|
I'm sorry I haven't been posting more. I've been really busy the last few days and, sadly, it doesn't look like that's going to change in the next two days. I realize how that makes my play seem odd - esp since I advocated, and still do, LAL in case we don't have a really good scumread on sb.
That being said, I took a look at Sylencia.
On February 11 2013 18:41 Sylencia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:01 warbaby wrote:On February 11 2013 13:58 cDgCorazon wrote:
@WB: Do you mean VT or some other blue role? If it makes you feel better, you have a 100% telling-the-truth rate when it comes to claiming roles. I won't claim my actual role right now (just that my alignment is not mafia rofl), but if we get to a point later (d2+) where others are considering claiming, I will not hesitate this time. I got up to here on the bus, and spent a bit of time working out the reasoning behind this blue claim so early on: If he's scum, a way to extend his life through the chance he is telling the truth. Problem is the plan is spoiled when he doesn't die on night 1 - since he would be a prime candidate for a kill. If he's actually blue, dumb move unless he plans to Vig shot someone on night 1 and hoping for a 1:1 trade? Alternatively if he's a vet aiming to prolong the life of the town - but even then that's a questionable move. Being the SK with bulletproof wouldn't help too much since he will still end up suffering the same fate as the Vig of being shot over 2 nights. Helps town more than scum. VT taking a bullet for the team is also a possibility here, but I don't understand why such a seed needs to be planted to early on. Basically, I'm leaning towards either scum or vig on warbaby.
All warbaby did in terms of claiming a role was saying that he's town (unless I missed something). I have absolutely no idea how Sylencia came to the conclusion that he is either scum or vig. At least I don't see any reference to that in the post he quoted.
And more importantly: Why would he think about that? And even more mindboggling: Why would he post that?
To me this looks like scum trying to figure out the blues. Then again, would Sylencia really be that stupid? idk
If he is right, he did a hell of a good job for mafia in case warbaby is not scum.
|
I agree with Mandalor that people are making too big a deal of warbaby's roleclaim, which imo wasn't a roleclaim at all. I find it highly unlikely that warbaby would soft blue claim two games in a row, especially when the feedback from the last game was overwhelmingly "DON'T SOFT CLAIM, WARBABY!" It is all hypothetical when he says it, and wouldn't read much into it.
But there's plenty of other stuff in his filter to look at, imo.
|
Mandie.
I disagree and have already commented about this sylencia post to geript last page...
Even before your post. Sylencia made an addendum detailing again the reasoning for why it is a soft blue claim.
Frankly your post reads to me as if you didn't bother to read the thread.
I know u say busy IRL., but we all have lives outside forum Mafia. That argument doesn't allow someone to lurk. Full stop
So yes, if LAL is enforced I think u just became my recommendation.
|
I read Syl's post and I just don't see the connection between "I won't claim my actual role right now" and vig/scum.
In fact, warbaby only said that sentence after he was kinda asked for a specific role by Corazon. There's nothing else to say to that other than "I won't claim my actual role right now" if you don't want to.
It's not Syl's suspicion of warbaby that feels weird to me, but his thorough analysis of warbaby's actual role that doesn't feel right. There's absolutely zero contribution in that post for town, only for scum.
|
On February 12 2013 22:42 zarepath wrote:
I agree with Mandalor that people are making too big a deal of warbaby's roleclaim, which imo wasn't a roleclaim at all. I find it highly unlikely that warbaby would soft blue claim two games in a row, especially when the feedback from the last game was overwhelmingly "DON'T SOFT CLAIM, WARBABY!" It is all hypothetical when he says it, and wouldn't read much into it.
But there's plenty of other stuff in his filter to look at, imo.
Zarepath
Let's pretend we are in the OBS talking about the claim
Why is it so unlikely someone claims two games in a row?
Maybe you wouldn't do this. But why are heuristics that you apply to yourself now valid for others?
Its like when people say scum team has to have a lurker. Simply not true. Its an educated guess, but not a guarantee by any means.
My point is
I'm not fussed if u don't want to interpret war baby post as soft blue claim. That's a personal decision.
What I am fussed about is if your idea rejection is based on the heuristic he wouldn't do it two games in a row. That is illogical reasoning and is actually an educated guess on your behalf. Unless u r in a scum team with war baby I don't see how u would be privy to that information to be so certain.
(I am not accusing u of being scum BTW)
|
On February 12 2013 23:07 Mandalor wrote:
I read Syl's post and I just don't see the connection between "I won't claim my actual role right now" and vig/scum.
In fact, warbaby only said that sentence after he was kinda asked for a specific role by Corazon. There's nothing else to say to that other than "I won't claim my actual role right now" if you don't want to.
It's not Syl's suspicion of warbaby that feels weird to me, but his thorough analysis of warbaby's actual role that doesn't feel right. There's absolutely zero contribution in that post for town, only for scum.
K now i understand the concern
Its process of elimination
I would rather detail this post game, because blue talk is just not a good thing to be focusing on day1. Need to scum hunt.
All I will say is, some blue roles are worth claiming, and others perhaps not so . The vig falls into the claimable category. Let's move on pls
Since u r here @mandalor.
Zarepath did an interesting experiment. Perhaps u could provide some analysis of any notable reactions.
|
On February 12 2013 22:05 Mandalor wrote:
And more importantly: Why would he think about that? And even more mindboggling: Why would he post that?
To me this looks like scum trying to figure out the blues. Then again, would Sylencia really be that stupid? idk.
I posted it when I did because of the conclusion I came up with. I said I was leaning towards scum/vig read - if I was leaning towards blue role of course that would be the most idiotic thing to post up the analysis.
|
Canada31494 Posts
God damn it zarepath I knew that case was too easy.
Regarding your points about geript and WB; I came to similar conclusions earlier on in the day.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 12:51 WaveofShadow wrote:Warbaby you still haven't addressed my concerns from last page.I'm pretty sure that this would come a long way in changing Mocsta's opinion of you, but the longer you go without addressing this, the harder it is for me to deny that maybe Mocsta is right. On other news, geript's last post was a thorough defense of himself from Mocsta's assault, yet he has said nothing more regarding his vote on me. The last things he pointed out regarding me were weak affirmations of everything zarepath already pointed out, and his only original point was Show nested quote + His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow I've already made my choice to put pressure on the no-post lurker I have chosen. Would you rather I flip-flop voting in the span of an hour like you just because someone brought up a superior case and you can hide behind it? I have done plenty of analysis since then + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 08:58 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:46 glurio wrote:Let's take a look at sn0, shall we? He has a total of 26 posts since the game started. I'll now spoiler all posts with actual content that isn't discussing the english language or talking about lurkers. (Why i don't count these i'll explain later). + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:19 Sn0_Man wrote:
Warbaby looks scummy, but I don't see how you lynch somebody this active day 1. FWIW he looked something like this last game (although he was doing a lot more "scumhunting" and a lot less "plz don't lynch me I townie for sure")
For what it's worth mocsta I think that you too are looking kinda similar to the last game I played with you (minus a key difference in a post a while back about lynching lurkers and scum vs bad town). And we know what that entails.
