EPTlooking forward to it.
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Trotske
410 Posts
looking forward to it. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 12 2013 13:09 Mocsta wrote: 1) Stance on Lurkers: i.e. Do you policy lynch? yes because we don't need inactive townies it does not help the town at all not to have everyone contributing because the more we get scum to talk the more they can give away. On January 12 2013 13:09 Mocsta wrote: 2) How do you think scum would try to get influence with us? can you explain what you mean by influence? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 12 2013 14:04 Sn0_Man wrote: 1) If somebody is super-lurky, they obviously aren't helping town much. I'm not lynching a lurker over a scummy player though. 2) With posts just like your one above 3) You live in australia doesn't that shit just evaporate? What are water bills like down there? I have a cousin visiting australia atm (Melbourne I think). In answer to your second point I feel that you are flat wrong most scum probably won't start up the towns conversation for them asking what they shouldn't do. Please tell me why it is scummy. | ||
|
Trotske
410 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. 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 How would you have started the town conversation and not fallen into the points you make I would have made a post similar to his. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 13 2013 05:30 bringaniga wrote: This contribution is insufficient. I still require 20 words from you on any topic other than questionaire answers. 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
410 Posts
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? 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. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 13 2013 08:14 bringaniga wrote: Silence, doubters! I trained for years at the University of Zurich under the most expert tutelage of Professor Gottfried Wielkes. Do not presume to pressure me. The procedure originally was to present my preliminary solutions at the 24 hour mark. However to work properly my algorithms require certain conditions to be met. As I have stated earlier in detail, the conditions entail a minimum amount of submitted content from each player. Regrettably these conditions have not yet been met. The procedure may have to be modified. Your posts are driving me crazy can we get a straight reply please. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 14 2013 00:49 Mandalor wrote: Please read my my post concerning my reads on them again. They show standard scum traits: * low quality posts, no reads * lurky, but not to a point where they're completely inactive I feel that my posts are pretty good when it comes to Quality and I don't care about Quantity because I feel that if I post fluff it is useless and posting just so people won't try to lynch me is not pro town. I felt the I didn't have anything to contribute earlier and then went to bed before like 4 pages of posts came up I I feel that lynching anyone day1 that is active is a waste because the more they talk the more likely there will be a scum slip. The person I want to lynch as of right now is Sn0_man. Sn0_man made a bad environment at the start of the game by attacking players instead of answering questions polity and then hasn't posted in the last 36 hours? Not only is that lurking that also scummy and then not active make him the most useless player in the game only hurting town the leaving. ##Vote Sn0_Man This may change if he posts more before the deadline. I don't have much of a read on a lot of other people but If bringaniga doesn't shape up his game I want to lynch him or one of the other full time professional lurkers aka Acid or glurio. I would like to wait to go after the more active players until we can build stronger cases on them. I am honestly having a hard time deciding who looks scummy I plan on going in depth on the people who have posted more in the next few hours | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
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. How do you feel about sn0_man and my case for him. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
bringaniga lets assume you are not going to get modkilled please tell me why you like laguerta more than sn0_man. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 14 2013 07:47 Mocsta wrote: 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. You make some pretty good points about Mandalor though I do have to defend him about the not playing in over a year as I also have played more than three games but they were well over a year ago and I feel that its not at all like riding a bike. Depending on how he responds to your posts I am prepared to vote for him for lynch. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
