EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXVII - Page 87
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
| ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 20 2013 10:59 TestSubject893 wrote: Cora: Why were you trying so hard to discredit me? Its not the end of the world to be suspicious, but the more you refused to scumhunt and spend effort hating on me, the more I thought there was no way you were town. 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. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
so calling his play "shit" is pretty hilarious and like i said earlier you should do some soul searching | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 20 2013 07:55 cDgCorazon wrote: While you're here can I ask you why you are mad at me and never want to play with me again? Because you played like an asshole the whole game. I have no problems with people being wrong, that happens. I can deal with pushing bad reads. But I stand behind everything I said about you two creating a negative town atmosphere; at least Mocsta had a reason to be harming atmosphere. I think part of the reason for no consolidation was the fact that no one wanted to deal with the bullshit you'd give them. I think I even stated in game, there's a difference between being aggressive (which can be good) and being an asshole (which is always worthless). Letting off the gas can be as effective in reading people as putting it on. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:27 geript wrote: Because you played like an asshole the whole game. I have no problems with people being wrong, that happens. I can deal with pushing bad reads. But I stand behind everything I said about you two creating a negative town atmosphere; at least Mocsta had a reason to be harming atmosphere. I think part of the reason for no consolidation was the fact that no one wanted to deal with the bullshit you'd give them. I think I even stated in game, there's a difference between being aggressive (which can be good) and being an asshole (which is always worthless). Letting off the gas can be as effective in reading people as putting it on. I think this is over generalized. It takes two to tango; yes Corazon was unpleasant at times; I can understand why he choose to 'combust' the way he did. corazon was beating the warbaby drum; and no one reciprocated - which is not a problem. Its that IIRC his case was essentially ignored; no critiques, no extensions etc just plain ignored for a "policy lurker lynch" Pretty frustrating if you ask me. That doesnt give reason to behave the way he did; but, Im more pointing out its not like he wanted to be that way intentionally (I hope) | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
The thing which has really frusturated me, even just watching this game, is the tendency of certain players to tell everyone else what they can and can't do. "Make cases on lurkers!" "Don't make cases on lurkers!" "Don't make cases on your scumbuddies!" "Don't make cases on my scumbuddies!" "You're not allowed to ask questions!" It obviously hasn't helped them find scum at all and it's made the game really painful to read, let alone play. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:21 thrawn2112 wrote: cor, you weren't exactly the towniest of townies. if the confirmed town thinks you're scum that doesn't only mean they're an idiot, it means there's some combination of them being an idiot and you playing like scum going on. in this particular instance, i'd say that test was not being an idiot. he was one of the few townies approaching the game in a way that was actually going to be productive. you should stop playing town like scum instead of raging against people who think you're scum so calling his play "shit" is pretty hilarious and like i said earlier you should do some soul searching I don't feel like his play was productive at all. He refused to do anything but repeat Geript and I called him out multiple times for it, yet he continued to do it. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
It gets frustrating when your case does not gain any traction (especially after WB's emotional reaction to it), and then you have to go with a lynch that you really wish you didn't need to make, get called out for it (it was a fair case) multiple times even though you've already answered it, and then have to deal with another guy tunneling you for the same reasons. Perhaps if you guys didn't irritate me with your play so much, I wouldn't snap as easily. Ever thought about that? | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
Believe it or not; I agree - because it leads to confirmation bias (ironic coming from me) HOWEVER.. I think the above is an unwritten 'law' regardless. Some things can only be achieved effectively when you have sufficient town cred/established innocence. Otherwise it is likely to just fall upon deaf ears; this is human nature - whether tunneled or not. e.g. If a 3-post lurker makes a case on the most active/vocal person; who has been speaking within logic/reason. Most likely the 3-post lurker post will be ignored. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:43 cDgCorazon wrote: If you think I played like an asshole, you need to go look at NMM XXXVI. That was a shitfest. It gets frustrating when your case does not gain any traction (especially after WB's emotional reaction to it), and then you have to go with a lynch that you really wish you didn't need to make, get called out for it (it was a fair case) multiple times even though you've already answered it, and then have to deal with another guy tunneling you for the same reasons. Perhaps if you guys didn't irritate me with your play so much, I wouldn't snap as easily. Ever thought about that? You need to chillax matey and go back to ya playstyle from NMM34. You were calm, more introverted and looking for rational, well-reasoned play. Its why you were shot N1. Something happened to you in NMM36, and you carried it with you to this game. Mafia is a game of 'intense emotions' people are going to shit you to tears; and if scum know they can compromise you... they will try. Only YOU are accountable for YOUR actions. No one else. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:49 Mocsta wrote: Believe it or not; I agree - because it leads to confirmation bias (ironic coming from me) HOWEVER.. I think the above is an unwritten 'law' regardless. Some things can only be achieved effectively when you have sufficient town cred/established innocence. Otherwise it is likely to just fall upon deaf ears; this is human nature - whether tunneled or not. e.g. If a 3-post lurker makes a case on the most active/vocal person; who has been speaking within logic/reason. Most likely the 3-post lurker post will be ignored. Sure, sure... but if you tell the 3-post lurker to shut up and do whatever you tell them when they DO make a contribution, you'll be left with a 4-post lurker for the rest of the game. Which is hardly ideal. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:43 cDgCorazon wrote: If you think I played like an asshole, you need to go look at NMM XXXVI. That was a shitfest. It gets frustrating when your case does not gain any traction (especially after WB's emotional reaction to it), and then you have to go with a lynch that you really wish you didn't need to make, get called out for it (it was a fair case) multiple times even though you've already answered it, and then have to deal with another guy tunneling you for the same reasons. Perhaps if you guys didn't irritate me with your play so much, I wouldn't snap as easily. Ever thought about that? If your case doesn't gain any traction, then maybe your case is bad. I know that when I saw your initial case I thought it was both hasty and weak at best. I didn't feel bad about the Mocsta case being set aside as I didn't think it was a great case; I kept on wanting to make a better case on him but just couldn't find it. My point was that how you acted in the thread didn't help to either the atmosphere or to your case being taken seriously. Also, if multiple people are re-asking the same question, then perhaps you should go back and look at your answers and see if you actually answered the question. There were a number of times in the game when you deflected answers and questions instead of just being straight up. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:52 Mocsta wrote: You need to chillax matey and go back to ya playstyle from NMM34. You were calm, more introverted and looking for rational, well-reasoned play. Its why you were shot N1. Something happened to you in NMM36, and you carried it with you to this game. Mafia is a game of 'intense emotions' people are going to shit you to tears; and if scum know they can compromise you... they will try. Only YOU are accountable for YOUR actions. No one else. It really was a bad thing that my first mafia game was as scum. I'm still a bit clueless on how to scumhunt more effectively, but I'm working on it. Yeah it's NMM36 just broke me so badly, especially when WB became emotional again and it became NMM36 all over again... I need to challenge my inner Aqua or Cakepie if I want to play town well...lol. Anyways anyone who thought I was scum should've looked at my NMM33 play (I actually looked at it again because nothing was going on in this game) and should've figured out that if I was scum, I'd use a TON of misdirection play, and would not get vocal about things. My scum play and my town play are still easy to separate. | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:58 geript wrote: If your case doesn't gain any traction, then maybe your case is bad. I know that when I saw your initial case I thought it was both hasty and weak at best. I didn't feel bad about the Mocsta case being set aside as I didn't think it was a great case; I kept on wanting to make a better case on him but just couldn't find it. My point was that how you acted in the thread didn't help to either the atmosphere or to your case being taken seriously. Also, if multiple people are re-asking the same question, then perhaps you should go back and look at your answers and see if you actually answered the question. There were a number of times in the game when you deflected answers and questions instead of just being straight up. Are you still waiting for an answer on the Glurio question? All I got from your argument was that I didn't vote for WB and that I voted for Glurio. I'm not trying to be mean. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:54 Aquanim wrote: Sure, sure... but if you tell the 3-post lurker to shut up and do whatever you tell them when they DO make a contribution, you'll be left with a 4-post lurker for the rest of the game. Which is hardly ideal. I can agree with that point; clearly there are multitudes of cons. But to lambaste corazon solely is unwarranted. - I know that you are generalizing; but the majority of the thread is targeting corazon. Corazon was not the only proponent of "damned if you, damned if you don't" logic in this game. Sn0_Man (i think?) exhibited the same tendencies - and I did call him out on it. (Coulda been TestSubject, cant remember) | ||
|
Corazon
United States3230 Posts
On February 20 2013 13:02 Mocsta wrote: I can agree with that point; clearly there are multitudes of cons. But to lambaste corazon solely is unwarranted. - I know that you are generalizing; but the majority of the thread is targeting corazon. Corazon was not the only proponent of "damned if you, damned if you don't" logic in this game. Sn0_Man (i think?) exhibited the same tendencies - and I did call him out on it. (Coulda been TestSubject, cant remember) I called TS out on it. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9389 Posts
On February 20 2013 12:59 cDgCorazon wrote: Are you still waiting for an answer on the Glurio question? All I got from your argument was that I didn't vote for WB and that I voted for Glurio. I'm not trying to be mean. I actually think zarepath figured this all out before the bitter end  Shame he didnt chime in earlier; woulda made for an exciting mislynch on zarepath On February 20 2013 01:17 zarepath wrote: Mocsta was the momentum for the Glurio lynch. However, we can say that Cora was only trying to do what Mocsta had asked for earlier -- consolidation. I concur with this. I think corazon had enough of a town read on me; to follow my vote and consolidate. I dont think he wanted to admit it; because it doesnt look good (considering it was a mislynch... and everything everyone else pointed). I know there are times i make decisions in mafia; it doesnt pan out well.. and ppl questioning me, and i avoid giving them the answer I know they want.. BECAUSE. i know they will twist it to suit their confirmation bias. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 20 2013 13:02 Mocsta wrote: I can agree with that point; clearly there are multitudes of cons. But to lambaste corazon solely is unwarranted. - I know that you are generalizing; but the majority of the thread is targeting corazon. Corazon was not the only proponent of "damned if you, damned if you don't" logic in this game. Sn0_Man (i think?) exhibited the same tendencies - and I did call him out on it. (Coulda been TestSubject, cant remember) Hold on - I wasn't aiming that at Corazon at all really (although in context I can definitely see it appeared that way, sorry). Especially at the time it was more a comment on your play and Warbaby's (you were scum so I don't hold it against you, but it is a bit of a trend in your play). | ||
| ||
