First off,
Vote: OYour take on voltaire/ehunt is simply terrible. Not your conclusions, you may be correct, but for god's sake, why not put down some explanation. I am willing to read almost any argument, but what are you hoping for here? somebody reads your assessment and goes "yeah! O's pretty cool and a veteran. I bet his read is correct!" That sounds a lot stupider than any assessment that could cause someone to go "I hadn't thought of it that way, I find myself agreeing with that argument."
Second, yuma's analysis reminded me that I wanted to talk about watno. Yuma's analysis seems to point out some contradictions. Like first he doesn't see me as scummy then does. So I wanted to know what changed. watno explained himself by saying I was acti-lurking. But yuma's summary of him talking heavily about acti-lurking makes me feel super suspicious. Why are you voting shraeye for doing something that you are also doing? I decided to go look into his posts and come up with my own interpretation. Here is that effort
Post #250 watno says that he's played Mafia before (in German)
#262 possibly real suspicion, possible joke that Morgrim needs help to "play scum."
#326 describe's glooble's "no quantifiable reason yet" vote on shraeye as possibly sheeping; decides that I'm nitpicky but not scum
#328 corrects yuma's misinterpretation of ehunts one-per-day statement
#373 This will be major point A
#377 Says that actively lurking is more scummy than regular lurking
#379 clarifies previous post by saying what acti-lurking is
#608 long time between posts; This is major point B
Major point ARefuses to see content in my posts.
When a quick wagon formed on my sarcasm, that was understandable. But I was waiting for the steam to pick up in a different way. What I mean is, the people who voted me because they thought they caught a "scummy scumslip" just hadn't yet arrived in their minds to the punchline of the joke. But still, that was a large portion of people and some disagreed with that. So I had a large wagon, but also had plenty of people who explicitly weren't willing to vote for me based on sarcasm. If I were scum watching that happen, I would look for an opportunity to jump on, add a vote, BUT DO IT FOR A DIFFERENT REASON. So it adds strength to the wagon not only in terms of another vote, but also so that people who didn't want to vote based onsarcasm now had the opportunity to vote for another reason. watno fit this description.
vote shraeye
I guess this is a good example of acti-lurking. We shouldn't discuss about what words to use, but find scum. If you didn't get what ashersky wanted to say, why not just ask?
Its not completely clear what he means by this, so I looked at the last few posts I made. In #373 right before that I made a 3 paragraph argument seeing what I would do if I were axxle with the double vote. That feels like actual content to me and to say that I was "only posting stuff that's not relevant to the game" (that's your definition of acti-lurking from #379) is as false of an assessment as you could make. The post I made before #373 was #369. That has "point number A" that also speculates about double-vote "point number B" that was a defense of myself describing the situation as it developed from my perspective (sorry, is defending oneself acti-lurking? because that also feels to me like content relevant to the game) "point number B and a half" is me talking about my increased levels of sarcasm and answering cayvie's post. None of those seem like I'm posting stuff not relevant to the game, especially when I've been pushed by people to explain myself (cayvie, morgrim, etc). In the post before #369, (disregarding the +1 for a good joke) I gave everyone my post totals, as this helps us see who's being active, and I thought my numbers were a better picture of that then Insomniac's.
There is no way that these are content-less posts irrelevant to the game, so for you to say I'm actilurking and try to paint me with that brush feels like you're simply looking for another reason for the wagon on me to keep growing. A very scummy push.
Major point BTrying simply to shoot everyone down instead of actually scumhunting.
He goes after Voltaire for "knowing" that O is lurking intentionally, continues his false argument that all I'm doing is talking about words, jumps on TheMunch for trying to keep posts tidy by waiting for ehunt to finish his 7-point multi-post before TheMunch answered ehunt's question to him. Then he jumps on Frisk for policy voting TheMunch and then not unvoting, FoS's the entire yuma wagon for not realizing yuma's mistake was honest, pokes Morgrim for being late to understand that shray is sarcastic, questions how Voltgloss "knows" there's scum on yumas wagon, chides and votes for the lurkers, then winks at sarcastic joth.
Wowie zowie. You just shot down 7 people/factions. Actually 5 people, 1 entire wagon, and a pair of lurkers. I'm all for pointing out consistencies, but the problem here is you point out so many and all so weakly, that you are pointing the smallest of "fingers of suspicion" in every direction instead of focusing your attention and effort on actually finding scum. I suppose the strategy is vocally suspect everyone just a bit, so that nobody's feathers get ruffled, then point out on day 2 that you were right, trying to gain town cred. To me, this is much more suspicious than a lot of things I've seen going on so far. Seriously, you found all of these things suspicious and off, but none of them were worth a more in depth look at the offending parties?
Author
Topic: Mafia XI: Find Yourself in the Courtyard Masquerade -- GAME OVER, TOWN WINS (Read 318877 times)