EPTNever played this online before.
Played it a couple of times irl though and it was great fun.
Newbie Mini Mafia XXXV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Never played this online before. Played it a couple of times irl though and it was great fun. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
A last night with 4 people including a vigilante also could lead to a winning scenario. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Are we supposed to roleplay cucumbers etc now?  I'll start with Mocsta's questions: On January 12 2013 13:09 Mocsta wrote: 1) Stance on Lurkers: i.e. Do you policy lynch? It seems to me like policies are a way to keep people from having to think things over. I suppose that can be useful for some people, but I hope we're all smart veggies here. If there is no scum read i'd go for the most scummy lurker though. 2) How do you think scum would try to get influence with us? No idea, I suppose I gotta read the scum guides. Havent gotten round to that yet. There is so much reading material in this forum 3) [fluff] DONT BUY A POOL. I wasted all my time today with pools and hate it ! It's snowing here, what would I do with a pool? [fluff]Anyways, a little something about myself. I'm from the Netherlands. I work at a consultancy firm. I won't be able to post around end of day, because I'll be sleeping. I'll mostly be posting during my evenings, maybe a short post in mornings too. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
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. Activity by itself is not a good measure though. Anyone with a lot of time can write a lot of posts. What matters is how your posts contribute. We'll have to keep a critical eye on everyone's contributions. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Spag is not in this game though. I expect great things from you based on last game, at least to keep the conversation going. I wish some of the other players would wake up though. It seems very quiet now. I hope that is not the trend, or we are gonna have trouble finding scum. I must say I find it difficult finding questions to get the conversation started. 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. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
 | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
However we probably have to do it ourselves though, but I suppose if people really don't say anything they get modkilled. So I think we should be able to get at least a little bit of info to see who is the scummiest. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
It's nice that you try a different/funny approach here, however don't wait too long with some serious contributions. It's otherwise easy to hide as scum behind your act. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
If somebody thinks the right questions are not being asked, by all means, ask what YOU think are the right questions. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
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: Not sure, never played mafia before. I didn't have much interest in leading but if nobody did I'd have figured out something to start discussion. Being this apologetic, but not actually doing anything: pretty scummy. Another hint: What is a common Townie/Blue/Mafia ratio? Something like 3/1/1? or 2.5/1.5/1? 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. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 13 2013 20:05 OmniEulogy wrote: I've gotta jump in and say one thing Zebezt. Him mentioning the townie/blue/mafia ratio was before the game even started. Oops Got a bit carried away with my newly discovered filter skills | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
It's hard coming up with good questions early in the game though. I came up with some though: I would like to know from everyone who their top 2 vote targets are. These are not necessarily the same as top scum reads. Mocsta: You said you were going to play this game differently than your previous one. How exactly? Oats: Why does Mocsta's activity level mean you don't vote for him anymore? Sn0_man: What do you think of the points I brought up against you earlier? (minus the scum/town ratio thing) | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On Mandalor: He was gone the first day, but this seems excusable since anyone can have a busy saturday. After that he seems to be trying to contribute. I don't read his play as particulary scummy just yet. On your confirmation bias: You did seem to be stuck on Oats a little too long. You gave that up though which I think is a good sign. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
##Vote: Sn0_Man There is a lot of lurky people that also should be kicked out of this game if they keep it up, but I'm gonna give them a little more time. I detailed my problems with Sn0 in an earlier post and since then he added only more lurkiness to his resume. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 13 2013 22:17 Oatsmaster wrote: A question for you zebezt, Why wouldnt our top 2 vote targets be our top scum reads?? Forgot to answer this. Some people like to policy vote out lurkers. For example Acid has a vote now, while he didnt even post a thing, making it impossible to have any read on him at all. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Torn if I should change my vote, but Laguerta might still say something and I'm off to bed now. Sticking with my vote on sn0_man since he is a good candidate. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I havent read all of the posts yet but it seems poor Mand got lynched. No idea how that suddenly happened, because as I went to bed I don't think there was that many people voting for him. Also suddenly some people are questioning my scumminess. Interesting stuff. I'll read the allegations in detail later as I have to go to work now. On January 14 2013 12:45 Acid~ wrote: So far, Sn0_Man hasn't done -anything- at all, really. I don't know about confirmation bias and I have no read on Oastmaster either way, but read Zebezt's filter again: he didn't share scum reads, he repeated/paraphrased someone else's read. Sn0 has done very little indeed, and what he did was scummy. Seems enough for a vote for me. I agree I haven't shared many scumreads so far. Guess why? This was the first day. There is not much to go on with most people being as lurky as they are. I'm not the kind of player who accuses people left and right and sees what happens. My case against sn0 i developed on my own. There was no repeating there. I was one of the first people to speak out against bringaniga (not sure if the first). I didnt add any extra allegations on Oats, I did add my insight though that sticking his neck out like he did, did not seem super scummy to me. I shall be back later, maybe I have time to post during lunch and address other questions. If I were you guys I would be more interested how this sudden vote train on Mand happened. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 14 2013 08:30 Oatsmaster wrote: Zebezt, You did seem to be stuck on Oats a little too long. You gave that up though which I think is a good sign. Going to be voting either sn0 or oats I think. Why when Mocsta stopped pressuring me you said its good, but still want to vote me without even directly interacting with me? Dont you want to pressure your scum reads until you are confident? It doesnt look like you are very confident to me. Nice sheeping mocsta. So it seems bringaniga is in fact kushm4sta, someone that has played MANY mafia games and therefore not really a newbie anymore. modkill? This says to me that you are actually either relatively experienced or the scum qt is talking about it. I was totally confused before thrawn posted the host message. It's true I wasn't very confident in my scum read on you. I specifically said that earlier too. It seems you were under enough pressure at the time, so I didnt feel like I needed to add more. I don't know what sheeping is... I assume it's not the same as a polymorph? If you mean following him, I made a case against sn0 when most attention was still on oats. How does my comment on kush make me experienced? Anyone with half a brain could see that kush's first post was bringaniga's style, and then bringaniga's post right after that basically confirmed they were the same person. Then it was just a matter of checking Kush's profile to see he had played many games. Since I disliked his playing style I hoped for a modkill instead of wasting a lynch on him. If I was scum I would have kept my mouth shut and hoped for a lynch. I | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I'm glad you picked apart some of the concerns about my play in your posts. You have some valid questions though, I'll try to address them. + Show Spoiler + On January 14 2013 16:27 Mocsta wrote: 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? 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.. 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 1: My question to you was not meant pressuring I suppose. I just wanted to get more information about your playstyle. My question to Oats was meant as pressuring. I didn't find his behaviour as scummy as Sn0's, but his sudden vote switch as soon as the pressure was off him seemed suspect to me. I'm not even sure if that question was answered yet. My question to sn0 was meant to get him to react to my scumread and get him out of hiding. I'm not really sure how I could have added extra pressure on sn0. He wasn't reacting as it was. This seemed to work pretty well as everyone forgot about him and instead focussed on the people who did post. I did try to pressure bringa to change his playstyle. I didn't really have a scumread on him, just thought his playstyle was contributing. 2: My scumread I still find sn0 highly suspicious. Sn0_man: why do you think it is acceptable to vote without stating a reason? Sn0_man[/b]: How is ignoring a scumread on yourself not scummy? | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
anyway... I find Oats more and more suspicious too. At first I thought he was just a lumbering fingerpointer, but I read some of his posts in another mafia game where he was town and he seemed much less aggressive there. (didnt have time to read through the whole thing though) Question to Oats Why did you change your playstyle from your previous game if you won there as town? | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I don't find it necessary to share my townreads, since scum can benefit from those. For the rest I don't have any scumreads yet that I consider strong enough to pursue. Laguerte seems suspicious with his no lynch vote. I will look more into him later. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I meant the chrono one. What is the basis of this sudden confidence? | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 15 2013 01:20 Spaghetticus wrote: I am voting someone from Zebezt down. So one of: Sweet! I'm the new Grubby line :D PS: don't worry I'll post more later. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Seeing how Oats actually voted for so many different people.. I dont know if that is actually scummy. If I were scum I wouldnt wanna antagonize so many people and just wait until I could bandwagon one or two players. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 14 2013 17:19 Oatsmaster wrote: Since I disliked his playing style I hoped for a modkill So you dont think that he would be useful? Losing town members is never good, so do you think Acid and Glurio should be modkilled too? Scum want to reduce the number of townies, town wants all the townies to be useful. Zebezt sounds like scum. This is just sad. First the fact that shz seems to think you are talking to him and then you reply to him as if you did actually mean him... :D second.. your argument sucks. Did ANYONE think bringaniga was useful the way he was playing? I dont think so. At that point in time bringaniga was set to be lynched. If he gets modkilled he can be replaced with someone useful. How is this bad for town? Since he got modkilled and replaced we had a chance to lynch someone that actually looked scummy instead of just playing badly. Unfortunately people seemed to switch to the wrong person... still this got us more info than killing bringaniga would have most likely. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