What I really want are introductory posts from our remaining players 9-bit, severyn and macheji. Well, that and for warbaby to lose his victim card somewhere so that he stops playing it. On February 12 2013 01:55 Sn0_Man wrote:
Personally, I think geript is getting a bit of a free ride with a bunch of low-content posts designed to look "active" without really helping town or pushing much of an agenda. Long post to follow once I finish it (be warned). On February 12 2013 02:21 Sn0_Man wrote:My review of geript: At the start of the game (utterly disregarding pre-game), geript leads with some lighthearted banter-style posts, pretty much continuing the pre-game: + Show Spoiler [Fluff Posts] +On February 11 2013 09:38 geript wrote:
/confirm
/this time for realz
Both geript and warbaby are self admitted to be terrible. In the interest in addition through subtraction, I suggest people make an argument as to which is better to keep.
##vote warbaby On February 11 2013 09:47 geript wrote:
@Warbaby, did Mr. Bimble tell you to post that? That out of the way, geript proceeds with some "content" posts. These are short posts that seem primarily aimed at, well, establishing a non-fluff presence in town. They seem pretty null to me. + Show Spoiler [warning: this one is decently large] +On February 11 2013 09:51 geript wrote:
Mocsta: four people one way or another have responded in the negatory to RNG vote. That in the least is enough to negate the usefulness of RNG vote. Please cease your discussion of RNG as it is more likely to be a waste of time (both posting and rereading) at this point. On February 11 2013 09:58 geript wrote:
@Cora can we please keep the tone constructive. Turning people directly towards an emotional response is worthless right now.
@Mcosta please reread my post. I did not say it was a majority at all, just that it was enough to negate any perceived value of RNG. On February 11 2013 10:29 geript wrote:
My point was thus: should everyone else adhere to RNG, 4 votes represents a voting majority in most cases. This it is better to ignore RNG as the benefits it has/may have (dependent on viewpoint) are negated by an outside majority. /done with talking about RNG. On February 11 2013 12:00 geript wrote:
@Sn0_man. If the English discussion/correction was irrelevant, why post it? On February 11 2013 12:30 geript wrote:
I find it to be a rhetorical question in that things irrelevant to the game aren't worth discussing.
My WB vote is just an opening I wanted to try out that got outpaced by RNG. I for one am fine with addition by subtraction as a policy as I feel it is the basis for both the Lynch All Lurkers policy--in that lurkers add little to nothing-- and is the basis of scum hunting--in that they tend to actively try to detract from discussion through inaction, burying and misdirection. On February 11 2013 12:46 geript wrote:
I mean that the general concept of it: make the town better by removing the person(s) with the least qualitative additions. We are either removing detractors (thus net gain) or removing scum (actual gain).
## change vote unvote On February 11 2013 13:22 geript wrote:
I would argue that removing room to hide is important as it forces scum to constantly be better than the guy in last place. If scum can in fact beat the curve so to speak, then it's the bottom end's fault for not making their role/side clear. I wouldn't blame to top end for voting out scummiest/least town-like in that case. I would argue least qualitative = least town-like; note that's qualitative not quantitative. Bare minimum does not automatically equal least qualitative. Having established his interest in "Addition by Subtraction" (a legitimate idea, though poorly explained), he moves on to his one big post (also his first post today). + Show Spoiler [Geript's big post] +On February 12 2013 01:11 geript wrote:I do think warbaby is town. On points 1 and 2: While this is a newbie game, I don't think that taking his townie claim or referencing 36 as anything other than a null read. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the point you're making in 4 either. As I read: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 13:54 warbaby wrote:
Since we've both posted plenty, how about we not post for a while? more as trying to get the town as a whole involved rather than have Mcosta posting incessantly as he has been. While I agree on point 3, that warbaby hasn't really partaken in scum hunting, I don't think that this is a good measure of town v scum 6 hours into D1. To be honest, your case feels more like a gag. My concern would moreso be Mocsta. 1. He seems unconcerned as to who to throw towards the vote While some may read it as him aggressively trying to test the town, I read his posts and various switches and tests as just trying to see where he can gain traction. As well, he jumps on the first person having any real traction. 2. He doesn't even read his own posts First, he calls Warbaby's generic opening scummy when it's null at best. Next he tacks on his own important notes, and finally he calls Warbaby's initial post null. 3. He has diarrhea of the keyboard Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:55 Mocsta wrote:
Post consolidation definitely important. No need to hear every thought. But this is no excuse for lurking either. Additionally, he brings ups the post consolidation point which he actively avoids. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:52 Mocsta wrote:
Did not realise 4 people represented a majority in this game.
Why dont you give others a chance to post their own thoughts instead of trying to forcefully influence them before they have spoken.
