|
Ooh I found a question from Acid I didnt answer:
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
@Acid I had assumed that when you did start posting, you would be continuing that pattern from now on. The Stuff you posted was seemed good, but you still have the smallest filter.
I know this is a backflip since you weren't on my list of people under pressure, but your complete lack of activity is giving you the smallest filter, and a town shouldn't feel that he needs to be pressed into doing town activity. I want to see more from you, so while this is a vote that does have intention to lynch, it is conditional in that I will remove it the second you start contributing properly again.
##Vote: Acid
|
Sorry all for being MIA -- it was night time. Just got in to work and will try to address Mocsta's case on me between tasks.
|
On January 15 2013 15:37 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 12:15 Trotske wrote: It is cause for concern when the only scum hunting he has done is point out that lurkers are bad.
@TrotskeI hope we are just having communication breakdown here; as you did not address my question. Im not asking why it is a cause for concern. Im asking you to explain why the behaviour that YOU have identified is scummy motivated.I do not think what you have provided so far is a sufficient response.
From what I understand one of the main things mafia will do is post but not give any new information or opinions on the game and perhaps just post things that have been said differently then they were before, Hence pointing out lurkers being half of his posts when the fact is we have had multiple people already post about lurkers being a problem. I don't see how someone who comes in after it starts can just rephrase that there are lurkers and he doesn't like it and not be called out on it.
On January 15 2013 13:03 Spaghetticus wrote:
@Trotske Have you not heard? I am a pretty big deal. LAL is what I live and breathe day 1&2, but I understand your point that my contributions on other fronts have been limited. It may or may not be due to HAVING STARTED 50 HOURS AFTER EVERYONE ELSE. I am aware that I did ask you to contribute and that by going Ad-Hom I would be an enormous hypocrite. That you ask for contribution from someone who has been losing sleep catching up on the thread while you are sitting on a two-page filter after night one is not lost on me. You are contributing now however. If you want to pursue me further you need to post a case stating more than I haven’t done anything other than X. X is more than I see most people doing. Make a case or focus your efforts elsewhere please.
When I see something scummy I'll call it out doesn't matter that other people haven't done as much. Please note that I did not claim you were scum and then vote for you I was asking other people's opinion on you. I find that your reasons for talking mostly about lurkers suspect and without much depth.
NOTE
I am at work and may not be able to post during the day.
|
On January 15 2013 12:05 Mocsta wrote:
(4) My reads have evolved since Day1. zarepath was someone I forgot about Day1. he flew under the radar, and then made his presence by landing a bomb. My reasoning for him is not OMGUS.. its actually due to the mismatch between his actions and his promises. The bomb he landed re-enforces this concept.
It's true there's been a mismatch -- I haven't been able to dedicate as much time as I'd have liked. Saturday/Sunday were both quite busier than I thought they would be. I don't know what "bomb" you're referring to, but I think we'll get there, and I'll address it as it comes.
Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 11:49 zarepath wrote:On January 14 2013 11:49 Oatsmaster wrote: I really dont know who to vote for....... laguerta is scummy, but I really dont feel confident in lynching him... He isnt here to defend himself, so... Also from past experience, scum has always been around at the deadline so... Therefore you are scum? QED Im not really sure what the intention of this post is other than to get a reaction out of Oatsmaster. Its written in a "smart-arse" manner, and the QED claim is intentionally derogatory. We all know from my experience with Oatsmaster, he is officially a hot-head.. so what is the purpose of this? Its definitely contributing to the chaotic environment of Day 1. It's highlighting poor logic. If you read my filter, you would have seen that I clarified this statement. And I'm hardly the only person who has unintentionally pushed Oats' buttons -- you should know that pretty well. It hardly contributed to chaos at all; all it produced was a couple of posts where I clarified my statement, and actually led to others giving Oats' post more scrutiny as well. I don't think this was as dramatic as you are making it out to be, and in fact there have been much more incendiary remarks in the thread with a lot more attitude behind them.
Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 06:40 zarepath wrote: Perhaps you can ask him something specific to talk about? Otherwise all he can do is sit there and talk about Mocsta's pool Again.. how is this fostering any collaborative environment. Its a contribution yes.. but half-arsed.. Why dont you suggest something.. instead of just point out a deficiency. It's true this isn't the biggest contribution in the world, but it was still a warranted comment. If people want someone to participate more, the most direct way of doing so is asking a direct question -- not complaining about how little they contribute. For example, you tend to ask people direct questions when they are lurking. It's a town-motivated post, albeit one without a lot of content.
Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 04:32 zarepath wrote:On January 13 2013 03:55 OmniEulogy wrote: I think having people explain the reasoning behind their votes is fantastic but I don't think it goes far enough, I believe we should go through each others cases and not only agree/disagree but see if we can prove the case right or wrong ourselves while waiting for the defense of the person being accused. (it is important to wait for them to defend themselves first, otherwise we give them an escape with no effort on their part) I know this is done to some degree each time a case is made but in both of my last games we've made the mistake of lynching townies due to their arguments not standing up to one persons case. I'm hoping we can avoid that if everybody weighs in with not only their own case but their thoughts on the other cases as well.
It's a lot of extra effort but I believe it's a good way to discuss scum reads with each other and keep conversation strongly focused on scum hunting.
I like this a lot. It puts more work on townies, but it will become very difficult for scum to keep up appearances this way. zarepath. you like this.. but what work have you done to facilitate? You make an easy agreement and then do not follow through. This is exacerbated by your Night 1 accusation on me. You throw shit.. and expect people like Shz to follow through with question time. Why arent you breaking down cases as you alluded to promosing.
I can see that a lot of your read on me has to do with this "bomb" and "throwing shit." We'll get there in a bit.
I've addressed this a little bit earlier -- yes, I agreed with it, thought it was a good idea, but just haven't had the time. I think you'll find that others have done similarly; you liked this idea a lot yourself, and yet didn't put out a rigorous case when you switched at the last minute last night. I suspect there were good reasons for that, just as there were in my case. You're right that I haven't contributed as much as I suggested that I would, and for that reason I spent all of Monday catching up more rigorously, doing research, and putting out full reads on everyone (the first to do so, btw). I can't make up the missed participation, obviously, but I'm endeavoring to participate more.
Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 11:25 zarepath wrote: I'm voting for Laguerta because of his inability to pick someone to vote for. Feels pretty scummy, and I haven't had a chance to do real thorough reads today. (NO, goverment didn't confiscate my laptop today, but Sundays are generally my least-available days.)
##Unvote Acid~ ##Vote Laguerta
Acid will be modkilled, and while replacing him isn't necessarily a good thing, we do know Laguerta is spineless. So, there it is. I'll be doing a more thorough filter read N1. Note the context.. when this vote was issued.. La Guerta was already the front runner.. i think 5 to 2. He moves from a no-post lurker.. to the current town flavour for bandwagon. The justification being modkill... how is this town behaviour or jsutification? I played with town zarepath last game. we were down to the final three. I know his game.. and so far.. its not matching up. The justification for Laguerta was not modkill, it was that they were both lurkers and one of them had contributed enough to look incredibly scummy, while the other simply hadn't. I think it's pretty good town behavior and justification.
It is fairly bandwagonny, but that's a product of not having very strong independent reads myself (again, lack of time). I thought I was the first to point out the ease of lynching Laguerta (lack of mafia defense and distraction) because I hadn't refreshed the thread and seen OE's post, so it's not as though I was mafia hopping on a bandwagon and hoping that it would stick.
Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 13:55 zarepath wrote: Mocsta has a LOT to answer for -- omgusing, over-defensiveness, and hammering Mandalor, who seemed especially not-scummy. Seriously.. WTF is this for a post.. Why is this fostering a good town environment... I dont care this is adressed to me.. its not a suitable post to be addressed to ANYONE.. Its completely open to interpretation and gets us no where. He conveniently doesnt add anything further to this, whilst Shz/Oats question me.. How curious.. Sow the seeds and then lurk away... I re-iterate.. this is in no way OMGUS.. look at the behaviour.. Do you find this acceptable? Why would town act this way? I cant see it. I assume this is the bomb you were mentioning. This post is ENTIRELY justified because YOU HAD JUST KILLED MANDALOR ALMOST SINGLE-HANDEDLY. I would think you could understand why this kind of pressure on you should be expected after last-minute vote-switching onto Mandalor without much justification. Others in the thread have called you out on this -- both your vote switch, and your inability to comprehend why you should need to defend it.
And feel free to browse through your own filter just to see why I would suggest that you have been over-defensive. Simply put: you have been. Much more than you were last game. I appreciate that we're newbies and our play evolves game to game, but it's something worth looking at especially after you just hammered the vote down on a contributing townie at the very last minute. And it's quite clear that your early interactions with Oats were pure OMGUS.
