|
Germany2686 Posts
First of all, could we stop with set-up discussion? Aslong as there is no confirmed SK, let's not speak about it. It creates nothing of use. N1 lynched could have been done by a SK, but aslong there is no other 2-kill night with the Vigi killed, don't think about it.
Spag is indeed very interesting. He plays just strange. In the beginning it was okay because he just replaced the troll and had to settle in. His LAL thing was okay, but in the end worthless as we lynched the GF on d2 with him being the most active player.
But thats over now. And I still don't get the vote-switch.
@Spaghetticus:
You said you will wake up in time for the lynch and participate. You did. Or, you were awake at least. You came in, changed your vote and went off. Why did you not post your explanation before the flip? You are a self-proclaimed god in Mafia, so why the fuck do you do something so obviously bad?
Also, confirming my last 10% of being town is not a good enough reason to lynch someone. Not that I disagree that Trot should be looked upon.
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.
Should we then just lynch you both and one scum will come out of it?
On January 18 2013 07:01 Sn0_Man wrote:
Acid's FoS on Spag seems correct but he may offload the KP.
Could someone explain to me what he was trying to say? I genuinely don't understand it.
|
On January 19 2013 01:20 shz wrote:Show nested quote +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. Should we then just lynch you both and one scum will come out of it?
The point is that if I were Spag and I knew I weren't scum, I would be looking very closely at Zarepath because he is the only person who voted with Mocsta that I wouldn't have confirmed as town.
I can understand why people are suspicious of me, because I voted with Mocsta. That on its own isn't enough reason for me to be scum, but I can totally understand why it would be worthy of looking through my filter and coming up with a case. I can ESPECIALLY understand why it would be worthy of doing if Spag were town -- he would think it very likely for me to be scum.
However, he did NOT do that -- that draws attention to the idea that another scum must have voted with Mocsta, and he apparently isn't very confident that I am scum. Because I am town, I am highly suspicious of the other person to have voted with Mocsta, so I looked through his filter and his interactions with Mocsta, and it all builds together (along with his votes and his cases) to a strong case of Spag being scum.
The point isn't that we're both scum -- it's that we're both very much worth looking into if you're LOOKING for scum. I submit that Spag is not looking for scum, and that, having now looked, I very much think him to be scum.
|
On January 19 2013 01:20 shz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 07:01 Sn0_Man wrote:
Acid's FoS on Spag seems correct but he may offload the KP. Could someone explain to me what he was trying to say? I genuinely don't understand it.
I think he's referring to RBing. I think he's suggesting to a JK that JKing Spag may still not prevent the mafia from killing. (The mafia select a single person to "carry out" the kill, such that if there's a JK, the JK might target that mafia and prevent the kill from occurring.)
|
Lol.. I almost miss Mocsta. It's kinda dead in here. Partly my own fault. Too damn busy.
Been reading spag's filter.
He doesnt say much useful stuff. He did encourage people to look into a case on Mocsta though. Slightly positive.
On the whole he feels scummy to me though. For someone that said he was gonna contribute a lot, he hasn't really made that happen yet.
Tomorrow i'll probably write an overview of my case against Jacob.
|
Let's go through our lynch options. Here are my reads on, in my opinion, the viable lynch candidates.
JacobStrangelove
+ Show Spoiler +On January 18 2013 12:07 JacobStrangelove wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +
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 This is JSL's only post I could find that has any real input into who could be scum. I'm not sure if this makes him scummy or just a lazy town but I do find it odd that laguerta and JSL playing from the same role PM seem to be playing the same style.
