EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXXV - Page 46
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
| ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
1) - Have a vote on someone and a reason why. If you sheep (sheep:// verb meaning to follow someone else's reasoning without contributing, not a spell of polymorph ) That was funnier than it should have been, although your night posts have been lacking. While his explanation of his vote switch was good it doesn't mean it isn't suspisious. | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
On January 15 2013 02:19 Spaghetticus wrote: (3) - OmniEulogy is confirmed town. He has changed his meta from scummy to actual pro-town. This is a read from a more complex dialogue outside of the game, but put simply: - he has played deliberately scummy in previous games in order to give himself room to work with when he actually rolls scum - I warned him that while I have been avoiding him in game I had decided to tunnel him as I could no longer take the bullshit, along as communicating several reasons for why a better player would play to the best of their ability every game - He improved his style when he did not need to. I was not in the game to tunnel him, and if he rolled scum he would have had three games worth of established scummy play to work with, all but guaranteeing him a scum victory if he rolled scum. If he rolled scum he would be under zero pressure to change his style and we would be looking at a clusterfuck of WIFOM and OMGUS instead of the rational play he is demonstrating. While this turned out to be true I think this might have been a scum slip, even with all the evidence town are normally far more careful with reads. For example with this evidence I would say most likely town and would think of the possibility of having improved his play to appear more town not remaining scummy to appear more town. (although I haven't seen him play before I don't think?) Also in general Spags meta is way off... he is the only other australian and while he has given reasons for being less active you would have thought he would have at least chimed it (it's almost 1pm Australian time) So in other words his meta is off, he isn't posting much (which is a separate issue from meta while being connected) and he isn't following though on his non LAL policy. A LAL policy is really easy for scum to talk about because it requires no evidence beside from lack of content. Also he posted this I want you there on day three because you are active, and if you are scum you will slip as a result. If you downgrade your activity I will shit on you for motivated lurking. It is clear that I want you to stop wasting time being a victim, and I am not the only person with these thoughts. You are not responsible for other people lurking, but you are responsible for hiding their posts with tirades of self-pitying crap. Is seems he has taken up the mantle of motivated lurking.... after being so bold and aggressive against them has he realised he can't keep up? FOS# Spaghetticus | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
My Day Two Voting Explanation Post + Show Spoiler + Book-keeping: Why did Spag quick-switch? Let's ignore the fact that I was blatantly wrong not to vote for Mocsta for just a second. Recall that I was: (1) - Going to lynch one of the lurkiest players (2) - Was going to wake up in order to control the lynch (3) - Had already short-listed Zebezt and Troske When I woke up at 10:00, I believe there was Acid and I on Zebezt, two on Mocsta, and two on Troske. Now, while I did not want Mocsta lynched, I did not particularly care who got lynched between Zebezt and Troske. At two votes each, I could leave it at 2/2/2, or exercise my influence on the vote, and make it 3/2/1 making it significantly less likely that Mocsta got voted. While I was wrong, and glad I was was, as Mocsta making power plays end-game with no fear of being inspected could pretty much instawin scum the game, my reasoning is the same as pretty much every other day one/two lynch I've ever done. I don't get my first choice of lynch because I don't wield that much influence, so I need to settle for going for the next best thing: protecting the people I consider more catchable/valuable end-game. Acid is absolutely correct to expect me to step up and start taking names, the time has truly passed for LAL. I will note that I have a commitment to my Mother to go down to my hometown and supervise some Youth reachout gig at 5pm tomorrow for an unspecified amount of time. I don't have a license and the public transport is terrifyingly bad, often taking a lot longer than it should. This will hinder my contribution somewhat, but should not be too big of a deal. I will reallocate my time spent on rousing lurkers to making cases. I'm going to go and gorge on lasagna and cider to celebrate, this is a big win peops! I believe it was Zarepath who complained that I hadn't justified my actions (It might have been Acid). This was wrong. My justification is strong, and I believe that if I had acted any other way I would have been acting to the detriment of