Are you trying for a dictatorship here or something? Here he's accusing me, in effect, of running for mayor all while pushing his RNG agenda heavily. Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 14:15 Mocsta wrote:\
I thought you said you were going to take a break from posting anyways.... Blames warbaby for coming back to post 2 times after 'taking a break' when Mocsta has posted 8. At best, all this comes off as unintentional bad play. At worst it's an overexcited scum player. I find the latter more believable and either way I feel better about lynching him currently than lynching a lurker. A few things to highlight in the post above: 1) A town read on warbaby. While he gives OK reasons for a null read, I didn't really see any justification for "I do think warbaby is town". 2) A target that is distinctly not "addition by subtraction" based. Mocsta isn't a low-content poster. Sure most of his posts are bleh but at least he is making them. 3) Most of geript's points are based on ad-hominem attacks on mocsta and his style rather than on his play and contributions. I mean, I don't like Mocsta or his style either, but I think this game he has begun making real contributions to town. Rather than outline stuff that is scummy, geript is focusing on more peripheral stuff. Basically, I thought that yesterday, geript said a bunch of nothing while trying to look active, then today he made a big bullshit case trying to look like he was contributing. Not really clear scum, but not enough good things to deserve the easy ride he has had. I'm not voting him because I don't see the value in voting 30+ hours pre-deadline, and I thing "FoS"s are retarded, but I will say that geript has my attention. PS: geript's entire filter is in there minus his most recent fluff post. just btw. On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. Thats a total of 5 out of 26 If you include the one liner #2. Now let's look at some of his posts. Heres one quoted for your convenience. + Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 05:12 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 04:57 geript wrote:
@sn0_man
What do you think are Mocsta's town contributions? What are the 'scummy things' Mocsta has done that you think I'm avoiding? Thats a long-ass filter you just asked me to read. The short version: He made a post a while back about the difference between lynching bad town and scum, which was spot on and actually was quite opposite of what scum would be telling noobs. Plus I think that he could easily have gotten away with a much more deceptive, scum motivated theory that I don't think town would have properly analysed. Plus he has avoided making super-ultra-ridiculously BS cases (something he did a lot of last time I played with him). It isn't that I have a strong town read, but I'm definitely leaning town here. Plus I still want to lynch a lurker today and slim this down to a game where everybody is contributing. BTW Glurio is squarely on my list of lurkers right now at 2 posts (no better than the 0-posters). I bolded the odd part. Why wouldn't scum tell the town what exactly they should be looking for and just avoid exactly these things? Since Sn0 spotted the seemingly non-scum-motivated theory how come he thinks he wouldn't have spotted the much more deceptive scum-motivated theory? On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
@Warbaby care to clarify what part of Glurio's post is particularly townie compared to last game? I fully expect that, were he to roll scum again, he would up his game at least a bit with respect to looking more townie as scum. So one kinda OK post isn't gonna clear his name. So I would up my game if i roll scum again, but i'm not so i'm a scummy lurker? What? That doesn't even make sense. If I up my game now am i scum? If i won't i'm a scummy lurker? WIFOM Now let's get to all the lurker posts, i won't quote them all, just read the filter it's most of his posts. It's the easiest thing in the world to point to lurker. Be it the no-post lurker or the few-post lurker which, according to sn0, are actually worse then the no-post lurker. Everyone can do it. I can just look into the thread every hour, post something about the guy with the lowest post count, tell everyone he only has X posts. After that i start pointing out the other lurkers, because hey don't forget about them. And then theres always the thing about recent games where at some point of the game one of the scum players lurked. If you really want me to do that, it wouldn't be a problem, but i try to actually contribute something with my posts. Not bury my filter in useless posts about lurkers. Honestly glurio, I don't think your case really holds water, I appreciate the analysis though. You talk about how it's the easiest think in the world to point to a low or no-post lurker but you make a case about how only 5 of Sn0's posts are useful? Wouldn't that make him an active lurker? Then you accuse him of WIFOM, and frankly I'm ready to just ignore all WIFOM cases brought up because it really gets us nowhere. More likely in this case to be a factor of bad town than scum (see my case as example). It looks as though his WIFOM was on accident and was really just looking for a way to paint you as scummy. This is null. As for his lurker posts, maybe I'm biased because I agree with him somewhat, but I don't see how bringing up points about low post count lurkers is not contributing. If anything massive wall-of-text posts drawing attention away from important targets and baseless accusations are more likely to be distractions since they are more difficult to follow and require much more analysis. In short, I don't see anything overly scummy about Sn0's play so far, though I appreciate the effort. As this to me seems like a pretty weak case (didn't detect TOO much OMGUS but I guess it's a possibility?) I expect more from you, and preferably something a little more valuable. With your claims that posting about lurkers are useless, will you be lynching an active poster today? On February 12 2013 11:18 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:05 warbaby wrote:
Reasons I think sylencia is "scummy": his posts are minimal and blendy. But he has more than zero posts, so it could be possible to say we're lynching him as a lurker. There is still 50% of D1 left, so I want to see what more he posts. Sevryn and (less so) Mandalor are in the same category right now, IMO.
All these accusations of active players being scum around aren't completely bad, but none of them are really making sense to me right now in D1. Problem with this is, warbaby, is you're really just echoing exactly what I and other members have been saying for hours already. You have contributed nothing new to the thread and upon viewing your filter, you jump on whatever bandwagon seems best to you at the time. Zarepath makes a case on me? FoS. (Then you go on to talk about 'false dichotomies' and I don't even know what you were talking about. You either think I'm suspicious or you don't.) LA comes up? Vote 9-bit. Except of course you contradict yourself right after: Show nested quote +You're right, we shouldn't consolidate LAL votes until much closer to the deadline. But what is even the point of putting 1 vote on each lurker? It's not going to make them feel much pressure if there's (at that time) no chance of them actually being lynched.
Anyway, you are right that we shouldn't consolidate now. I didn't think of that -- I'm trying to get work done today and I'm not paying 100% attention to the game right now (I work Mon-Fri 9-5 EST). I want to see a case from you; at the very least something more concrete then following everything everyone else has already laid the groundwork for. Be your own man! Note that I'm pressuring you because I want to see something positive come out of you; I'm inclined to agree with Mocsta's analysis of bad town. Stop focusing on defending yourself because you only make yourself look worse. so I'm interested to see if you still find me inherently scummy and why.
WB sort of addressed my issues, but geript has not, instead resorting to threatening to be replaced and growing weary under Mocsta's attacks of him and claiming he doesn't want to defend himself anymore. He mentioned he was going to re-read into it but never did, and now that you've changed your vote I'm wondering if he thinks it's too late to change for fear of it looking scummy or....?
Also I don't even know what to say about glurio anymore. So unbelievably scummy.
I think Mocsta had it earlier when he mentioned this:
So yes, if LAL is enforced I think u just became my recommendation.
I think in a few hours the issues are going to come down to which townies want to vote lurker and which townies want to vote active? Not trying to sound mayor-y here (WE WOULDN'T WANT THAT NOW WOULD WE) but I feel like as a town we should be organized and come to a consensus on this, because there are plenty of lynch choices from either camp imo to gain D1 info.
|
Reactions to my Fake WoS Case
in order of appearance
+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:45 warbaby wrote:
FoS WaveofShadow
I'm not voting until we've had more time for the remaining lurkers to report in, and Shadow can respond to zarepath.
I agree with zarepath that the people actually voting me aren't looking that scummy; compared to those just trawling for a convenient bandwagon. On February 12 2013 00:46 cDgCorazon wrote:
Thank you Zare. I liked the points in your analysis for the 3rd and 4th posts. While it's not enough to make me vote for him (and I'd like to see his defense), a lot of the same things could be said about many players (especially with the non scum-hunting).