Spaghetticus
+ Show Spoiler +On January 18 2013 13:24 Trotske wrote:Show nested quote +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 + 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: TrotskeI 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
Zarepath
+ Show Spoiler +Does this feel like a bus to anyone else? It seems like we are pretty set up on killing spag today so why not jump on the bus and try for the late game. On January 19 2013 01:42 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 01:20 shz wrote: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. Should we then just lynch you both and one scum will come out of it? The point is that if I were Spag and I knew I weren't scum, I would be looking very closely at Zarepath because he is the only person who voted with Mocsta that I wouldn't have confirmed as town. I can understand why people are suspicious of me, because I voted with Mocsta. That on its own isn't enough reason for me to be scum, but I can totally understand why it would be worthy of looking through my filter and coming up with a case. I can ESPECIALLY understand why it would be worthy of doing if Spag were town -- he would think it very likely for me to be scum. However, he did NOT do that -- that draws attention to the idea that another scum must have voted with Mocsta, and he apparently isn't very confident that I am scum. Because I am town, I am highly suspicious of the other person to have voted with Mocsta, so I looked through his filter and his interactions with Mocsta, and it all builds together (along with his votes and his cases) to a strong case of Spag being scum. The point isn't that we're both scum -- it's that we're both very much worth looking into if you're LOOKING for scum. I submit that Spag is not looking for scum, and that, having now looked, I very much think him to be scum. Also He voted with mocsta last lynch with no explanation saying he would post it during the night this is that post. On January 17 2013 11:15 zarepath wrote:My Vote, Explainedby ZarepathTrotske's Day 1 involved few contributions. Most notably, he "pressured" bringaniga, agreed with Mocsta's case on Mandalor while still defending him while still saying he'd vote for him if he acted more scummy (bandwagon ready), and then he also made a case on sno_man and wouldn't let up on trying to get everyone to talk about it: Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 05:24 Trotske wrote:
How do you feel about sn0_man and my case for him. Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 06:16 Trotske wrote:
for some reason I Thought there were more votes on laguerta
bringaniga lets assume you are not going to get modkilled please tell me why you like laguerta more than sn0_man. Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 08:55 Trotske wrote:
@Acid How is Zebezt a better lynch than sn0_man.
Not necessarily scum-aligned, of course. But also smacks of trying to start a bandwagon. When looking at how Day 1 mislynch went, Trotske went out of his way to call Laguerta a bandwagon and voted for Mandalor because he was the one who started the vote for Laguerta... it seemed a little bit like trying to take credit in advance for the town's mislynch (or non-credit, as it were). As my time was limited today, I decided that the players I'd limit my analysis to were my previous scummy reads and those with lower post counts (Shz, trotske, Acid, zebezt). Trotske stood out to me as I read Acid's case on him, as his defense wasn't exactly stellar, and his other contributions weren't that amazing, either. His vote for Mocsta seemed to be mroe of a deflection than a read. So, prior to Mocsta flip, those were my thoughts on Trotske and my reasons for voting for him. NOw, however, we have a LOT more data with which to look at things, so I am pretty much looking at Trotske completely fresh (and almost confirmed townie, basically, considering his interactions with Mocsta, although that can't be completely assumed.) no hard reasons but the case from Acid. Makes his vote seems a little scummy, something to consider.
zebezt
+ Show Spoiler +I really like how he made a case on mocsta pretty early, My only problem is he makes a case on jacob based on a case against lagurata who was practically trolling instead of voting for mocsta. I would really like some more input on him so I can see other points of views on him.
These are my current reads, I WOULD LOVE SOME INPUT ON THESE, IT IS DEAD IN HERE. I think spag is still the best lynch candidate.
|
On January 19 2013 07:18 zebezt wrote:
Lol.. I almost miss Mocsta. It's kinda dead in here. Partly my own fault. Too damn busy.
Been reading spag's filter.
He doesnt say much useful stuff. He did encourage people to look into a case on Mocsta though.
Not really. What he did what suggest that people "tear apart" the case Mocsta made on Omni. This looks scummy to me now that we know Mocsta's alignment, because we know Mocsta's case was misdirection and steering players towards examination of that case is more misdirection: it diverts attention from true scumhunting.
Also note that Spag himself doesn't waste any time analyzing the case while asking us to do it. All the little things add up.
Slightly positive.
On the whole he feels scummy to me though. For someone that said he was gonna contribute a lot, he hasn't really made that happen yet.
Tomorrow i'll probably write an overview of my case against Jacob.
Tomorrow we'll "probably" lynch you if you don't start being useful, so I suggest you *definitely* make a real case against JSL.
|
On January 19 2013 08:40 Trotske wrote:Let's go through our lynch options. Here are my reads on, in my opinion, the viable lynch candidates. JacobStrangelove + Show Spoiler +On January 18 2013 12:07 JacobStrangelove wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +
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 This is JSL's only post I could find that has any real input into who could be scum. I'm not sure if this makes him scummy or just a lazy town but I do find it odd that laguerta and JSL playing from the same role PM seem to be playing the same style.
Well, at least he's not trolling us. The few posts he has made manage to have more sense and quality than Zebezt's entire filter, for example.