I don't add anything further because it's late on a Sunday night and I have work the next day. I think giving direction for discussion while you're going to be gone for the next 8-10 hours if plenty fine -- you yourself do it all the time. This is absolutely fine for the town environment -- it's completely natural for town to move and react in this way after what just happened. Sure, more content and thorough analysis would have been better -- and that's what I did all day yesterday, and you all saw my conclusions. But you have to admit that you HAD to be the starting point for that after what happened.
Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 00:13 zarepath wrote: Fair enough, Spag. I can see, based on his overtly scummy behavior, a scum coach telling the rest of scum to bus him hard. I will have to leave that option open in my analysis, then. So hes actually been reading and keeping up to date with the thread. So even though he says throws my name in the shit.. he lays silent when Im getting questioned.. and decides to randomly post for the new guy... If he didnt post. I would say.. OK. this guy is asleep. But that he posted to the new guy (who entered convo WAY after I was being questioned).. it suggests he is up to date. Yes, this was when I was reading everyone's filters. People had already questioned you; you're correct i was asleep/afk when that happened (people questioning you), and was catching up when he posted.
TL;DR Guys.. zarepaths post count is limited and many of his responses allow him to fly under the radar. Having said that.. in his short filter he has numerous actions which do not align with his quoted thoughts on how to achieve a good town atmosphere; and he has clear actions which do nothing to aid the confusion that was present near lynch time. I would contest he added fuel to the fire. This is why he is my top scum read.
Sure, limited post count. But I would argue that nothing I've done has aided confusion or added fuel to the fire, and I find it odd that of all town, you think that I am the one who is aiding confusion near lynch time and unnecessarily agitating the thread. (I'm not saying that YOU are, but that several others in town have been far more unnecessarily aggressive and agitating.) I encourage you to read through everyone's filters again, if you haven't already. I think you feel this way because I called you over-defensive and that you needed to answer for your voting behavior, which as I detail above, I feel was completely justified, but seeing as how I jetted right after, I can see why you wouldn't like that comment.
Since my last will, you also posted a summary of your current reads.. Now thats Oats is dead, i noticed your passage Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 06:24 zarepath wrote: Oats I voted for him yesterday, but after going through his filter today, he oddly seems to be the most valuable townie we have right now. He has pressured more people than anyone else, which HAS led to discussion. I don't see scum motivations for his behavior other than the free use of his voting power, and erratically switching it around until he finally liked where it rested. That seems to fit with his play style, however, so I don't think that is enough for a scum read, even along with the fact that he was immediately aggressive towards Mocsta -- that seems to be a trend in this game, and it's not necessarily unwarranted. Feels like TOWN
Lets recall your vote for Oats here: Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 12:35 zarepath wrote: ##Vote Oatsmaster
Has not been helpful towards town, was an active scum player in another game (so not necessarily a lurker scum), has unvoted FOUR times, most recently very late in the day when it was almost assured that Laguerta would be lynched regardless. His reasoning? "He's scummy but he's not here to defend himself. I'm gonna go vote for someone that nobody else is voting for and will definitely not get lynched, so when Laguerta flips town, I look good." (Okay, so not his literal read, but a possible motivation was thrown in there.)
His timing and his lack of reasoning worry me, and I find him to be far more likely to be scum than Laguerta. If I break these 2 posts down. You firstly admit you voted for Oats, and then proceed to dramatically declare him as town "MVP" even though in your vote for him you said "has not been helpful towards town". You give a brief explanation on the 180' flip... but you never explain why you got over the multiple votes, which I think was a crux in your decision to vote him. Convenient you choose not to address this. Now.. if your actions above are indeed scummy-motivated; is it a simple affair to conclude: if you thought he was so valuable, I think its also straight forward to conclude that a scum zarepath would treat him as a suitable NK.(To paraphrase your choice of words when voting Oats) Therefore, by declaring dramatically Oatsmaster is town "MVP".. I think you made a play to gain town cred as per: ".. so when Oatsmaster flips town, I look good"
The possibility of something is not the probability of something. If I am mafia and think Oats is dangerous, why would I go out of my way to vote for him, and then declare him town just so I can kill him? That doesn't end up with me looking good at all if I am mafia; I already voted for him. You're ascribing a narrative that is a possibility -- it's similar logic to doing association cases before a flip. I appreciate that it comes after a wall of text of reasons you think I"m scummy, but having addressed those reasons, this argument doesn't stand up on its own.
I think you of all people should understand how someone could see Oats as scummy and then, after a more thorough glance, consider him town.
