim/Spaghetticus/Myself Please feel free to add/remove events as you see fit.. I wrote this from recollection. (4) I am going to start examining these events with the following goals (a) Who is pushing these events to occur (b) Who is not posting at all (c) Who is joining the bandwagon,but, not adding original thought When I have had time to answer these questions, I will post again in the thread. I hope you all too... take a step back.. and do a similar process. What is different about this games lynch than last games day 1 lynch? You seemed much more organised and posted a plan of action. This game, you posted this On January 14 2013 14:25 Mocsta wrote: ok im back. (1) As I said before.. I realise its easy to blame me for the hammer vote; I even developed a case against Mandalor. So ask what you need to ask. Point what fingers you need to point. Just remember Night 1 is 20 hrs (not 24hrs). I do not want this action to cloud our ability to constructively look at the what happened Day 1. Self-pitying and not helpful to town in the slightest. Umm.. yeah, they are different posts and...? I expressed key events in that game because it was clear cut what happened for that lynch. Completely different game. This lynch, there was so much action/confusion/chaos that happened Day 1.. even just 1 to 2 hrs before lynch.. i dont think it is reasonable to have expressed key events... can you summarise all the key events even now with 4 hours to digest? I think this point you have raised is a moot point. And I dont see my post as self-pitying. As I said to Shz.. im putting myself out there.. by my own choice.. Im not asking for pity anywhere.. I asking town to re-group.. How is that self-pitying? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 17:09 shz wrote: Why is it, all of a sudden, okay that someone is the "most direct" scum hunter? And why are you giving him town-cred for not sharing town reads, when you do it in the same post yourself? Your question is affected by your tunneling of me. I have been advocating all game.. that early game it is bad play to share town reads... I think we are past early game. If oatsmaster was scum. do you think he would really be this aggressive? I cant see it; if you can. I am keep to hear what your case/pressure/reasonings is founded on. People scum hunt in their own way.. the town environment is for bouncing the ideas off each other. I dont see anything wrong with a direct scum hunter, as long as he doesnt intimidate others from contributing. I think that outcome is far worse. Have you been in a game Day 3.. where only 1 page of posts is made in 48hrs? I have.. and its painful. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 14 2013 17:44 shz wrote: And with that, the vote became contested. 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. 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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 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:
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
(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: 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? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
you are merely seeking answers to associations that DO NOT exist. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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.. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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) 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: 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;DR Guys.. 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
(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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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 - | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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;DR Guys.. 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" | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Did you want to share your thoughts on my questions of his character? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=32#622 | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 15 2013 13:43 Spaghetticus wrote: WTF RLY? How does elicit a response like 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 15 2013 13:44 Mocsta wrote: Sn0_man.. since you are here; and zarepath isnt. Did you want to share your thoughts on my questions of his character? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=32#622 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? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Since you are here... and zarepath isnt.. and Sn0_Man is M.I.A. I would like your thoughts on my case regarding zarepath character http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=32#622 | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Mocsta wrote: @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? 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. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 15 2013 15:36 shz wrote: This of course means, that Oats was NK'ed by mafia, but for now we should work with the reasoning that Oats Vigi'ed glurio, and scum NK'ed Oats. I agree with this logic. There is no point making association cases (i.e. he whose name must not be spoken) Well my thoughts on the matter are 2 situations seem likely (1) Oats accused a MULTITUDE of people.. Perhaps one or more of those targets were scum. They may have killed him because he was close to finding them? He is quite an in-your-face pressure player, so it may have made scum uncomfortable enough to NK? & (2) Oats was one of 3 players Night 1 that had more than 2 pages of filter. Like you said, they perhaps decided to Kill an active player, and RB the other active player? Im guessing my RB then has more to do with (2).. If its hard enough to get a scum read with the considerable amount of low post/low quality filters.. i assume its even more difficult to figure out blue roles. But the NK makes more sense to me with (1).. Perhaps it was a combination of both? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 15 2013 15:33 shz wrote: It's hard for scum and town to actually draw many conclusions of which player has which role, other than basic alignment. So I think that it is totally possible to just RB an active player. If scum saw Oats as a better NK, they could just RB their second priority. I just had a thought. Nobody else has claimed an RB (yet).. How do we even know scum has an RB? Do you think from Night 1, Town RB would target me? This definitely makes me think.. Oats votes went to a mafia.. im going to tally his votes.. BRB | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 13 2013 08:58 Oatsmaster wrote: ##Vote: Mocsta ##Vote: bringaniga ##Vote: Mandalor ##Vote: laguerta ##Vote zebezt (1) Mocsta - This can be discounted. We were both pressuring each other, and he got over emotional and turned suspicion into a vote. (2) Bringaniga - Complete troll. Who knows if town or scum. Spaghetticus has replaced him. I am still waiting for more before making a decision on alignment. However, him having the confidence to call out my play so directly, I guess suggests he has the interests of town at heart. (3) Mandalor - Confirmed townie. (4) La Guerta - The consensus seems to be bad townie.. probably bored as well hence the modkill. Should pressure heavily once the replacement kicks in. (5) zebezt - Has recently been dodging questions; even when promising to get back to us.. Im starting to think zebezt is a reasonable candidate to have felt intimidated by the pressure from Oatsmaster. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Why have you shifted your top scum read from an active lurky player to a modkilled (lurky) player? I know you don't like to pressure, but, this is taking things too far... What has Sn0_Man done to make you think he is not suspicious anymore? Do you think your motives for this behaviour can be read as scum motivated? P.S. On January 13 2013 03:36 zebezt wrote: With some luck there is a vigilante or SK that can kill of the lurkers for us :D ... Looks like you got your wish. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 15 2013 16:24 zebezt wrote: 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 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. On January 15 2013 15:57 shz wrote: It's not like you weren't challenged in the last days. (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? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Omnieulogy never seen u post nothing meaningful in a 24hr period before? Whats going on... Actually im not even sure if u posted meaningfully during night 1... I want to see more from u. The past 48hrs migh een classify u as LURKING | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 16 2013 05:30 Acid~ wrote: 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. Near the start of Night 1; I had 3 or 4 posts with Oatsmaster where he was upholding your perspective, and I was trying to provide alternative perspectives for the behaviour. So Oatsmaster was NOT the only person. I am also the person who asked whether he was looking into Zebezt because of your suspicions - in fact I asked him twice. I am not against anyone questioning/pressuring their scum read. Its what we need to do. Right now.. I look at the situation we are 24hrs into Day2, and there is no lead candidate for the lynch. My case so far has been on zarepath: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=32#622 He has since addressed my concerns, but I need to read through that more critically before commenting. My question is: Acid~ If zarepath convinces me he is town from his defense. Are you sure zebezt is the best candidate to campaign for Day 2? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Thanks for the defense against my character analysis. I think most of the points are sound and you have addressed this adequately enough so you are off my scum list for now. I will say 2 final points on this though. (1) You mentioned you want to participate more. I will be tracking this. Many have said it, and many have not followed through. (obviously situations like Omni with the circuit breaker meltdown don't count) (2) Regardless of you and Acid~ thinking the analysis is OMGUS. I stand by it not being. In particular with the "bomb", I don't think its appropriate to let fly a bunch of accusations, and then walk away without clarifying it further, or asking pressure questions. To let others do the dirty work is not solid town play in my opinion. I hope that you can this commentary as constructive feedback, and work to not do it again. In short: If you don't like someones play, sure.. call out their behaviour, but at least support the claim there and then as well. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 16 2013 10:00 Acid~ wrote: I don't buy zarepath as scum yet. As I noted to zarepath above this post, his defense detailed rational answers to my queries. Hes off my list for the time being. I need to re-read filters, and find my next target. I will probably read zebezt filter last, to remove any tunneled thoughts of guilt. I will post again some stage later today with collected thoughts, and present who I think is the most suitable candidate for Day2 lynch. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I couldnt put as much time as i wanted into the game today. Promotion and all.. I am home in 5hrs. Fyi my filter trawling has resulted in a find. Its controversial though so need to reconfirm. When i get back i will address zebezt question. I think he is overreading things massively. I will also go through your trotske case. From a first read . Some of the points are very suspicious indeed | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I claimed the RB, because it is standard practice and I thought the information would be useful for town. Because nobody else claimed an RB, I admit there was no gain in the end, but I still think it was worthwhile. Either way, I never gave out this information to claim or insinuate I was town. Hence, this is why I think you are over-reading this reference. @Acid~ Here is my breakdown of your case on Trotske http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=36#704 Exhibit A Disagree. However, I attribute this to differenting mentalities, different methodologies and different philosphies. Even though your posts are limited in count, the candour duly expressed clearly demonstrates why you would be biased against this opinion. In that regard, you are akin to Oatsmaster. I treat the post you referenced as null. Town OR Scum can seek fingers to not be pointed at them. *As an aside: I was in entrenched in words with Oatsmaster not because he pointed fingers, but because his tone and wording was so vicious and taken out of context. There are many ways to intimidate, and his primary method was to be a bully. I disagree with that in general. If you wouldn't talk like that at work, or at home; why do it on a FACELESS forum.* Exhibit B Agree. I do not see an abundance of quality posts in Trotske filter. However, I cant hold it against Trotske he is confused about a scum read. There was a lot of confusion Day1; I believe at one stage at least 5 people out of 13 had a vote against their name. That is NOT normal. Read: Leaning towards scum. Exhibit C Agree. I didn't see the pattern before from this perspective. It doesn't help he spells my name as Macosta.. so I am naturally biased to this Read: Scum Exhibit D On the fence. But this is due to my case that I am about to start writing.. I think the saying "He who is not sinned, throws the first stone" may (or may not) apply here. Read: Null Exhibit E Agree. This is not the definition of a quality post that Trotske himself promised to deliver. It is essentially looking to contribute, without meaningfully contributing. Read: Scum Conclusion I think out of 5 points, 3 are definitely scummy in nature. There is potential here. However..... I think I have identified *1* of the mafia.. and by [forced] association the 2nd. Your evidence on Trotske suggests we may have the 3rd. I do not want to build association cases (even though I just brought it up), its too risky; however, if my 2nd mafia does not get traction tonight [this will make sense when the case is released], I am willing to put serious consideration into Trotske. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