Spaghetticus + Show Spoiler +On January 18 2013 13:24 Trotske wrote:Show nested quote +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 + 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: TrotskeI 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
Agree. He talks a lot but there's not substance behind it, and of course the biggest scumtell is wanting to waste a lynch when a mislynch puts us in LyLo the next day with two scum remaining.
Zarepath + Show Spoiler +Does this feel like a bus to anyone else? It seems like we are pretty set up on killing spag today so why not jump on the bus and try for the late game. On January 19 2013 01:42 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 01:20 shz wrote: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. Should we then just lynch you both and one scum will come out of it? The point is that if I were Spag and I knew I weren't scum, I would be looking very closely at Zarepath because he is the only person who voted with Mocsta that I wouldn't have confirmed as town. I can understand why people are suspicious of me, because I voted with Mocsta. That on its own isn't enough reason for me to be scum, but I can totally understand why it would be worthy of looking through my filter and coming up with a case. I can ESPECIALLY understand why it would be worthy of doing if Spag were town -- he would think it very likely for me to be scum. However, he did NOT do that -- that draws attention to the idea that another scum must have voted with Mocsta, and he apparently isn't very confident that I am scum. Because I am town, I am highly suspicious of the other person to have voted with Mocsta, so I looked through his filter and his interactions with Mocsta, and it all builds together (along with his votes and his cases) to a strong case of Spag being scum. The point isn't that we're both scum -- it's that we're both very much worth looking into if you're LOOKING for scum. I submit that Spag is not looking for scum, and that, having now looked, I very much think him to be scum. Also He voted with mocsta last lynch with no explanation saying he would post it during the night this is that post. On January 17 2013 11:15 zarepath wrote:My Vote, Explainedby ZarepathTrotske's Day 1 involved few contributions. Most notably, he "pressured" bringaniga, agreed with Mocsta's case on Mandalor while still defending him while still saying he'd vote for him if he acted more scummy (bandwagon ready), and then he also made a case on sno_man and wouldn't let up on trying to get everyone to talk about it: Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 05:24 Trotske wrote:
How do you feel about sn0_man and my case for him. Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 06:16 Trotske wrote:
for some reason I Thought there were more votes on laguerta
bringaniga lets assume you are not going to get modkilled please tell me why you like laguerta more than sn0_man. Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 08:55 Trotske wrote:
@Acid How is Zebezt a better lynch than sn0_man.
Not necessarily scum-aligned, of course. But also smacks of trying to start a bandwagon. When looking at how Day 1 mislynch went, Trotske went out of his way to call Laguerta a bandwagon and voted for Mandalor because he was the one who started the vote for Laguerta... it seemed a little bit like trying to take credit in advance for the town's mislynch (or non-credit, as it were). As my time was limited today, I decided that the players I'd limit my analysis to were my previous scummy reads and those with lower post counts (Shz, trotske, Acid, zebezt). Trotske stood out to me as I read Acid's case on him, as his defense wasn't exactly stellar, and his other contributions weren't that amazing, either. His vote for Mocsta seemed to be mroe of a deflection than a read. So, prior to Mocsta flip, those were my thoughts on Trotske and my reasons for voting for him. NOw, however, we have a LOT more data with which to look at things, so I am pretty much looking at Trotske completely fresh (and almost confirmed townie, basically, considering his interactions with Mocsta, although that can't be completely assumed.) no hard reasons but the case from Acid. Makes his vote seems a little scummy, something to consider.
Yeah, zarepath's play is frustrating to analyze and bears a lot of similarities with Mocsta. Also, scum bussing their buddy today? I buy it. I'm convinced they didn't do it day 1 or 2 but if there ever was a time to bus, this is it.
zebezt + Show Spoiler +I really like how he made a case on mocsta pretty early, My only problem is he makes a case on jacob based on a case against lagurata who was practically trolling instead of voting for mocsta. I would really like some more input on him so I can see other points of views on him.
The only thing Zebezt has going for him is that he made a case against Mocsta, similar to mine, a few minutes before I posted mine. So, essentially, we both had the same idea at the same time. While this is indicative of town alignment to me, the rest of his play has been abysmal, especially tunneling a lurker when we've had much better lynch targets.
These are my current reads, I WOULD LOVE SOME INPUT ON THESE, IT IS DEAD IN HERE. I think spag is still the best lynch candidate.
I think you could make stronger, more detailed cases but you've got the general idea. I agree with Spag being the best lynch candidate.