In the end, I think that you have zeroed in on my smallest contributions and overlooked my large ones -- but that's only because your original case on me happened before my full-filter read of every player. I think that after reading my defense you should look again at my reads. I'll be monitoring the thread between tasks today and will be looking for another read (my last one obviously wasn't great, but apparently Oats considered the same person to be scummy).
|
I'm somewhat worried about Spag's LAL drive today actually. As much as I'd like everybody to contribute a serious amount (rofl just 2 pages overnight o.O), I'm not sure we have the time. If there are 3 mafia (or 2 mafia 1 SK), which seems reasonable for a 13 player game, we have exactly 1 free mislynch before GG (unless we have a JK/Doc who has sick reads on mafia/targets).
I mean, I'd love for everybody to be active, but I'm not sure that is gonna work. And spag, I know you are experienced, but that is the most WIFOM argument for Omni being town...
@zebezt: Any particular question you want answered? my answers have been: I was lurky because I ignored the topic. I questioned Mocsta day 1 because his questions were EXACTLY what I'd like to know about town if I were scum, and thats about that. I've identified players that I think are not playing in a logical, town-directed fashion, and that is about that.
@Moc the reason I haven't posted any additional detailed cases is that most of them were super-thin without the NK information. Now that I have both NK information AND time (gotta sleep every night), I'll make and post them.
Also, why exactly is laguerta being modkilled? I suppose we aren't supposed to discuss it but others have mentioned it a lot. He posted AND voted day 1 (which seems to meet all the requirements).
Last point: to everybody discussing the NK targets: Oats was clearly the target, since he accused pretty much everybody in the thread and some scum felt the heat. Mocsta will *never* get NK'd (see NMM 34) because he is loud as hell (distracting) and couldn't catch a scum if they accidentally posted the scum QT link in this thread. That or he is scum, and is relying on his history of enormous post count with 0 correct reads to get people to excuse his ridiculous play. I can't decide, but I'd rather have posters (him) alive over lurkers. At least his most recent post seems a bit more self-aware.
|
Laguerta was another smurf. Same rules for voting apply that did to bring/kush. Let's leave it at that until after the game
|
On January 16 2013 00:34 Sn0_Man wrote: Last point: to everybody discussing the NK targets: Oats was clearly the target, since he accused pretty much everybody in the thread and some scum felt the heat. Mocsta will *never* get NK'd (see NMM 34) because he is loud as hell (distracting) and couldn't catch a scum if they accidentally posted the scum QT link in this thread. That or he is scum, and is relying on his history of enormous post count with 0 correct reads to get people to excuse his ridiculous play. I can't decide, but I'd rather have posters (him) alive over lurkers. At least his most recent post seems a bit more self-aware.
Here is the thing -- mafia's number one priority for the NK isn't getting rid of town that have already targeted them. It would be far too easy for mafia to only kill people that had already suspected them, because then all we have to do is read the filter. They want to hurt the town environment and sow chaos; Oats was an active contributor that needed to be stopped, whether he'd already suspected mafia or not.
In fact, one mafia play is to kill someone who has suspected someone else who ISN'T mafia, leading town to mis-lynch that suspect, and then day three town is already suspecting the people who pushed for that suspect's mis-lynch on Day 2.
I'm not saying that's definitely what they did, but note that there are many different reasons for mafia to kill a guy, and we shouldn't assume that we now know that one of Oats' suspects is definitely mafia.
|
Alright, I'd like to go over zare's mass review, which was posted pre-NK as a "last will" type post. My comments in bold
On January 15 2013 06:24 zarepath wrote:I am posting all of my reads right now because I'd like to do so before the end of N1 and I'm not confident that I'll be around/have the time to do so closer to the deadline. These are reads, not full claims, and so I welcome any argument/discussion about them. But they're all based on me reading through the entire thread, and the entire filter for each person. Hi guys I've contributed nothing but I'm totally worried about being NK'd for no reason that I can think of. Probably worried about being Vigi'd? Dunno but this post seems a bit weird. Not seriously off though, I can see townie zare writing thisShz + Show Spoiler + Null read. Point for him is that he kind of tried to pull Oats and Mocsta apart from each other early on, and I think scum would have been happy for them to go at it. Although, that's an easy thing for scum to do. Meanwhile, a lot of his posts are very emotional or exagerrative, using words and phrases like "constantly," "baffled how people," "just that ignorant?", and he's obsessed with Mocsta's victim mentality. Another point for him is he's encouraged rational play a couple of times in the thread. Will watch.