The point that town never uses WIFOM made me laugh (you know why). Maybe you should rethink using WIFOM as a 100% scum tell (yeah it's scummy but if town Zare (from last game) does it why can't other towns do it and not be scum?).
On February 12 2013 00:52 Mocsta wrote:
Guys im going to bed.
zarepath, I am not sure if the start of your post was addressed to me?
If so, I had mandalor as null read; he said a few things but until he follows through its all NON-alignment indicative.
btw, quite a few decent points in that case; I think some are educated assumptions, and others are really contradictory to ideal town play. Will wait and see what wave has to say for himself before proceeding further. On February 12 2013 01:06 Sevryn wrote:
@ zare Thats a very interesting case you made. I think you over looked the fourth post a little bit in that the way it was worded is basically setting up WoS to defend any lurker he doesn't want lynched and any lurker he does want lynched with a line of qualitative additions which could be interpreted any which way.
On February 12 2013 01:19 warbaby wrote:
EBWOP: Not to say that I won't vote for someone that makes an obvious scumslip D1, but nobody has done that so far (except maybe WoS). On February 12 2013 01:20 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:Sixth post, weird defensiveness against others addressing him: On February 11 2013 13:54 WaveofShadow wrote:I'm trying to say don't look too much into it. There are more important things to be done like scumhunt; determining as to my town alignment should become obvious by my future actions, not by my words. On February 11 2013 13:44 warbaby wrote:
WaveOfShadow, this is not your town. It's not my town, and it's not Mocsta's town.
It is the town, and it's members shall think for themselves and analyze the thread before doing stupid things. Please. Warbaby, this sure as hell is my town as I'm a part of it and I care about it. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm telling or leading people not to think for themselves or that I'm doing something stupid. "Don't look too much into it." "Don't worry, don't read what I say, you'll know that I'm town soon enough, don't even bother thinking about me as mafia." What kind of townie says "don't analyze me in any way, please!"? Also, kind of overemphatic about his town-alignment claim here. I feel like this is the most interesting part of the case. "Don't look much into it". What is that? Townies should be comfortable with others analysing them. In fact, the more townies do that, the less scum will be able to sway them. I don't like his overly town attitude ("my town" etc.) and the fact that (apart from a few weak attacks on Mocsta), he didn't analyse anybody yet. ##FoS: WaveOfShadow On February 12 2013 01:33 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regarding the WaveOfShadow case, I see some merit there but I'm still not here to lynch posting players unless more comes up. I agree with Mandalor about what part of the case is compelling. Unprompted soft AND hard town claims with some fairly stupid follow up excuses. On February 12 2013 01:40 geript wrote:
@zarepth On the first couple of reads I like the case. I'll come back with more after my test. Wish me luck! On February 12 2013 05:25 warbaby wrote:
FWIW,
Mocsta's play is a bit like his scum play in XXXV, but maybe it's also his idea of optimal town play (which is why he tried to do it as scum in 35 -- as a ruse). I don't see anything scummy in what Mocsta's done (other than some meta wifom crap based on his play in 35).
I'm not dismissing the scum Mocsta idea, but I think zarepath's case on WaveofShadow is much more concrete at this point. I'm waiting to hear more from WaveofShadow before I consider voting him.
I am also more interested in lynching lurkers (than Mocsta) if WoS makes a non-scummy defense. I do not really count glurio as a lurker -- his last post was very atypical of his scum play in 36 and counts as a real contribution in my book. I also expect he'll continue making decent contributions before D1 is over. On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
On February 12 2013 05:48 geript wrote:@zare Second post: + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored.
I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone.
Can the scumhunting begin now? I think you're reading too much into the second post. Even if it is posturing to put himself as pro-town, I don't take that as scum read because even town needs a platform from which to espouse their ideas. I also happen to agree that everything up that point should for the most part be ignored as useless. Your other points are valid in that none if his posts have been effective. In context, his third post seems worse to me than anything else as Mocsta asks him to "Lead the way" and he takes a reasonably impassioned LAL stance which is unlikely to draw any attention. You do miss a post re: filter burying of which the highlight is Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 11:35 WaveofShadow wrote:
(@Mocsta)You talk a lot, and it's not always useful. While he returns to lurking after that, it's a valid point that has been brought up a few times now but started, imo, with Sno's earlier post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 10:35 Sn0_Man wrote:
I have no interest in reading more from Mocsta tonight. I await contributions from the as-yet silent members of our game. His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote:WoS- Zare already made a good case against him. Reading through his defense, he says: Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
This was a post that I didn't immediately regret posting, and only now do I realize how scummy it looks. Basically if I avoided saying the whole 'shadows' thing it would have been fine.
My WIFOM post (which was the one I immediately regretted) was only to try and get people not to focus on me because IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I stand by absolutely everything I have said thus far, I figure I should have just phrased most of it better.
Note the bolded lines. He says that he regrets a few posts, but stands by them anyways. That appears a little bit contradictory to me. Why doesn't he just admit that he made a mistake and keep it at that? Why would he make a post full of WIFOM and only apologize for it when he gets called out on it? The next thing he does, once he's defended himself, is voted for a lurker. Now LAL isn't a bad policy, but it should not be used 30 hours before a lynch. That's just being lazy. It's giving up on all discussion for 30 hours (if one is going to stick with LAL), and it allows the scum to escape the radar D1 as long as they are slightly active (and it's not hard to make cases on people D1 as there are many players that can be targeted). Voting for Macheji this early is a scummy move to me and one that should be looked at further. I'm less suspicious on WoS than Geript, but I'm still curious. I'll keep my eye on him. On February 12 2013 07:07 warbaby wrote:
Also WoS's post is a start in the right direction. IMO none of the proposed cases have enough merit to be worth voting scum at this point. And I don't see why we'd want to lynch glurio right now, over someone with actually zero posts.
On February 12 2013 09:57 Mocsta wrote:- WaveofShadow effectively concedes
- Guy effectively says, great posts I am going to struggle to refute… Whats important to me, is that on Day1 (post 24hrs) there are two guys that majorly fucked up. (warbaby and WoS) The question comes down to: are they both bad townie; are they both bad scum; or is one bad townie, one bad scum. Look at the approach warbabyDoes not address case criteria Incites emotional arguments Continues to flame people, even when they agree to back off Just blindly follows others, once the heat is off. WaveofShadowAttempts to address case criteria Blindly follows others (voting lurkers) Puts some analysis into Glurio post The key differentiator is that WoS admits the situation outright, and has tried to still contribute (some parts blind following, other parts on his own accord). Im reading WoS as pretty genuine right now; and am willing to put him at this stage as “bad townie” Warbaby simply has done nothing to establish his innocence all game; My analysis and my gut is still telling me “first time scum”. On February 12 2013 10:28 warbaby wrote:
Me vs WaveofShadow is a false dichotomy, Mocsta. What about sylencia? He could easily be a scum trying to blend in.
