Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Captain_Frisk]

Vote: Voltgloss

Attempting to avoid chicken curse reduces information.

Frisk, I think you're technically right, but in practice... no, I don't trust us to solve the WIFOM that will result from the chickening. So I see why Volt would ask that, and I don't find it suspicious.

My suspicion of Grujah isn't exactly abating as he posts more, but I have to be conscious of the fact that I seem to have massive confirmation bias against my first Day 1 read (see PPS in M-XII, Morgrim in M-X).

Oh, I agree that there will be some wifoming, but I think that we can survive the chickening, and we'll have some additional data points.  Whether or not we can make use of them... unknown.

[Insomniac]

@Robz - I think you just really like leading the town lynch.

@Grujah - You sir are ridiculous this game. Hai guys found the team on day 1 herp a derp. Also I don't know who's still voting for me but your so scummmmmmmy.



FoS: Archetype I like that you agree with my read but complimenting my reads is one of the best ways to buddy up to me and I'm trying to be aware of the accusation that I tunnel on people whom accuse me and let slide people who don't

[Eevee]

Now, Eevee and Insomniac both went out of their way to argue against the growing Grujah wagon. They both did this against the Day 1 PPS wagon, too. Guess they just don't like quick wagons. (I DO like quick wagons; it puts fear into the hearts of scum.) OF course, Insomniac was mafia that time.

Okay what? I think I'm still ON the Grujah-wagon and I heavily argued AGAINST Insomniac opposing it.

[Robz888]

Yeah, nm what I said about Eevee. Volt's vote explanation, I thought, implied Eevee had some beef against the Grujah wagon. I see now he didn't:

Insomniac, why are you assuming the players are not playing reasonable here? It's like being afraid of giving a consenting adult a pair of scissors in the fear of him cutting himself with them.

WHAT HARM DOES THE L-2 DO IF NO TOWNIE IS WILLING TO DO SOMETHING AS OBVIOUSLY ANTITOWN AS QUICKHAMMERING 5 HOURS INTO THE GAME? None. It just gives us more to analyze.

[Voltgloss]

Vote: Voltgloss

Attempting to avoid chicken curse reduces information.

I think the chicken curse is more likely to just provide MISinformation.
it's half random and half controlled by scum.  Those are not reliable sources of information.

[Jorbles]

Vote Count 1.3:
Robz888 (1): Cuzz
Captain_Frisk (1): shraeye
Grujah (2): Robz888, Eevee
Insomniac (1): Grujah
Eevee (2): jotheonah, Voltgloss
shraeye (1): Insomniac
Voltgloss (1): Captain_Frisk
Not voting (4): yuma, ashersky, Galzria, Archetype

With 13 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

Currently Cursed: No one

Curse deadline: Saturday Oct 20, Noon PDT (3 pm forum time)
Lynch deadline: Tuesday Oct 23, Noon PDT (3 pm forum time)

[Captain_Frisk]

Vote: Voltgloss

Attempting to avoid chicken curse reduces information.

I think the chicken curse is more likely to just provide MISinformation.
it's half random and half controlled by scum.  Those are not reliable sources of information.

It's still a data point.  We can choose to ignore it if we want.  Now - if we have a great idea for a lynch today?  Then lets go for it.

[Insomniac]

Well this game has slowed to a crawl lets do a lurker check shall we! These counts do not include pregame

shraeye - 14
Robz888 - 12
Voltgloss - 21
Eevee - 23
yuma - 2
Galzria - 20
Insomniac - 37 (includes this post)
ashersky - 5
Captain_Frisk - 34
Grujah - 21
Archetype - 6
jotheonah - 4
Cuzz - 14


So I'm gonna give yuma and jo a pass (V/LA thread work claim and new job claim respectively) which puts me at voting for the 3rd most lurker.

Vote: ashersky

[Cuzz]

Well this game has slowed to a crawl lets do a lurker check shall we! These counts do not include pregame

shraeye - 14
Robz888 - 12
Voltgloss - 21
Eevee - 23
yuma - 2
Galzria - 20
Insomniac - 37 (includes this post)
ashersky - 5
Captain_Frisk - 34
Grujah - 21
Archetype - 6
jotheonah - 4
Cuzz - 14


So I'm gonna give yuma and jo a pass (V/LA thread work claim and new job claim respectively) which puts me at voting for the 3rd most lurker.