My gut feeling is that the scum team intended to lynch you yesterday by bandwagoning Sn0_Man's vote and my case, so that they could point the finger at us when you flipped town. As such, I believe the remaining two scum to be Spaghetticus and zarepath. Simple, yes, but not simplistic and definitely in the realm of possibility.
Therefore, since it's unlikely any pressure will come on Zebezt today:
##Unvote: Zebezt
##Vote: Spaghetticus
|
On January 19 2013 07:18 zebezt wrote:
Lol.. I almost miss Mocsta. It's kinda dead in here. Partly my own fault. Too damn busy.
Been reading spag's filter.
He doesnt say much useful stuff. He did encourage people to look into a case on Mocsta though. Slightly positive.
On the whole he feels scummy to me though. For someone that said he was gonna contribute a lot, he hasn't really made that happen yet.
Tomorrow i'll probably write an overview of my case against Jacob.
Hey first things first is that tomorrow game time or tomorrow irl time.
On January 19 2013 01:42 zarepath wrote:
The point is that if I were Spag and I knew I weren't scum, I would be looking very closely at Zarepath because he is the only person who voted with Mocsta that I wouldn't have confirmed as town.
I can understand why people are suspicious of me, because I voted with Mocsta. That on its own isn't enough reason for me to be scum, but I can totally understand why it would be worthy of looking through my filter and coming up with a case. I can ESPECIALLY understand why it would be worthy of doing if Spag were town -- he would think it very likely for me to be scum.
However, he did NOT do that -- that draws attention to the idea that another scum must have voted with Mocsta, and he apparently isn't very confident that I am scum. Because I am town, I am highly suspicious of the other person to have voted with Mocsta, so I looked through his filter and his interactions with Mocsta, and it all builds together (along with his votes and his cases) to a strong case of Spag being scum.
The point isn't that we're both scum -- it's that we're both very much worth looking into if you're LOOKING for scum. I submit that Spag is not looking for scum, and that, having now looked, I very much think him to be scum.
This had me in circles for a little but to be honest this looks like you are trying to gain town cred for him not looking into you. If you were really that easy to do it wouldn't scum think oh hey this guy is easy to get a lynch on lets make a case on him. I am saying the fact he was convoluted indicates that he might be trying to protect a scum buddy and going for a harder to lynch person due to his buddy being easy to lynch. This is assuming he is scum.
This is JSL's only post I could find that has any real input into who could be scum. I'm not sure if this makes him scummy or just a lazy town but I do find it odd that laguerta and JSL playing from the same role PM seem to be playing the same style.
Tbh it's kinda how I play, I have been questioning people such as acid zar and zeb and trying to get information this way. The problem is it is very dead in here for the most part and I work best in active discussion. The fact I don't say someone is scum straight up doesn't mean I am not trying to work out who is scum. (you can refer to my previous games if you want)
Zarepath
- Hide Spoiler -
Does this feel like a bus to anyone else? It seems like we are pretty set up on killing spag today so why not jump on the bus and try for the late game.
Not sure if I mentioned it but yes I was getting the feeling it could be a bus.
zebezt
- Hide Spoiler -
I really like how he made a case on mocsta pretty early, My only problem is he makes a case on jacob based on a case against lagurata who was practically trolling instead of voting for mocsta. I would really like some more input on him so I can see other points of views on him.
To add to this not only is he making a case based on a troll (well not actually a troll as I pointed out probably an experiment) But he kinda went hard on the easy lynch. Town I imagine would be much more cautious, if you look at his early play style he seems timid and then suddenly he is like oh well lynch Lagurata game over gg.
|
Not sure if my post went though or not.... lost all connection with the outside world.... internet work!
|
Vote Count!
If your vote is not properly formatted it will not be counted. Everyone is required to vote.
Spaghetticus (4) - zarepath, Trotske, JacobStrangelove, Acid~
Trotske (1) - Spaghetticus
zezbet (0) - Acid~
Not Voting (2) - shz, zezbet
Currently Spaghetticus is set to be lynched! If you see that anyone's vote is incorrect then pm me. You have about 22 hours left to vote! Deadline is at 04:00 GMT (+00:00).
|
I have something to say about zezbet after he tells me when his case on me is coming however. He still hasn't voted for anyone. The fact he was so sure I was scum and didn't vote indicates he was waiting on a bandwagon. Also delaying my case like this means he is likely buying time to not say much.
|
My case on JacobStrangelove
It seems a lot of people can't get with a case unless it's phrased as a long megapost with lots of quotes.
