Print

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

[Robz888]

I guess 2.7 went the humor route too.

I just don't like lynching the most active and useful person in a game with 4 lurkers, you know?

[Voltaire]

I guess 2.7 went the humor route too.

I just don't like lynching the most active and useful person in a game with 4 lurkers, you know?

Yup.

I'll happily vote for someone else, there's 3 more scum out there.

unvote

The IC's vote is for sale! Fresh IC votes, get 'em while they're hot! Step right up and make your case.

[Gveoniz]

Continue on with my read list:

Jimmmmm: Started posting, I obviously do not agree with everything he say here, but I will leave my thing later. He is being reasonable, not enough post to get an thing out of him.

robz: The acceptance of my inactivity is notable D1, not so on D2. I do not like the negative interaction with the IC, but it seems that they get over it.

yuma: Not so good when he hammered, but have been townie since then.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The deadline is coming very soon, And it is weekends, fortunately I should be around at the deadline.

                                                                                    (I think I used this as separation line in NMIV   )

You are moving so quickly that I cannot even catch up with you. I am really tired now and cannot give comprehensive explanation. I am sorry but I have to leave it here now.

[Jimmmmm]

Does Jimmm use humor more as town or scum though? I am more likely to use humor when I am town.

I don't recall Jimm being a frequent user of joke and smiley defense, or else I wouldn't have broguht up. I accept thta some people do that--you do, in fact--but Jimm is pretty serious usually. And this is a serious moment and that is a serious vote and his response was weird.

Maybe not all the time, but it definitely happens. This example springs to mind:

We're all Vig's! 

Remember kids, no vigging day 1.

[Robz888]

robz: The acceptance of my inactivity is notable D1, not so on D2. I do not like the negative interaction with the IC, but it seems that they get over it.

Well, I generally give a free pass to newbie players on Day 1. That's why your lurking was tolerable yesterday, but not today.

[yuma]

Continue on with my read list:

Jimmmmm: Started posting, I obviously do not agree with everything he say here, but I will leave my thing later. He is being reasonable, not enough post to get an thing out of him.

robz: The acceptance of my inactivity is notable D1, not so on D2. I do not like the negative interaction with the IC, but it seems that they get over it.

yuma: Not so good when he hammered, but have been townie since then.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The deadline is coming very soon, And it is weekends, fortunately I should be around at the deadline.

                                                                                    (I think I used this as separation line in NMIV   )

You are moving so quickly that I cannot even catch up with you. I am really tired now and cannot give comprehensive explanation. I am sorry but I have to leave it here now.

please at least put down a vote... we need votes at this point regardless of how sure you feel about them.

[2.71828.....]

I guess 2.7 went the humor route too.

I just don't like lynching the most active and useful person in a game with 4 lurkers, you know?

Yup.

I'll happily vote for someone else, there's 3 more scum out there.

unvote

The IC's vote is for sale! Fresh IC votes, get 'em while they're hot! Step right up and make your case.

You've never jumped on my archetype case.  now seems like as good a time as any.  Let me refresh my case:

[I am still waiting for answers to the following questions:]

• why he jumped on the faust wagon (never explained). 
• Or why he included "more of him being a newbie" in this post

  Very concerned by 2.7's trying to get me lynched. Not neccerssarily because it's me he's trying to start a wagon on (but that does play a big part) but more of him being a newbie and doing something like this. What he said awhile ago about "Voting alongside the Doctor" certainly rubbed me the wrong way.
  
• Or his seemingly random vote for Robz.

The longer Archetype refuses to explain himself for things such as these, the more convinced I am of his scuminess.

Even more convinced now since he hasn't responded to that.  And that quote is 72 hours old.

[yuma]

vote: archetype after seeing that he hasn't responded to 2.7's case for 72 hours. The guy does have a mislynch meta, but 72 hours? He has had time to send out pms and start a game (I think this needs to be addressed elsewhere... but if you don't have time to play the games you are in, should you be running them? I think it is a question that we need to address, maybe not here, but it has kinda become a thing....)

Vote Count 2.yuma1

Gveoniz (2): sudgy, Jimmmm
Robz888 (1): Archetype
Archetype (3): 2.71828....., Eevee, yuma
Jimmmm (1): Robz

Not Voting (5): liopoil, Gveoniz, voltaire

[2.71828.....]

Sorry guys, been very busy with quite a few things. I should be good to go on Friday.


...if I don't get lynched before then.

Now, I do want to give him a chance to respond so no quickhammers or anything.  But I will be expecting some really good input if he wants to save himself.