Mostly right. Shz has been a decent poster. It isn't like his more exaggerative posts haven't been justifiedLaguerta + Show Spoiler +He just seems very rough, and very inactive, but not in a tone that seems to imply intended inactivity, but one of pure laziness. It's clear he did not work very hard at his contributions Day 1, and that, combined with the ease of the Laguerta Lynch, suggests to me that he is TOWN. I'm still unsure that lag is town. He is/was merely a terrible player (see TeMil last game)Sn0_Man + Show Spoiler + His inactivity immediately puts him on the side of scum, then he has a full "review post" of the chaotic final hour of the lynch. His cases have not been rigorous, his biggest case (against Troske) involves a lot of association and hypothetical scenarios. But he's the only one really pushing Troske and it does seem like he's trying to figure things out. I don't see enough to put him firmly in one camp or the other, so I consider him someone to watch.
Wheee its me. I'm not gonna comment on other's reads except that "inactivity puts him on the side of scum" isn't right. Lurkers aren't helping town, but that doesn't necessarily make them scum (just bad town). Oats + Show Spoiler + I voted for him yesterday, but after going through his filter today, he oddly seems to be the most valuable townie we have right now. He has pressured more people than anyone else, which HAS led to discussion. I don't see scum motivations for his behavior other than the free use of his voting power, and erratically switching it around until he finally liked where it rested. That seems to fit with his play style, however, so I don't think that is enough for a scum read, even along with the fact that he was immediately aggressive towards Mocsta -- that seems to be a trend in this game, and it's not necessarily unwarranted. Feels like TOWN
In light of the NK, its clear what Oats had been doing all along. I too feel like this 180 by zare *could* be a case of "oh we are NK'ing him? time to get buddy buddy" but it certainly isn't proof. We now interrupt our regular programming to bring you his previous vote for Oats:
On January 14 2013 12:35 zarepath wrote: ##Vote Oatsmaster
Has not been helpful towards town, was an active scum player in another game (so not necessarily a lurker scum), has unvoted FOUR times, most recently very late in the day when it was almost assured that Laguerta would be lynched regardless. His reasoning? "He's scummy but he's not here to defend himself. I'm gonna go vote for someone that nobody else is voting for and will definitely not get lynched, so when Laguerta flips town, I look good." (Okay, so not his literal read, but a possible motivation was thrown in there.)
His timing and his lack of reasoning worry me, and I find him to be far more likely to be scum than Laguerta.
Now back to his full review
On January 15 2013 06:24 zarepath wrote:Mocsta + Show Spoiler + Has been as active as I would expect based on his meta, but he is a lot more defensive this time around. After reading filters, I would suggest that's because there are people here deliberately pushing his buttons. It's frustrating how his various defenses clutter the thread and half the time are filled with re-quotes of himself or others, and then there's also the fact that his vote sealed Mandalor's doom. However, I don't find it likely that mafia would switch their vote so that the FINAL vote for a lynch is one of their own. That does not seem like good scum play -- although as I noted earlier, if he were scum and resting his vote on Laguerta even after Oats yelled at him, that may look more suspicious. Perhaps he HAD to vote for Mandalor. However, he'd already suspected Mandalor earlier in the day. So I would not call him a confirmed town, but I still have an overall TOWN read on him.
Seems like an honest assessment. If I'm scum though, I'm calling Mocsta town 10/10 because again I think he is kidna making their lives easier. OmniEulogy + Show Spoiler +OE has largely been a voice of reason this game when the last game he seemed a lot more emotional. Part of me worries that he was intending to be reasonable as soon as he becomes mafia, but his contributions have all been town-motivated from my perspective. He has pressured people, defended others fairly well, and done some thorough analysis. I have a slight TOWN read on him. I'd love to see examples etc here but I suppose the post has to be a human length. I can't find real fault in this analysisTrotske + Show Spoiler + I like that he called Acid out on trying to provoke emotion in the thread, as well as Snoman, and that he was the first on Mandalor (even though he was obviously wrong, he didn't a ride a bandwagon on the way there, unlike some others). He reads as a noob, and went out of his way to defend Mocsta's opening questions near the beginning. However, he has a low post count, went out of his way to criticize bringaniga multiple times (easiest target for the first half of the day), and just had bad voting logic (as snoman pointed out recently). He feels TOWN to me, but will warrant observation as he posts more and hopefully does some more analysis.
