Webcomic Wars Mafia: D7- Be Thankful I'm Not The Author

[Gorrad]

Vote Count brought to you by The Cult of Banjothulu. "All we want to do is Melt Your Brain...with SONG!".

Lamont_Cranston (9): Tarhalindur, Flameaxe, Percy, SerialClergyman, Slicey, SensFan, Mufasa, Empking, Fishythefish
Vino (3): Korlash, roflcopter, populartajo
SensFan (3): Head_Honcho, Vino, Lamont_Cranston
Empking (1): Hasdgfas
roflcopter (1): The Silent Speaker
Hasdgfas (1): Qwints
Flameaxe (1): Timeater
Korlash (1): Delathi
SerialClergyman (1): ZazieR
Timeater (1): Tzeentch

Note Voting (3): Santos, Sironigous, xRECKONERx

With 25 alive, it's 13 to lynch.

[hasdgfas]

This is completely ridiculous. We should not get 4 pages in a day, especially a day where I'm literally working all afternoon and don't get a chance to check in.

@L_C, and anyone else who does this that I may have missed:

If you're responding to a quote, please don't respond in the quote tags. Thanks. It makes it so much easier on everyone.

Anyway, L_C's defense of Vino in 76(?) with no reasons whatsoever is pretty laughable and extremely scummy, as there's no reason to defend him at all.
In addition, Korlash's behavior in

one

other game should have nothing to do with this game.

FoS

Then, his post 93 is kinda weird, as "support of the wagon" is something that's always been a bit iffy. "supporting a wagon" seems like something scum would do to seem town by expressing suspicion without drawing attention to themselves by voting. Not to mention it's because he "looks fun to play with". How does that have anything to do with the reason you expressed suspicion of him earlier?

Now his post 103. Hold the phone. First you played with him before, then you didn't? Or was it someone else who said he played with Emp?
Mid-swing, lol. Honestly, it's enough contribution to get discussion started, isn't it?

Re: tss's 106: Please elaborate on your vote on roflcopter, as I don't know what you're saying here.

LC's post 107: you know, I really dislike when people say "interesting" without explaining why it's interesting. Please elaborate.

Vino's Post 110: A) Don't use sarcasm in mafia, because people can't tell it's sarcasm. And you seem way too nonchalant.
Plus:

I'm not worried about bandwagons or actually being able to find any scum. It's all finger pointing and there's way too little information to assert any scum as having been found. I love how people make such a big deal about the smallest things early in the game.

This entire quote makes me raise my eyebrows. Making a big deal out of "small things"

is mafia

. I don't know how you play mafia. Why are you so unworried about votes on you? Seems like overconfident scum to me.


And then I see that Tar has said a lot of this already.


L_C's post 114 literally ticks me off. Starting off making fun of tar, then belittling his arguments. Not really how I want to see a defense. Plus, I don't really see any defense in there other than "NO UR RONG"

And Santos's 116 is, quite literally, worse than empking's post, because santos is trying to look like he's posting content without actually posting content, and empking wasn't trying at all.

SensFan comes in and votes while giving reasons but not really.

IGMEOY

Sironigous comes in and says "I'm not doing anything LOL".

FoS

Mufasa blatantly says "wagon vote". I hate this.

FoS

Empking with a decent post :O

tss's 121 says SensFan's post is a lie without explaing why. Not to mention he

still

doesn't explain why he thinks fishy and vino are being set up for a 1-2 mislynch.

Korlash on the money is 126. tss is fosing himself.

While I agree with most of Percy's 129

Ideally, everyone should be posting once per day with critical analysis of the game. That would be awesome.

is just naive and idealistic.(I realize he says "ideally", but still) That's never going to happen.


LC, please don't multi-post like this. Either leave it for later or put it all together.

tss's 137: just because nobody has put a case on him doesn't mean he's not scummy.

Posts 141-143 are completely ridiculous and useless. No content at all, although delathi's are understandable.

Post 146 by Vino: I'm not sure why you're voting for SensFan here? at all?

personally, I'm not quite sure who to vote for at this point, as quite a few people are acting scummy.

unvote, vote Sirigonius

for saying "hi, I'm here but not contributing"

[Lamont_Cranston]

Hascow I started to reply to your post but almost every point you bring up has been responded to.

[Vino]

I've been conditioned not to care much about what I say in Mafia because it gets interpreted as scummy no matter what. Possibly due to my personality.

