|
I'm not quite done talking about the TestSubject/ObviousOne situation. Right now I believe TS's claim, but I'm not sure about OO's SK claim. A few scenarios I don't think we can rule out (although it's very tenuous logic):
1) Both TS and OO are scum, TS is bussing OO in a very elaborate way. OO is not SK, so we still have to deal with 2 night kills after OO flips scum. This seems very unlikely, but would be a huge problem for town.
2) TS is Watcher and OO is scum. OO is trying to save his ass, and anybody giving credence to his SK cooperation offer may be scum trying to help him survive longer. This is also a big problem for town because SK and 2 scum are still alive after OO dies.
3) Assume the game balance is currently 6:3:1 (town:scum:sk). If we lynch OO and he flips SK, this leaves the game balance at 6:3 (town:scum). D3 will be 5:3. If we mislynch D4, we'll be at 3:3 and lose. So if we commit to lynching OO as SK, we can't mislynch.
Thoughts on other stuff:
+ Show Spoiler [Some Mocsta Meta] +Mocsta's filter from Normal Mini IV where he was Town. Note that he posts a fairly comprehensive analysis of several players shortly after replacing into that game. He didn't do that in this game until the end of N1. Mocsta's filter from LIX as town. Note the lack of massive wall of text posts and bullshit spewing on D1. Also note the way he's more open to discussing many players, not just the 2-4 players he's willing to lynch. Mocsta's filter from XXXV as scum. Note the proliferation of big posts D1, lots of aggressive attempts to define the town agenda. Very similar to his D1 play in this game, IMO. So based on purely this meta analysis, I believe Mocsta could be scum. Maybe he realized he was giving himself away too much, so now he's cooled his jets a bit, to blend back in with the less aggressive towns?
+ Show Spoiler [Zarepath] +
Zarepath tried a fake case on D1 to see if he could get any information either by pressuring WoS or analyzing the reaction to his case. My reaction to the case was "that's interesting, let's see what WoS says, before I consider voting him". Zarepath implies I got all excited about his case, which I did not. He continues to tunnel people based on a fake case from D1 -- he needs to move past this.
+ Show Spoiler [Mandalor] +
Also tunneling me over a falsification of my reaction to Zarepath's fake case. Looks scummy, continues to lurk and make shitty posts. After OO is dead, I'm much more interested in lynching mandalor at this point than sevryn.
|
On February 15 2013 03:46 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 03:20 warbaby wrote:
I'm not quite done talking about the TestSubject/ObviousOne situation. Right now I believe TS's claim, but I'm not sure about OO's SK claim. A few scenarios I don't think we can rule out (although it's very tenuous logic):
1) Both TS and OO are scum, TS is bussing OO in a very elaborate way. OO is not SK, so we still have to deal with 2 night kills after OO flips scum. This seems very unlikely, but would be a huge problem for town.
TS can't be scum. Claiming tracker D1 is suicide because he can't know if there will be a tracker counter-claim. Plus he has to bus a buddy who agrees to play along for this to work. No chance. TS is confirmed town tracker, 100%.
Yeah, I'm heavily leaning that way. It would be an insane gambit to fake claim the way he did -- it's not 100% sure to fail but it's quite a risk.
If TS is confirmed Tracker, we need him to give input on who he thinks scum could be, not just who he tracked. Good chance he'll die N2.
|
On February 14 2013 10:05 Sylencia wrote:
I was roleblocked last night.
Unfortunate for WoS and geript, but I believe it's more likely to be an SK over Vig here, since I mentioned Vig shooting N1 and was told it was 'too risky' for them to do it by Warbaby.
Note that there is only a mafia roleblocker. If sylencia is not lying, there will still be a mafia roleblocker on N2 (unless we lynch the mafia roleblocker today).
So there's a good chance if TestSubject is not night killed, he will be role blocked instead.
We definitely should not have any more towns claiming blue at this point, in case there is a mafia roleblocker alive N2.