Vote: ashersky

I can so get behind this. I am now all for lynching lurkers brutally and indiscriminately.

But I'm not sure how much of a pass yuma should get though. He showed up last night briefly to mention he won't be active during the daytime, which is one thing, and is fine, but then he says very little about the day's events and signs off while complaining that the activity has died down since the afternoon.  The thread doesn't have to be "active" right at that moment to contribute to the game.

Not sure how to feel about jo. He might have just been really busy all day, but it seemed yuma was around but silent for a while.

So I'll go with a Fos: yuma, Vote: ashersky.

[Robz888]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

[Grujah]

@Grujah - You sir are ridiculous this game. Hai guys found the team on day 1 herp a derp. Also I don't know who's still voting for me but your so scummmmmmmy.

You seem to be overly upset over what is obviously not a serious statement. OF course I don't really think that I have caught 3 scum D1, one RL day in.

@Chicken - some suggestions. Long stream of Chickens in one sentence means to take note of post with that number.
Also, do not, ever, do chicken posts that mean nothing (like, just to say chicken.) .

[Robz888]

You know what, I think I'm with Volt after all in wanting to end the day before the chickens come home to roost.

[Eevee]

Not having one guy participate for a while isn't THAT bad. I again vote for a simple code that only has yes, no, something else and scumreads posted as chickenvotes in it.

[jotheonah]

I'm also in 3 games and the other two are demanding my attention quite a bit more than this one, FWIW.

[Galzria]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

Vote: Robz

That felt really disingenuous. I think we need to be wary that not ALL scum are lurkers, and that not all infrequent posting is lurking. Furthermore, I think we need to be careful to note that certain people, like myself or Robz, can choose how frequent our posting patterns are, regardless of our alignment. I'm especially wary (personally) of people (scum) using the policy as a backbone to their votes.

However, all that said, I've championed LaL, so FoS: Ashersky. But his "lurking" is not as scummy as Robz vote felt. Ash needs to come talk to us though. So does Arch.

[Cuzz]

Also what in the world? I've posted more than Robz?

[Robz888]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

Vote: Robz

That felt really disingenuous. I think we need to be wary that not ALL scum are lurkers, and that not all infrequent posting is lurking. Furthermore, I think we need to be careful to note that certain people, like myself or Robz, can choose how frequent our posting patterns are, regardless of our alignment. I'm especially wary (personally) of people (scum) using the policy as a backbone to their votes.

Sorry, I'm following a literal lynch all lurkers policy. If you had let drunk-double-doctor-with-50-posts-the-entire-game-Grujah win, you would too.

[Captain_Frisk]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

Vote: Robz

That felt really disingenuous. I think we need to be wary that not ALL scum are lurkers, and that not all infrequent posting is lurking. Furthermore, I think we need to be careful to note that certain people, like myself or Robz, can choose how frequent our posting patterns are, regardless of our alignment. I'm especially wary (personally) of people (scum) using the policy as a backbone to their votes.

Sorry, I'm following a literal lynch all lurkers policy. If you had let drunk-double-doctor-with-50-posts-the-entire-game-Grujah win, you would too.

Vote: RobZ - Blindly following the "lynch PPS" claim is what lost us that game.

[Robz888]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

Vote: Robz

That felt really disingenuous. I think we need to be wary that not ALL scum are lurkers, and that not all infrequent posting is lurking. Furthermore, I think we need to be careful to note that certain people, like myself or Robz, can choose how frequent our posting patterns are, regardless of our alignment. I'm especially wary (personally) of people (scum) using the policy as a backbone to their votes.

Sorry, I'm following a literal lynch all lurkers policy. If you had let drunk-double-doctor-with-50-posts-the-entire-game-Grujah win, you would too.

Vote: RobZ - Blindly following the "lynch PPS" claim is what lost us that game.

Absolutely, absolutely not. No one thing lost us that game, but failure to lynch lurkers lost us the game more than lynching PPS. I had good reason to lynch PPS, and it was a fine Day 1, as far as Day 1's go. Also, you agreed with me about it in the after discussion for M-XII! Why the change of heart? Different alignment now?