Also your post + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 08:34 Acid~ wrote: There were no questions that were "put to me", you just asked me to post and I did. So, now I have to "earn" town cred before I'm allowed to play? Oh please, pretty please, can I play with you Mr mayor? I find this attitude pretty fucking hypocritical coming from a guy who attacked someone else earlier supposedly because they were intimidating others into not participating. This shit you're trying to pull right there, not only is it exactly the kind of behavior you attacked in others, it's also textbook ad-hominem. So, please, with sugar on top, answer the fucking question. Maybe you'll manage to post your first line of useful content. seemed to be aimed at getting people emotional near the lynch deadline and you need to stop it now because that won't help people make informed lynch decisions. that post was 100% pointless unless you want to get people emotional. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
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. 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 | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
what is with this bandwagon on someone who might as well be a lurker In fact a lurker would be a better lynch. I am going to keep my vote on the person who started this ridiculous vote. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 14 2013 10:38 shz wrote: I can understand that, but what if Sno is actually gonna get modkilled? Could also be a bad town who lost interest in this game very quickly. What does sn0 getting modkilled have to do with laguerta being a bad lynch. you say you understand but didn't change your vote? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
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. Can you quote the lie I don't see it on the filter please. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
My main reason for wanting to lynch Mandalor is because he started this ridiculous vote on a bad townie who seems like he doesn't want to play and it apparently easy to get votes for and won't defend himself. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 15 2013 03:03 Sn0_Man wrote: Okay fine, but seriously. Just read that post a few times, its HORRIBLE. Its emotional, nonsensical and in no way makes any sense from any townie perspective. I'll quote it for ease: Even if he is right, and laguerta is just a bad townie, that post... Scum want to preserve the bad townies over the good ones I guess. Sorry if you didn't understand my meaning, I was defending someone who I think is town when we had a better lynch candidate you are using my defense on laguerta to say I'm scum? you posted On January 15 2013 02:08 Sn0_Man wrote: This is the scummiest thing I’ve seen posted all thread. He calls laguerta a lurker, then asks to lynch a different lurker. Then he calls the vote ridiculous after many others have given perfectly fine reasons for laguerta to be scum. Then he says that he is keeping his vote on the person who “started the vote (Mandalor, who at this point HAD NO OTHER VOTES). I didn't vote to lynch mandlalor because he was lurking, no where did I say that please do not put words in my mouth to make a case on me. I was really trying to stop the band wagon that I felt was ridiculous on laguerta and so I voted for my scummiest read. I Don't see how the fact that he had no votes on him mattered even more so because in the end he got lynched. I will post again once I have read more into other people's cases just wanted to get this cleared up right now. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
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. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 15 2013 10:04 Mocsta wrote: 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. Could be the lurker factor, isn't it a common start for vig to kill off lurkers? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 15 2013 11:39 Mocsta wrote: 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. It is cause for concern when the only scum hunting he has done is point out that lurkers are bad. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 15 2013 15:37 Mocsta wrote: @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. From what I understand one of the main things mafia will do is post but not give any new information or opinions on the game and perhaps just post things that have been said differently then they were before, Hence pointing out lurkers being half of his posts when the fact is we have had multiple people already post about lurkers being a problem. I don't see how someone who comes in after it starts can just rephrase that there are lurkers and he doesn't like it and not be called out on it. On January 15 2013 13:03 Spaghetticus wrote: @Trotske Have you not heard? I am a pretty big deal. LAL is what I live and breathe day 1&2, but I understand your point that my contributions on other fronts have been limited. It may or may not be due to HAVING STARTED 50 HOURS AFTER EVERYONE ELSE. I am aware that I did ask you to contribute and that by going Ad-Hom I would be an enormous hypocrite. That you ask for contribution from someone who has been losing sleep catching up on the thread while you are sitting on a two-page filter after night one is not lost on me. You are contributing now however. If you want to pursue me further you need to post a case stating more than I haven’t done anything other than X. X is more than I see most people doing. Make a case or focus your efforts elsewhere please. When I see something scummy I'll call it out doesn't matter that other people haven't done as much. Please note that I did not claim you were scum and then vote for you I was asking other people's opinion on you. I find that your reasons for talking mostly about lurkers suspect and without much depth. NOTE I am at work and may not be able to post during the day. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 16 2013 03:14 zebezt wrote: Bleh.. Forgot I had to go out tonight. Good thing I already answered most questions.. My thoughts on Trotske before I go: I don't see many quality posts by him. At first he seems to like me (yay) later he changes his mind and puts a FoS on me stating I don't contribute that much. Weird turnaround, but not too scummy. He doesnt like Spag either saying Spag is only about finding lurkers. Seems a bit unfair since Spag has said this is mostly for the first days. besides that he hasnt said anything much at all. Many 1 line posts. Not a big contributor for sure. Why are you trying to discredit me? because I put a FoS on you? Your post is like the definition of ad-homiem. Also I never said I liked you, I assume you are referring to this post + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 08:55 Trotske wrote: @Acid How is Zebezt a better lynch than sn0_man. Also your post + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 08:34 Acid~ wrote: There were no questions that were "put to me", you just asked me to post and I did. So, now I have to "earn" town cred before I'm allowed to play? Oh please, pretty please, can I play with you Mr mayor? I find this attitude pretty fucking hypocritical coming from a guy who attacked someone else earlier supposedly because they were intimidating others into not participating. This shit you're trying to pull right there, not only is it exactly the kind of behavior you attacked in others, it's also textbook ad-hominem. So, please, with sugar on top, answer the fucking question. Maybe you'll manage to post your first line of useful content. seemed to be aimed at getting people emotional near the lynch deadline and you need to stop it now because that won't help people make informed lynch decisions. that post was 100% pointless unless you want to get people emotional. I was asking why he put a vote on you when I thought sn0_man had some scummy traits that you didn't even though you both had the same amount of activity. As for spag Just because it is his first day doesn't mean he gets to act like Day1 when there are a bunch of real day1 posts to go through. Thanks for your input on him though. I would still like some more talk about spag and zebezt. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 16 2013 05:55 Sn0_Man wrote: Then talk. I've openly stated that I don't like zebezt's filter, but that equally other people (like you) have scummy filters too and that town are simply misplaying this game, if nothing else due to a lack of detailed analysis and general activity. If you see anything specific that you would like to point out, or even re-emphasize (preferably with quotes, maybe some contrast with "valuable" posts...), I for one would LOVE to hear it. If not, I don't have any nails to put in the coffin zebezt is constructing for himself so I'll just leave it be. My thoughts on spag: I could totally see him being part of a fairly specific scum team but I can't see him getting lynched any time soon so I'm not wasting my time. If nothing else, he is stimulating posts which are a resource town MUST HAVE to win. And all his posts look townie, you have to be really skeptical/hypothetical to see a scum underlay. Too much "master plan/conspiracy theory" not enough "hey look its obvious he is scum" for me to make a real case against him. Thanks for the advice I'll try to go in depth once I get home from work. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 00:27 Mocsta wrote: 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 What a crock of shit This is the silliest scum reasoning I have read. Don't you think this argument actually might work the other way around? you are seeing scum because you had a scum play like really really really bad town in another game? 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. Seems like a 180 from where you said "You have to take a RISK" most risks are not 100% sure things. I say ?problem? because I think the intention for La Guerta was always to be lynched Day 1. The gambit being to destroy town productivity over multiple days. As a strategy I can see validity in this. It didnt matter if he was alive or not, because he would never be productive for town. It could even be incorporated for scum to lynch La Guerta by uncovering the lie to get town cred for free. Obviously though its always better to keep up numbers, so I think mafia planted a seed (inception) they hoped someone else would develop (the idea being a luxury but not essential )... Therefore when Trotske threw this out there: I think this was the advantage scum were waiting for to receive a solution to problem that didnt really exist (i.e. save La Guerta), but would be a nice-to-have. so the plan was to start a bus for no reason other than town cred right away? that seems a little far fetched. Now, my scum read (by association) I think saw this opportunity and decided to pounce. The response to Trotske is here: (I