And no, because I used the word "blue" in a post does not mean I'm soft claiming blue =_=
|
On February 15 2013 06:05 TestSubject893 wrote:Also this post + Show Spoiler +On February 14 2013 12:35 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2013 12:26 Sevryn wrote:On February 14 2013 12:22 Mocsta wrote:On February 14 2013 12:19 Sevryn wrote:
Hey mocsta why did you say mr. sk but not scum? do you already know he isn't scum? Hi Mr. lurker, Well I didnt think he was scum before the killing, so wasn't a natural thought to assume he is scum now. Either way; I am certain he is scum/SK now; and should be the lynch candidate for today. Are you going to continue lurking and taking snipes? Or are you going to join town and rid us of EVIL !! hey im working on not lurking and have posted my views on corazon which I would love to hear what you think about it. if we decide to lynch OO which I think we should We have Two whole days to talk about who to lynch next which is a huge bonus. i do think we should stay away from arguements that involve speculating on what his flip means till he flips that way we dont get distracted on what it means. hmmm, Corazon hasnt been on my mind to be honest; I think someone made a case (?Geript IIRC) - which I guess is suspect, knowing that that OO killed WoS no matter alignment. I can look into it; but I still want more information from zarepath first. this SK dilemna has clouded the thread somewhat (deserving though albeit) so things like my questions to zarepath are buried. Taking a break regardless strikes me as Mocsta trying to deflect the conversation away from talking about Corazon. Could be nothing though.
Since I believe you are Watcher, I am willing to collaborate with you on a Mocsta/Corazon case -- please review the Mocsta filters I linked earlier. But since I believe your claim, we must kill ObviousOne first.
If Obvious flips scum, I'm less likely to believe you are actually Watcher. I'm more than happy to entertain the idea that you've fake claimed and are bussing Obvious. If there is a real Watcher, your fake claim might force the real Watcher to counterclaim, and then you can kill the real Watcher. Watcher is a powerful role and it might be worth scum trying to trade a goon for a Watcher by fake claiming.
|
On February 15 2013 06:12 TestSubject893 wrote:
Also we already talked about this. Did you skip part of the thread, warbaby?
Yeah, I've been busy with work and I must have glossed over it. I'll review the thread before I post more 
|
On February 15 2013 06:17 TestSubject893 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 06:13 warbaby wrote:On February 15 2013 06:05 TestSubject893 wrote:Also this post + Show Spoiler +On February 14 2013 12:35 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2013 12:26 Sevryn wrote:On February 14 2013 12:22 Mocsta wrote:On February 14 2013 12:19 Sevryn wrote:
Hey mocsta why did you say mr. sk but not scum? do you already know he isn't scum? Hi Mr. lurker, Well I didnt think he was scum before the killing, so wasn't a natural thought to assume he is scum now. Either way; I am certain he is scum/SK now; and should be the lynch candidate for today. Are you going to continue lurking and taking snipes? Or are you going to join town and rid us of EVIL !! hey im working on not lurking and have posted my views on corazon which I would love to hear what you think about it. if we decide to lynch OO which I think we should We have Two whole days to talk about who to lynch next which is a huge bonus. i do think we should stay away from arguements that involve speculating on what his flip means till he flips that way we dont get distracted on what it means. hmmm, Corazon hasnt been on my mind to be honest; I think someone made a case (?Geript IIRC) - which I guess is suspect, knowing that that OO killed WoS no matter alignment. I can look into it; but I still want more information from zarepath first. this SK dilemna has clouded the thread somewhat (deserving though albeit) so things like my questions to zarepath are buried. Taking a break regardless strikes me as Mocsta trying to deflect the conversation away from talking about Corazon. Could be nothing though. Since I believe you are Watcher, I am willing to collaborate with you on a Mocsta/Corazon case -- please review the Mocsta filters I linked earlier. But since I believe your claim, we must kill ObviousOne first. If Obvious flips scum, I'm less likely to believe you are actually Watcher. I'm more than happy to entertain the idea that you've fake claimed and are bussing Obvious. If there is a real Watcher, your fake claim might force the real Watcher to counterclaim, and then you can kill the real Watcher. Watcher is a powerful role and it might be worth scum trying to trade a goon for a Watcher by fake claiming. I'm not saying he's SK for sure, so I'm not sure why him flipping scum changing anything. If anything, you should be wary of me now and him flipping SK makes you trust me more, not giving me the benefit of the doubt.
I am wary of you. That's why I'm trying to figure out if there's a reason you may have fake claimed. The only reason I can come up with is you're bussing OO in a very, very elaborate way. But that's rather insane, because if you fake claim Watcher and bus a scumbuddy in the process, and then the real Watcher claims, scum is now giving away 2 members. And if you fake claimed and attacked a random town, the town wouldn't have freaked out and claimed SK like that, lol.