good morning. I thought I addressed most of the questions. I think the only complaint against me that stands up is that I could do more to pressure people. I agree on that. I've tried to ask sn0 a question, but he just ignores it. My other top scumread with Oats gone is laguerta. He is even more lurky then sn0 though. I will do some more in depth reading tonight. Last night I was hoping to post more, but a new years reception left me in a bad state for deep thinking. Anywayz, if you have any questions for me, besides the fact that I don't pressure enough (I'll try to improve on that) then please let me know. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 15 2013 16:00 Mocsta wrote: (1) Mocsta - This can be discounted. We were both pressuring each other, and he got over emotional and turned suspicion into a vote. Nice way to discount yourself there I suspect his vote on me had something to do with me calling his play idiotic as well... Anyway, Oats' death comes as a bit of a surprise to me. If I was scum I would try to get rid of the most influential townies. You fit this bill much more than Oats. The fact that you didn't get NK'ed makes you look suspicious | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 15 2013 16:26 Mocsta wrote: @zebezt 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. Looks like you got your wish. 1: I'm sorry, do you mean my top scum read was bringaniga? I don't think I ever said anything like that. In fact I never said he looked scummy at all iirc. His playstyle made him unreadable and it was annoying. I merely mentioned him as someone I would vote for. This was my way of putting some extra pressure on him. 2: Sn0_Man has not done much to make him less suspicious. My original beef with him still stands and he hasnt answered my question about his behaviour. Only good thing is that he is slightly less lurky right now. He is making some soft town claims, but those don't mean much. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Also, you're asking all of us for our reads, why? This is not a rhetorical question. Answer this. I wanted to get some conversation going. Find out what all the lurkers are thinking. I don't see how this was a bad thing to ask for. I really don't see any other questions I missed going through the entire thread (searched for zebezt). It's mostly just Oats saying very often that my filter is so scummy but not actually saying why most of the time. the points he did bring up against me I addressed. They were mostly quite stupid though. Anyway, hope tonight I can spend some time filterfeeding and I'll see if I can find some better scumreads. I must admit I don't have anything good to go on yet. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 15 2013 16:26 Mocsta wrote: @zebezt Why have you shifted your top scum read from an active lurky player to a modkilled (lurky) player? Oh I realize you mean Laguerta. It's not a very strong case against him. But I can't think of a reason for his replacement that would explain his weird voting behaviour. So unlike bringaniga, who was annoying but not scummy, we should keep a close eye on whoever replaces Laguerta. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 15 2013 16:40 Mocsta wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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? I just have a thing against bad logic. Even when the bad logic suits me. (like earlier when I said Oats voting for many people did not look scummy to me) You pleaded yourself free too easily. I was just pointing out to others that there are ways the kill could make you look scummy. I don't think that I would have pointed this out if I were scum. You have defended me before and I wouldn't want to antagonize you. The fact that Oats died does not make very strong scum case against you on it's own and there isn't that much scumminess in the rest of your posts that I've seen so far that I could build a case on. I don't see what you being roleblocked has anything to do with this? It does not prove you are town in the slightest. Another example of bad logic. I'm not saying you are the only influential person in this game, or that you call all the shots, but you definately have alot of influence. Your last bit doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you saying because I can imagina what I would do if I was scum that means I am scum? You were coming up with reasons for Oats's death. I was giving a possible reason for it. This seems townmotivated to me. I'm not saying it's the only reason that makes sense. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 15 2013 14:51 shz wrote: Any ETA on that? I get it, you don't want to ignore benched players. So, why do you think laguerta is more scummy than some of the more active / not-benched players? Care to elaborate instead of citing his weird voting pattern (which is weird, but that can't be all, or?). What are your thoughts on Trot? Do you think he is scum? And why / why not? Sorry, missed this too. I was not at my best last night. Laguerta's "no vote" when he said that he was against those is more than a little weird imo. He didnt post much else so there is hardly a thing to go on. I'll look into Trot tonight. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
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. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 16 2013 05:39 Trotske wrote: Why are you trying to discredit me? because I put a FoS on you? Your post is like the definition of ad-homiem. This post was the definition of an answer to a question asked to me by shz. Not related to your FoS. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I'm aware I have not made any big contributions scum hunting lately. Tonight I'm planning to do some scumhunting and post my findings. Most likely not gonna waste too much time defending myself tonight. I feel I answered most of the questions. I don't think there is anything particulary scummy about my filter. I might have done better posting scumreads. I will try to do that tonight. Some questions before i go: @Spaghetticus: You were the most active player during your last game. You seem to post significantly less now. Why the change of playstyle? @Mocsta: I was thinking about what you said earlier (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. Why would you go out of your way to make yourself seem town'ish with such a terrible reason? I think only scum would try to do that. The fact that you CLAIM to be RB'ed is no confirmation in any way that you are town. There might not even be a roleblocker at all in this game. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 16 2013 21:01 Spaghetticus wrote: I appreciate the etiquette, but you need to drop the kiddie gloves and come out swinging bare knuckle. While shit slinging can be detrimental if it outlives it's usefulness, being too nice makes everyone think you are manipulative. Most people have ingrained heuristics to target nice people, and for a very good reason. In XXXIII I was the nice guy who just wanted town to get along and work together. I was lynched day one, and have since reverted to the asshole internet persona you see before you. I regret that being nice seems to hurt town, but if you wanna play mafia you just need to accept it and move on. Thanks for the tips I'll try to keep your advice in mind. It doesn't match well with my normal character, but I guess if I wanna play this game to win, I will have to adapt. I find it hard to attack people on subjective things like how much somebody contributed. I will see if I can come up with something tonight though. I will have to figure out who to vote for anyway. Right now I really don't have a clue. anyway, taking your advice to heart:  | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 16 2013 22:18 Mocsta wrote: @zebezt 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. The first time you claimed the RB I don't have any problems with. It's when you bring it up in this post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=36 that makes it seem as if you bring it up as something that makes you look less scummy? Or did you have another reason to bring it up there? All in all that was not one of your best posts in terms of clarity. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
You mentioned this gambit thing before where mafia sacrifices a scum day 1 to create chaos for many days. I just don't see how you would think that would work. Say we would have lynched laguerta, how would that have led to chaos? It was hardly a controversial lynch at some point. It would basically have reset the game to day 1 with 1 scum less. The only way scum can benefit from sacrificing one of their own on day 1 is if they push really hard for the lynch and thus create a lot of credibility for themselves. I haven't reread everything to see how the vote for Laguerta started up, but if you think he is scum, that is where you might find some, IF Laguerta actually is scum. I think before ANY association case is to be made though, we'd have to see Laguerta's flip. My vote is probably going to Laguerta's replacement if I can't find a better candidate later this evening. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
(the artist formerly known as Laguerta) I said I would vote Mocsta, but changed my mind. Will detail my case against him later. BUT i realized if Mocsta was scum and Laguerta was not, it would make no sense for Mocsta to put himself in the spotlight by switching votes from Laguerta to Mandalor. Laguerta gave himself up as a scum with his lie about the voting. It doesn't matter that he got replaced. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
here's the gist of it, my wife needs me so I don't have time for too much detail. At first he seemed pretty townie to me. He was nice n friendly to all and posted a lot. A LOT. The actual content in there is actually pretty useless though. His case against Omni illustrates this VERY well. A GIANT post. But he already says its an association case and that those suck... so what the hell? but there are some gems in there... he says he is 100% sure Laguerta is scum. Awesome scum slip. I'm voting Laguerta myself, but ONLY A SCUM can be 100% certain who is scum he is 100% sure Laguerta is scum, but he isn't voting for Laguerta? WTF? THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL I was already surprised at how upset he got over a small hint of suspicion I had towards him, as demonstrated by the incoherence of his follow up post. + Show Spoiler + On January 15 2013 16:40 Mocsta wrote: Influential? I have been called for my play by almost everyone in this thread (lurkers and actives). I even said today I have to take a step back. Did you not read this from my prime interrogator. (1) Your are dodging others questions; people like Shz have already re-asked you the questions. I think even Mr. King of lurkers (Acid~) wasted one of his few posts to re-ask you questions. Your response: i thought I answered it all.. are you not reading the thread? (2) You then say I am influential.. as if the events of Night 1 didnt happen. Are you not reading the thread.. again? If you haven't, this is very reckless accusations to be making; something I would think only scum would be motivated to do.. (3) I was RB'd.. its not clear whether town or scum.. but as noone else has stepped up to say they were RB'd. I am going to assume for the time being it was scum. (4) The difference between you & (Shz/Myself) is.. we were considering different options for why Oats was killed. You however just assume.. if I would do it.. scum would do it.... WHOAH wait a sec.. if you were scum then of course you could speak with confidence like that. This is a huge concern to me. Please explain how this is town motivated thing to say? Why would he panic so much that he would write a post like this. Even he himself admitted this post sucked. Anyway, I think he is scum. But first the former Laguerta must die | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
##Vote: JacobStrangelove | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
look at this logically. If Mocsta is scum are you are convinced (and I'm pretty sold on it too) than why would he switch votes from Laguerta to Mand. The situation at this vote count http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=24#480 was such that Laguerta was to die. If Mocsta is scum and Laguerta is not, why would Mocsta switch? It only puts him in the center of attention, which is what scum usually does not want. The situation where both are scum does not seem unreasonable. Mocsta got on the Laguerta bus when Laguerta had a big vote lead already. Then when he saw a chance to free his fellow scum he did. The only choice he had was Mand, he had recently defended me and Oats of the people that had 2 votes as well. The situation where Laguerta is scum and Mocsta is not would also be logical with this voting scenario. Therefore Laguerta is a more sure scum than Mocsta. If Laguerta flips scum we are then more sure about Mocsta and can vote him off the next day. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