have intentionally removed the name to remove bias when reading) I think this person setup the play and pulled the strings for La Guerta to be freed. The strings were pulled so hard, even narrow-sighted Oatsmaster was led to say this in the final heartbeats of Day 1: I think this quote summarises the state of confusion for town in general, and La Guerta uncertainty. We all know Oats is a straight shooter, so for him to be in this disarray is saying something. + 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) I feel like your main case on onmi would be a lot stronger if you just didn't include the parts about laguerta being scum that feels like it is reaching. The onmi and oats thing was a very interesting catch I will look into both of there filters to see what the vote switching was about but that might take some more time and I want to post this up for other people to read I will make sure to have it done before the vote. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 16 2013 17:49 Acid~ wrote: The case against Trotske Exhibit A Emphasis mine. Yes, we want people to post but we should also call them out whenever they post something scummy and/or useless, because that is the basis of scumhunting. If we never attack anyone, then we're all just a bunch of carebears waiting around for the mafia to assassinate us all. This post alone from Trotske is not enough for a scum read, but it makes me suspicious. The last sentence especially. You think posting fluff is just as bad as not posting? Good, show us your content. What content, you ask? Yes, my point exactly. Exhibit B Emphasis mine. Talk about low standards. Prior to this post you had done no scumhunting, had posted no analysis of any kind - in fact the only posting you had done was defending Mocsta against Sn0_Man and complaining about bringaniga's style of posting. I feel this is a good place to remind everyone that Mandalor was the first person to attack Trotske on his low-quality posting. Answering questions politely is not scumhunting. While your case on Sn0_Man isn't completely baseless, it's also very thin and since you seem hellbent on hanging a lurker, well there were other lurkers to look at. What I get from this is that you don't care who you lynch, so you pick an easy target: given how he attacked Mocsta, who still had a lot of town cred at the time, no one would be rushing to defend Sn0_Man. He was also not there to defend himself. Or I thought lynching a lurker who was scummy at the same time was a very good choice. And why did you say I didn't care who I lynched I'm the only person who was actively saying that laguerta was a townie and not going to the person with 7 votes on them... Please also note that end of that post where I say it may change if he posts more aka I'd still rather lynch the real lurkers. Translation from scum to English: "It's so hard to pick which of these townies to falsely accuse, maybe I'll just wait and see if my Sn0 vote gets any traction, if not I'll just pick an easier target." You also conveniently forget to mention laguerta, the worst of them all, in your "professional lurkers" list. first off after my sn0 vote I didn't pick an easy target I picked manalor who at the time didn't exactly have everyone's support behind the lynch. Second I also Thought and still do that Laguerta was a bad townie who didn't really want to play. Exhibit C Emphasis mine again in the quotes, to demonstrate my previous claim. The vote on Sn0 gets no traction, so again he sheeps Mocsta. This is like Christmas for scum because he can safely attack Mandalor (who, let me remind you, had posted his own suspicions about Trotske) by piggybacking on Mocsta's case without having to do any work. Or I voted for the person who I thought was trying to get a free kill on a bad townie and on whom a case had already been built by someone else that I thought was a pretty good start to a confirmed scum add these together and mandalor was look pretty scummy to me. his case in the spoiler. + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 00:44 Mocsta wrote: Guys.. im going to bed. 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?
Exhibit D What is with this 180 now? You are now openly and directly attacking a player for wanting to lynch a lurker. Even though you had spent the whole of day1 arguing in favor of lynching a lurker. Suddenly, this lurker is not good enough for some reason? Exhibit E You FoS these players because they: 1. Are too insistent on wanting to lynch lurkers. 2. Post no useful content. If those are your criteria, I think you should start fingering yourself. Additionally, the insistence on wanting other players' opinions before you actually turn those fingers into votes reads to me like you don't want to pressure and you definitely don't want to commit to a lynch before you're sure you can get traction to kill another innocent. Closing argument At this point, I still have to review Zebezt's case with a fresh look, so I'm not taking my vote off him and onto Trotske just yet. However, Trotske seems scummy as hell to me and I want his case to be discussed. you make some interesting points but all it really boils down to is that I haven't been super active which as much as I hate it is undeniable. I hope I have given some better perspective into the exhibits and why some of them aren't near as scummy as you made them out to be. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