I can't seriously vote WaveofShadow when there are other people who have made very small contributions. On February 12 2013 20:09 glurio wrote:
I'll make it easier for you mandalor.
What do you think about WoS right now?
Can you elaborate on the scumminess of mocsta?
A summary of the timeline:
1. warbaby absolutely hops onto it and FoSes without digging any deeper
2. Cora likes two specific points I made, but cautions that a lot of what I said could be said about others, and that my WIFOM point wasn't necessarily true in my own case last game
3. Mocsta generally likes it but thinks some tells are just educated assumptions on WoS's part and we have to wait to see what else he produces
4. Sevryn likes the case and adds some WIFOM to it
5. warbaby suggests that no one's made an obvious scum slip (except maybe WoS)
6. Mandalor emphasizes my point about WoS telling others to not analyze him, adds in the stuff about "my town"
7. Sn0 likes the case, but doesn't want to lynch an active player today
8. geript likes my case on first couples of reads, will post more later (has a test)
9. warbaby says my case is concrete but won't vote until he sees his defense
10. Sn0 really dislikes WoS's defense
11. geript analyzes my case, points out one of my points which wasn't really valid, but likes the others and votes for him
12. cora doesn't like WoS's defense, analyzes it a bit
13. warbaby says that WoS's posting is good enough for now to not vote for him
14. Mocsta analyzes WoS's defense and posting, reads him as genuine
15. warbaby emphasizes not having to vote for WoS
16. glurio wants Mandalor's read on the WoS case
Have to go to work now, but I think that looking at this, you can separate players into how seriously they took this case as opposed to just bandwagoning on it.
|
blue talk is just not a good thing to be focusing on day1
another reason why sylencia's behavior so far is weird, especially since I have him in mind as a competent player.
Since I'll be here for another 30 minutes I might as well do that analysis. Sadly, I fell for it as well.
Reaction to zarepath's experiment of a fake case on WoS in order of posts:
warbaby: FoS, no reasons given
cDgCorazon: Likes part of the case, but it's not enough for him to vote WoS. Also critisizes parts of zare's analysis.
Mocsta: Likes the case somewhat, wants to wait for WoS' defense
Sevryn: Likes the case, feels like zare missed something
warbaby: FoS, doesn't really comment on the case despite being asked about it and votes a lurker. Unvotes and FoSes (or sth) WoS
Mandalor: FoS, likes the analysis of WoS' 6th post. Well, dammit :D
Sn0_Man: Likes the case, but is not willing to vote an active player unless we get a really solid case. Really doesn't like WoS' defense.
WaveOfShadow: Likes the case (funny enough), votes Macheji
geript: Votes WoS (the only one to do so), feels WoS didn't contribute at all and his voting does not align with his reads
If anyone feels like I'm being unfair in the assessment, let me know. It's really just tl;dr versions of your posts as I read them.
|
|
|
Oh wow, I have warbaby twice and somehow missed glurio.
|
What I wonder is why warbaby backed off after WoS's defense, when everyone kinda agreed it wasn't the best defense.
|
I think it's funny how similar some of our TL;DRs are. "Really doesn't like WoS' defense."
|
Canada31494 Posts
Zare, let it be known that you provide really great conversation points it seems, but you also provide really great sheeping platforms. Can't say I'm necessarily a fan of your 'here's something to discuss, Zarepath out!' gameplay. Would be nice if you could contribute more today to actually foster this WB discussion that just has not died.
Who I am not voting for, btw.
|
Well to be fair with sn0.. the WoS defence was laugh out loud able... and I just couldn't see scum being that "honest" about themselves.
I'm going to bed.
Who said it before was right. Looks like we heading to a split between scummiest player or policy lurker.
Will be interesting which way town chooses.which ever way u decide just ensure the reasoning is given please.
My vote remains on geript. For all the same reasons as before. His post attempt coming back did little to sway me away as well.
|
On February 12 2013 23:28 zarepath wrote:Reactions to my Fake WoS Casein order of appearance+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:45 warbaby wrote:
FoS WaveofShadow
I'm not voting until we've had more time for the remaining lurkers to report in, and Shadow can respond to zarepath.
I agree with zarepath that the people actually voting me aren't looking that scummy; compared to those just trawling for a convenient bandwagon. On February 12 2013 00:46 cDgCorazon wrote:
Thank you Zare. I liked the points in your analysis for the 3rd and 4th posts. While it's not enough to make me vote for him (and I'd like to see his defense), a lot of the same things could be said about many players (especially with the non scum-hunting).
The point that town never uses WIFOM made me laugh (you know why). Maybe you should rethink using WIFOM as a 100% scum tell (yeah it's scummy but if town Zare (from last game) does it why can't other towns do it and not be scum?).
On February 12 2013 00:52 Mocsta wrote:
Guys im going to bed.
zarepath, I am not sure if the start of your post was addressed to me?
If so, I had mandalor as null read; he said a few things but until he follows through its all NON-alignment indicative.
btw, quite a few decent points in that case; I think some are educated assumptions, and others are really contradictory to ideal town play. Will wait and see what wave has to say for himself before proceeding further. On February 12 2013 01:06 Sevryn wrote:
@ zare Thats a very interesting case you made. I think you over looked the fourth post a little bit in that the way it was worded is basically setting up WoS to defend any lurker he doesn't want lynched and any lurker he does want lynched with a line of qualitative additions which could be interpreted any which way.
On February 12 2013 01:19 warbaby wrote:
EBWOP: Not to say that I won't vote for someone that makes an obvious scumslip D1, but nobody has done that so far (except maybe WoS). On February 12 2013 01:20 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:Sixth post, weird defensiveness against others addressing him: On February 11 2013 13:54 WaveofShadow wrote:I'm trying to say don't look too much into it. There are more important things to be done like scumhunt; determining as to my town alignment should become obvious by my future actions, not by my words. On February 11 2013 13:44 warbaby wrote:
WaveOfShadow, this is not your town. It's not my town, and it's not Mocsta's town.