says again he is sure on Laguerta and votes someone else | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
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. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 17 2013 07:37 Trotske wrote: 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. 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. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
this game is getting to me. I dreamt Jacob was lynched and he flipped town and everyone was pointing fingers at me. Reality is a lot better. Now we can kill off Jacob and we will have only 1 scum left. This is awesome! Gives us a lot of time for scum hunting. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 17 2013 17:10 shz wrote: This is plain dumb. This attitude leads to nowhere. It's dumb to be happy? I'm not saying we should sit back and relax. But in my eyes the next lynch is 100% clear. It's sad for Jacob because he didnt get to play much, but Laguerta and mocsta set him up. Evidence against Jacob First there is Laguerta saying he is not gonna "no vote" and then he "no vote"s. LIE Second there is is Mocsta's voting behaviour. During day 1 he is super late to get on the Laguerta voting train. When that train is looking like it's going to derail, Mocsta gives it the final push by jumping ship and voting Mand. There is no reason for Mocsta to make this switch UNLESS HE IS PROTECTING HIS SCUM BUDDY. Later on Mocsta claims he is 100% sure that Laguerta is scum. Yet he does not vote for him. Instead voting for somebody else. Not once, but TWICE. This looks to me like Mocsta is distancing himself from Laguerta, knowing his lie is out. However he tries to distract the vote away from Laguerta. Any comparison with Temil is useless. This is more than enough PROOF THAT JACOB IS SCUM. I therefore strongly suggest that if we have a roleblocker he RB's Jacob tonight. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 17 2013 17:49 shz wrote: Your attitude is bad. Don't just say "laguerta 100% kk go". No one will take it serious, and if you are wrong, that doesn't look good. I'm not sure yet how Mocsta tried to play. So you would say that he set this all up to help laugerta? Even if Mocsta couldn't have known that he is gonna lynched? Why help someone with saying "You are 100% scum", even if he didn't vote for him? My attitude is just fine. I'm just wary of people of people that will try to confuse the situation and a scum will get away. They almost succeeded last night. I'm sure Jacob is scum. I'm sure enough to bet my townie life on it. Could you think of another reason why Mocsta would draw attention to himself by switching votes on day 1? Could you think of another reason why Mocsta would not vote for someone he says he is 100% sure is scum? The fact that he didn't vote Jacob was one of the biggest tells that gave him away. I'm being extra vocal about this since I think because I don't post as much as some, my opinion gets overlooked. I also risk getting nightkilled, so I wanna get my point across before that happens. I'm not saying we can sit back. We can already start trying to find the third scum. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 17 2013 18:06 JacobStrangelove wrote: Ok I was theorising about this, and as I said before I know there was a double mis-lynch happening on day one. By changing he puts suspicion on me when the lynch goes bad and he probably assumed he would survive day 2 with me dying putting him in good stead. I don’t know why his voting was so funny however. Maybe he wanted to join someone elses train so he wouldn’t look so bad when I went down? Maybe he thought he could get me day 3? Or maybe he did it because hey why not? Omni isn’t here so I wonder why the vote initially was on him. It could be he wanted to get omni and then me because at that point I was likely to get modkilled? I don’t have a clue the problem is you are seeing black and white, the situation is almost never black and white it is a dynamic of really evil colours that sometimes combine for the heck of it. Would like to point out the comparison with TemiL is in my favour... I already pointed out that as far as bad lurker scum go there are several differences in behaviour. In real life things are not black and white. In this game however, you are scum or you are not. Don't try to sidetrack by bringing up Omni. Maybe he wanted to join someone elses train so he wouldn’t look so bad when I went down? This makes no sense. He looked far worse switching to somebody last minute than if he would have kept his vote on you. Also, "Hey why not" is not a good reason for a scum to make himself look suspicious. He was aware his switch would look suspicious.: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=25#494 | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
the lynching of Mocsta was made possible by Sn0 and shz who switched to Mocsta relatively late. Trotske would have been voted off otherwise. This makes sn0 and shz look very townish to me | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 17 2013 20:37 Spaghetticus wrote: @Zebezt Switching last minute is not as scummy as people think. There are plenty of town motives that explain such action. I have done it in every game I remember (all of them town). Your heuristic that most vote switches are scummy is incorrect. I'm not saying it's 100% scum proof. But we aren't trying to proof that Mocsta is scum. What I am saying is that is at least something that draws negative attention to yourself if your vote switch makes the killing blow to a townie. Staying on his target would be more safe for Mocsta. So there must have been a good reason for his switch. The only good reason is to protect a scum. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