I feel like mocsta is trying to make a case up out of very thin air. "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." I also feel that this part of the post seems scummy to me, mocsta keeps telling everyone why he is obviously town instead of trying to figure out who is scum. This and his lack of any decent argument for the cases he has put up force me to conclude he is the scummiest person in the thread right now. ##Vote Mocsta | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 06:57 Mocsta wrote: 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 You misquoted me "I feel like your main case on onmi would be a lot stronger if you just didn't include the parts about laguerta being scum that feels like it is reaching." was the quote nothing about your voting habits. OFC I'm going to defend someone I think is town, is that so hard to understand? I must have missed some really damning evidence on laguerta because what I have seen reeks of bad town not scum. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 07:11 cDgCorazon wrote: Dinner Plate Role Call: Votes not in the proper format will NOT be counted. EVERYONE is required to vote. Mocsta (2): Acid~, Trotske Trotske (2): Zarepath, Mocsta Zebezt(1): Spaghetticus, Trotske (1): Sn0_Man JacobStrangelove(1): Zebezt OmniEulogy(0): Acid~(0): Not Voting (3): OmniEulogy, JacobStrangelove, Shz, Currently Mocsta is set to be lynched! 2 hours until lynch deadline. If I got your vote wrong, make sure to pm me. The lynch deadline is 00:00 GMT (+00:00). Why do I have two separate places? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 07:20 shz wrote: Are you kidding me Mocsta? How the fuck can't you still not vote for laguerta/Jacob? I will stick with laguerta for now. I think he did a great job of either causing confusion in this town, or at playing bad. I hope it's the former. As long Jacob does'nt participate at all, I see no value in keeping him around. I'm not completly sold on Mocsta, but that doesn't I see him as town. ##Vote: JacobStrangelove Please participate in some way before you die, maybe you can explain what the fuck laguertas play was and defend yourself (even if you weren't the one doing this shit). If not, I'll keep my vote on you. Between me and Acid which points do you not think are good enough for you to vote him as scum? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 07:34 zebezt wrote: Hey guys, I'm off to bed. I encourage everyone to vote either Mocsta or JacobStrangelove, I think the last one makes more sense logically, but right now they both seem scummy to me. How does that last one make more sense he will get modkilled if he doesn't vote in the next hour and a half. if you think mocsta is scummy vote for him. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 07:43 zebezt wrote: I explained it just a few posts ago. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=38#748 There is a chance Jacob is still going to vote. I assume that if he signed up he will participate. You just said you are off to bed Wouldn't it make more sense to put your vote somewhere it will matter not waste it on someone who is likely to get modkilled? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:12 Mocsta wrote: On phone. 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. That's why... I cant quote on phone. Too hard. So I'm playing more now that I have time and that makes me scum that's legit. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:07 Spaghetticus wrote: ##Unvote: Zebezt ##Vote: Trotske THE FUCK? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:37 Mocsta wrote: Ofcourse u would acid. U been gunning for the active townie ever since day1. LOL make a case on him then don't just write shit like this hoping to convince people not to vote for you. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 17 2013 08:44 shz wrote: @Trot: If you do get lynched in 20 minutes, would you like to share your opinions while you still have the chance? Don't really have much in ways of opinions that I haven't said in the game Honestly I kind of played poorly this game, I would like to apologize for it but It was kind of fun so I might play more when I have some more free time. I actually jsut started a new job and thought I would have more time sitting at a desk then I did. Unfortunately I have go afk for the last few min But I had fun gg all. have fun. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