[Galzria]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

Vote: Robz

That felt really disingenuous. I think we need to be wary that not ALL scum are lurkers, and that not all infrequent posting is lurking. Furthermore, I think we need to be careful to note that certain people, like myself or Robz, can choose how frequent our posting patterns are, regardless of our alignment. I'm especially wary (personally) of people (scum) using the policy as a backbone to their votes.

Sorry, I'm following a literal lynch all lurkers policy. If you had let drunk-double-doctor-with-50-posts-the-entire-game-Grujah win, you would too.

Disregarding anything I might've ever said in the QT to that game:

Nope, I wouldn't have ever let that happen.

However, that's partially my point. You can't take it as a flatline literal policy. If there are 5 people playing, A, B, C, D and E, and their post spread is 500, 450, 425, 425, 300 respectively, then player E is by definition "lurking", as he's 120 posts under the "average", but I don't think voting him for "lurking" would be fair. His contributions are 1/7th the total in a game of 5. He's not pulling his weight, sure, but it's not excessive.

My point is that I agree with the policy, when the policy makes sense. The votes on Grujah yesterday made sense to me because he's an evil, lurking scum. As soon as he joined the game in earnest, I unvoted (even if he's still evil scum > ). I don't think your vote on Ash however, was as genuine, and I don't think it makes as much sense, especially RL D2 of the game. Let's look back in 3-4 days at post count and see how it stands. Right now, post count voting seems a little irrelevant to me.

[Cuzz]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

Vote: Robz

That felt really disingenuous. I think we need to be wary that not ALL scum are lurkers, and that not all infrequent posting is lurking. Furthermore, I think we need to be careful to note that certain people, like myself or Robz, can choose how frequent our posting patterns are, regardless of our alignment. I'm especially wary (personally) of people (scum) using the policy as a backbone to their votes.

Sorry, I'm following a literal lynch all lurkers policy. If you had let drunk-double-doctor-with-50-posts-the-entire-game-Grujah win, you would too.

Vote: RobZ - Blindly following the "lynch PPS" claim is what lost us that game.

The point is the distinction between ill-advised anti-townness and lurking. Lynching pps was a mistake but part of the lesson from that game was that lurking is a scumtell and good lord FoS myself for defending Robz.

[Eevee]

Voting people solely based on post counts has got to be more anti-town than PPS's claim was in wafflegame.

[Captain_Frisk]

Lynch all lurkers. Vote: ashersky

Vote: Robz

That felt really disingenuous. I think we need to be wary that not ALL scum are lurkers, and that not all infrequent posting is lurking. Furthermore, I think we need to be careful to note that certain people, like myself or Robz, can choose how frequent our posting patterns are, regardless of our alignment. I'm especially wary (personally) of people (scum) using the policy as a backbone to their votes.

Sorry, I'm following a literal lynch all lurkers policy. If you had let drunk-double-doctor-with-50-posts-the-entire-game-Grujah win, you would too.

Vote: RobZ - Blindly following the "lynch PPS" claim is what lost us that game.

Absolutely, absolutely not. No one thing lost us that game, but failure to lynch lurkers lost us the game more than lynching PPS. I had good reason to lynch PPS, and it was a fine Day 1, as far as Day 1's go. Also, you agreed with me about it in the after discussion for M-XII! Why the change of heart? Different alignment now?

Oh - I still would lynch him again, and love it - but that would be playing for the future.  However, blindly following one policy drastically reduces the information available to analyze.  You don't need to come up with a reason - because its policy. 

Oh - and to your question - same alignment. 

[shraeye]

Well this game has slowed to a crawl lets do a lurker check shall we! These counts do not include pregame

shraeye - 14
Robz888 - 12
Voltgloss - 21
Eevee - 23
yuma - 2
Galzria - 20
Insomniac - 37 (includes this post)
ashersky - 5
Captain_Frisk - 34
Grujah - 21
Archetype - 6
jotheonah - 4
Cuzz - 14


So I'm gonna give yuma and jo a pass (V/LA thread work claim and new job claim respectively) which puts me at voting for the 3rd most lurker.

Vote: ashersky

It seems a bit early to classify people as lurking or not, but it's much better than pushing this policy majorly 5 hours into the game.  I'm fine with
Vote: ashersky

[Cuzz]

Voting people solely based on post counts has got to be more anti-town than PPS's claim was in wafflegame.

But announcing "pressure votes" is ok, right Eevee?