Therefore, the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" paradigm seems to strongly indicate TestSubject is in fact Watcher, and OO is in fact SK.
Sorry if I'm repeating stuff, I feel the need to make sure everyone is looking at this from every possible angle, in case we're being epically hoodwinked.
|
On February 15 2013 06:24 zarepath wrote:
How do you know that it's purposeful?
My purpose is to analyze the situation fully. We are in a very interesting situation, and we need to analyze how the game could play out going forward.
I've also given some thoughts and put a lot of effort into looking up and linking Mocsta's filters (since he doesn't put them in his profile). I'm not just speculating about setup and possible future scenarios, I'm analyzing everything I can as well as I can.
|
On February 15 2013 06:24 warbaby wrote:
Therefore, the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" paradigm seems to strongly indicate TestSubject is in fact Watcher, and OO is in fact SK.
I've repeatedly stated that I'm happy going with the obvious, simple explanation. But we also need to consider the possibilities, and how they will play out going forward. Anyway I've said more than enough about the OO/TestSubject situation, so I'll drop it for now.
|
Yeah, sorry I mixed up tracker and watcher. I'll stop trying to post when I'm working and not paying full attention to the thread. Apologies.
About Mandalor - he's basically still actively lurking, I don't see him bringing much to the table. His filter reeks of little effort.
Sevryn and sylencia - filter is still not very significant, but they've picked things up since D1 in terms of effort. I hope they continue this trend because we're nearly 4 (real time) days into the game and neither have given us a lot to work with.
I've already posted about why I could envision a scum Mocsta in this game. I'm planning to put more effort into this case.
I basically still have null reads on sn0_man and zarepath.
Maybe I made a mistake in my contribution (confusing tracker with watcher) but as you can see here and here I brought up some points that TestSubject thought were worthwhile responding to, before accusing me of trying to crap up the thread. Like I said, I haven't been purely speculating about OO/TestSubject; I've been posting about other people I think could be scum that we need to lynch later on.
I believe I've commented on every player still alive in the game in the last 24 hours, most more than once, so I don't know why you guys are accusing me of focussing solely on setup and endgame speculation.
|
About corazon - he spent all D1 tunneling me, for what I consider to be a weak case. TestSubject just pointed out Corazon's will, and I find one other thing interesting here. Corazon says "You all know my thoughts about WB. I’m going to lay off for a little bit and pursue other reads (if I survive)." Has he done this at all? No, most of his posts after his will concern me or explaining his vote on glurio.
|
On February 15 2013 07:41 warbaby wrote:
Sevryn and sylencia - filter is still not very significant, but they've picked things up since D1 in terms of effort. I hope they continue this trend because we're nearly 4 (real time) days into the game and neither have given us a lot to work with.
Looks like I was wrong 
|
On February 15 2013 09:16 Sylencia wrote:
How is it possible to say for certain that there's only a mafia roleblocker, when we don't know if it was a JK or a RB?
Roleblocker
Once per night, you may send in a PM detailing a person you would like to block. That person will be notified that they were blocked, and if the person being blocked has a night action, he or she will not be able to use it. Roleblocks work on both active and passive abilities, but block only one ability. Active abilities will be prioritized over passive abilities.
Jailkeeper
Every night you may choose one person to jail. You will protect them from 1 KP and prevent them using any role they might have. Neither you nor your target will be informed of successful saves.
I assumed you being informed that you were blocked meant there was an RB, since JK does not mention informing the target that they were blocked. I could be wrong about this assumption, though.
|
On February 15 2013 09:50 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 09:48 warbaby wrote:On February 15 2013 09:16 Sylencia wrote:
How is it possible to say for certain that there's only a mafia roleblocker, when we don't know if it was a JK or a RB?
Roleblocker
Once per night, you may send in a PM detailing a person you would like to block. That person will be notified that they were blocked, and if the person being blocked has a night action, he or she will not be able to use it. Roleblocks work on both active and passive abilities, but block only one ability. Active abilities will be prioritized over passive abilities.
Jailkeeper
Every night you may choose one person to jail. You will protect them from 1 KP and prevent them using any role they might have. Neither you nor your target will be informed of successful saves.
I assumed you being informed that you were blocked meant there was an RB, since JK does not mention informing the target that they were blocked. I could be wrong about this assumption, though. I am relatively experienced with JK; the "save" does indeed inform much like an RB.. in fact, if RB and JK both select the same target; the target will receive only 1 notification.