good job guys. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 18 2013 03:52 Sn0_Man wrote: Pro tip: Jacob (or JSL, or whatever u wanna call him) is *not* scum. If he was scum he'd vote Trotske to save Mocsta. He was obviously around at lynch deadline. I find it unlikely that much "busdriving" (aka scum leading a lynch vs scum) will occur when its quite clear mafia could have secured a mislynch D2 (with 3 horses at 2 votes each, mafia *have* to be able to get that mislynch). After that mislynch mafia need to confuse exactly 1 townie to win the game the next day so... Plus its a noob game. I'm fairly certain that one of the guys on trotske is scum (voting with mocsta), and the other scum is either A) the other guy on trotske (duh) or B) somebody not here at lynch deadline (OE, zebezt) If I'm wrong, I feel like thrawn would have grounds to modkill scum for playing against win-con (unless the 2 remaining scum agreed with each other... even then I don't think bussing Mocsta is playing to your win con). What about when I flip town and Bam all of a sudden Acid's case vs mocsta is looking really good becasue then he would have led the lynch on me and hammered the first lynch, The mafia team might have looked at him as a liability going forward. I don't think you can rule JSL out just because he didn't vote for me. He didn't vote for anybody which might actually be a little scummy. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 18 2013 04:18 Sn0_Man wrote: You defend laguerta to the hilt when everybody else things he is scummy, then he gets subbed out for JSL and all of a sudden JSL is scummy? Not sure I get that. Fortunately for you, every argument that I can make for JSL being town applies to you as well. I *still* want to lynch you but I know you are town. That post was actually defending JSL but feel free to draw any conclusion you want from anything I say. On January 18 2013 04:15 zarepath wrote: That assumes that Acid is driving the bus on Mocsta, and I don't think that mafia would want to bus their Godfather; they would rather give Mocsta credibility by having him bus Acid and then get role-checked. And that all assumes that Acid is mafia in the first place, and I don't find a strong argument for that in his filter. Sorry I messed up in my post, I bolded it meant to say mocsta not he looking like I was referring to Acid when I Wasn't. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 18 2013 05:19 zarepath wrote: Sorry, what did you mean to say, then? I'm confused now. What I Was trying to say was that your townie claim on JSL is not as solid as your posts seems to make clear you think it is. Your reasoning is that he could have voted me and saving his scum mate, but by doing so when I showed up townie the biggest case that was around was on mocsta after I was lynched aka he is next in line of fire even more so since he was pushing for my mislynch. So by hammering me JSL not only would kill mocsta next lynch in the process but would also be under more scrutiny form hammering me. I am not trying to say he is scum just that he is not a confirmed townie like your post said. does that make more sense than my other post? | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote: Okay there have been some developments, seemingly a lot of them on me. I have limited time (two hours before I need to be at the bus-stop), so I'm going to quickly draw your attention to my position and the posts that support it. I will be gone for at least 9 hours, finishing just before midnight, meaning when I do get back my contribution will be limited due to sleep. Once I awaken, I'm hoping my mother has better internet than she used to as it was unstable last time I was there. I should definitely be back to posting full strength by the the last half of Day Two. My Day Two Voting Explanation Post I believe it was Zarepath who complained that I hadn't justified my actions (It might have been Acid). This was wrong. My justification is strong, and I believe that if I had acted any other way I would have been acting to the detriment of Town (with the information available). I have done similar moves in previous games, and given the same scenario I would do the same again. Someone stated they didn't like me saying I didn't care who died between Zebezt and Trotske. At the time I had equal reads on both, and they are still on my 'dar with the addition of JSL. I really didn't care which one was lynched, I think narrowing my scope down to two people is sufficient. I never have the confidence in my scum reads others seem to have (yes I'm talking about previous games), I am known for my cautious scum reads, and voting for reasons other than tunneling the one person. I believe Shz or Zarepath can give you the meta-read. The interplay between myself and Mocsta was more cautious than normal. We just threw away XXXIV with in-fighting between Mocsta and myself, his jabs throughout the entirety of that game being damnright nasty. That he approached me with what I interpreted as some composed humour this time around was a relief. I wanted Mocsta around day Three, as I didn't think there was any chance of him slipping past us if he were scum come day three. I mean, could you honestly see him surviving given that last big case? At the time I voted, I had skimmed over it the night before, given some denunciation to make sure that it didn't gain traction in the eyes of some of the newer players, and went to sleep. When I voted in the morning, I voted without rereading the case (it was even worse than what I thought), switched my vote to improve the chances of me getting my way, and went straight back to sleep. I don't know if I would have switched my vote to Mocsta if I had reread the case, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. --- Two out of my three biggest town-reads died in the night: Sn0 and Omni. This leaves only Shz as confirmed town in my eyes. There is no way that he would