regarding your point: It seems farfetched to me, but is possible. However if you also consider that Mocsta in D2 said he was 100% sure that Laguerta was scum, yet he would not vote for him, then it makes less sense. The move you linked to was aimed at making the person doing look like town. When Mocsta named Laguerta scum but did not vote for him, this made Mocsta look scummy. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 18 2013 00:57 Acid~ wrote: My reasoning is actually quite simple. It would be farfetched if everyone in this game was in fact a newbie and we did not have coaches. However, that isn't the case. Also, while I believe this was their plan at the start, I think they saw a juicier plan on day 2 which would both lynch a townie, discredit me and clear Mocsta by association. Aside from Sn0_Man who made his own case, the Trotske voters all cited my case against him as the reason for their vote. Yet, as you know, I did not vote for Trotske in my own case. I think that scum saw an opportunity there to make me appear scummy: I post a case but don't vote, others vote, Trotske flips town - who looks scummy now? Making me appear scummy discredits my case on Mocsta by association and it's Christmas in scumland with no one left to oppose Mocsta's endgame play. Simple, efficient. You know what *is* farfetched? The ridiculous notion that scum would double-bus on day 2 after orchestrating a double-mislynch on day 1. They had no reason to bus, let alone double-bus. Especially since I'm the one who pulled the trigger on Mocsta. If you say that scum double-bussed d2 then you need to make a solid case against me since I voted for Mocsta first and originated the case against Trotske. I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean with double bus? Was that aimed at me? I have no beef with you. I just want Jacob voted off. | ||
|
zebezt
185 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). I am still convinced he is. He probably thought Mocsta was safe because Trotske had a vote lead and even after you switched to Mocsta Trotske was still set to be lynched. Only at 1 minute before deadline did shz switch. Voting no lynch was extra scummy imo. Trying not to make any enemies. Even now Jacob has not made a single good contribution. I think the lie by Laguerta is not 100% damning because of the smurfing, but if he was just trolling, this was the unfunniest troll ever. Mocsta's voting behaviour regarding Laguerta/Jacob still stands too. I'm still open to other options, but there is nobody with more evidence stacked against them. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 18 2013 06:42 zarepath wrote: I'm about to start my commute home and then dinner/family time, so I might not be around for the end of N2. So if these are my last words: I think Spag is extremely suspicious. Look at all of his interactions with Mocsta (from both filters), and ask how they resonate. Then look at how he voted, and how he explained his vote. Also look at how Mocsta talked about Bringaniga (Spag's predecessor) on Day 1. I look forward to how the role claim goes. I'll try to post right before the deadline. (I've been able to check in a little before the deadline most days.) Noted. Spag has seemed the most suspicious to me after Jacob. I just haven't had the time yet to really read through his entire filter yet. So I'm not actually sure why I have this feeling. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 18 2013 09:23 Acid~ wrote: R.I.P. Sn0_Man Just so we're clear, Sn0's death doesn't mean anyone gets a free pass re: roleclaiming and explanations. I'll start, since I have the most powerful role with the best power of them all: + Show Spoiler + I'm Vanilla Townie I would like to see all of your claims before making a case. @Zebezt: You need to get off your tunneling of Laguerta and make a case against JSL if you insist on going that route for today's lynch. I also want to hear an explanation of why you didn't consolidate with town on Mocsta when it was clear a JSL lynch wasn't going to happen. In that regard, until you step up... ##Vote: Zebezt I wasn't even around for the voting deadline, so I had no chance to change vote. Is it necessary to roleclaim yet? It seems early to me, but I havent checked what the normal scum ratio is. But i strongly suspect there were 3 scums at the start. I think almost 1third scum at start would not be good in a newbie game. Some people have already roleclaimed though, which puts our blues at risk of sniping. btw, if you have been RB'ed keep it quiet until somebody claims to be a RB'er | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Been reading spag's filter. He doesnt say much useful stuff. He did encourage people to look into a case on Mocsta though. Slightly positive. On the whole he feels scummy to me though. For someone that said he was gonna contribute a lot, he hasn't really made that happen yet. Tomorrow i'll probably write an overview of my case against Jacob. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
It seems a lot of people can't get with a case unless it's phrased as a long megapost with lots of quotes. POINT 1: THE LIE: Laguerta says he is not gonna "no lynch" vote but then ends up doing exactly that. People now make excuses for it saying it was just a troll. What do we know? It was a smurf. Wether it was a good or bad player is unknown. We do know there weren't many posts by Laguerta, the quality sucked and it was not funny. Would a troll play like this? If you made a smurf just for trolling wouldn't you actually want to troll? Instead of going out of your way to look suspicious and then get voted off day 1 (this almost happened). That seems to make no sense to me. Was Laguerta simply a bad townie and forgot what he said? If you say something because you actually belief it you arent gonna forget it, because you'll automatically do it right. I think the lie still stands as strong evidence Point 2: Mocsta's vote switch I have explained before why Mocsta making a switch from Laguerta to Mand was only logical if Laguerta is scum. The alternative is some unlikely ploy to make himself look less suspicious. Which does not match with point 3. Point 3: Mocsta says JacobStrangelove is 100% scum, but he doesn't vote for him. Instead twice voting on somebody else. Of course this makes Mocsta look super scummy. Why not vote on your sure read, but vote on someone else? Because JacobStrangelove is scum ofcourse. Giving Mocsta the chance to switch to him later on if JSL's lynch seems inevitable. Point 4: JSL votes no lynch Gives the excuse that he doesn't wanna vote with scum. Does he not have critical thinking of his own to determine guilt? If you don't vote you effectively give scum more power if you are a townie. If you are scum and scum is not on the line, no voting makes sense so might not be implicated in a mislynch. It seemed his voice was not necessary to lynch Trotske, so there was no reason to vote. Point 5: JSL does not contribute This is subjective, but I think most will agree ##Vote: JacobStrangelove | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