One thing I like about Mafia is that it's a different game depending on who you ask. You hear very often, "Mafia is ______" but the fill-in-the-blank part is never the same thing twice. If you want to make a big deal out of the trivialities at the beginning of the game then feel free, personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. In my experience major scum tells generally aren't made in the opening pages, and doesn't have much effect on things that happen in the mid and late game. This is all theory though, on to more practical matters.

Post 146 by Vino: I'm not sure why you're voting for SensFan here? at all?

Because I want to. I sense a subtle defense of SensFan from you, what's the deal?

[SerialClergyman]

^^ This post almost earned my vote. It's scummy to dress pro-town theory as pro-town play, but that isn't even theory, that's a general whinge about how people take your posts. It's over-defensive and an over-reaction and I don't like it. Officially 2nd on my scumlist, Vino.

[Vino]

I've been conditioned not to care much about what I say in Mafia because it gets interpreted as scummy no matter what. Possibly due to my personality.

See what I mean. You didn't answer my question though.

[Vino]

Oh wait, different person, nevermind. Sorry I get confused with large games.

[SerialClergyman]

Vino - that reaction is exactly what I'm talking about. Take some responsibility for how you play. That sort of attitude is scummy because you are trying to dismiss any criticism of you without looking at it on it's merits, and claiming any scumminess you display is in the eye of the beholder. The entire narrative does nothing to further a pro-town play and could further a pro-scum play.

What question would you like me to answer?

[SerialClergyman]

Simulpost.

No worries.

[Lamont_Cranston]

One thing I like about Mafia is that it's a different game depending on who you ask. You hear very often, "Mafia is ______" but the fill-in-the-blank part is never the same thing twice. If you want to make a big deal out of the trivialities at the beginning of the game then feel free, personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. In my experience major scum tells generally aren't made in the opening pages, and doesn't have much effect on things that happen in the mid and late game. This is all theory though, on to more practical matters.

Ya I have to disagree with this entire concept. There are incredible scumhunting possibilities in the early game. In fact, a good case will go all the way back to the beginning of the game. To discount early game play entirely (like the above post) is a

huge

mistake.

[qwints]

I'll be V/LA til Monday.

[Vino]

Fair enough. I'm not going to say that scum will never blunder early in the game. This game in particular is starting to get less oriented around trivialities, which I like.

I wasn't trying to argue that the attacks on me had no merit because of my play style, sorry if it appeared that way. Saying that I've stopped caring about trying to appear not scummy whether scum or not wasn't supposed to be related to this game in particular, it was just a rant I guess. That said, I still see no merits in any of the bandwagoning on me so far, from the four aforementioned, for reasons previously stated.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Right because the case against you was actually generated by fish using a scumhunting technique for the early game. I have found that your vote for Rofl was neither a bus nor "fake random as scum" and so disagree with your wagon as well.

[Flameaxe]

Too much work this weekend. Fuck.

Unvote

until I get a chance to sit down for more than 10 minutes.

[Tarhalindur]

Well it appears I have the

famous

Tar all pissed off at me.

1) Ad hominem is every bit as much a logical fallacy in defense as it is in offense.

2) You don't have me "pissed off at you". I think that your behavior is consistent with the hypothesis that you are scum, and that you are the scummiest player in the game at this point in time. There IS a difference.

3) Take a very close look at the quoted sentence. Lamont is NOT trying to explain that his play makes sense from a pro-town perspective, nor is he arguing why another player is more likely to be scum than he is (he's advocating a policy lynch instead - again, there IS a difference). The motivation I'm seeing from Lamont is an attempt to discredit my case against it by using spin (the ad hominem "famous Tar" attack and the decision to refer to my case against him by referring to it as me being "pissed off" - which implies that it's not a real case - instead of what it actually is, namely an early-game case).

That's behavior I'd expect to see from a real life politician or from a Mafioso... but NOT from a townie.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on most things here.

Really now? Why should I just "agree to disagree" about something I find SCUMMY, instead of continuing to pressure you about it until I'm convinced that it could come from a town perspective or until you're lynched?

(Also, wherever did you get the idea that you could just order me to take a course of action and I would agree to do so?)

Parts of your case are so astoundingly bad it makes me wonder why you would be reaching so hard...

1) The clear implication here ("astoundingly bad, "I wonder why you're reaching so hard") is that you think I am scummy, but you don't come out and say so. Why is that? Are you trying to avoid a conflict?

2) Again, trying to discredit my case with spin, though this time there is a small grain of truth to the attack (I do tend to somewhat overstate cases in the early game, since there's less to work with).