(Mocsta) Random Musings - Day 2 Overall I am pretty disapointed with the amount of discussion day 2. I am noticing there isnt that much discourse anymore, and people are only responding if they are addressed a direct question - sometimes the replys come in super fast meaning these people are actively following the thread, but choosing not to input to the thread! In my opinion this allows mafia to blend in by not having to input unless asked. Not a good thing to occur. Though I am trying to take a step back from leading discussion, I still believe we need to constructively critique everyones cases and logic. This just is not happening currently. (At least scum hunting in general has picked up though) Having said that, I want to congratulate a few of the lurkers for stepping up today. Acid, your post count is beginning to snowball.. you may even reach a 2nd page . I want to thank you for showing the courage to ask others to critique your thoughts.. you are one of the few doing this. I think this is essential moving forward. I hope you appreciate my perspective on your findings. Overall, I think its solid. Not 10/10, but close.& Sn0_Man, in 24 hr, you managed to turn my read on you from scummyish/null to strong town. This is not a small feat to accomplish. I still want to see more from you, but, the approach you took today really screams town to me. Not sure if this was due to coach feedback, but well done regardless. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
As you said the post had bad logic in general. Im not going to make excuses for it. Hopefully the case I am 80% through will make up for it. *hint* its not you. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Mocsta: Day 2 - Prime Lynch Candidate A revisit to the past... resets the now: ..."You are only as good as your last contribution" 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. How did we get here, and importantly, why did we end up here? This is answered in the proceeding case. 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 (2) + Show Spoiler [Filter Analysis] + This guys posts is full of fluff as indicated by: On January 13 2013 22:40 laguerta wrote: When does voting end? On January 14 2013 07:08 laguerta wrote: because im going to help the town later when i stop being super tired and lazy On January 13 2013 00:31 laguerta wrote: k On January 14 2013 07:09 laguerta wrote: ##unvote ##vote no one 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: On January 14 2013 07:01 laguerta wrote: Umm bringaniga voted for me and then I voted for him to defend myself and also because vote thing is running out and i dont know who to vote for yet. 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. The more I think about it, this was a brilliant strategy to unsettle the town environment. Somehow, he managed to include JUST the right amount of "newbieness" for others to feel sympathetic. A la TeMiL. If anything, I think scum saw TeMiL worked last game, and decided to rinse and repeat. Hence TeMiL 2.0 In Summary Reasons for La Guerta being scum
I appreciate the information I have provided is subjective. But that is the point of such a low quality filter: You have to take a RISK and assume. I dont want to make the same mistakes with TeMiL two games in a row. Also, I don't think the TeMiL style is intended to be a full game contributor. Its a play to cause disarray in the thread, and sow seeds of non-trust in town. Based on the current town vibe, I think this in fact did occur and is only now starting to repair. Interlude - Controversy strikes again (Dire Circumstances call for Dire Measures) + Show Spoiler + Mocsta.. you sir are a dimwit.. La Guerta is your best scum read and he is being replaced today, so who are you voting for Day 2. Exactly.. I am advocating, if La Guerta is replaced, he needs to be questioned IMMEDIATELY. We can not give him a free pass to get his act together. If a cop exists I think he is definitely a worthwhile check. However, as stated, I can not vote for him without a replacement confirmed.. this leads to the controversy. The association case 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... ACT II - (Forced) Scum Read - The solution required to the ?problem? - INCEPTION + Show Spoiler + 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: 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 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) On January 14 2013 10:35 [name removed] wrote: If Laguerta is scum, I must admit there is a lack of anybody trying to save him... would scum bus themselves D1? That's suicidal. The fact that nobody has even tried to push strongly for another lynch worries me a little bit... 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: On January 14 2013 12:59 Oatsmaster wrote: MOCSTA ARE YOU SURE THAT LAGUARTA IS SCUM? 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. + Show Spoiler [Delving Deeper] + The unnamed person in the quote above is OmniEulogy (1) I have to put it out there, every game with OmniEulogy, I have pushed for his lynch at some stage in the game. I rate OmniEulogy high enough to be a scum mastermind. Heck last game he even talked about wanting to play scum that way - something very rare for newbies. Therefore I think he took full advantage of the thread due to Trotske's opening about La Guerta being bad town. (2) With this information I decided to read through OmniEulogy filter. These are the snippets I find interesting. His filter starts off rational, trying to be a voice of reason. I think this is not hard for a scum or mafia to do however (its easy enough to copy/paste other posts) its about whether you follow through. e.g. of Omni sound reassoning posts + Show Spoiler + On January 13 2013 03:55 OmniEulogy wrote: @Bringaniga you are going to make this game enjoyable I can tell. I already enjoy your posts and I look forward to more. lol Anyway just to touch on what has happened so far, I agree with Oats opinion on the lurkers, not on how Mocsta asked the question. If anybody really said yes/no to that question they would be pressured for it, possibly used as a reason to be voted on later in D1. It would be a silly thing for town to do, almost as silly as not answering the questions. 