Town (with the information available). I have done similar moves in previous games, and given the same scenario I would do the same again. Someone stated they didn't like me saying I didn't care who died between Zebezt and Trotske. At the time I had equal reads on both, and they are still on my 'dar with the addition of JSL. I really didn't care which one was lynched, I think narrowing my scope down to two people is sufficient. I never have the confidence in my scum reads others seem to have (yes I'm talking about previous games), I am known for my cautious scum reads, and voting for reasons other than tunneling the one person. I believe Shz or Zarepath can give you the meta-read. The interplay between myself and Mocsta was more cautious than normal. We just threw away XXXIV with in-fighting between Mocsta and myself, his jabs throughout the entirety of that game being damnright nasty. That he approached me with what I interpreted as some composed humour this time around was a relief. I wanted Mocsta around day Three, as I didn't think there was any chance of him slipping past us if he were scum come day three. I mean, could you honestly see him surviving given that last big case? At the time I voted, I had skimmed over it the night before, given some denunciation to make sure that it didn't gain traction in the eyes of some of the newer players, and went to sleep. When I voted in the morning, I voted without rereading the case (it was even worse than what I thought), switched my vote to improve the chances of me getting my way, and went straight back to sleep. I don't know if I would have switched my vote to Mocsta if I had reread the case, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. --- Two out of my three biggest town-reads died in the night: Sn0 and Omni. This leaves only Shz as confirmed town in my eyes. There is no way that he would make the hammer vote on Mocsta if he were scum, the bus was too unnecessary. The only way Shz is scum is if Trotske is also scum. That way, Shz was choosing which of his buddies to lynch, not whether to lynch one of his buddies. If Trotske flips town, Shz is confirmed town 100% no question. Of who I think is scum, I think at least one is hiding among Trotske, Zebezt, and JSL. I'm leaning towards Trotske in this position based off Mocsta's erratic behaviour. Town was in a bad position prior to Mocsta's lynch, three deaths in one cycle is bad. Why would Mocsta act so erratic if there wasn't another scum on the chopping block? If there was only town up for killing, all he had to do was play consistently and we would dig ourselves an even deeper hole. Instead he stepped up and made a bizarre case against a strongly confirmed town. Scum are more than capable of bussing their buddies, but why would Mocsta take such massive risks to protect someone that was town? It looks to me as if he was making a distraction to try and destabilize the vote on a buddy. Voting Troske now also has the benefit of establishing Shz as 100% town if he does flip green, and gives us a strong lead on a third scum if he flips red. ##Vote: Trotske I will be open to discussion when I get back, but I need to start packing and make my way to the bus-stop. | ||
|
Spaghetticus
Australia451 Posts
| ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
Okay there have been some developments, seemingly a lot of them on me. I have limited time (two hours before I need to be at the bus-stop), so I'm going to quickly draw your attention to my position and the posts that support it. I will be gone for at least 9 hours, finishing just before midnight, meaning when I do get back my contribution will be limited due to sleep. Once I awaken, I'm hoping my mother has better internet than she used to as it was unstable last time I was there. I should definitely be back to posting full strength by the the last half of Day Two. I assume you mean day three Hmm, while possibly true this doesn't bode well. For starters you could be busy as scum or town and secondly it's mighty convenient. I did see your post justifying your vote but this still doesn't explain why the night was so quiet and with you being so inactive on day three I sense a problem. I really need a response on why you were so inactive during the night. But apparently I won't get this for another 9 hours... I'm still trying to comprehend your trotske case I might walk around a while and think about it. I see Jacob is setting up to bendwagon me. I'm going to bend wagon you all night long... | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote: Okay there have been some developments, seemingly a lot of them on me. I have limited time (two hours before I need to be at the bus-stop), so I'm going to quickly draw your attention to my position and the posts that support it. I will be gone for at least 9 hours, finishing just before midnight, meaning when I do get back my contribution will be limited due to sleep. Once I awaken, I'm hoping my mother has better internet than she used to as it was unstable last time I was there. I should definitely be back to posting full strength by the the last half of Day Two. My