3) Keep this sentence in mind if Lamont tries to attack me for "reaching" later: he's clearly setting up such an attack (attack first with vague rationale, invent the longer rationale later), using language I strongly associate with scum.

But let's get started:

I don't think I like this Vino wagon at all.

Mod Votecount please.

I would support the Emp or Korlash wagons at this point.

Unvote, Vote Empking

He needs to be posting

more

.

Why worry about supporting wagons, instead of, oh I don't know, finding scum?

This of course is completely senseless. Why are you wasting the pixel space with a point like this? How would you like somebody attacking you with a lame argument like this? Certainly you understand how voting people is part of the process of catching scum right?

1) Theoretically, referring to "supporting wagons" should be a scumtell. Scum have a reason to support a wagon just because it's a wagon (it's in scum's best interests to have just about any lynch, especially on a nonscum player and even sometimes on a scum player), while a townie's goal is to lynch the scum and thus their reason for joining a bandwagon should be "because I think he's scum", so "supporting a bandwagon" (much like "I like my vote") is theoretically more likely to come from a scum mindset.

Unfortunately, the devil is in the details: I've found such language to be so unreliable that it's a null tell. Which doesn't matter, because the reason I posted that was quite clearly indicated in the original post itself and even quoted by you in your long post:

(This is something of a pet peeve of mine.)

Specifically, it's a pet peeve because it's something that *should* be a weak scumtell but has proved too unreliable to serve as such.

I don't think I like this Vino wagon at all.

Mod Votecount please.

I would support the Emp or Korlash wagons at this point.

Unvote, Vote Empking

He needs to be posting

more

.

Why dont you like the Vino "wagon"?

Why would you support the Emp and Korlash "wagons"?

Based on the evidence we have & the criteria that qualifies potential lynchees this early in the game, Vino is

not

a proper lynch candidate.

I support a Korlash wagon because he blames other people for his loss in LYLO.

I support an Empking wagon because anyone that posts "/confirm" and leaves needs to post regularly or be lynched.

I didn't know there were criteria that qualified potential lynch candidates other than "this player is likely to be scum". Elaborate, please.

Surely you know that very early in the game there is less to go on than we would have once the game progresses right? Why is the famous Tar wasting time with bad arguments like this??

1) Irrelevant. The ONLY rationale for justifying a lynch is because you think a player is likely to be scum (outside of the corner cases where the town can eliminate unconfirmed players faster than the scum can kill confirmed players, and even then the primary reason for lynching is because you think a player is more likely to be scum than other players).

2) The argument you're using is, in fact, an argument AGAINST your pushing for quicklynches: since quicklynching is likely to result in an effectively random lynch, the logical conclusion for town is to wait a few real-life days (for more players to post more, and to give anyone who was temporarily low on access a chance to make more involved posts), make cases (even/especially on weak grounds, because the responses to those cases on weak ground create cases on strong grounds later), and generally wait for more information before lynching?

3) Again, note condescending tone/ad hominem attacks/spinning (trying to portray something as a common-sense argument for his proposed course of action when a quick check of the argument reveals that it is logically an argument AGAINST his proposed course of action).

No, I never said anything about him convincing me. I'm saying you can't claim to have "called out scum" on day 1 unless you also recognize your failure at lynching those scum day 1 as well. If you call player A out as scum but are incapable of lynching them and end up lynching Player B, you have no real claim to fame at calling player A out. The game of mafia isn't about calling people out as scum, it's about proving they are scum and forcing everyone else to help you kill them.

And FYI I didn't lose in LYLO. Being wrong and losing are two different things. I had two super awesome townies watching my back that saved us the game. And yes, Pop had some small hand in it as well.

Kewl. Well you look super fun to play with and so I withdraw my support of your wagon.

Again, why does "fun to play with" equal "shouldn't be bandwagoned"? Scum can be fun to play with, after all...

Are you skimming too? I already explained this. The fun note is a side note. The main reason I unvoted him is because he wasn't exhibiting the behavior I thought he was (he explained it)...

1) Which you didn't say here - the reasoning provided in this post (for "withdrawing support of a wagon", I might add) is that Korlash is fun to play with.

2) Now that you mention it, why the HELL would you as a townie push for a player to be lynched solely for behavior in a past game? Especially a player who some players in the game (I, for one) have played with before and can get a decent read on with time and posts?

I support an Empking wagon because anyone that posts "/confirm" and leaves needs to post regularly or be lynched.

wtf is this statement. are you actually serious? are you accusing someone of lurking when the game started yesterday and is only 4 pages in? I posted only one time as well when you posted that. Does that mean I should be lynched because I am lurking?