A too scummy to be scum playstyle. Really?? As town? This makes no sense. I'll comment on the rest later | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Your point 3 defense is basically that you don't know. How is that a defense? Your point 4 defense was that it was clear shz was going to switch because of some comments he made. That's hardly a guarantee. Many people say accusing things about others, but these don't mean they will switch. Town should vote. You sound like you are very experienced. You should be able to read the cases and decide wether or not they should be good. Refusing to vote = scummy | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
anywayz.. seems like my vote is not gaining any traction. Sad since spag is my next best choice i'm joining the bandwagon so there won't be any weird switches to Trotske or zare. those look more innocent to me. ##Vote: Spaghetticus | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 20 2013 06:54 zarepath wrote: zebezt, if you believe Acid is scum, why would you vote WITH him? Did I ever say Acid is scum? He seems less scummy to me than spag. I'm voting with JSL though, which is maybe what you meant. I don't know his reason for this vote, but most likely trying to appear less scummy. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
This will be an interesting day indeed. Had yet another mafia related dream... mafia-paintball.. quite an interesting concept. Maybe I should market it. I'm not sure why everyone is all over zare. I will go through his filter though. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
i can confirm i'm town too  | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
shame u were wrong about me all this time | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I've only been able to go through half of his filter yet, but he doesn't really scream scum to me. Guess I know who to read up on tonight. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
If I were you and scum I might have chosen Acid as well, to throw off the scent. Seeing as you bring this defense up right away tells me you probably thought of this yourself too. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
The way you are playing right now it seems like you are trying to cover yourself if zare gets lynched and all eyes turn to you on the next day. Yes I did spend time thinking about how to play SK pregame. This was because the win conditions were not framed correctly so it sounded like if there was only town and and an SK left town would have already won. This was not the intention though. In the setup as we have it now, I think the SK should try make a kill every night if he thinks he has a decent chance to get a scum. If I was SK, you'd be long dead. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
There is no indication there is one. An SK benefits from eliminating people as fast as possible, as long as he does not end up with too many scum who can easily lynch him in the end. You are smart enough to know this. You are trying to make stories up. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I guess it's nice to know I've been right all along about you. Must admit you made it into a relatively convincing story. So kudo's for that. If you really were RB you could have claimed right away though instead of waiting. Now you just added another lie to your list. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I have been thinking about what your gameplan is. Are you just planning to stretch the game out for no good reason? Only thing I can think of is that there are 4 scum players in this game. That means zare or shz is scum. scenario zare is scum: zare gets lynched, flips scum and JSL says: see! I was right! During night he kills Trotske, claims he RB'ed me and thus shz must be SK. now that I think of it, this doesn't make sense. Because at this point I'd be confirmed town and if he had RB'ed me I would tell. scenario shz is scum: zare gets lynched, flips town. Everyone knows JSL is scum, but during night another townie dies. 2-1 for scum/townies. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 16:48 JacobStrangelove wrote: I could have claimed right away but I had to go over why zarapath lied and consider everything. Also I didn't want to get Nk'ed tonight so that is why I waited until I was voted for and likely to die anyway. It took you an entire day to consider this? Right... | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
So that part of your story makes no sense too. It will be interesting to see though if it turns out if there was a fourth scum or if you were just stalling. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I'm sure you didnt sleep 24 hours. You had plenty time to claim. If you were RB you would have thought about when to claim before as well, so it shouldnt take you so long. How would you have gotten killed during the night if you were RB? If your story is true you'd have me and zare as scum/SK. After lynching one of us, there would only be 1 left for you to RB so you wouldnt die during night. I'm sorry your argument makes no sense. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 18:28 JacobStrangelove wrote: Why are you so scared of the safe option? I can't have a game plan past this day. Are you asking me? You said you RB'ed me, but I didnt get any notification. So that confirms you as scum. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 18:27 JacobStrangelove wrote: 4 scum can concentrate votes 3 scum and 1 sk can't. Oh that does make sense. Didn't think of that.... In that case we should 100% lynch zara because then I can just roleblock the other scum. If that doesn't happen you can just lynch me. If I was buying for time does it matter? It's still safer for town to lynch zara first and you know it. Stop wasting our time! It doesn't make sense cause you are lying scum. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 18:51 JacobStrangelove wrote: I'm asking you showing that you are scum. huh? What does that mean? It just seems to me that you forgot that because of your story I already know you are scum. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 18:59 shz wrote: One question for zebe, zare, and Trotske: If Jacob is lying and not RB, why would Mocsta lie about being RB'd on N1? Mocsta could not have known that there isn't a RB. If there isn't a roleblocker, Mocsta is fine, but if there is a RB and that RB did not roleblock Mocsta, he would have been called out for it. And town should not lie about being RB'd. This is the one thing that I'm very concerned about. Easy peasy Mocsta knows there is no scum RB, or if there is one, he could tell em not to use their power. So if someone else claims a RB, then it seems that there is a town and a scum RB. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