Day Two Voting Explanation Post I believe it was Zarepath who complained that I hadn't justified my actions (It might have been Acid). This was wrong. My justification is strong, and I believe that if I had acted any other way I would have been acting to the detriment of Town (with the information available). I have done similar moves in previous games, and given the same scenario I would do the same again. Someone stated they didn't like me saying I didn't care who died between Zebezt and Trotske. At the time I had equal reads on both, and they are still on my 'dar with the addition of JSL. I really didn't care which one was lynched, I think narrowing my scope down to two people is sufficient. I never have the confidence in my scum reads others seem to have (yes I'm talking about previous games), I am known for my cautious scum reads, and voting for reasons other than tunneling the one person. I believe Shz or Zarepath can give you the meta-read. The interplay between myself and Mocsta was more cautious than normal. We just threw away XXXIV with in-fighting between Mocsta and myself, his jabs throughout the entirety of that game being damnright nasty. That he approached me with what I interpreted as some composed humour this time around was a relief. I wanted Mocsta around day Three, as I didn't think there was any chance of him slipping past us if he were scum come day three. I mean, could you honestly see him surviving given that last big case? At the time I voted, I had skimmed over it the night before, given some denunciation to make sure that it didn't gain traction in the eyes of some of the newer players, and went to sleep. When I voted in the morning, I voted without rereading the case (it was even worse than what I thought), switched my vote to improve the chances of me getting my way, and went straight back to sleep. I don't know if I would have switched my vote to Mocsta if I had reread the case, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. --- Two out of my three biggest town-reads died in the night: Sn0 and Omni. This leaves only Shz as confirmed town in my eyes. There is no way that he would make the hammer vote on Mocsta if he were scum, the bus was too unnecessary. The only way Shz is scum is if Trotske is also scum. That way, Shz was choosing which of his buddies to lynch, not whether to lynch one of his buddies. If Trotske flips town, Shz is confirmed town 100% no question. Of who I think is scum, I think at least one is hiding among Trotske, Zebezt, and JSL. I'm leaning towards Trotske in this position based off Mocsta's erratic behaviour. Town was in a bad position prior to Mocsta's lynch, three deaths in one cycle is bad. Why would Mocsta act so erratic if there wasn't another scum on the chopping block? If there was only town up for killing, all he had to do was play consistently and we would dig ourselves an even deeper hole. Instead he stepped up and made a bizarre case against a strongly confirmed town. Scum are more than capable of bussing their buddies, but why would Mocsta take such massive risks to protect someone that was town? It looks to me as if he was making a distraction to try and destabilize the vote on a buddy. Voting Troske now also has the benefit of establishing Shz as 100% town if he does flip green, and gives us a strong lead on a third scum if he flips red. ##Vote: Trotske I will be open to discussion when I get back, but I need to start packing and make my way to the bus-stop. And yet you offer no specifics in this whole post. Make excuses for your bad play, and you still have not given town any information in this whole thread YOU SCREAM SCUM you have no case and are trying to waste a lynch on a fact finding trip. My FoS of Spaghetticus of which no points have been changed or addressed. + Show Spoiler + FoS on Spaghetticus I would like some other opinions on him, I feel that most of his posts so far have been only restating that he doesn't like lurkers Literally half of his posts have had some comment about lurkers. His posts seem to me to be saying nothing while looking very large at the same time. ##VOTE Spaghetticus | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
FoS on Spaghetticus I would like some other opinions on him, I feel that most of his posts so far have been only restating that he doesn't HAHA Oh man I missed that before.... But yeah I agree I have been walking around trying to figure out why his case on trotske works and the key point is it doesn't. Also like you pointed out It's based around confirming someone who is already highly likely town to be 100% town with one lynch. You have to provide evidence on why someone is scum not how useful the flip would be. Sometimes yes if two people equally scummy you have to take that into account but even with that unless Trotske is scum the flip is useless practically. While this can change if you respond amazingly or bring up a case that is better I will follow suit. ##VOTE Spaghetticus | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
| ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 09:40 JacobStrangelove wrote: Vt "Lynch Spaghetticus. Either he or zare or both of them are scum. This is simple logical deduction from the actions and votes of day 2. Again for the cheap seats: scum would not have split their vote 3 ways and if you think that scum bussed Mocsta it means I am scum." So why the vote on Zebezt? Because I want to pressure him? Why else? There's like 40+ hours left in the day, I'm not going to park my vote and twiddle my thumbs in my ass for the rest of the day. We require information. | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
 But yes I do understand. | ||
|
Acid~
Thailand442 Posts
On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote: Okay there have been some developments, seemingly a lot of them on me. I have limited time (two hours before I need to be at the bus-stop), so I'm going to quickly draw your attention to my position and the posts that support it. I will be gone for at least 9 hours, finishing just before midnight, meaning when I do get back my contribution will be limited due to sleep. Once I awaken, I'm hoping my mother has better internet than she used to as it was unstable last time I was there. I should definitely be back to posting full strength by the the last half of Day Two. My Day Two Voting Explanation Post I believe it was Zarepath who complained that I hadn't justified my actions (It might have been Acid). This was wrong. My justification is strong, and I believe that if I had acted any other way I would have been acting to the detriment of Town (with the information available). I have done similar moves in previous games, and given the same scenario I would do the same again. Someone stated they didn't like me saying I didn't care who died between Zebezt and Trotske. At the time I had equal reads on both, and they are still on my 'dar with the addition of JSL. I really didn't care which one was lynched, I think narrowing my scope down to two people is sufficient. I never have the confidence in my scum reads others seem to have (yes I'm talking about previous games), I am known for my cautious scum reads, and voting for reasons other than tunneling the one person. I believe Shz or Zarepath can give you the meta-read. The interplay between myself and Mocsta was more cautious than normal. We just threw away XXXIV with in-fighting between Mocsta and myself, his jabs throughout the entirety of that game being damnright nasty. That he approached me with what I interpreted as some composed humour this time around was a relief. I wanted Mocsta around day Three, as I didn't think there was any chance of him slipping past us if he were scum come day three. I mean, could you honestly see him surviving given that last big case? At the time I voted, I had skimmed over it the night before, given some denunciation to make sure that it didn't gain traction in the eyes of some of the newer players, and went to sleep. When I voted in the morning, I voted without rereading the case (it was even worse than what I thought), switched my vote to improve the chances of me getting my way, and went straight back to sleep. I don't know if I would have switched my vote to Mocsta if I had reread the case, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. --- Two out of my three biggest town-reads died in the night: Sn0 and Omni. This leaves only Shz as confirmed town in my eyes. There is no way that he would make the hammer vote on Mocsta if he were scum, the bus was too unnecessary. The only way Shz is scum is if Trotske is also scum. That way, Shz was choosing which of his buddies to lynch, not whether to lynch one of his buddies. If Trotske flips town, Shz is confirmed town 100% no question. Of who I think is scum, I think at least one is hiding among Trotske, Zebezt, and JSL. I'm leaning towards Trotske in this position based off Mocsta's erratic behaviour. Town was in a bad position prior to Mocsta's lynch, three deaths in one cycle is bad. Why would Mocsta act so erratic if there wasn't another scum on the chopping block? If there was only town up for killing, all he had to do was play consistently and we would dig ourselves an even deeper hole. Instead he stepped up and made a bizarre case against a strongly confirmed town. Scum are more than capable of bussing their buddies, but why would Mocsta take such massive risks to protect someone that was town? It looks to me as if he was making a distraction to try and destabilize the vote on a buddy. Voting Troske now also has the benefit of establishing Shz as 100% town if he does flip green, and gives us a strong lead on a third scum if he flips red. ##Vote: Trotske I will be open to discussion when I get back, but I need to start packing and make my way to the bus-stop. There's one major problem with your reasoning: Mocsta makes his bullshit case on OE at a point in time where Trotske has 0 votes. After Mocsta votes for OE, this is what happens: - Sn0_Man is the first to pick up on my case and votes for Trotske - zebezt makes a case against Mocsta, then votes for laguerta/JSL - I make my own case against Mocsta, and vote him - Trotske votes for Mocsta - Mocsta votes for Trotske! Look at this sequence here. Why, at this point, would two scum vote for each other when neither of them is on the chopping block? They're each at one vote before they effectively OMGUS each other. What's the strategic value here, if they are both scum? And then, something very telling: - zarepath votes Trotske with no explanation, only a promise - Sn0_Man correctly senses that something is up and unvotes Trotske - zebezt refuses to consolidate on Mocsta - You come in and vote Trotske, again with no explanation - JSL votes no-lynch - Sn0_Man votes Mocsta - Shz votes Mocsta Now, what does this tell us? Couple of things. 