POINT 1: THE LIE: Laguerta says he is not gonna "no lynch" vote but then ends up doing exactly that. People now make excuses for it saying it was just a troll.
What do we know? It was a smurf. Wether it was a good or bad player is unknown. We do know there weren't many posts by Laguerta, the quality sucked and it was not funny.
Would a troll play like this? If you made a smurf just for trolling wouldn't you actually want to troll? Instead of going out of your way to look suspicious and then get voted off day 1 (this almost happened). That seems to make no sense to me.
Was Laguerta simply a bad townie and forgot what he said? If you say something because you actually belief it you arent gonna forget it, because you'll automatically do it right.
I think the lie still stands as strong evidence
Point 2: Mocsta's vote switch
I have explained before why Mocsta making a switch from Laguerta to Mand was only logical if Laguerta is scum.
The alternative is some unlikely ploy to make himself look less suspicious. Which does not match with point 3.
Point 3: Mocsta says JacobStrangelove is 100% scum, but he doesn't vote for him. Instead twice voting on somebody else. Of course this makes Mocsta look super scummy. Why not vote on your sure read, but vote on someone else? Because JacobStrangelove is scum ofcourse. Giving Mocsta the chance to switch to him later on if JSL's lynch seems inevitable.
Point 4: JSL votes no lynch
Gives the excuse that he doesn't wanna vote with scum. Does he not have critical thinking of his own to determine guilt?
If you don't vote you effectively give scum more power if you are a townie. If you are scum and scum is not on the line, no voting makes sense so might not be implicated in a mislynch.
It seemed his voice was not necessary to lynch Trotske, so there was no reason to vote.
Point 5: JSL does not contribute
This is subjective, but I think most will agree
##Vote: JacobStrangelove
|
On January 19 2013 16:34 zebezt wrote:
My case on JacobStrangelove
It seems a lot of people can't get with a case unless it's phrased as a long megapost with lots of quotes.
POINT 1: THE LIE: Laguerta says he is not gonna "no lynch" vote but then ends up doing exactly that. People now make excuses for it saying it was just a troll.
What do we know? It was a smurf. Wether it was a good or bad player is unknown. We do know there weren't many posts by Laguerta, the quality sucked and it was not funny.
Would a troll play like this? If you made a smurf just for trolling wouldn't you actually want to troll? Instead of going out of your way to look suspicious and then get voted off day 1 (this almost happened). That seems to make no sense to me.
Was Laguerta simply a bad townie and forgot what he said? If you say something because you actually belief it you arent gonna forget it, because you'll automatically do it right.
I think the lie still stands as strong evidence
Ok first off I already went over this.
On January 17 2013 21:31 JacobStrangelove wrote:Hold up something I just realised. La de da (I refuse to learn his name) wasn’t a bad player. Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 00:44 Stutters695 wrote:
Laguerta was another smurf. Same rules for voting apply that did to bring/kush. Let's leave it at that until after the game So he was actually a veteran, now why would a veteran play like this, the obvious first thought is to troll but he hardly did. Why bother signing up and joining a game to hardly troll and do nothing? Kush(the other smurf) on the other hand was a troll, his playstyle was completely designed around trolling. Something that is in a lot of newbie games is you run into too scummy to be scum people, they are sometimes bad town sometimes scum. I think he may have been a player who wanted to try out a too scummy to be scum play style. But couldn’t do it on his main account due to being instantly lynched. Now the thing is he would do this as scum or town no matter what role he got but at least that means his actions were completely contrived possibly lied directly and thus Null so to speak. The reason I think this is he has obviously played and would know that lying would get him into trouble. This would make all his actions Null, which is why I would like you to give me the chance to prove I am town without harkening back to his actions.
As a recap your case on me with strong evidence is on someone who was most likely not trolling (as you pointed out not funny) But who I pointed out was likely trying a too scummy to be scum playstyle. This would make him try to be scummy as town or mafia.
Point two.
I already went over that I have seen this happen before, assuming he survived it would have given him town cred when I flipped green because why would mafia vote switch like that. It was praised as one of the greatest moves there was so why not try it? If it worked he would have been set up for the whole game.