What do you mean with your question? They were both lying. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 19:25 JacobStrangelove wrote: Yeah I know you are scum and you know I am scum... we went over the fact that our stories cancel each other out in this regard. Exactly I pointed out there was no rb claims in the entire thread apart from mocca. if there was scum rb'er he would have used it on someone..... But mocca could gain cred if he knew there was no scum rb'er and obviously a town one. We can't both be lying that wouldn't make sense. Mocsta lies to gain some towncred. You lie to save your ass from lynching. Makes sense to me. I mentioned the possibility of a scum RB to make a complete argument, not because it was likely. But like I said, if Mocsta knows there is no scum RB he can safely claim being RB'ed. Because another RB claim could then be attributed to scum RB'er. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Are you dense or acting dense? I never claimed you were a scum RB. Just scum. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Anyway, I explained before, if there is 4 scum it is not safe. I'm beginning to appreciate this pressuring people. If some people are pressured they seem to make less and less sense. Happened with Mocsta first. Seems to work well on you too. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
And yes, you not being RB'er is obvious to me since you didnt RB me or Zare. If there is 4 scum and we don't kill you, it's already lost. Doesn't matter if the rest discovers your lies then. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I would love to know what you think about this situation? | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 20:56 JacobStrangelove wrote: If there were 4 mafia (unlikely) then it would be 2-3 and we lose this lynch with nk which I the rb'er can't stop... Nonsense If there is 4 mafia you are one of them. Because your story relies on me being an SK and therefore eluding the rolecheck by Trotske. Unless you think there is 4 mafia+SK. Stop trying to wriggle out of this. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 22 2013 20:56 zarepath wrote: I played a 4 scum 13 person Mafia once, but we had no Godfather or any other special powers on the Mafia team. If zarepath was mafia, wouldn't he have just left out the no Godfather thing to strengthen his case? | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
JSL is actually right about something in this respect. For shz it makes sense to vote zare or me. If he is town he will know that the 4 scum scenario is impossible. Therefore voting JSL is more safe for him. He has had a lot of time to figure this out, but is instead sticking with JSL and even posted to this effect. Imo this proves he is not thinking like a townie. Instead he is waiting to see what Trotske is going to do and jump ship to zare when he gets the chance. Trotske does not have the added benefit of knowing wether or not shz is town, so he has to make the real decision. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I think I was clear. I think if I were in your situation I would not vote him if I was town unless I really wanted to make sure that this game ends soon. I think he looks guilty as hell, but maybe that's because I have the added information of knowing 100% sure that I am town and he lied about RB'ing me. If I were you I would probably not be 100% convinced and vote zare to be sure. My point was that since you didn't figure this out yourself it points to you being scum along with JSL. This post is not telling you how to vote. It is more a warning to Trotske to not trust your intentions in this. I'm not saying we should lynch you right now. JSL could just be stalling for time and I'm being paranoid. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Knowing a 100% scum I just don't want to see this game slipping away from us. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
JSL likes you to overlook the fact that he roleclaimed way to late to be believable. The only reason he has for his late roleclaim (doesn't want to get nightkilled) makes no sense, since there was no risk of getting nightkilled as I pointed out. He thinks somehow 4 scum is waaaaaaaaaaay less likely than 3 scum + SK | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
EBWOP Assume JSL's story is true Why was Mocsta RB'ed night one? He was the one that saved Laguerta from being lynched on D1. Very unlikely choice. Yet another gap in the story. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
nice catch zare. I didn't even notice that :D  | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Does anyone have good wifom reception around here? | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
GG I think I learned a lot this game. My reads seemed to be pretty good though. Except for sn0_man. Last day was pretty crazy though, and shz not voting JSL made me pretty paranoid. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
Makes reads much harder. Mocsta kinda dug his own grave with his case against Omni. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
I had a really good time, although I could have done without the mafia related dreams. :D | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
On January 23 2013 19:41 JacobStrangelove wrote: I find it amusing that there was a point everyone was calling zeb scum or bad town considering at that point he was the only one of the right track. I think the main problem was you didn't argue the point in "the right way" or something. Yup. I gotta work on that I suppose. Maybe longer posts. Long posts seem to be taken more serious. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
glad I made it as favourite player. On the assuming thing though, not sure which asssumptions you are talking about. I wasn't assuming there was an SK. That was JSL's story. | ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
| ||
| ||