make the hammer vote on Mocsta if he were scum, the bus was too unnecessary. The only way Shz is scum is if Trotske is also scum. That way, Shz was choosing which of his buddies to lynch, not whether to lynch one of his buddies. If Trotske flips town, Shz is confirmed town 100% no question. Of who I think is scum, I think at least one is hiding among Trotske, Zebezt, and JSL. I'm leaning towards Trotske in this position based off Mocsta's erratic behaviour. Town was in a bad position prior to Mocsta's lynch, three deaths in one cycle is bad. Why would Mocsta act so erratic if there wasn't another scum on the chopping block? If there was only town up for killing, all he had to do was play consistently and we would dig ourselves an even deeper hole. Instead he stepped up and made a bizarre case against a strongly confirmed town. Scum are more than capable of bussing their buddies, but why would Mocsta take such massive risks to protect someone that was town? It looks to me as if he was making a distraction to try and destabilize the vote on a buddy. Voting Troske now also has the benefit of establishing Shz as 100% town if he does flip green, and gives us a strong lead on a third scum if he flips red. ##Vote: Trotske I will be open to discussion when I get back, but I need to start packing and make my way to the bus-stop. And yet you offer no specifics in this whole post. Make excuses for your bad play, and you still have not given town any information in this whole thread YOU SCREAM SCUM you have no case and are trying to waste a lynch on a fact finding trip. My FoS of Spaghetticus of which no points have been changed or addressed. + Show Spoiler + FoS on Spaghetticus I would like some other opinions on him, I feel that most of his posts so far have been only restating that he doesn't like lurkers Literally half of his posts have had some comment about lurkers. His posts seem to me to be saying nothing while looking very large at the same time. ##VOTE Spaghetticus | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
JacobStrangelove + Show Spoiler + On January 18 2013 12:07 JacobStrangelove wrote: While this turned out to be true I think this might have been a scum slip, even with all the evidence town are normally far more careful with reads. For example with this evidence I would say most likely town and would think of the possibility of having improved his play to appear more town not remaining scummy to appear more town. (although I haven't seen him play before I don't think?) Also in general Spags meta is way off... he is the only other australian and while he has given reasons for being less active you would have thought he would have at least chimed it (it's almost 1pm Australian time) So in other words his meta is off, he isn't posting much (which is a separate issue from meta while being connected) and he isn't following though on his non LAL policy. A LAL policy is really easy for scum to talk about because it requires no evidence beside from lack of content. Also he posted this Is seems he has taken up the mantle of motivated lurking.... after being so bold and aggressive against them has he realised he can't keep up? FOS# Spaghetticus This is JSL's only post I could find that has any real input into who could be scum. I'm not sure if this makes him scummy or just a lazy town but I do find it odd that laguerta and JSL playing from the same role PM seem to be playing the same style. Spaghetticus + Show Spoiler + On January 18 2013 13:24 Trotske wrote: And yet you offer no specifics in this whole post. Make excuses for your bad play, and you still have not given town any information in this whole thread YOU SCREAM SCUM you have no case and are trying to waste a lynch on a fact finding trip. My FoS of Spaghetticus of which no points have been changed or addressed. + Show Spoiler + FoS on Spaghetticus I would like some other opinions on him, I feel that most of his posts so far have been only restating that he doesn't like lurkers Literally half of his posts have had some comment about lurkers. His posts seem to me to be saying nothing while looking very large at the same time. ##VOTE Spaghetticus Zarepath + Show Spoiler + Does this feel like a bus to anyone else? It seems like we are pretty set up on killing spag today so why not jump on the bus and try for the late game. On January 19 2013 01:42 zarepath wrote: The point is that if I were Spag and I knew I weren't scum, I would be looking very closely at Zarepath because he is the only person who voted with Mocsta that I wouldn't have confirmed as town. I can understand why people are suspicious of me, because I voted with Mocsta. That on its own isn't enough reason for me to be scum, but I can totally understand why it would be worthy of looking through my filter and coming up with a case. I can ESPECIALLY understand why it would be worthy of doing if Spag were town -- he would think it very likely for me to be scum. However, he did NOT do that -- that draws attention to the idea that another scum must have voted with Mocsta, and he apparently isn't very confident that I am scum. Because I am town, I am highly suspicious of the other person to have voted with Mocsta, so I looked through his filter and his interactions with Mocsta, and it all