Point three
Mocca was acting super weird. His whole freakout into victimization and stuff along with making a case on a "solid" town doesn't make much sense. By saying I am 100% scum he could have noticed that town wasn't completely on board he could have been trying to get another lynch going (that would have been harder to get late game) (troske/omni) thus lynching me day three because it was easy. This however ended up revealing him as scum. (Also at this point it was possible lagu was getting mod killed, maybe he realised this and wanted to lynch someone else?)
I am not entirely sure.
Point four.
Ok so I vote no lynch. How is this scummy as scum I could do one of two things. I could bus Mocca and gain town cred. Or I could vote Trotske and save mocca. Now you say it wasn't needed but while watching lynch proceedings it was pretty obvious Shz was going to vote switch. For reference.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2013 08:52 shz wrote:
@all:
Did your opinions about Jacob change? Do you think he is worth keeping around for a while?
I kinda feel that he at least contributed somewhat, though the surprise that the lynch deadline is so soon is a bit strange, it is posted with every votecount, and they were already a few of them before he started. On January 17 2013 08:58 shz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 08:57 Mocsta wrote:On January 17 2013 08:50 Mocsta wrote:
Snoan just.remeber what i said. If its me
ur playing a fine town game post night1 keep it up.
I hope u are.the ones that leads thenpressure on la guerta i think ur opinion isnthe least.biased.
Town needs i EBWOP Sn0_Man. Your doing great.. Trust in yourself.. You can make the right decisions. What are you doing? How victimized can someone post.
So if I was mafia (yeah I hate using these arguments but it works in reply) voting would give me the advantage both ways. And before in my initial post I said I thought the trotske case was well layed out. I could have voted for him no problems.
Point five.
Well this is subjective... like you said It seems a lot of people can't get with a case unless it's phrased as a long megapost with lots of quotes. I made a case on the person I think is most likely mafia and I am prodding the other two people I think are most likely mafia (you and Zara)
The thing I don't get is you brought up several points I answered before. Did you even read my response? In the first point you still think lagu was a troll when I already mentioned that is a lot of work to not troll for.
|
Also what of the spag case? This is literally all you say?
On January 19 2013 07:18 zebezt wrote:
Lol.. I almost miss Mocsta. It's kinda dead in here. Partly my own fault. Too damn busy.
Been reading spag's filter.
He doesnt say much useful stuff. He did encourage people to look into a case on Mocsta though. Slightly positive.
On the whole he feels scummy to me though. For someone that said he was gonna contribute a lot, he hasn't really made that happen yet.
Tomorrow i'll probably write an overview of my case against Jacob.
On a side note he hasn't been in the thread for at least 24 hours?
|
You answered most of it before, but they were crappy answers.
A too scummy to be scum playstyle. Really?? As town? This makes no sense.
I'll comment on the rest later
|
On January 19 2013 18:07 zebezt wrote:
You answered most of it before, but they were crappy answers.
A too scummy to be scum playstyle. Really?? As town? This makes no sense.
I'll comment on the rest later
It. makes. sense. because. he. was. a. smurf. You still haven't read my post so of course my answers are "bad" Think of why a vet would make a smurf. To troll or try something out. If you are coming into a game to try something out it doesn't matter what role you get. He might have wanted to just survive as town because he was "too scummy to be scum".
|
The whole concept of too scummy to be scum makes no sense. Even if you don't get voted out immediately, you will eventually.
Your point 3 defense is basically that you don't know. How is that a defense?
Your point 4 defense was that it was clear shz was going to switch because of some comments he made. That's hardly a guarantee. Many people say accusing things about others, but these don't mean they will switch.
Town should vote. You sound like you are very experienced. You should be able to read the cases and decide wether or not they should be good. Refusing to vote = scummy
|
Okay guys this isn’t acceptable. I was tied down with family things, and while that is regrettable, it was also unavoidable and unforeseeable. What have you done since I left? Agreed that I haven’t done enough and shamelessly bandwagoned me one after another.
I am absolutely fireoutmyfuckingfingers FURIOUS at the family drama and little brats squealing to One Direction I’ve been dealing with for the last 24 hours, so I apologise in advance for any hurt feelings.