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've got an event going on in roughly 4~ hours and I'll be busy for most of the night (cleaning up the house for it right now) so I'll periodically check in and hopefully be able to make some cases by the end of the night. Also if we could have Mandalor, Shz, Acid, Glurio, and Bringaniga answer at least one of the questions asked it would be nice. Let us know you are alive guys + Show Spoiler + On January 13 2013 18:47 OmniEulogy wrote: Thanks Mocsta and yeah, I share your opinion on reads for people. I assume everybody is scum and let them prove that they are town. I know I am town, this isn't a soft call, I am a townie. I know I'll have to prove it, and although my first medium sized post is a null read, I hope that with time and my future actions it will prove to everybody that I am town because I'm hoping that if we use my advice we will be able to hunt and catch scum easier. I have a soft town read on you because I know your meta, and I'm not sure if you would be as comfortable as you normally are leading conversation early on as scum and talking about your pool. Some people get very nervous when they are scum. We've had several in our games who didn't post as much as they normally do. On the other side we have Oats as an example who posts an average amount in both roles. However his play style (now that I've read through his filter for XXXII) changes a little. Experience changes everything though but there are some similarities between his XXXII game and what he has done this time, and very little in his other games that I read through. Again not enough for me to vote for him but it's not a good sign either. I'm hoping some of our lurkers can weigh in, and if Bringaniga doesn't come up with anything by the lynch deadline, my current thoughts of him will turn to scum pretending to be active and I'll be pushing for his lynching over the current Oats for sure. He then enters the fray and tries to break up Me and Oatsmaster (Shz did too)... I actually read this as null Last game, scum tried to break up Me and Spaghetticus.. its actually an easy way to get town cred, so the action in itself does not indicate town motives (even though it helps town). + Show Spoiler + On January 13 2013 22:22 OmniEulogy wrote: Alright, I just got a call in from work ##Vote: Acid~ This is NOT what I intended to do. Under normal circumstances I would have put this at the end of my case on who ever I would have made it on. I might have to work a double shift and if I do, I won't be back in time, I don't want my random vote to be a deciding factor in a lynch and therefore have effectively wasted my vote. I do have access to a computer but on the off chance I can't log in on it I had to vote to make sure I wasn't going to be modkilled. I probably wont have to work the double but just in case. Sorry about this guys. So far Omni play has been safe. Nothing indicates he is scum; but nothing is screaming pro-town either. I do notice in general his approach is a bit different. But that is because I have played 2 games in a row with him. The question is.. is he different intentionally due to improving town game... or because he finally rolled scum. Continuing On He does a defense on Mandalor (I dont remember anyone else but Omni saying it was wrong; even Oatsmaster at one stage voted Mandalor - I *think* after my case too).. As a scum OmniEulogy.. of course he can defend Mandalor, he KNOWS he is town. Read: slightly scum (because no1 else called me out of line for the case) He then swaps to Shz, who was flying under the radar. Again an easy vote to do, with no real repercussions. Read: Null Things get interesting when La Guerta is caught in the lie. OmniEulogy is the one who pounces on this immediately (conveniently) On January 14 2013 09:06 OmniEulogy wrote: ##Vote: Laguerta He's already lied, has not contributed at all and now that I think about it, he goes from calling Bringaniga town, to voting on him with no posts between the two. He didn't answer my questions to why he voted for him OR why we shouldn't lynch him very well at all... Anybody have any reasons for why we shouldn't lynch him? I think this was a way to do two objectives (1) Create disarray in town atmosphere due to La Guerta weirdness & (2) Establish town cred for OmniEulogy picking scum first round.. a rare feat to achieve. From here Oatsmaster asked to consolidate