Newbie Mini Mafia XXXV

On January 12 2013 13:09 Mocsta wrote:
Hi All.

From other games, it seems the best 3 questions to ask are:

1) Stance on Lurkers: i.e. Do you policy lynch?

2) How do you think scum would try to get influence with us?

3) [fluff] DONT BUY A POOL. I wasted all my time today with pools and hate it !

---

I won't be around for the next 6 to 8 hrs (DAMN POOL!)

On January 12 2013 19:58 zebezt wrote:
I think we gotta make sure we don't let people get away with easy bandwagon votes. If you vote for somebody, make sure you state the reasons why, even if you think others have already stated those. Try finding a new piece of incriminating info to go with your vote.
This way people will hopefully be critical of who they vote for and it should give us extra information that everyone can benefit from.

On January 13 2013 07:57 Mocsta wrote:
]

The guides are REALLY useful - make sure you read them again; also speak to the coaches. The feedback is invaluable.

On January 12 2013 16:38 Mocsta wrote:


BUT.. you are almost sounding "paranoid" - I know this, because after my last game, many assumed I was "paranoid".

On January 12 2013 16:41 Mocsta wrote:
zarepath, thanks for the well thought out response.

I actually replied to Sn0_Man before reading this.. if i did read this first, I could have saved myself a post.

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 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

On January 13 2013 07:23 Mocsta wrote:
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?

On January 13 2013 01:42 Oatsmaster wrote:
Fuck no.
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.
However lynching a lurker is bad because it doesnt generate meaningful discussion because its a yes/no question.
Lynch this lurker or not. And its really difficult to actually justify a lurker lynch in another way other than, he has not contributed, he is harmful to town, he should die.


2. I really dont want to answer that. Because I dont think my answer will help town in any way.

On January 13 2013 01:28 Oatsmaster wrote:
1.
Its not that he asked about policy lynching, its that the question is phrased in a such a way that someone can get away with a yes/no answer that doesnt generate discussion.
2.
How confident are you in your answer to question 2?
My point was that the question is not a good question because what do we know about optimum scum behaviour?

On January 13 2013 08:55 Mocsta wrote:
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.

hey.. you realise your not helping out town with your attitude

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

Why are you so against town collaborating together to prepare for the scum hunt?

On January 13 2013 18:00 OmniEulogy wrote:
Hmm... Mocsta could you link the game Oats was scum. I just looked through three of his old games and he was town in all. It did bring to my attention the massive change in his play style though. Although it doesn't incriminate him, it sure as hell doesn't help what I'm thinking about him.

The hypocrisy in what you've accused Mocsta of and what you have done so far is amazing.

On January 13 2013 07:40 Mocsta wrote:


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 )

but a few of us have indicated wanting a combined scum hunt and bouncing ideas against each other. I 100% advocate this as well.

Others have agreed with me.

Mocsta Australia. January 13 2013 08:55. Posts 336

Oatsmaster Singapore. January 13 2013 08:58. Posts 772

1: Sn0_man was the first one to attack mocsta in a way that would lead to a bad town atmosphere.

Acid will be modkilled, and while replacing him isn't necessarily a good thing, we do know Laguerta is spineless

On January 14 2013 11:49 zarepath wrote:

Therefore you are scum?
QED

laguerta: States in post 1 that he is against NL, votes for no lynch. That and describing himself as being lazy town i really dont like.

On January 14 2013 12:46 glurio wrote:
I really dont like Oats vote hopping, he voted like what 5 times now? Started with strong cases and then just dwindled into really short statements.

On January 14 2013 13:30 Spaghetticus wrote:
Hi guys, glad to be playing as I missed the sign ups. I'm going to go get some food and drink and slog out some catching up. I'm an active player who loves theory and analysis, I believe there are plenty of people in here who can bring you up to date on my meta if need.

On January 14 2013 14:30 Oatsmaster wrote:
Zarepath,
Why did you vote for me.
Explain, in detail.

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.

He just got too emotional for my taste.

Also you look scummy to me oats.

Mandalor: Pushing against laguerta and trotske acoording to his thinking. Then votes for branig, whos post i really didnt like either. Votes for laguerta after his very weird no lynch thingie. He does get emotional while defending himself, so much that with the first read i instantly thought "scum" in my head. After going through his filter though, i'm quite uncertain.

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

On January 13 2013 12:49 shz wrote:

@Oatsmaster:
In parts, the same thing applies to you. If you want to play that aggressive, contribute something useful. Your Mocsta-case is dumb and obviously defensive. Chill out or explain why this is a good way to play (I have no clue how to work with that, I know there are very aggressive (town-) players here, but I have no experience with that).
What I gathered is, that Mocsta plays this way. This does not mean he is town, but neither does it tell you he is scum. He played the same way as town in my game with him.
Your case is dumb and weak, but it's still 24h to our first lynch, so I'll let it slip.If you contiune to play that way, I'll vote for you (or bringa).

Oats actually stepped up a bit. This is not a town read, but at least he is contributing.

On January 14 2013 11:41 Sn0_Man wrote:
##Vote: Mocsta


Lol, wtf.

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.

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.

On January 14 2013 17:14 shz wrote:
I threatend you for being detrimental to town cause. Whether you are actually scum or not, this behaviour didn't help at all. You stepped it up, but that doesn't mean you are town for the rest of the game. This means you stopped being bad, and at least tried (or look trying) to be helpful.

This post was a shock, as I was on my way to bed thinking Sno lost interesting and is getting modkilled anyway, then he just votes withouth ANY contribution. This was a "Lol, wtf" moment. He later did actually post, but by that time I was in bed.

I stated clearly why I did not push Sno. Because he was an hour away from being modkilled. I will look out for him now, as he also said that we wants to contribute more.

On January 14 2013 17:23 shz wrote:
I did not hoped, I anticipated one. Don't put words in my mouth.[b]

Why waste a vote on a modkilled player, when there is another good target to lynch?
Acid and glurio weren't on their way to a modkill, and I don't have them high on my scum-list atm. As I said, laguerta and Sno. Are mine atm, and as long as this doesn't changes, I'll look at them both.

Mocsta has a LOT to answer for -- omgusing, over-defensiveness, and hammering Mandalor, who seemed especially not-scummy.

On January 15 2013 00:58 zarepath wrote:

In an environment with 7 votes on one guy, I found it odd that your vote, after switching so many times, had FINALLY rested on the one person that everybody else was already voting for. It almost appeared as if you were just throwing suspicion around to see what would stick and what others would be willing to go for. And frankly, I had been put off all day by your emotional finger-pointing. Your first ten posts or so seemed almost to be designed to turn the thread into a churning cauldron of hatred.

I'll also try to be more active now, weekend is over so i got more time.

Mocsta could have just as easily answered yes/no