I’m going to try and keep it reasonable, I really just want to go to bed but don’t want to hand this game away. I’ll now go through the somewhat dull two pages of filter that I missed out on.
|
@ Zebezt
"Too scummy to be scum" play happens all the time, and if they are not LALed they generally persist until the endgame. Nobody wants to waste a vote on someone that is THAT stupid.
|
Zarepath
I like lists, I’m glad to see a fellow enthusiast. But should we let our hobbies get in the way of being the extraordinary citizens we aspire to? NO. Your contributions since the lynch have been posting lists, riding my wagon and posting half-hearted reads.
+ Show Spoiler +
Spag
Before Spag, in the beginning, there was Bringaniga, one of the few people that Mocsta was relatively silent on. If I recall correctly, Mocsta even soft-defended Bringaniga, telling people to lay off until we saw what he produced.
Upon Spag's entrance, not much interaction except for Mocsta's enormous "FU" (twice) to him, to which Spag responded fairly meekly. So while Spag was critical of Mocsta, it almost seemed a token resistance, while Mocsta's response was very dramatic but didn't draw an equal response from Spag. If you compound that with Spag's vague criticism of Mocsta's case (after it was clear nobody liked it), and then Spag's voting behavior D2, I can see a Spag scum.
Your ‘deep’ analysis into the interaction between myself and Mocsta is wind. Me and Mocsta were playing our third game in a row, the previous two of which we had both rolled town and Mocsta got my arse mislynched both games. Last game he was absolutely fucking brutal in his smear campaign, and this game it looked like he was going to let me get to day three without calling the lynch squad on me. I was confident that Mocsta would be caught if he was scum, as his play is transparent due to his posting style. There was no need for me to gun him except when he fucked up.
Why would Mocsta not come at me?
Maybe because he knows that drawing the attention of someone who had played two games with him previously would get him spotted?
Maybe he knows that when he comes at me, he knows that he comes off worse due to his arguments being smears, and mine being based on formal logic?
Maybe he was planning on having me killed soon and didn’t want to encourage me to speak up on him?
Maybe he wanted me to look bad by deliberately scumming our interactions?
I don’t know precisely what goes through Mocsta’s head, but I think he knew there was no way he would stay alive come late game if I was in the game. I’ve been watching his style, and he mine. While the kill on Mocsta was massive, it was a day or two earlier than it would have been (at most), and he’s managed to throw town into disarray regardless of the timing. Can you not see why I wanted him around longer? Without me and Mocsta pushing, this thread has died and town has stagnated.
That you implicated Shz here:
+ Show Spoiler +
Shz
The only times Shz and Mocsta really interact with each other is during N1 directly after Mocsta's hammer on Mandalor. Shz eventually calls it off by saying "whatever," and his questioning wasn't incredibly insightful. I can see a Mafia QT realizing that Mocsta would be the final vote on Mandalor and say, "One of us should be the first to call Mocsta out on it." This, of course, is hypothetical. But note Mocsta later calling Shz his "prime interrogator" a day later, when Shz hasn't interrogated him on anything since. Why is Shz his prime interrogator when others are pressuring Mocsta much more? My thought is perhaps that was a staged interaction that Mocsta is relying on to break associations.
The main problem with this FoS is the fact that Shz was the final vote that brought Mocsta down. Even if this were a choice between two fellow mafia (Mocsta and Trotske, hypothetically), I don't understand why mafia would rather lynch their godfather than a non-godfather (unless it is a RBer and they consider that more useful; although nobody claimed RB N1 but Mocsta, so the likelihood of this goes down).
So his vote certainly makes this a weaker FoS, but he is one of the few people that Mocsta let get away free for much of the game.
Is… ridiculous. Shz is town, why would he be in your top-reads? Do you read anyone, ANYONE, as more town than Shz? If not, why would you mention Shz? If so, who and why?
Next: JSL
+ Show Spoiler +
Mocsta was after Mandalor for much of Day 1, and voted for Mandalor before he voted for Laguerta before switching back to Mandalor. Is it conceivable that Mocsta was bandwagon bussing Laguerta, seeing as how poorly he was performing, and then switched back to Mandalor when the opportunity was there?
Compounding this are Mocsta's reads that he's 100% sure that Laguerta was mafia, but that we shouldn't vote for him; we should vote for Trotske, who was defending Laguerta. (When Trotske flips town, perhaps that will then clear Laguerta?) Others have mentioned this, but only scum know 100% that another scum is scum. He has also called Laguerta a bad townie, showing his stance on him isn't exactly constant. (Which could be true of mafia's stance on any townie, however.)