votes, and we ended up with 7 votes on La Guerta, an essential certainty for lynch. The Long-Con On January 14 2013 07:03 OmniEulogy wrote: ugh I can't tell if that's just brutal honesty or extremely scummy. @Laguerta why should we NOT vote to lynch you in 2 hours? This is where I think OmniEulogy sowed the seeds for someone like Trotske or whoever to develop further. and indeed Trotske did. In hindsight with the Acid~ case, you could even contest Trotske is mafia and used this seed to develop the idea for the rest of town. What eventuated was Inception.,. i.e. Omni/zarepath/Oats started discussing the concept that La Guerta was bad town, and then used the excuse of "no opposition to the lynch" to justify moving off La Guerta. I treat OmniEulogy as the instigator for this entire action based on the above. I don't think they knew it was guaranteed to happen but were to prepared to adapt with it on the fly. Then here is some really nice interplay .. seeing that there is uncertainty with La Guerta On January 14 2013 10:35 OmniEulogy wrote: If Laguerta is scum, I must admit there is a lack of anybody trying to save him... would scum bus themselves D1? That's suicidal. The fact that nobody has even tried to push strongly for another lynch worries me a little bit... This only creates more uncertainty in the chaotic environment. Now that the bait has taken off.. Omni is trying really hard to hook the fish and int he process save La Guerta. On January 14 2013 12:25 OmniEulogy wrote: Honestly he has just as good a chance as flipping scum as Laguerta imo. The only difference is that I can't just put Zebezt in the "bad townie" category for every single post he's made. On January 14 2013 12:29 OmniEulogy wrote: I think the bigger thing at the moment is that even if the three of us, Mocsta, Oats, and myself all switch to another person who already has a vote on them, it won't be enough to stop Laguerta from being lynched. I can only see this as Mafia being FINE with Laguerta being lynched today. If we don't have another person on the Laguerta wagon active I think we might be lynching him no matter what. More rallying for people to get off La Guerta. Now that he has achieved his goal and people are dispersed again (as indicated in the Preface).. he turns on the guy he has been working with this whole time... On January 14 2013 12:56 OmniEulogy wrote: ##Vote: Oatsmaster I don't like the constant vote jumping. Or pulling off Laguerta after jumping around so much. It makes me think you know who the townies are and have been testing to see which wagon sticks. That confidence in nailing Zebezt is bothering me too... I'm biased with my thinking past thing point. Don't wanna screw with anybody else I'll explain it after the lynch. This is such a clever vote. He set up Oats to do the vote jumping, and then votes for him.. clearing him of any direct association to LA Guerta at that point in time (including flipping). He then writes a massive post on Oats, again detailing the vote jumping that him and Oats worked together on. To me, oats was screaming town by the end of Day 1.. i even wrote this in my last will to leave him alone... why would scum go out of their way to pressure so many targets? They wouldnt, its too risky... I think Omni achieved more from teh long-con than they imagined all due to persistance. Look at the contributions post Day 1.. He follows up on Oats once or twice (again.. screaming town.. why would you do this).. and then doesnt post anymore. He has stated real life problems, I wont treat that as not true... but regardless.. the contributions in Night1 were useless. Conveniently when I am in the firing range.. all he does is perturb Oats !! In Summary.. the concept to free La Guerta resulted in:
Summary: My scum read (open Delving deeper to find out name)
In short, I think scum used La Guerta to create a chaotic environment.. and took a chance with inception.. and managed to save La Guerta to keep numbers healthy (even though it was not a required part of the plan) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
P.S. I know the case makes a lot of assumptions. I recognise that. But I really think i am onto something here. Sometimes you have to take a risk, especially when the town environment is SO lurky. Either way, share your votes | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Share you critique (and votes if you agree) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