Also, extreme amounts of enthusiasm is worth noting. Also, note the poor logic in why he wants to lynch people. Korlash because something that happened in another game and Empking because he's 'lurking.'

Unvote, Vote: Lamont

also, love the awesome australian players <3

Are you just skimming? Did you not see him post /confirm in the middle of the ongoing game and post nothing more and leave?

Why are you jumping on this bandwagon??

So? It's the beginning of D1. The people who just random voted are about as guilty as Emp in posting no content. There was little to say at that point. Do you really expect to him to say "X is scum because of this" on Page 3?

I'm not jumping on this BW. I have good reason to vote you. You're trying to say someone is lurking when the game has barely even begun. You're either:

A. Scumbuddies with Emp, and you're trying to distance yourself, albeit making it way too obvious. Possibly because Emp is generally seen scummy.
B. Scum whose using bad reasoning and making a crap attack against Emp to appear more town.
C. Town whose using bad reasoning and making a crap attack against Emp.
D. Properly pointing out someone is lurking and taking the proper town action towards that person.

I'm going with option B.

That's fine but D is the

right

answer here.

1) Wrong: Correct answer is E: Wait a few days to make sure they're lurking, then investigate, vig, or deadline lynch them (preferably vig).

Says you. He needs to post now or be lynched -- the earlier the better.

We can hang him out to dry in a few days if we need to - there are scummier players right now.

The best way to get him to contribute is to ring him up. If a scummier player emerges, sure I'll buy it but right now he needs to get rung up.

Let me get this straight:

1) Empking posts late with only a /confirm, which could be due to any number of out-of-game reasons (say, a day with a lot of work or a family gathering).
2) In order to punish Empking for "lurking" (a completely unfounded charge given that the game had only been going for a day), you propose that we quicklynch him (not directly stated, but implied by "the earlier the better") - the course of action that does the MOST to shorten the amount of time Empking would have to come back and make another post.

In other words, the "solution" you propose (lynching Empking, "the faster the better") to the problem you perceive (Empking "lurking") is precisely the solution that makes it the least likely that Empking will return in time to stop lurking by making posts with content!

Moreover, the solution you propose, should we use it, turns our Day 1 lynch into little better than a random lynch (given that Empking is not the most verbose of players even when town)!

And what's more, when I suggest several options for dealing with Empking should he be proven a lurker (through not posting for several days), you reject them! And these aren't even the best options for dealing with lurkers, since I forgot to list the very best: the almighty PROD, administered by our local Moderator on behalf of the players (and if you look again at the first post you'll note a 72-hour activity requirement, more than sufficient for forcing at least some posts from Empking).!

The game started yesterday. How in the hell is he lurking? You're not even giving him a chance!

Are you blind?? The game was in mid-swing and his entire post was:

/confirm

The last time I checked that is NO contribution in an ongoing game. My vote for him is proper.

As previously noted, it's only two days into D1 and this is Empking we're talking about. If he's posting like this in a week, THEN we can attack him for lurking - not now.

Also, hunting lurkers instead of scum is becoming a pattern for you.

Thanks & /fixed.

/Fixed back.

1) As I noted previously, lurker hunting is a popular scum pastime precisely BECAUSE it allows them to get players lynched that often aren't scum.

2) Every player you have attacked this game has been for a reason other than "I think this player as scum", so I feel quite confident in saying that you're hunting lurkers instead of scum.

Re Empking: he lurked the fuck out of the last game I was in him with, which coincidentally is the same game as the one roflcopter and I was in. He wasn't scum that game though, I think he just doesn't come online much. So, his lurking is a null tell in my book.

Dam he needs to stop it. Do you think a quick D1 lynch will help?

Trying to convince us to waste our D1 lynch on a quick lurker lynch? I THINK NOT. Even if the lurker lynch aspect of this was pro-town (and I'm NOWHERE as convinced of this as you are), the quicklynch aspect of it isn't.

The town will benefit greatly from forcing him to post. If a strong case elsewhere appears then fine the sooner lurkers are removed the better because as I am sure you know scum love having them around in the endgame and if we wait until mid-game when we have stronger cases that have to be dealt with, things just devolve from there.

1) Confirming and/or killing lurkish players is what vigs (killing them off), investigative roles (investigating them), and post analysis are for (even lurkish players can be read, and as long as you're sure a player is town and will post enough to vote before deadline you have no reason to vote that player, EVER). If we think a lurkish player is scum because he or she is posting like scum, we lynch that player... just like any other case.