Jailkeeper
Every night you may choose one person to jail. You will protect them from 1 KP and prevent them using any role they might have. Neither you nor your target will be informed of successful saves.
The setup explicitly states JK target will not be informed of a save. If you're saving a JK save and a RB block are the same, I'd expect that based on this wording JK targets are not informed. Can't hurt to ask though...
If a JK targets a town power role, will that player be informed that their role was blocked?
Sorry for more setup speculation, but this is probably worth clearing up.
|
On February 15 2013 12:49 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 12:19 zarepath wrote:
Mocsta, I thought I already addressed them. It's the most recent long post in my filter. Righto Not sure how I missed that lol Thanks  The thought process relayed makes sense to me, pretty innovative tactic too.
As an aside - probably not worth discussing further (just my musing): I still think your "case" contributed to the lack of consolidation. By this; I mean, that it played a part in the outcome; but do not infer it is the sole reason by any means. This is primarily because the fake case  ID* create a state of thread confusion - a genuine WTF moment; and in addition took away emphasis from most scum hunt pressure present in the thread at the time. The "fake case" conclusion did not lead to a clear target, and hence, for a meaningful portion of the cycle; there was essentially a lack of scum hunting.
Do you feel like you effectively hunted scum during that period? You've made a lot of noise, but a half of the time you've mentioned players other than me, it turns out that you're using them as an excuse to tunnel me some more (eg).
I'm glad if you think I'm scum, but I can't be all 3 scum. How do you feel about corazon? You've mentioned and quoted him a lot, but it only seems to be when you're tunelling me. You say here that you haven't been thinking of Corazon much, but then when I search for "Corazon" if your full filter, I get 42 hits!
Something is up here.
|
To put it another way, Mocsta, do you feel like lynching a semi-active town over a really shaky meta case is indicative of good scumhunting? When there were other more legit lurkers to lynch?
What scumreads did you come out of it with? Me? Anybody else?
|
On February 15 2013 13:37 zarepath wrote:
I'd like to see you take that logic a step further and actually make a case, WB.
I don't have access to any knowledge you don't (unless you're scum). You're welcome to review the thread like I'm doing, and make any case you think makes sense.
Or are you too busy making fake cases to see if you can start a wagon?
|
Durr, don't want to start a pissing match Zare (if you're even capable, you seem too level headed).
Yes your fake case could have a town motive. My point was it could have also had a scum motive -- "hey guys i wanna lynch this active townie on D1!" And unless I'm wrong, the person you made the fake case on turned out to be a townie...
|
On February 15 2013 13:45 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:43 warbaby wrote:- Don't be a jerk for no reason; try not to use personal insults and inflammatory language. Avoid OMGUS if possible.
I failed on the last .. points in NMM 36, Guess what warbaby.. your still failing on this point in NMM37
Thanks, I like you too. So how about posting some scum reads on someone other than me?
Are you ignoring my question of what you think about Corazon?
|
Other people would like to know why you're not interested in talking about Corazon, as well.
I've made some points about Mocsta here, here, and here. TestSubject has commented on Mocsta, and is making an association between him and Corazon.
I'll follow up on this if I can find anything else worth mentioning, but others need to put some effort in as well, instead of just bitching about how there's too much setup speculation (when we have a goddamn blue claim and SK claim in the same day) and too little scumhunting (seems hypocritical to me).
|
On February 15 2013 14:02 cDgCorazon wrote:WB I'm sick of you playing so emotional this game. This post just reeks of being emotional and sheeping on Testsubject's momentum: Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 07:48 warbaby wrote:
About corazon - he spent all D1 tunneling me, for what I consider to be a weak case. TestSubject just pointed out Corazon's will, and I find one other thing interesting here. Corazon says "You all know my thoughts about WB. I’m going to lay off for a little bit and pursue other reads (if I survive)." Has he done this at all? No, most of his posts after his will concern me or explaining his vote on glurio. Not only was this completely and utterly false, it's you trying to find superficial ways to slam me while I'm already trying to fight off an attack from Testsubject. Your emotionalness got you mislynched last game, how hard are you trying to keep it under control in this one? If you are town you need to stop posting superficial statements and making emotional quips everytime you come under pressure.
How was that false? Link me the posts you made since then about players other than me.
You can't say something is factually false if you don't have facts to prove so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