It is the town, and it's members shall think for themselves and analyze the thread before doing stupid things. Please. Warbaby, this sure as hell is my town as I'm a part of it and I care about it. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm telling or leading people not to think for themselves or that I'm doing something stupid. "Don't look too much into it." "Don't worry, don't read what I say, you'll know that I'm town soon enough, don't even bother thinking about me as mafia." What kind of townie says "don't analyze me in any way, please!"? Also, kind of overemphatic about his town-alignment claim here. I feel like this is the most interesting part of the case. "Don't look much into it". What is that? Townies should be comfortable with others analysing them. In fact, the more townies do that, the less scum will be able to sway them. I don't like his overly town attitude ("my town" etc.) and the fact that (apart from a few weak attacks on Mocsta), he didn't analyse anybody yet. ##FoS: WaveOfShadow On February 12 2013 01:33 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regarding the WaveOfShadow case, I see some merit there but I'm still not here to lynch posting players unless more comes up. I agree with Mandalor about what part of the case is compelling. Unprompted soft AND hard town claims with some fairly stupid follow up excuses. On February 12 2013 01:40 geript wrote:
@zarepth On the first couple of reads I like the case. I'll come back with more after my test. Wish me luck! On February 12 2013 05:25 warbaby wrote:
FWIW,
Mocsta's play is a bit like his scum play in XXXV, but maybe it's also his idea of optimal town play (which is why he tried to do it as scum in 35 -- as a ruse). I don't see anything scummy in what Mocsta's done (other than some meta wifom crap based on his play in 35).
I'm not dismissing the scum Mocsta idea, but I think zarepath's case on WaveofShadow is much more concrete at this point. I'm waiting to hear more from WaveofShadow before I consider voting him.
I am also more interested in lynching lurkers (than Mocsta) if WoS makes a non-scummy defense. I do not really count glurio as a lurker -- his last post was very atypical of his scum play in 36 and counts as a real contribution in my book. I also expect he'll continue making decent contributions before D1 is over. On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
On February 12 2013 05:48 geript wrote:@zare Second post: + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored.
I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone.
Can the scumhunting begin now? I think you're reading too much into the second post. Even if it is posturing to put himself as pro-town, I don't take that as scum read because even town needs a platform from which to espouse their ideas. I also happen to agree that everything up that point should for the most part be ignored as useless. Your other points are valid in that none if his posts have been effective. In context, his third post seems worse to me than anything else as Mocsta asks him to "Lead the way" and he takes a reasonably impassioned LAL stance which is unlikely to draw any attention. You do miss a post re: filter burying of which the highlight is Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 11:35 WaveofShadow wrote:
(@Mocsta)You talk a lot, and it's not always useful. While he returns to lurking after that, it's a valid point that has been brought up a few times now but started, imo, with Sno's earlier post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 10:35 Sn0_Man wrote:
I have no interest in reading more from Mocsta tonight. I await contributions from the as-yet silent members of our game. His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote:WoS- Zare already made a good case against him. Reading through his defense, he says: Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
This was a post that I didn't immediately regret posting, and only now do I realize how scummy it looks. Basically if I avoided saying the whole 'shadows' thing it would have been fine.
My WIFOM post (which was the one I immediately regretted) was only to try and get people not to focus on me because IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I stand by absolutely everything I have said thus far, I figure I should have just phrased most of it better.
Note the bolded lines. He says that he regrets a few posts, but stands by them anyways. That appears a little bit contradictory to me. Why doesn't he just admit that he made a mistake and keep it at that? Why would he make a post full of WIFOM and only apologize for it when he gets called out on it? The next thing he does, once he's defended himself, is voted for a lurker. Now LAL isn't a bad policy, but it should not be used 30 hours before a lynch. That's just being lazy. It's giving up on all discussion for 30 hours (if one is going to stick with LAL), and it allows the scum to escape the radar D1 as long as they are slightly active (and it's not hard to make cases on people D1 as there are many players that can be targeted). Voting for Macheji this early is a scummy move to me and one that should be looked at further. I'm less suspicious on WoS than Geript, but I'm still curious. I'll keep my eye on him. On February 12 2013 07:07 warbaby wrote:
Also WoS's post is a start in the right direction. IMO none of the proposed cases have enough merit to be worth voting scum at this point. And I don't see why we'd want to lynch glurio right now, over someone with actually zero posts.
On February 12 2013 09:57 Mocsta wrote:- WaveofShadow effectively concedes
- Guy effectively says, great posts I am going to struggle to refute… Whats important to me, is that on Day1 (post 24hrs) there are two guys that majorly fucked up. (warbaby and WoS) The question comes down to: are they both bad townie; are they both bad scum; or is one bad townie, one bad scum. Look at the approach warbabyDoes not address case criteria Incites emotional arguments Continues to flame people, even when they agree to back off Just blindly follows others, once the heat is off. WaveofShadowAttempts to address case criteria Blindly follows others (voting lurkers) Puts some analysis into Glurio post The key differentiator is that WoS admits the situation outright, and has tried to still contribute (some parts blind following, other parts on his own accord). Im reading WoS as pretty genuine right now; and am willing to put him at this stage as “bad townie” Warbaby simply has done nothing to establish his innocence all game; My analysis and my gut is still telling me “first time scum”. On February 12 2013 10:28 warbaby wrote:
Me vs WaveofShadow is a false dichotomy, Mocsta. What about sylencia? He could easily be a scum trying to blend in.
I can't seriously vote WaveofShadow when there are other people who have made very small contributions. On February 12 2013 20:09 glurio wrote:
I'll make it easier for you mandalor.
What do you think about WoS right now?
Can you elaborate on the scumminess of mocsta?
A summary of the timeline: 1. warbaby absolutely hops onto it and FoSes without digging any deeper 2. Cora likes two specific points I made, but cautions that a lot of what I said could be said about others, and that my WIFOM point wasn't necessarily true in my own case last game 3. Mocsta generally likes it but thinks some tells are just educated assumptions on WoS's part and we have to wait to see what else he produces 4. Sevryn likes the case and adds some WIFOM to it 5. warbaby suggests that no one's made an obvious scum slip (except maybe WoS) 6. Mandalor emphasizes my point about WoS telling others to not analyze him, adds in the stuff about "my town" 7. Sn0 likes the case, but doesn't want to lynch an active player today 8. geript likes my case on first couples of reads, will post more later (has a test) 9. warbaby says my case is concrete but won't vote until he sees his defense 10. Sn0 really dislikes WoS's defense 11. geript analyzes my case, points out one of my points which wasn't really valid, but likes the others and votes for him 12. cora doesn't like WoS's defense, analyzes it a bit 13. warbaby says that WoS's posting is good enough for now to not vote for him 14. Mocsta analyzes WoS's defense and posting, reads him as genuine 15. warbaby emphasizes not having to vote for WoS 16. glurio wants Mandalor's read on the WoS caseHave to go to work now, but I think that looking at this, you can separate players into how seriously they took this case as opposed to just bandwagoning on it. [/b]
This you got wrong.