2) Weak early game cases are what ALLOW us to build the strong cases in midgame.

It's completely serious now.

LOL. This is the best you have for a completely serious case? You really should be looking elsewhere.

Again, spin (trying to show that you don't care via the LOL, when it's quite clear you do) and blatantly obvious deflection (as far as I'm concerned, "You really should be looking elsewhere" = "Hey, look over there, a distraction!", or else maybe the old Southern rhyme: "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that ****** behind that tree.")

[Korlash]

I hate statements like this. You just berated him with sarcasm then completely undermined your own point. Scummy.

Hi, nice to meet you, I'm Korlash. Obviously you're going to grow to hate me in the coming game and I'm looking forward to it. I guess I should share a little about myself seeing a how you so graciously did so first. I hate people who make worthless statements like this but refuse to actually give their opinions on the point raised. Now if you are somehow suggesting sarcasm and admittance of being a hypocrite at certain times are in any way evidence of being scum then I have a few words of rebuttle for you. if you're only fluffing up the thread talking about how you dislike my style and think i should have gone with a prettier font then I'd have to question why you even bothered to post.

This is completely ridiculous. We should not get 4 pages in a day, especially a day where I'm literally working all afternoon and don't get a chance to check in.

25 players man... gunna be a couple posts a day...

Unvote:

Because I can't actually remember who I was voting without having to double check the vote count. Obviously that random vote has seen it's course.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Well it appears I have the

famous

Tar all pissed off at me.

1) Ad hominem is every bit as much a logical fallacy in defense as it is in offense.

2) You don't have me "pissed off at you". I think that your behavior is consistent with the hypothesis that you are scum, and that you are the scummiest player in the game at this point in time. There IS a difference.

3) Take a very close look at the quoted sentence. Lamont is NOT trying to explain that his play makes sense from a pro-town perspective, nor is he arguing why another player is more likely to be scum than he is (he's advocating a policy lynch instead - again, there IS a difference). The motivation I'm seeing from Lamont is an attempt to discredit my case against it by using spin (the ad hominem "famous Tar" attack and the decision to refer to my case against him by referring to it as me being "pissed off" - which implies that it's not a real case - instead of what it actually is, namely an early-game case).

That's behavior I'd expect to see from a real life politician or from a Mafioso... but NOT from a townie.

Sorry but my humourous fame reference is a null tell so there's no need to make a big deal out of it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on most things here.

Really now? Why should I just "agree to disagree" about something I find SCUMMY, instead of continuing to pressure you about it until I'm convinced that it could come from a town perspective or until you're lynched?

I'm not telling you to abandon your beliefs but you sure aren't going to convince me. I'll hunt lurkers viciously regardless of your opinion.

(Also, wherever did you get the idea that you could just order me to take a course of action and I would agree to do so?)

Ditto.

Parts of your case are so astoundingly bad it makes me wonder why you would be reaching so hard...

1) The clear implication here ("astoundingly bad, "I wonder why you're reaching so hard") is that you think I am scummy, but you don't come out and say so. Why is that? Are you trying to avoid a conflict?

I'm only suggesting that it IS odd you are reaching so hard with such a bad case. The majority of the points you've made don't match the vigor with which you have pursued the case.

2) Again, trying to discredit my case with spin, though this time there is a small grain of truth to the attack (I do tend to somewhat overstate cases in the early game, since there's less to work with).

A little more than slight here, yeah.

3) Keep this sentence in mind if Lamont tries to attack me for "reaching" later: he's clearly setting up such an attack (attack first with vague rationale, invent the longer rationale later), using language I strongly associate with scum.

I definitely am pointing it out and thank you for helping me to do so.

But let's get started:

I don't think I like this Vino wagon at all.

Mod Votecount please.

I would support the Emp or Korlash wagons at this point.

Unvote, Vote Empking

He needs to be posting

more

.

Why worry about supporting wagons, instead of, oh I don't know, finding scum?

This of course is completely senseless. Why are you wasting the pixel space with a point like this? How would you like somebody attacking you with a lame argument like this? Certainly you understand how voting people is part of the process of catching scum right?

1) Theoretically, referring to "supporting wagons" should be a scumtell. Scum have a reason to support a wagon just because it's a wagon (it's in scum's best interests to have just about any lynch, especially on a nonscum player and even sometimes on a scum player), while a townie's goal is to lynch the scum and thus their reason for joining a bandwagon should be "because I think he's scum", so "supporting a bandwagon" (much like "I like my vote") is theoretically more likely to come from a scum mindset.