1. I don't buy Trotske as scum. My case was good but so were the defenses, including - but not limited to, his own. He was also the first to follow me on Mocsta. Due to his reaction to Mocsta's post, it's possible it was an OMGUS, but even so... scum OMGUSing scum? If you look at the sequence, the last 2 votes on Mocsta come quite late and with a bit of reluctance from the voters. Without Trotske's initial support, there is no consolidation later on. 2. You and zarepath look scummy as hell and the only reason I'm not calling both of you out as the scum team is because 3. Zebezt's refusal to consolidate, despite agreeing that Mocsta is scum and despite his target having virtually no chance of being lynched that day, makes him look very fishy indeed. Another point against you: you are willing to potentially sacrifice a townie, when we are 5-2, only to "100% confirm" someone who is like 90% confirmed. | ||
|
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 | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
so it would probably be 5-2 or 4-2-1 or 5-1-1 (if order of most likely) | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
*in order of most likely | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On January 15 2013 11:39 Mocsta wrote: Personally. I found his attempt at a re-cap: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#580 to be the most impartial analysis of the Day1 events. Most people that tried to summarise, had the perception skewed towards their goals.. (e.g. Shz with me.. and Sn0_man with Trotske etc etc). Hence.. I found this post useful, I'm surprised you dont care to mention it as a meaningful contribution? Further on in the same post, he gives more defense and a soft town read on Spag as he encourages Spag to target lurkers. Note that he claims that Spag's LAL posts include "original thought": On January 15 2013 11:39 Mocsta wrote: @Trotske Spaghetticus identified you as as a low post count, low quality contributer. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=391615¤tpage=29#570 You have reciprocated by saying he is only targetting lurkers, and therefore he is a cause for concern. Why would this behaviour be scummy motivated? @Spaghetticus I want to see more from you. I think coming in as a replacement and providing a through summary - that includes original thought is a good sign of your alignment. However, we are now in Day2, and I am going to be watching your actions carefully. Its easy to say you are targeting lurkers, but I want to see this followed through. Actions need to speak louder than words. I ask that you begin to lead the discussions on one your identified scummy-ish lurkers. i.e. Now, the next time he interacts with Spag (directly or indirectly), it's quite different: On January 15 2013 13:30 Mocsta wrote: [Let me clear my system] Go fuck yourself.. (thats for you antagonizing me constantly in Newbie 34 I have spent the whole Night1 under the gun, and explaining my actions. And you come into the thread and say im scumming the thread up.. + Show Spoiler + Go fuck yourself (thats for antagonizing me now in Newbie 35) [System cleared] This was Mocsta's second mention of Spag, and it's QUITE strong. Note Spag's soft town claim of Mocsta mixed with a criticism, within quotes. Note that while Mocsta strongly rejects Spag's criticism of him, he doesn't call HIM out for being overly critical of active townies and suggest he's scum, as Mocsta did with Oats and Acid and Zarepath and Shz (although this was mostly implied). When someone responds with an enormous "FU," twice, to your criticism of them, what's the appropriate reaction? It's apparently to not call him scummy: On January 15 2013 13:43 Spaghetticus wrote: WTF RLY? How does elicit a response like I want you to be active, but cut the crap. Are you so certain that the entirety of your contribution is crap that in order to cut said crap you must stop posting? I want you there on day three because you are active, and if you are scum you will slip as a result. If you downgrade your activity I will shit on you for motivated lurking. It is clear that I want you to stop wasting time being a victim, and I am not the only person with these thoughts. You are not responsible for other people lurking, but you are responsible for hiding their posts with tirades of self-pitying crap. I read disproportionate reactions from these two to each other, both in relation to what the other person said and in relation to their normal reactions to others in the game. This post (mine, here) does