Since WoS was the only one who actually called me out on my crappy case on Sn0, i have a slight town read on him. I actually wanted to see if Mandalor has got the same idea by now. ("WoS got it right", to quote myself)
|
I'm sticking to my guns. WB is going to be my vote. He's my scummiest read, and I'm trusting my gut feeling.
If you think I'm voting him just because he claimed blue, please read my filter.
It's kind of sad that you're all analyzing parts of my case and not the case as a whole...
On February 12 2013 14:38 cDgCorazon wrote:
Alright, since it's obvious no one is going to look at my filter, here are the reasons that I've already stated why I think WB is scum:
-Claiming town way too hard
-Playing victim from XXXVI
-No actual scumhunting
-Asking Mocsta to stop pressuring him
-
-Sheeping on everything that comes his way
-Hiding in the shadows after the pressure died down on him
-Saying we should vote for Sylencia because he's lurking and playing similar to the game he played scum in
(when in fact Glurio has exhibited the same behavior and multiple people have been lurking)
Everything in bold, I feel like he has continued to exhibit the behavior or has not adequately answered. Everything below the line is in my second case.
|
![[image loading]](https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/2752616335/4b3ae0f60a4556ba1b2b4088d779492b_normal.jpeg) Count Vote:
WaveofShadow (1): geript
9-BiT (1): Mandalor
Macheji (1): WaveofShadow
geript (1): Mocsta
warbaby (1): cDgCorazon
glurio (1): Sevryn
Not Voting (7): 9-BiT, Sn0_Man, Macheji, glurio, Sylencia, warbaby, zarepath
Currently, WaveofShadow is set to be lynched! (due to tiebreakers)
~10 hours remaining until deadline.
Remember you have to vote!
|
On February 13 2013 00:07 glurio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 23:28 zarepath wrote:Reactions to my Fake WoS Casein order of appearance+ Show Spoiler +On February 12 2013 00:45 warbaby wrote:
FoS WaveofShadow
I'm not voting until we've had more time for the remaining lurkers to report in, and Shadow can respond to zarepath.
I agree with zarepath that the people actually voting me aren't looking that scummy; compared to those just trawling for a convenient bandwagon. On February 12 2013 00:46 cDgCorazon wrote:
Thank you Zare. I liked the points in your analysis for the 3rd and 4th posts. While it's not enough to make me vote for him (and I'd like to see his defense), a lot of the same things could be said about many players (especially with the non scum-hunting).
The point that town never uses WIFOM made me laugh (you know why). Maybe you should rethink using WIFOM as a 100% scum tell (yeah it's scummy but if town Zare (from last game) does it why can't other towns do it and not be scum?).
On February 12 2013 00:52 Mocsta wrote:
Guys im going to bed.
zarepath, I am not sure if the start of your post was addressed to me?
If so, I had mandalor as null read; he said a few things but until he follows through its all NON-alignment indicative.
btw, quite a few decent points in that case; I think some are educated assumptions, and others are really contradictory to ideal town play. Will wait and see what wave has to say for himself before proceeding further. On February 12 2013 01:06 Sevryn wrote:
@ zare Thats a very interesting case you made. I think you over looked the fourth post a little bit in that the way it was worded is basically setting up WoS to defend any lurker he doesn't want lynched and any lurker he does want lynched with a line of qualitative additions which could be interpreted any which way.
On February 12 2013 01:19 warbaby wrote:
EBWOP: Not to say that I won't vote for someone that makes an obvious scumslip D1, but nobody has done that so far (except maybe WoS). On February 12 2013 01:20 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:Sixth post, weird defensiveness against others addressing him: On February 11 2013 13:54 WaveofShadow wrote:I'm trying to say don't look too much into it. There are more important things to be done like scumhunt; determining as to my town alignment should become obvious by my future actions, not by my words. On February 11 2013 13:44 warbaby wrote:
WaveOfShadow, this is not your town. It's not my town, and it's not Mocsta's town.
It is the town, and it's members shall think for themselves and analyze the thread before doing stupid things. Please. Warbaby, this sure as hell is my town as I'm a part of it and I care about it. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm telling or leading people not to think for themselves or that I'm doing something stupid. "Don't look too much into it." "Don't worry, don't read what I say, you'll know that I'm town soon enough, don't even bother thinking about me as mafia." What kind of townie says "don't analyze me in any way, please!"? Also, kind of overemphatic about his town-alignment claim here. I feel like this is the most interesting part of the case. "Don't look much into it". What is that? Townies should be comfortable with others analysing them. In fact, the more townies do that, the less scum will be able to sway them. I don't like his overly town attitude ("my town" etc.) and the fact that (apart from a few weak attacks on Mocsta), he didn't analyse anybody yet. ##FoS: WaveOfShadow On February 12 2013 01:33 Sn0_Man wrote:
Regarding the WaveOfShadow case, I see some merit there but I'm still not here to lynch posting players unless more comes up. I agree with Mandalor about what part of the case is compelling. Unprompted soft AND hard town claims with some fairly stupid follow up excuses. On February 12 2013 01:40 geript wrote:
@zarepth On the first couple of reads I like the case. I'll come back with more after my test. Wish me luck! On February 12 2013 05:25 warbaby wrote:
FWIW,
Mocsta's play is a bit like his scum play in XXXV, but maybe it's also his idea of optimal town play (which is why he tried to do it as scum in 35 -- as a ruse). I don't see anything scummy in what Mocsta's done (other than some meta wifom crap based on his play in 35).
I'm not dismissing the scum Mocsta idea, but I think zarepath's case on WaveofShadow is much more concrete at this point. I'm waiting to hear more from WaveofShadow before I consider voting him.
I am also more interested in lynching lurkers (than Mocsta) if WoS makes a non-scummy defense. I do not really count glurio as a lurker -- his last post was very atypical of his scum play in 36 and counts as a real contribution in my book. I also expect he'll continue making decent contributions before D1 is over. On February 12 2013 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
WoS has basically managed to come up with: I'm not scum, Honest! Plz forgive terribad posting, I promise to improve.