Well, being first on Mandalor is a BAD thing, given that mandalor was a mislynch. He also defended laguerta wayyyy hard which seems dubious to me. His voting logic was horrible and he was clearly taking the easy lynch on kush at the start. I'm not sure how this feels town but I suppose "noob" excuses everything? You guys already know I think Trotske is scummyAcid + Show Spoiler + Acid is very confident, and when he posts, it doesn't seem as though he's lurked as much as he has. However, everything he's posted has been very narrow-focused and antagonistic -- needlessly so. What gets me is his comment that Mocsta can't ask him any questions until Mocsta contributes more. Withholding information is pretty scummy, and his tunneling of Mocsta, the most active townie when we have around 5 lurkers, seems exactly like the kind of thing scum would want to do. It's not hard to push Mocsta's buttons and he's not alone in going after him, so it's a pretty safe thing to do. His reactions lack rigor; he's "baffled" by sno's vote. The number one thing that makes me think he is mafia is the fact that the time he was tunneling Mocsta the hardest was during the final hours before the lynch, when everyone is switching their votes, analyzing cases, trying to make new reads. What is Acid up to? Tunneling Mocsta, when Mocsta is nowhere near a lynch. He's not even trying to get others to vote for Mocsta, he's just going after him. Reads as SCUM to me.
This sounds like bad analysis. Acid posted quite well, the only issue he has is inactivity. He called mocsta out on unreasonable defensiveness (He was one of the first here, he wasn't bandwagonning, but he has been backed up by others and was clearly right about it). He spent a lot of time replying to Mocsta because Mocsta was the only one online and posting, but his posts were, believe it or not, aimed at achieving a decent town atmosphere that involved scumhunting and legitimate pressure as opposed to the wild OMGUS that mocsta was throwing around the thread. Shit-Flinging isn't bad, so long as you target it right and back it up. Plus he correctly identified that my actions were not so much scum aligned as AFK aligned. So are his, which is the issue. He reads town to me but he also reads lurker, which is gonna get him spag-killed pretty soonzebezt + Show Spoiler + He also called out unwarranted hostility in the thread, which is a town-motivated thing to do, but then suggested that other people ask questions instead. He didn't provide the questions, just said that other people should. He did a fairly interesting analysis of snoman and actually asked some discussion Q's of some people, which feels kind of townish. But he was one of those to take the easy road in pressuring bringaniga, he soft claimed on not having read scum guides, went out of his way to mention that someone would be modkilled (a non-contribution with no analysis), and went out of his way to take credit for his pressure on bringaniga earlier in the day (even though it was the easiest target in the world). I have a slight SCUM read on him.
Zebezt did shit-all and sheeped Mocsta. He called out anybody who tried to stop mocsta from running away with the thread, which was pretty awkward. In fact, he stuck super-hard to the safe play. Glad to see zare is calling him scum at leastglurio + Show Spoiler + He calls Mandalor scum but he's "not quite certain" after reading the filter -- an accusation without committing to the accusation. He easy-picks Laguerta, lurks hardcore, continues to be suspicious of Mandalor without providing analysis or voting for him, calls Oats scummy a couple times without any analysis other than the fact that he's voted a lot (I did that too, of course), but finally switches from Laguerta to Mandalor ONLY AFTER it's clear that the town is leaving Laguerta. If the LAguerta lynch happens and he's still on it, he knows he's in trouble, so the reasoning for his switch? "mafia doesn't defend" The timing was very suspect, and set things up such that Laguerta could still be lynched without his vote staying there, and if someone moved with him onto Mandalor, that person would get the fall (Mocsta).
He's offered zero analysis, represented zero conviction with his votes, and his vote pattern looks the most suspicious to me of all of what happened yesterday. He also lurks hardcore. He is my number one SCUM read.
Not much to say here, other than a) I agreed with him pre-N1 that glurio was at least mildly scummy and b) zare's number 1 scum read was town. I at least called zare out on glurio being #1 scum and laguerta being town when they played very similarly, but didn't get much response. bringaniga/Spag + Show Spoiler + I secretly hoped that bringaniga really had some algorithm because that would've been hilarious. Spag has seemed quite helpful since he's returned. AS this is essentially Day 1 for him, I have a NULL read until I see more, but nothing so far has smacked of scum.
Fair. I don't have much to say on this.
Okay, so zare manages to review pretty well without coming off as overtly scummy anywhere. In fact, I agree with many of his reads. I still think that he hasn't contributed much and spent a lot of time sheeping, especially since few of his reads are terribly insightful (I'm aware none of mine have been either).