[2.71828.....]

Sorry guys, been very busy with quite a few things. I should be good to go on Friday.


...if I don't get lynched before then.

Now, I do want to give him a chance to respond so no quickhammers or anything.  But I will be expecting some really good input if he wants to save himself.

I just realized how demanding that comes across.  A nicer way to say that is "I hope we do not quickhammer him"

[Robz888]

Sorry guys, been very busy with quite a few things. I should be good to go on Friday.


...if I don't get lynched before then.

Now, I do want to give him a chance to respond so no quickhammers or anything.  But I will be expecting some really good input if he wants to save himself.

I just realized how demanding that comes across.  A nicer way to say that is "I hope we do not quickhammer him"

It did not come across demanding. You are among very demanding people.

[Voltaire]

vote: archetype after seeing that he hasn't responded to 2.7's case for 72 hours. The guy does have a mislynch meta, but 72 hours? He has had time to send out pms and start a game (I think this needs to be addressed elsewhere... but if you don't have time to play the games you are in, should you be running them? I think it is a question that we need to address, maybe not here, but it has kinda become a thing....)

Vote Count 2.yuma1

Gveoniz (2): sudgy, Jimmmm
Robz888 (1): Archetype
Archetype (3): 2.71828....., Eevee, yuma
Jimmmm (1): Robz

Not Voting (5): liopoil, Gveoniz, voltaire

But does that make him more likely to be scum? Archetype is not my preferred lurker lynch at all.

[yuma]

vote: archetype after seeing that he hasn't responded to 2.7's case for 72 hours. The guy does have a mislynch meta, but 72 hours? He has had time to send out pms and start a game (I think this needs to be addressed elsewhere... but if you don't have time to play the games you are in, should you be running them? I think it is a question that we need to address, maybe not here, but it has kinda become a thing....)

Vote Count 2.yuma1

Gveoniz (2): sudgy, Jimmmm
Robz888 (1): Archetype
Archetype (3): 2.71828....., Eevee, yuma
Jimmmm (1): Robz

Not Voting (5): liopoil, Gveoniz, voltaire

But does that make him more likely to be scum? Archetype is not my preferred lurker lynch at all.

I honestly have no idea. I hope to have a better idea if/when he returns. He isn't necessarily my preferred lurker lynch because well... I have nothing on him except for a complete lack of anything. I see 2.7's case on him, but am very suspicious of 2.7.

I mean how do you separate him out from other lurkers? That is really the question that I have been asking myself.

Jimmmm has been very busy and subbed in. Lio has a history of being very busy and had to /out of most mafia games. Gveo has been consistent at least in showing up and posting one or two posts a day pretty full of (if with a lot of reservations) content.

So then I need to ask myself... is a lurker lynch really the best we can do. And to that... I don't know. But getting arch to talk and then either unvoting or continuing to vote for him is a step in the right direction.

[Jimmmmm]

Re-read lio and nothing really jumped out at me. Re-read Arch and got pretty much as expected - plenty of scumminess, but... well we all know the but. I really need some sleep, so that's it for me for now.

[2.71828.....]

Here are our options and consequences in order of best possible town outcome (my opinion):

1) we lynch an active player who flips scum- We will start D3 at worst maintaining our town majority (3 scum/4 town) and at best the scum kill each other at night and we are all of a sudden have only one remaining scum.  Also, we will be able to examine his reads and learn stuff from that.

1) we lynch a lurker who flips scum- Again, town majority, same chance that we end up with one remaining scum (not likely).  Now, since this player was a lurker, we have fewer reads from him, but that can be a good thing since fewer reads mean (hopefully) more focused reads and we can determine at least who was NOT his scum partner.  I don't think a scum!lurker would ever read scum on his partner (except maybe on a lynchwagon, but that can't be the case right now since we faust was town), while an active scum player might do so.

3) We lynch lurker who flips town- Well, this is bad news for town.  But not terrible.  At best we will still have at least 2 scum with 5 town.  At worst we will have 4 scum and 3 town.  Now, 4 scum and 3 town isn't as bad as it sounds, since scum will now really be trying super hard to catch the other scum team, and it could very well result in a triple-scum death out of D3/N3, but still not the place that we want to be.

4) We lynch an active player who is town- This is just bad news all around.  We lose an active contributor.  Same bad situation for town as described in (3).  I really hope this is not what we do.

[2.71828.....]

I put lynching scum (active or lurker) as our best option both times because I can't really decide which situation would give us better reads going into D3.  However, I think it is clear that option 4 is not good at all, which is why I will most likely end up keeping my vote on a lurker.