Compounding this is Laguerta/Jacob's vote for NO ONE Day 2, which makes sense in the circumstances, but also allows him some convenient escape from having to answer for his vote while also not voting for Mocsta.
What are you even saying because I’m not even sure I understand you anymore? Why would you think that Mocsta (a 100% Mafia) would give a 100% read on someone truthfully? Is that what you are saying? How is it not what you are saying? Why thefuckonearth would Mocsta mention another scum in such a way as to draw any attention to them whatsoever?
+ Show Spoiler +Mocsta's first mention of Spag -- defending his list post from Trotske: ________________________________________ 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#580to 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":
I did have original thought. Part of having original thoughts is looking for them in places others have not drained dry.
+ Show Spoiler +
@OmniEulogy and to a lesser extent Zarepath
Omni you seem to have taken something on board from my defense of Corazon in XXXIII, and Zare you seem to be sheeping the sentiment.
(1) - On day one there was no resistance to a lynch on Laguerta.
(2) - If Laguerta were scum, his scum buddies would be worried and try and make another bandwagon
(C) - Laguerta is not scum.
This mirrors my argument in defense of Corazon precisely, though this may not have been causal. I was wrong in making that argument because Corazon was scum and he was being bussed day one. I wasn't incorrect in thinking that at this skill level people are too thick to bus day one, but I did make a massive error which my good friend DP (he is actually my friend in RL and the reason I started play mafia, he is not my good friend because he coaches scum) was so nice as to point out. DP told me:
"I was coaching scum and told them to bus Corazon"
You see how my theorycrafting failed to take into account that there was a certain level of organisation created by a scum coach being an active participant in both the scum QT, and exerting control via personal messages? If a scum is being bandwagoned hardcore day one, the coach will tell the other scum to let natural selection take its course. I am not going to make a case or vote yet, as I have only read up to [22], but I don't want you thinking for a second that just because Laguerta had seven votes that he is not scum.
+ Show Spoiler +
(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.
+ Show Spoiler +
@Mocsta.
I am certain that Oats killed Glurio. He asked several probing question to town about whether they were suspicious of Glurio. It looks to me as if he wanted to hit the lurker that was garnering the lest attention, and I think he was right in doing so.
These are all things I say first. I fucking changed your mind on Laguerta being confirmed town. How do I do that by repeating posts?
On top of this shit you post you go on to talk about reaction scales between myself and the MocFather. This is garbage based on the super-scientific art of Tunneling like a wombat. There is nothing wrong with applying pressure, but this is wasting time. I’ll take this back if a single person comes forward and agrees that your step by heart-throbbing step analysis to our interaction is useful in confirming their opinion of me.
+ Show Spoiler +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#570You 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. ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Now, the next time he interacts with Spag (directly or indirectly), it's quite different: ________________________________________ On January 15 2013 13:30 Mocsta wrote: ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ [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 + [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 ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ elicit a response like ________________________________________ Show nested quote + ________________________________________ 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.
The thing about Mocsta that you seem to forget is that while he self-destructed this game, he is not and idiot, and he WAS SCUM when all of these interactions occurred. I pulled Mocsta up when I thought he was wrong. Every read you have on me from interactions with him is based on post-hoc reasoning that for some reason assumes his intention was innocent when HE WAS THE MOTHERFUCKING GODFATHER.
+ Show Spoiler +
Contradictions in Spag's defense and case of Trotske
________________________________________
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 +
[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?
What the shit are you speaking? How is my description not apt? If you think Mocsta was in any way antagonising me you are dead fucking wrong. When Mocsta comes at me he comes at me with Ad Hom in the left hand and an aids corrupted needle in the other. He was posturing to defend himself without starting war.
As for the reads on Omni and Sn0, this was no big claim. Omni WAS on my town list and I came under fire for saying so. Sn0 was very obviously town once he came out of lurker phase, and of you read any different then you are desperately bad at mafia. Shz is confirmed town based on his actions pertaining to Mocsta’s death. These were all knowns to me. Wouldn’t a mafia try and throw their town read out before the guys dies, then reap the benefits? Why would I CHOOSE as a mafia to let someone die, and then call them a strong town read, when I would have the power to do better? This was a small explanatory claim for me, the state of the game was changing faster than my understanding of it, making it difficult to make strong reads of quality.
You keep saying this word: disproportionate responses. It appears to me that every time I want to DO something it is a disproportionate response, and every time I don’t I am lurking and breaking promises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