And it took a fuckn long time to type it up. Its midnight and Im exhausted.. Im happy to lead discussion with La Guerta, or whoever the replacement name is.. but not right now, im struggling to stay awake. In short.. due to time restraints.. if La Guerta isnt lynched tonight, I am happy with Trotske.. I already commented on Acid case and didnt see many flaws. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Firstly, whether you believe me, I am town. But I know from past experience these claims last minute are always ignored. I have not had a full chance to review the cases against me.. but I have seen a few comments saying my summary of the chaos is ?wrong? and that OmniEulogy can't be scum. Well whether you OmniEulogy is correct, Im sure on La Guerta, and I thought the points behind the chaos were correct. ##unvote: OmniEulogy Its 2hrs to lynch time, and I with transport I have 10min of computer time before the lynch.. so what im saying is, I can read the cases, but will not have a genuine opportunity to defend. You are free to take that as bullshit if you want but it is 5:53am right now. Your call. Therefore, as it seems I am going down, I am thinking of what I can say to best help town. i still think La Guerta is scum... most of you werent in the last game, however my reasoning actually does make sense. ironically I think OmniEulogy would agree if he was here to comment. I would have preferred to question him first before voting ( La Guerta), I think that is a courtesy that applies to anyone. In my post i did say La Guerta is my prime read, and needs to pressure heavily. How can we do this when he gets added in 6hrs before lynch and has to read the thread? So please night 1, please pressure the FUCK out of La Guerta. If the consensus is that my contributions are minimal, at least my flip should give the incentive you need. So lead with a vote, make him work to prove himself to you. I said Trotske case before looked solid, and he is even around for my inception concept. I am going to put my vote his way; I also like how he has barely contributed and then kicks me in the guts when everyone else does.(A first from him this game.. but at a time when his balls are on the line) I usually attribute that to scum play. P.S. look how heavily he defends La Guerta in my case..he even adds. I think your case on Omni might be stronger if you didnt vote La Guerta. The general feedback I got was that there was no case on Omni.. so this is an interesting comment. This guy has gone out of this way to protect La Guerta.. even now in Day 2.. Maybe I was wrong with Omni.. but for this type of protection, there must be a relationship.I cant make sense of it any other way. ##Vote: Trotske | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Im not swapping votes. Trotske has proved to me he is scum by his recent actions. Odd that he always defends la guerta. Odd that he suddenly has doubled his post count. If he could oost this much now. Why not contribute before. He has seen a window to be a lynchpin in taking me out. Thats why... I cant quote on phone. Too hard. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
but use it for the basis of your reasoning *clap clap* Well played acid | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
U been gunning for the active townie ever since day1. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
ur playing a fine town game post night1 keep it up. I hope u are.the ones that leads thenpressure on la guerta i think ur opinion isnthe least.biased. Town needs i | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
care to share why you are in the know>? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:50 Mocsta wrote: Snoan just.remeber what i said. If its me ur playing a fine town game post night1 keep it up. I hope u are.the ones that leads thenpressure on la guerta i think ur opinion isnthe least.biased. Town needs i EBWOP Sn0_Man. Your doing great.. Trust in yourself.. You can make the right decisions. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
how is that sympathetic to me? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Keep it up guys. ciao (its obviously me) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
 OEF: | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
 hehe | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
great effort JSL; takes a lot of guts to stick in there like that | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
unfortunately had to roll with old meta.. when u guys call me out on that hahha, + oats calling me out on copy/paste from old games, i thought it was over hahha | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
| ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
On January 23 2013 18:53 Oatsmaster wrote: Yeah Mocsta, that case wasnt bad townie bad, it was WTF noob scum fail bad. Hey, Im a happy man, you still have the record for getting lynched Day1 in a newbie game. Not an easy accomplishment to achieve I guess | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
check out newbie 33 at the end... scum claimed RB.. then the Town RB quoted his Breadcrumb (proving he was RB) thus ousting the lie (Scum = cDgCorazon) (Town = Chromatically) | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
For context, the main reason I hammered Mandalor was because Bringaniga was modkilled, and La Guerta looked like being modkilled. I thought I would be started Day2 with essentially 1 scum left. Its tough when you roll scum with 2 smurfs; but yes, if I could go back, I would have bussed La Guerta and taken the town cred and prob rode to victory | ||
| ||