Thank you Captain Obvious. My point is, "DUH!". Please this argument is beneath you and thankfully I have already addressed it.

Unfortunately, the devil is in the details: I've found such language to be so unreliable that it's a null tell. Which doesn't matter, because the reason I posted that was quite clearly indicated in the original post itself and even quoted by you in your long post:

(This is something of a pet peeve of mine.)

Specifically, it's a pet peeve because it's something that *should* be a weak scumtell but has proved too unreliable to serve as such.

I don't think I like this Vino wagon at all.

Mod Votecount please.

I would support the Emp or Korlash wagons at this point.

Unvote, Vote Empking

He needs to be posting

more

.

Why dont you like the Vino "wagon"?

Why would you support the Emp and Korlash "wagons"?

Based on the evidence we have & the criteria that qualifies potential lynchees this early in the game, Vino is

not

a proper lynch candidate.

I support a Korlash wagon because he blames other people for his loss in LYLO.

I support an Empking wagon because anyone that posts "/confirm" and leaves needs to post regularly or be lynched.

I didn't know there were criteria that qualified potential lynch candidates other than "this player is likely to be scum". Elaborate, please.

Surely you know that very early in the game there is less to go on than we would have once the game progresses right? Why is the famous Tar wasting time with bad arguments like this??

1) Irrelevant. The ONLY rationale for justifying a lynch is because you think a player is likely to be scum (outside of the corner cases where the town can eliminate unconfirmed players faster than the scum can kill confirmed players, and even then

the primary reason for lynching is because you think a player is more likely to be scum than other players

).

Well you are 50% correct here. Votes can also be placed to apply pressure to test for reactions. Since you made half my case I figured I would fill in the other half.

2) The argument you're using is, in fact, an argument AGAINST your pushing for quicklynches: since quicklynching is likely to result in an effectively random lynch, the logical conclusion for town is to wait a few real-life days (for more players to post more, and to give anyone who was temporarily low on access a chance to make more involved posts), make cases (even/especially on weak grounds, because the responses to those cases on weak ground create cases on strong grounds later), and generally wait for more information before lynching?

Waiting around is not the correct repsonse for lurkers. Really though the goal is to get them to come back and VOTES is what accomplishes this.

No, I never said anything about him convincing me. I'm saying you can't claim to have "called out scum" on day 1 unless you also recognize your failure at lynching those scum day 1 as well. If you call player A out as scum but are incapable of lynching them and end up lynching Player B, you have no real claim to fame at calling player A out. The game of mafia isn't about calling people out as scum, it's about proving they are scum and forcing everyone else to help you kill them.

And FYI I didn't lose in LYLO. Being wrong and losing are two different things. I had two super awesome townies watching my back that saved us the game. And yes, Pop had some small hand in it as well.

Kewl. Well you look super fun to play with and so I withdraw my support of your wagon.

Again, why does "fun to play with" equal "shouldn't be bandwagoned"? Scum can be fun to play with, after all...

Are you skimming too? I already explained this. The fun note is a side note. The main reason I unvoted him is because he wasn't exhibiting the behavior I thought he was (he explained it)...

1) Which you didn't say here - the reasoning provided in this post (for "withdrawing support of a wagon", I might add) is that Korlash is fun to play with.

Quit pushing an argument that makes no sense. I've already explained why I withdrew the vote; because he no longer exhibited the behavior that I specified. It is really useless to keep pushing this line because it is patently false.

2) Now that you mention it, why the HELL would you as a townie push for a player to be lynched solely for behavior in a past game? Especially a player who some players in the game (I, for one) have played with before and can get a decent read on with time and posts?

It was a fun probe in the beginning of the game. I was basically taking Tajo's side of their argument and positing that a person that would blame others in THIS game of losing in lylo should be voted. As it turned out I was incorrect so I withdrew my vote. This was all obvious if you had looked at all of the posts involved.

I support an Empking wagon because anyone that posts "/confirm" and leaves needs to post regularly or be lynched.

wtf is this statement. are you actually serious? are you accusing someone of lurking when the game started yesterday and is only 4 pages in? I posted only one time as well when you posted that. Does that mean I should be lynched because I am lurking?

Also, extreme amounts of enthusiasm is worth noting. Also, note the poor logic in why he wants to lynch people. Korlash because something that happened in another game and Empking because he's 'lurking.'