I'm happy to give him another day, but that defense hardly clears his name.
On February 12 2013 05:48 geript wrote:@zare Second post: + Show Spoiler +On February 11 2013 11:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, early game banter based on taking offense to others cheap shots or picking apart grammar is useless and should just be ignored.
I'm fairly sure at this point enough people have declined the RNG vote so the topic should be dropped by everyone.
Can the scumhunting begin now? I think you're reading too much into the second post. Even if it is posturing to put himself as pro-town, I don't take that as scum read because even town needs a platform from which to espouse their ideas. I also happen to agree that everything up that point should for the most part be ignored as useless. Your other points are valid in that none if his posts have been effective. In context, his third post seems worse to me than anything else as Mocsta asks him to "Lead the way" and he takes a reasonably impassioned LAL stance which is unlikely to draw any attention. You do miss a post re: filter burying of which the highlight is Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 11:35 WaveofShadow wrote:
(@Mocsta)You talk a lot, and it's not always useful. While he returns to lurking after that, it's a valid point that has been brought up a few times now but started, imo, with Sno's earlier post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 10:35 Sn0_Man wrote:
I have no interest in reading more from Mocsta tonight. I await contributions from the as-yet silent members of our game. His last post is more of the same. While I still don't like Mocsta so far, your case is better and his last post nails it in for me. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
Now as far as I'm concerned, LAL. Glurio basically fitting to his MO from last game rings alarm bells for me much more strongly than a 9-bit or Macheji lynch, I must admit. There are others however, who have not even done the bare minimum in my eyes, namely Sylencia who jump on the warbaby train and disappears, and Sevryn who has contributed nothing worthy of note so far.
In my LAL spirit though, until I see something, I'm going to stick with it.
Ummm what? So, you're seeing alarm bells and aren't interested in putting pressure on them. Instead you're more interested in deflecting towards anyone else? You have clearly no interest in trying to make a case whatsoever or in doing any analysis. ##change vote waveofshadow On February 12 2013 05:59 cDgCorazon wrote:WoS- Zare already made a good case against him. Reading through his defense, he says: Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 05:31 WaveofShadow wrote:
This was a post that I didn't immediately regret posting, and only now do I realize how scummy it looks. Basically if I avoided saying the whole 'shadows' thing it would have been fine.
My WIFOM post (which was the one I immediately regretted) was only to try and get people not to focus on me because IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. I stand by absolutely everything I have said thus far, I figure I should have just phrased most of it better.
Note the bolded lines. He says that he regrets a few posts, but stands by them anyways. That appears a little bit contradictory to me. Why doesn't he just admit that he made a mistake and keep it at that? Why would he make a post full of WIFOM and only apologize for it when he gets called out on it? The next thing he does, once he's defended himself, is voted for a lurker. Now LAL isn't a bad policy, but it should not be used 30 hours before a lynch. That's just being lazy. It's giving up on all discussion for 30 hours (if one is going to stick with LAL), and it allows the scum to escape the radar D1 as long as they are slightly active (and it's not hard to make cases on people D1 as there are many players that can be targeted). Voting for Macheji this early is a scummy move to me and one that should be looked at further. I'm less suspicious on WoS than Geript, but I'm still curious. I'll keep my eye on him. On February 12 2013 07:07 warbaby wrote:
Also WoS's post is a start in the right direction. IMO none of the proposed cases have enough merit to be worth voting scum at this point. And I don't see why we'd want to lynch glurio right now, over someone with actually zero posts.
On February 12 2013 09:57 Mocsta wrote:- WaveofShadow effectively concedes
- Guy effectively says, great posts I am going to struggle to refute… Whats important to me, is that on Day1 (post 24hrs) there are two guys that majorly fucked up. (warbaby and WoS) The question comes down to: are they both bad townie; are they both bad scum; or is one bad townie, one bad scum. Look at the approach warbabyDoes not address case criteria Incites emotional arguments Continues to flame people, even when they agree to back off Just blindly follows others, once the heat is off. WaveofShadowAttempts to address case criteria Blindly follows others (voting lurkers) Puts some analysis into Glurio post The key differentiator is that WoS admits the situation outright, and has tried to still contribute (some parts blind following, other parts on his own accord). Im reading WoS as pretty genuine right now; and am willing to put him at this stage as “bad townie” Warbaby simply has done nothing to establish his innocence all game; My analysis and my gut is still telling me “first time scum”. On February 12 2013 10:28 warbaby wrote:
Me vs WaveofShadow is a false dichotomy, Mocsta. What about sylencia? He could easily be a scum trying to blend in.
I can't seriously vote WaveofShadow when there are other people who have made very small contributions. On February 12 2013 20:09 glurio wrote:
I'll make it easier for you mandalor.
What do you think about WoS right now?
Can you elaborate on the scumminess of mocsta?
A summary of the timeline: 1. warbaby absolutely hops onto it and FoSes without digging any deeper 2. Cora likes two specific points I made, but cautions that a lot of what I said could be said about others, and that my WIFOM point wasn't necessarily true in my own case last game 3. Mocsta generally likes it but thinks some tells are just educated assumptions on WoS's part and we have to wait to see what else he produces 4. Sevryn likes the case and adds some WIFOM to it 5. warbaby suggests that no one's made an obvious scum slip (except maybe WoS) 6. Mandalor emphasizes my point about WoS telling others to not analyze him, adds in the stuff about "my town" 7. Sn0 likes the case, but doesn't want to lynch an active player today 8. geript likes my case on first couples of reads, will post more later (has a test) 9. warbaby says my case is concrete but won't vote until he sees his defense 10. Sn0 really dislikes WoS's defense 11. geript analyzes my case, points out one of my points which wasn't really valid, but likes the others and votes for him 12. cora doesn't like WoS's defense, analyzes it a bit 13. warbaby says that WoS's posting is good enough for now to not vote for him 14. Mocsta analyzes WoS's defense and posting, reads him as genuine 15. warbaby emphasizes not having to vote for WoS 16. glurio wants Mandalor's read on the WoS caseHave to go to work now, but I think that looking at this, you can separate players into how seriously they took this case as opposed to just bandwagoning on it. This you got wrong. Since WoS was the only one who actually called me out on my crappy case on Sn0, i have a slight town read on him. I actually wanted to see if Mandalor has got the same idea by now. ("WoS got it right", to quote myself) [/b]
the only one? do you have anything to say in reply to my post?
also you say you made your case only because you said you would. why would you make a case you know is weak except to try and appear like your contributing when your obviously not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
