Newbie Mini Mafia XXXVII - Page 3

On February 16 2013 10:29 warbaby wrote:
For reference, here's geript's case on Mocsta. Would this be enough to elicit a defensive kill?

Geript has a point. While geript's early vote on me was odd, but why did Mocsta immediately jump on board? His other points about Mocsta are basically part of what I was talking about last night. Mocsta was being really pushy and manipulative D1, which I extend to a meta case based on his scum play in XXXV.

Anyway, I'm not going to go on another Mocsta witch hunt, it would be tunneling. I just want to bring highlight this now that we have info from the OO flip.

On February 16 2013 10:59 cDgCorazon wrote:


I don't think it's enough to elicit a defensive kill for certain, it certainly was an attack on Mocsta. I think it's too hard to tell for sure without going into a whole lot of WIFOM.

However, I think that Warbaby's own criticism in Mocsta's play "being manipulative and pushy D1" can't be place as part of his scum meta. He acted exactly the same in XXXIV as town. He got massive amounts of confirmation bias and really put the town in an atmosphere where it was his way or the highway, which led to several mislynches and let a lurker scum (Sylencia) slip by and win the game without really taking any pressure.

I think Mocsta's game has been half old Mocsta, half new Mocsta. At times he has been very patient with people and let others play the game as well, but at other times he has tried to be the mayor.

While I do not enjoy an inconsistent game out of anyone, I'm not too fond of Mocsta's aggressive side (I locked horns with him about 85% of D1 in XXXIV). I'm happy with the patient Mocsta I have seen, and I'm really just trying to stay out of his way and play my own game. However, he is trying to intertwine himself with me a lot. It's suspicious, but it's obviously not enough to say he is scum.

On February 16 2013 15:02 cDgCorazon wrote:


Why do you think I proposed the question to everyone if I knew the answer? I really don't. His biggest read was me. If I had killed him because he was on the right track, why would I be bringing attention to it?

You need to step up your play. Being confirmed town doesn't mean you can sit here and tunnel. Whereas I put out a question to facilitate some discussion, you are just trying to point everything back to me.

I never said I thought Mocsta was town, I said that I could not find any huge differences between his town and his scum play, and that I was trying to avoid him. You are trying to put us together, when in fact besides our votes for Glurio, most of my actions have been either from my behalf of the behalf of someone other than Mocsta.

I propose a question to you: Who is trying harder to associate themselves with the other, me or Mocsta?

On February 20 2013 12:14 cDgCorazon wrote:


Literally, your one contribution to the game was getting the sk in your blue role. The rest of your game was spent tunneling me.

I almost asked the host to IP test you and Geript because you two were making the same exact argument, the same one that I had refuted 1000 times and yet you still pushed me on it.

When you finally told me that my actions "weren't justifiable", it was ridiculously pissing me off because you kept pushing me on the same thing and gave me no room to scrutinize your argument or even to defend myself from it.

In your eyes, I was only scum, and that's a terrible mentality to take as town. You really just claimed tracker and once you had the SK you sat around and threw geript's arguments at me. You refused to even give him credit or admit that they were the exact same arguments that Geript used.

I was about to make a case on you because it looked so obvious that scum TS would've killed Geript and made it look like they were killing someone on the right track. The fact that you were confirmed town both nullified the case and made me frustrated that the only thing you decided to do in your power was tunnel me. I'm not going to sugarcoat this: It's shit play.

You just basically took the fact that you were 99.9% confirmed town to sit there and make shitty arguments. Had you not claimed, I would've pushed for your lynch.

On February 21 2013 12:33 geript wrote:
No offense to either side, I though Mocsta was scum off and on. Sure he got most of a free ride in that almost nobody questioned him or his motives. But that's not his fault. Part of the problem in the game IMO was that nobody questioned the direction of the town at almost any point and Mocsta abused that all to hell.

Part of becoming a better player in every game is learning when to question game state. When the most active/loudest voices persist, you really need to ask yourself why they're persisting. Are these people who are being manipulated? Are these people who are actively leading the town to bad decisions? What's the purpose for scum leaving them around? Sure you might argue that's all a circumstantial case, but the cumulative effects of being wrong and loud add up to something. Personally I was very surprised when neither Cora nor Mocsta wanted to discuss cases day 2 as that seemed very anti-town. I was surprised when nobody put them on blast for it.

I was actually kinda mad dying night 1 as I felt like I was going to be building momentum to steal the shared mayor position from Mocsta/Cora and get the town headed in a more effective direction. I was also mad at myself for not sharing my suspicions of Mocsta even if I couldn't find the case I wanted to make on him.