Now, to examine zare's votes.
+ Show Spoiler [Vote 1] +On January 14 2013 02:36 zarepath wrote: ##Vote Acid~
I am voting for a lurker for a couple of reasons:
1) If they haven't found reason to post yet, a push to lynch them had better; otherwise, we know that they will NEVER post 2) While I like to think scum would have posted by now, last game proves that isn't necessarily true; the worst lurkers are just as likely to be scum. 3) I worry that lurkers who are let go will continue to taint reads for the rest of the game -- the possibility of them being scum will always be in the back of town's minds, and scum can get away with "pressuring" them as a "contribution," and the thread will be stuffed full of lurker pressuring and absent of the lurker's discussion. 4) We will be absent of their contributions either way 5) Scum will know they can't get away with super-minimal contribution, and that the town is aware of how much they participate, potentially forcing them to post more
That's what's going through my head. I want to avoid getting wrapped up in the stupid OMGUSing and encourage others to be active in the thread. Right now the best way I see to do that is to punish the person who is contributing the least, and through inaction, acting directly against the town. He starts off, 10 hours before lynch, with an Acid vote. His reasoning is: LAL, basically. He carefully got on the same lurker that Omni had voted (Omni's reason: I forgot about No Lynch). So far, a safe vote but not necessarily a scummy one. He made sure to justify this with a bunch of high and mighty town chest-thumping, but that isn't strictly scummy either.
+ Show Spoiler [Vote 2] +On January 14 2013 11:25 zarepath wrote: I'm voting for Laguerta because of his inability to pick someone to vote for. Feels pretty scummy, and I haven't had a chance to do real thorough reads today. (NO, goverment didn't confiscate my laptop today, but Sundays are generally my least-available days.)
##Unvote Acid~ ##Vote Laguerta
Acid will be modkilled, and while replacing him isn't necessarily a good thing, we do know Laguerta is spineless. So, there it is. I'll be doing a more thorough filter read N1. Next up, he swaps to laguerta. With 0 posts between the 2 votes, but about 9 hours separating them, he quickly jumps on the current bandwagon. His reasoning: acid will be modkilled (untrue at that point, but could be an honest) and laguerta is spineless. How is "spineless" a townie reason to vote somebody?. Shortly after this he mocks Oats for posting something along the lines of "Scum are traditionally around at the deadline" (something that zare is carefully being), then starts calling off the laguerta train with a defense along the lines of: "7 votes are too easy, mafia must be on this train". This is part of what ends up saving laguerta so that we can lynch innocent mandalor, and this is also totally something a scum could say. "Mafia must be on this train, let me get off of it" is not necessarily right (again, I believe that if laguerta were mafia, his team would bus him if needed. He is clearly pretty useless. This attempt to save only comes around once Trotske has finished being highly irrational and the laguerta train is coming screeching to a halt.
+ Show Spoiler [Vote 3] +On January 14 2013 12:35 zarepath wrote: ##Vote Oatsmaster
Has not been helpful towards town, was an active scum player in another game (so not necessarily a lurker scum), has unvoted FOUR times, most recently very late in the day when it was almost assured that Laguerta would be lynched regardless. His reasoning? "He's scummy but he's not here to defend himself. I'm gonna go vote for someone that nobody else is voting for and will definitely not get lynched, so when Laguerta flips town, I look good." (Okay, so not his literal read, but a possible motivation was thrown in there.)
His timing and his lack of reasoning worry me, and I find him to be far more likely to be scum than Laguerta. Now he is voting Oatsmaster. Not only is Oatsmaster the guy that got NK'ed night one, but his reasoning is "multiple vote flips" (welcome to the club zare). All of his reasoning on Oats applies to him, and this vote looks pretty scummy to me. He tries to start something on Oats because as scum he would LOVE to see a random 3-2 lynch save their NK for somebody whose NK would give up less info. Note how this is completely opposite his previous reasoning of LAL, as Oats is super-active. Also note how contrary this is to his N1 "reads" post above. A convenient flip flop that he tries to explain away, showing that he is afraid of how it looks.