Unvote, Vote: Lamont

also, love the awesome australian players <3

Are you just skimming? Did you not see him post /confirm in the middle of the ongoing game and post nothing more and leave?

Why are you jumping on this bandwagon??

So? It's the beginning of D1. The people who just random voted are about as guilty as Emp in posting no content. There was little to say at that point. Do you really expect to him to say "X is scum because of this" on Page 3?

I'm not jumping on this BW. I have good reason to vote you. You're trying to say someone is lurking when the game has barely even begun. You're either:

A. Scumbuddies with Emp, and you're trying to distance yourself, albeit making it way too obvious. Possibly because Emp is generally seen scummy.
B. Scum whose using bad reasoning and making a crap attack against Emp to appear more town.
C. Town whose using bad reasoning and making a crap attack against Emp.
D. Properly pointing out someone is lurking and taking the proper town action towards that person.

I'm going with option B.

That's fine but D is the

right

answer here.

1) Wrong: Correct answer is E: Wait a few days to make sure they're lurking, then investigate, vig, or deadline lynch them (preferably vig).

Says you. He needs to post now or be lynched -- the earlier the better.

We can hang him out to dry in a few days if we need to - there are scummier players right now.

The best way to get him to contribute is to ring him up. If a scummier player emerges, sure I'll buy it but right now he needs to get rung up.

Let me get this straight:

1) Empking posts late with only a /confirm, which could be due to any number of out-of-game reasons (say, a day with a lot of work or a family gathering).

Sorry. If you can post "/confirm", you can post "/confirm I got family probs" or w/e. He didn't, that's my point.

2) In order to punish Empking for "lurking" (a completely unfounded charge given that the game had only been going for a day), you propose that we quicklynch him (not directly stated, but implied by "the earlier the better") - the course of action that does the MOST to shorten the amount of time Empking would have to come back and make another post.

As I stated earlier waiting until another day is not the best policy for lurkers and so "the sooner the better" means TODAY rather than any other day (as you were suggesting ).

And what's more, when I suggest several options for dealing with Empking should he be proven a lurker (through not posting for several days), you reject them! And these aren't even the best options for dealing with lurkers, since I forgot to list the very best: the almighty PROD, administered by our local Moderator on behalf of the players (and if you look again at the first post you'll note a 72-hour activity requirement, more than sufficient for forcing at least some posts from Empking).!

You fail to notice that he was DELIBERATELY lurking so your strange fantasy about his tremendous RL problems where he couldn't make 10 extra keystrokes really makes no sense whatsoever. Once again a player of your talents making such a big deal out of this is really over the top, and WHY?

The game started yesterday. How in the hell is he lurking? You're not even giving him a chance!

Are you blind?? The game was in mid-swing and his entire post was:

/confirm

The last time I checked that is NO contribution in an ongoing game. My vote for him is proper.

As previously noted, it's only two days into D1 and this is Empking we're talking about. If he's posting like this in a week, THEN we can attack him for lurking - not now.

Also, hunting lurkers instead of scum is becoming a pattern for you.

Thanks & /fixed.

/Fixed back.

1) As I noted previously, lurker hunting is a popular scum pastime precisely BECAUSE it allows them to get players lynched that often aren't scum.

Says you. I say lurking is a scum pastime and wow look at that we are on even ground.

Re Empking: he lurked the fuck out of the last game I was in him with, which coincidentally is the same game as the one roflcopter and I was in. He wasn't scum that game though, I think he just doesn't come online much. So, his lurking is a null tell in my book.

Dam he needs to stop it. Do you think a quick D1 lynch will help?

Trying to convince us to waste our D1 lynch on a quick lurker lynch? I THINK NOT. Even if the lurker lynch aspect of this was pro-town (and I'm NOWHERE as convinced of this as you are), the quicklynch aspect of it isn't.

The town will benefit greatly from forcing him to post. If a strong case elsewhere appears then fine the sooner lurkers are removed the better because as I am sure you know scum love having them around in the endgame and if we wait until mid-game when we have stronger cases that have to be dealt with, things just devolve from there.

1) Confirming and/or killing lurkish players is what vigs (killing them off), investigative roles (investigating them), and post analysis are for (even lurkish players can be read, and as long as you're sure a player is town and will post enough to vote before deadline you have no reason to vote that player, EVER). If we think a lurkish player is scum because he or she is posting like scum, we lynch that player... just like any other case.

2) Weak early game cases are what ALLOW us to build the strong cases in midgame.