[Jimmmmm]

I put lynching scum (active or lurker) as our best option both times

Yep, agree with you there.

[yuma]

4) We lynch an active player who is town- This is just bad news all around.  We lose an active contributor.  Same bad situation for town as described in (3).  I really hope this is not what we do.

Note here that the only active player being discussed for a lynch is 2.7... so this isn't coming from a non-biased PoV.

[Robz888]

4) We lynch an active player who is town- This is just bad news all around.  We lose an active contributor.  Same bad situation for town as described in (3).  I really hope this is not what we do.

Note here that the only active player being discussed for a lynch is 2.7... so this isn't coming from a non-biased PoV.

Yeah that occurred to me as well.

[2.71828.....]

4) We lynch an active player who is town- This is just bad news all around.  We lose an active contributor.  Same bad situation for town as described in (3).  I really hope this is not what we do.

Note here that the only active player being discussed for a lynch is 2.7... so this isn't coming from a non-biased PoV.

As an active player who is not currently being discussed for a lynch, do you disagree with me though?  I mean, when comparing the two (lynching town!lurk vs town!active) would you ever come to the conclusion in a non-biased way that lynching town!active is better?  If you do, please describe that situation to me.

[yuma]

4) We lynch an active player who is town- This is just bad news all around.  We lose an active contributor.  Same bad situation for town as described in (3).  I really hope this is not what we do.

Note here that the only active player being discussed for a lynch is 2.7... so this isn't coming from a non-biased PoV.

As an active player who is not currently being discussed for a lynch, do you disagree with me though?  I mean, when comparing the two (lynching town!lurk vs town!active) would you ever come to the conclusion in a non-biased way that lynching town!active is better?  If you do, please describe that situation to me.

If I had a very compelling case on someone then yes. I would absolutely lynch an active player over a lurker. Every time. The biggest reason is that lynching a lurker is often going to be a toss up. Town lurks. This is a fact. It is an unfortunate fact, but sometimes town does. So does scum sometimes. So it ends up being a tossup.

Where as a really compelling case forces players to take a stance. It forces them to take a side and especially scum has to go somewhere. So either the really compelling case hits scum (yay!) or there is quite a lot of data to analyze. Who followed the case, who created it, who sheeped it, etc, etc, etc... while a lurker lynch... well if you hit town you get nothing to look at.

It sucks to lose an active player. But if the case is there, we should go for it. I am not sure that there is a case out there right now that is very compelling. but I am worried that the movement toward lynching a lurker means no one is going to be out there trying to build up cases and we will all just lurker lynch our way into a mislynch.

[yuma]

I guess ultimately my difference in what you are saying is that if you lynch a town lurker you are in the same spot as before data wise... just with less town players alive.

But if you lynch an active town you have some data to analyze, but are w/o that active player.

Lynching lurkers is a very safe place for scum to be. Because when we go back and try and figure out why they have the built in answer of "he was lurking so I voted for him"

[Robz888]

Lynching lurkers is a very safe place for scum to be. Because when we go back and try and figure out why they have the built in answer of "he was lurking so I voted for him"

I think you tend to be overly fearful that if we lynch someone for uncomplicated reasons, the scum who voted for the lynch will give un-analyzable answers.

[2.71828.....]

Lynching lurkers is a very safe place for scum to be. Because when we go back and try and figure out why they have the built in answer of "he was lurking so I voted for him"

Good point.  I wonder why all the scum haven't jumped on my archetype case.  They have had the time to.  We would be at L-1 (not counting the yuma or eevee vote)  Makes me think they are lurking too much to jump on the case without being suspected themselves.  Either that or self-voting is frowned upon. 

[2.71828.....]

Lynching lurkers is a very safe place for scum to be. Because when we go back and try and figure out why they have the built in answer of "he was lurking so I voted for him"

Good point.  I wonder why all the scum haven't jumped on my archetype case.  They have had the time to.  We would be at L-1 (not counting the yuma or eevee vote)  Makes me think they are lurking too much to jump on the case without being suspected themselves.  Either that or self-voting is frowned upon.

Ok, a little tongue-in-cheek.  There are plenty of reasons for not following me if you are scum.
1) suppose I am scum and you are my partner.  We don't want to be 1-2 voting for the same guy.
2) you are scum and Archetype is your partner.  You don't really want to jump on that wagon until as late as possible or not at all
3) you are scum but don't think the case will go anywhere.  Why bother jumping on a failed wagon?  go somewhere else.
4) other random stuff