not even attempt to go into Spag's endorsement of Mocsta's case on me, or his voting behavior, or lack of cases on who the other 2 scum are. (Really, if he were actually going after scum, he would ASSUME I were scum, because if he supposedly knows he's not scum, then he has to assume that I was backing Mocsta up by voting for Trotske. Where is Spag's case on me? Shouldn't I be the most obvious scum to him if he's NOT scum? NO, instead he has a convoluted case which main goal is to confirm someone town.) I post this now because I think people are overlooking the importance of analyzing his interactions with the one person we KNOW to have been scum. | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On January 17 2013 10:34 Spaghetticus wrote: Oh wow... NICE! While there was no way I was voting for Mocsta day two, I can step back and admit when I'm wrong. This worked out well. Hitting the Godfather first is also a biggy, as a Godfather would normally be the one playing for end-game. ... I'm going to go and gorge on lasagna and cider to celebrate, this is a big win peops! He's going to eat to celebrate something that happened in mafia? I consider this another disproportionate response of a post. Also note that on the Mocsta switch, his reaction was not to go "if Mocsta is mafia, what does this mean? What are his associations?" It was to say, "Go team! PS, gotta go, but I'll check more into lurkers tomorrow! And, go team!" | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote: The interplay between myself and Mocsta was more cautious than normal. We just threw away XXXIV with in-fighting between Mocsta and myself, his jabs throughout the entirety of that game being damnright nasty. That he approached me with what I interpreted as some composed humour this time around was a relief. Mocsta's composed humour to Spag: On January 15 2013 13:30 Mocsta wrote: [Let me clear my system] Go fuck yourself.. (thats for you antagonizing me constantly in Newbie 34 I have spent the whole Night1 under the gun, and explaining my actions. And you come into the thread and say im scumming the thread up.. + Show Spoiler + Go fuck yourself (thats for antagonizing me now in Newbie 35) [System cleared] There's some dissonance between how Spag just described Mocsta's interactions with him in his defense, and how Mocsta ACTUALLY interacted with him. Other contradiction: Spag's number one town read: On January 18 2013 12:51 Spaghetticus wrote: Two out of my three biggest town-reads died in the night: Sn0 and Omni. This leaves only Shz as confirmed town in my eyes... If Trotske flips town, Shz is confirmed town 100% no question... ...Voting Troske now also has the benefit of establishing Shz as 100% town if he does flip green, and gives us a strong lead on a third scum if he flips red. Note that of his three strongest town reads, two just died, and he's so certain of his other town read that he wants to go confirm him town by lynching someone(?). Again, disproportionate responses. And again, if he were actually looking for scum, he'd be all over my filter because I was the other person to vote with Mocsta, and surely SOME other mafia would have voted with Mocsta to defend him, right? | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
On January 18 2013 23:09 zarepath wrote: He's going to eat to celebrate something that happened in mafia? I consider this another disproportionate response of a post. Just for the record I once attempted a backflip on a unicycle in celebration of something that happened in mafia. Although all your other points seem to make sense but this one. On January 18 2013 22:58 zarepath wrote: This post (mine, here) does not even attempt to go into Spag's endorsement of Mocsta's case on me, or his voting behavior, or lack of cases on who the other 2 scum are. (Really, if he were actually going after scum, he would ASSUME I were scum, because if he supposedly knows he's not scum, then he has to assume that I was backing Mocsta up by voting for Trotske. Where is Spag's case on me? Shouldn't I be the most obvious scum to him if he's NOT scum? NO, instead he has a convoluted case which main goal is to confirm someone town.) I post this now because I think people are overlooking the importance of analyzing his interactions with the one person we KNOW to have been scum. See if he isn't scum then yes you would be obvious but even if he is scum the fact he didn't make a case on you is still unusual. Because if he was scum he would still want a case on you as you are apparently an easy townie to make a case on. My theory would be that you were both scum and he was trying to not draw attention to you. | ||
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
Just for the record I once attempted a backflip on a unicycle in celebration of something that happened in mafia. Although all your other points seem to make sense but this one. Fyi it didn't go well. Also it's nearing 1:30 am Australian time and Spag is nowhere to be seen. I can only assume he will "sleep until 12pm" again then go to the gym and try to make a last ditch case in attempt to confuse people. | ||
| ||