It's completely serious now.

LOL. This is the best you have for a completely serious case? You really should be looking elsewhere.

Again, spin (trying to show that you don't care via the LOL, when it's quite clear you do) and blatantly obvious deflection (as far as I'm concerned, "You really should be looking elsewhere" = "Hey, look over there, a distraction!", or else maybe the old Southern rhyme: "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that ****** behind that tree.")

NO. You REALLY should be looking elsewhere. Its exactly what I mean.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Omgosh people can we stop the WALL-O-CRAP please??

[Santos]

oh my.

Yes, there is tons of reading and very little I have to contribute.

Why are people voting for SensFan? It seems like a typical SensFan vote in the beginning and he is catching a little flak for it.

[Lamont_Cranston]

One of the votes on him is random. The other two are for opportunistic BW-ing with a very bad case.

[SerialClergyman]

Hi, nice to meet you, I'm Korlash. Obviously you're going to grow to hate me in the coming game and I'm looking forward to it. I guess I should share a little about myself seeing a how you so graciously did so first. I hate people who make worthless statements like this but refuse to actually give their opinions on the point raised. Now if you are somehow suggesting sarcasm and admittance of being a hypocrite at certain times are in any way evidence of being scum then I have a few words of rebuttle for you. if you're only fluffing up the thread talking about how you dislike my style and think i should have gone with a prettier font then I'd have to question why you even bothered to post.

Hi Korlash - perhaps you took what I said about your statement personally and I didn't mean it like that. I certainly don't hate you or meant to imply anything about you personally or your style.

I hate statements like that one you gave because you are being wishy washy like anything. Any time you try to comment on an issue and can't tell me which side you're on, you are leaving yourself wiggle room so that if it later becomes an issue, you're able to fall back on whatever position is convinient. Either you're in favour of wagoning lurkers or your not - but if you bother to post about the issue, take a side so you can be held to it.

As for me - I'm looking for statements I find scummy. I found nothing wrong with the original suggestion, that we should pressure lurkers, but I found a lot wrong with your wishy-washy response to it, so I called you on it.

[SensFan]

SensFan's entire post is a lie.

FOS: SensFan

Given my post was discussing what I find scummy, how can it possibly be a lie?
More importantly, if you supposedly caught me in that big of a lie, why wouldn't you explain it carefully and vote me for it?

[SensFan]

My view of things: I made a random vote half joking about a previous game that has otherwise no relevance here, and four people jumped on it for no apparent reason. I shall name names: Fishy, korlash, roflcopter, and populartajo. Korlash called it "solid" for a reason I can't fathom. Fishy argues that I am trying to look nonchalant, which (not that I agree with it) is a reasonable argument, but not in light of the fact that he seemed to be at my teeth from the get-go. I don't like any of those. I'd like them to explain themselves. My vote on rofl was random but I'm willing to chalk it up to his play style. SensFan though should know better.

Unvote, Vote: SensFan

.

Why should I "know better"?
What the fuck are you even talking about?

SensFan though should know better.

Unvote, Vote: SensFan

.

I also don't like Lamont defending me so much. I appreciate the gesture but please stick to defending your arguments, not my townliness. Even so you strike me at the moment as more of a loose cannon than a flailing scum.

I can't help it they keep bringing it up.

I've been trying to figure out which BW-er to clock for your wagon and I guess you made up my mind for me...

Vote Sens

Lemme get this straight...

*You specifically want to vote someone wagonning Vino
*Vino makes a post saying I should know better than to think he's scummy
*You thank him for 'making up your mind for you'
*You vote me

You realize I never voted Vino, right? So, you know, your whole premise that you're voting for a Vino BWer is false.

Not to mention 'I've been looking to vote for someone whose BWing this other person early D1' is one of the scummiest things I've ever heard.

[SensFan]

Oh, and Vino:

You may think the early-D1 stage is useless.
I find more scum through this phase than the rest put together.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Lemme get this straight...

*You specifically want to vote someone wagonning Vino
*Vino makes a post saying I should know better than to think he's scummy
*You thank him for 'making up your mind for you'
*You vote me

You realize I never voted Vino, right? So, you know, your whole premise that you're voting for a Vino BWer is false.

Not to mention 'I've been looking to vote for someone whose BWing this other person early D1' is one of the scummiest things I've ever heard.

Its not that bad.

Whoops. Dam sorry. Sometimes I play while at work and (WHOOPS) things happen.

Unvote

I will re-analyze Vino's wagon thank you.