And that is that for Zare. Long ass post I know. Not that my post is terribly cohesive or that it avoids "association cases" but this is what I think of zare right now. Much of what he has done could be explained as scum, and he certainly hasn't pressured anybody in a way that makes me think town.
|
Forgot to mention, Zare's swap to the laguerta vote seems like a "get as many people killed as possible" swap which is a scummy motivation, although not too strong. Again, nothing is OVERTLY scummy about zare, just that reading everything he does does NOT lead to a picture that is town.
|
Bleh.. Forgot I had to go out tonight. Good thing I already answered most questions.. My thoughts on Trotske before I go: I don't see many quality posts by him. At first he seems to like me (yay) later he changes his mind and puts a FoS on me stating I don't contribute that much. Weird turnaround, but not too scummy. He doesnt like Spag either saying Spag is only about finding lurkers. Seems a bit unfair since Spag has said this is mostly for the first days.
besides that he hasnt said anything much at all. Many 1 line posts. Not a big contributor for sure.
|
Before you go, why Trotske over Acid?
|
SnoMan, I'm at work and jumping into the thread between tasks, so my reaction to your analysis is going to be a little piece-meal.
1. Glad you thought my analysis was good and fine -- that has been my largest contribution to the thread and took the most time
2. My analysis of Acid isn't bad at all. What's the town motivation for his posting behavior? And I don't just mean lurking, I mean spending his small amount of posts stubbornly going after someone who already has a lot of attention on them, and doing so not with analysis but with attitude, and while there are other subjects for analysis?
3. Your analysis of my voting delves into hypotheticals, and while this is kind of necessary in analyzing votes, let me go vote-by-vote.
Acid -- LAL, as stated.
Laguerta -- Better to lynch a scummy lurker than a non-existent one. (I don't know if Acid had made his post by that point or not, or if I'd realized it yet or not.) The spineless comment was about him switching his vote to no-one (no-lynch). So by "spineless," I meant "afraid to call out anyone specific because he's mafia." In the end, he was a smurf, so this analysis is now worthless except to show that I did have a reason to vote for him initially.
Oats -- either OE or Oats (I think it was Oats) at that point said to stop worrying about the bandwagon and just vote for whoever you think is scummiest. When I was looking at the vote lay-out and saw the amount of times Oats' name had been crossed off, that combined with my annoyance with his behavior over the course of the day and I knee-jerk voted. Again, didn't have much time that day to re-read filters or the thread, and went off of my general reaction. The extent of my analysis was mostly that it was too easy to vote for Laguerta, and that overrode my desire to lynch a lurker, especially one that read more as noob town on a re-read than bad scum, and especially with the ease of getting the plurality.
|
I'd ask what other people think of
1) OmniEulogy. He compliments everybody (except oats) and is never willing to really present deep analysis except once, his clearly wrong case on Oats. He looks like he wants to be everybody's buddy. 2) Spag. 3) zebezt: His entire filter consists of: "Sn0_Man wont answer me. I think he is scum because he didn't like Mocsta's opening question and then went AFK" and "Mocsta OMG ur so right lemme restate ur posts"
To clarify, I'd love some sort of DETAILED reads on ANY of those 3 based on serious perusal of their filter (and in spag's case, take a glance at the bringaniga filter too).
|
I just read through OE's filter again, and I think it's fairly clear he offered the most/best analysis on Day 1. He was one of the first to jump off of the Laguerta bandwagon, so there is that, but so was I. I don't get the sense that he's complimenting everybody. From the beginning of Day 1, he was clearly accruing data (which he reveals as he contends with people's assertion that there are no facts to be had), and while his case on Oats was wrong, it was rigorous and wasn't exactly a hollow case -- Oats did behave oddly for the first 24 hours, and OE's posting shows that he had eyes on it early on in the day.
I feel better about him as a town read than anybody else but myself, to be honest, save for the fact that he hasn't posted for a while now.
|
Although, here is one thing --- he spoilers a confirmation bias/association case that he wishes he hadn't seen, but still puts it there for everyone else to read anyway. What is the town motivation for that?
|
On January 15 2013 21:40 Spaghetticus wrote: @Acid I had assumed that when you did start posting, you would be continuing that pattern from now on. The Stuff you posted was seemed good, but you still have the smallest filter.
I know this is a backflip since you weren't on my list of people under pressure, but your complete lack of activity is giving you the smallest filter, and a town shouldn't feel that he needs to be pressed into doing town activity. I want to see more from you, so while this is a vote that does have intention to lynch, it is conditional in that I will remove it the second you start contributing properly again.
##Vote: Acid
I'm fine with having the smallest filter. For now, I'm reading.
I don't feel the need to make you privy to my every inane thought, so when I have something useful to say I will post.
Until then, since nothing has changed in this regard:
##Vote: Zebezt
|
|
|
|