builds together (along with his votes and his cases) to a strong case of Spag being scum. The point isn't that we're both scum -- it's that we're both very much worth looking into if you're LOOKING for scum. I submit that Spag is not looking for scum, and that, having now looked, I very much think him to be scum. Also He voted with mocsta last lynch with no explanation saying he would post it during the night this is that post. On January 17 2013 11:15 zarepath wrote: My Vote, Explained by Zarepath Trotske's Day 1 involved few contributions. Most notably, he "pressured" bringaniga, agreed with Mocsta's case on Mandalor while still defending him while still saying he'd vote for him if he acted more scummy (bandwagon ready), and then he also made a case on sno_man and wouldn't let up on trying to get everyone to talk about it: Not necessarily scum-aligned, of course. But also smacks of trying to start a bandwagon. When looking at how Day 1 mislynch went, Trotske went out of his way to call Laguerta a bandwagon and voted for Mandalor because he was the one who started the vote for Laguerta... it seemed a little bit like trying to take credit in advance for the town's mislynch (or non-credit, as it were). As my time was limited today, I decided that the players I'd limit my analysis to were my previous scummy reads and those with lower post counts (Shz, trotske, Acid, zebezt). Trotske stood out to me as I read Acid's case on him, as his defense wasn't exactly stellar, and his other contributions weren't that amazing, either. His vote for Mocsta seemed to be mroe of a deflection than a read. So, prior to Mocsta flip, those were my thoughts on Trotske and my reasons for voting for him. NOw, however, we have a LOT more data with which to look at things, so I am pretty much looking at Trotske completely fresh (and almost confirmed townie, basically, considering his interactions with Mocsta, although that can't be completely assumed.) no hard reasons but the case from Acid. Makes his vote seems a little scummy, something to consider. zebezt + Show Spoiler + I really like how he made a case on mocsta pretty early, My only problem is he makes a case on jacob based on a case against lagurata who was practically trolling instead of voting for mocsta. I would really like some more input on him so I can see other points of views on him. These are my current reads, I WOULD LOVE SOME INPUT ON THESE, IT IS DEAD IN HERE. I think spag is still the best lynch candidate. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 20 2013 01:05 Spaghetticus wrote: My case on Trotske is not as impressive as I had hopes it would be. It can be summarised into three parts: (1) - Trotske is not a noob: He isn't, he's played more games than me, and while I'm not sure why he would tell us that as town or scum (A requirement for being allowed in the game maybe?), and argument that relies on him being a noob is fallacious. A year away is a while, but it's no reason to not have posted any content by now. Because I don't have any skills in mafia from over a Year ago. Read my old threads if you want to see some bad play and laugh about it. Just playing games doesn't make you good at them. (2) - Which leads into my next point: he seems to have almost made efforts to not contribute. I have offered more content despite starting two days later, sleeping 12 hours a day, and being pulled into family affairs I want no part of. He is neither leader of opinion nor a creative thinker, simply a follower of other's ideas. Somehow he has managed to fail to contribute, and this is not acceptable at this point in the game for someone that has any experience whatsoever. This describes yourself better than it describes me, you think you are the only person who has RL problems that stop them from contributing? Just have to do the best you can with the time you have. From what I can see with the time you have you made quite a few WIFOM post's instead of trying to create a better case. This leads me to think you are very scummy indeed. Wouldn't a town want to contribute best before they were myslynched? not making bad claims that would only cause to distract from the next lynch. (3) - This third point is more the negation of arguments used to defend him. Whatever Mocsta's plan was, it was damn erratic. People seem to be banking a lot on knowing Mocsta's intentions when they just don't seem that clear to me. Can you explain this I'm not clear on what this means. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
Spag | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
##Vote JacobStrangelove | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
Combined with his previous scummy behavior my vote is not changing and I urge everyone else to vote JSL. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + "I'll note that Troske being under that much pressure and not cop-claiming or leaving my name in his will makes it less likely he's a cop, making my position more feasible late-game. " I Was so close to claiming but the person I inspected N1 died so I thought it was pointless because it didn't give town any info and in the off chance I did live wouldn't die the next night. parts of this game were so much fun thanks guys, just wish I had more time to play. | ||
| ||
