Mini 396: ChatMafia Mafia; GAME OVER

[Jack]

Unvote, Vote:Coron

For lurking.

[ChannelDelibird]

I see no reason to move my vote from StallingChamp at this time.

[Coron]

Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:26 am Post subject: 37

Limited access until sunday/monday.

Didn't actually get back until Tuesday night due to car trouble(I wasted almost an entire day trying to fix it myself, then realized it was above my head). Though I was sorta around during that time I was only keeping up instead of making long analysis of stuff, and wednesday my school started back up... give me a break.

I'll try to post something of actual content soon.

[Jack]

We'll see. My thinking is that scum would lurk during the Angus thing knowing he was innocent.

[Zindaras]

We'll see. My thinking is that scum would lurk during the Angus thing knowing he was innocent.

So you single out Coron for this? There are other lurkers, you know.

Unvote, Vote: Jack

FoS: HurriKaty

Fairly sure we've got 2 scum there.

[Jack]

We'll see. My thinking is that scum would lurk during the Angus thing knowing he was innocent.

So you single out Coron for this? There are other lurkers, you know.

Unvote, Vote: Jack

FoS: HurriKaty

Fairly sure we've got 2 scum there.

Huh? I can only vote for one person you know. I noticed Coron. Who were the other lurkers?

More importantly, why is voting for lurkers when the game is clearly dying down a bit scummy in the slightest? I'm tempted to move my vote back to you.

[Zindaras]

Huh? I can only vote for one person you know. I noticed Coron. Who were the other lurkers?

You're not unvoting him, even though he posted. Then it's not a lurker vote anymore. And there are enough people who haven't posted a lot of content throughout the day.

More importantly, why is voting for lurkers when the game is clearly dying down a bit scummy in the slightest? I'm tempted to move my vote back to you.

You're not voting lurkers if you still vote him after he makes a post explaining his disappearance.

[Jack]

Huh? I can only vote for one person you know. I noticed Coron. Who were the other lurkers?

You're not unvoting him, even though he posted. Then it's not a lurker vote anymore. And there are enough people who haven't posted a lot of content throughout the day.

More importantly, why is voting for lurkers when the game is clearly dying down a bit scummy in the slightest? I'm tempted to move my vote back to you.

You're not voting lurkers if you still vote him after he makes a post explaining his disappearance.

He hasn't posted content:

I'll try to post something of actual content soon.

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

[draygn_mage]

Its also scummy to keep saying "I think so and so is scum because he did _______. and Scum do ________ as a delaying/misdirection tactic." Congratulations you guys have turned this into WIFOM 101. Scum do EVERYTHING as a tactic. They vote with the town, they vote against the town, they defend townies, they defend scum, they persecute townies, they persecute scum, they lurk, they post prolificly, etc. The only things that can really count as scummy are irregularities. If, for instance, you notice on day one that player x was harping on and on about lurking and then on day 3 they're only posting when directly spoken to, that is an irregularity and something I would call scummy. If you read through a game in which player y was townie and kept leading the town, and then you notice that here they are being more of a follower, that may be scummy. I don't have enough info to really call anyone scummy at this point. I'm just calling attention to lapses in logic or reasoning.

[HurriKaty]

I see absolutely no reason to vote for Coron when he was lurking because of limitted access. With that logic, you could vote me for lurking, as I do at points when I cant think of anything to say, or for anyone else who had been lurking.

You ask who the other lurkers were, they're very easy to spot. Look at the list, and then look at people who are posting. There are really only ever a certain number of people posting at the same time. I cant remember any time in this game, or even any other game, where everyone has continuously posted at once.

[Y]

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

I think you're wrong on this one. I know for myself that I don'd like being prodded or seen as not interested in the game, so I let every one know I'm keeping track of the game although I have no time or reason to post a long post.

I need a reread. I'll try to do it today...

[Jack]

Its also scummy to keep saying "I think so and so is scum because he did _______. and Scum do ________ as a delaying/misdirection tactic." Scum do EVERYTHING as a tactic

Irony?

You can't notice any irregularities if people don't post.

[Jack]

I see absolutely no reason to vote for Coron when he was lurking because of limitted access. With that logic, you could vote me for lurking, as I do at points when I cant think of anything to say, or for anyone else who had been lurking.

He said limited access till Monday and I voted him on Friday. Do you really disagree with pressure votes? Sure townies lurk, but people lurking is never a good thing.

[Jack]

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

I think you're wrong on this one. I know for myself that I don'd like being prodded or seen as not interested in the game, so I let every one know I'm keeping track of the game although I have no time or reason to post a long post.

I need a reread. I'll try to do it today...

Just because townies do it doesn't mean scum don't. And it doesn't matter if you vote townies for lurking.

[Zindaras]

He hasn't posted content:

I'll try to post something of actual content soon.

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

1) This is not an argument why you're not voting other lurkers.
2) Yes, I'm letting him off the hook, as long as the post he promised actually comes. That seems fairly obvious.

Its also scummy to keep saying "I think so and so is scum because he did _______. and Scum do ________ as a delaying/misdirection tactic." Congratulations you guys have turned this into WIFOM 101. Scum do EVERYTHING as a tactic. They vote with the town, they vote against the town, they defend townies, they defend scum, they persecute townies, they persecute scum, they lurk, they post prolificly, etc. The only things that can really count as scummy are irregularities. If, for instance, you notice on day one that player x was harping on and on about lurking and then on day 3 they're only posting when directly spoken to, that is an irregularity and something I would call scummy. If you read through a game in which player y was townie and kept leading the town, and then you notice that here they are being more of a follower, that may be scummy. I don't have enough info to really call anyone scummy at this point. I'm just calling attention to lapses in logic or reasoning.

You're a bit wrong about this. While irregularities are indeed a great way to catch scum, there are some universal scum and townie tells. These tells work great, and have led me to catching lots of scum.

Anyway, what I'm accusing Jack of is a perfect example of an irregularity.

[Jack]

He hasn't posted content:

I'll try to post something of actual content soon.

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

1) This is not an argument why you're not voting other lurkers.
2) Yes, I'm letting him off the hook, as long as the post he promised actually comes. That seems fairly obvious.

How about, oh I don't know, you can't vote more than one person at once? If you don't single someone out you aren't going to get taken seriously. It's easy for people to ignore "you 4 post more ok". I see no reason to concern myself with other people until then. Your number 2 is less safe than my way.

Getting lurkers posting isn't as important enough to warrant all this discussion.

[Zindaras]

How about, oh I don't know, you can't vote more than one person at once?

You can FoS more than one person at any given time, you can change your vote after someone has posted they will post more content (and that post was, for me, the reason to change my vote).

If you don't single someone out you aren't going to get taken seriously.

Where'd you get that ridiculous idea?

It's easy for people to ignore "you 4 post more ok". I see no reason to concern myself with other people until then.

Vote: 1, FoS: 2,3,4

When 1 posts, unvote, vote 2. And go on.

You can't ignore that.

Your number 2 is less safe than my way.

Since when is this a bad thing?

Getting lurkers posting isn't as important enough to warrant all this discussion.

We're talking about how you're scum. That is important enough to warrant discussion.

[Jack]

How about, oh I don't know, you can't vote more than one person at once?

You can FoS more than one person at any given time, you can change your vote after someone has posted they will post more content (and that post was, for me, the reason to change my vote).

If you don't single someone out you aren't going to get taken seriously.

Where'd you get that ridiculous idea?

Past experience. FoS's are weak.

Getting lurkers posting isn't as important enough to warrant all this discussion.

We're talking about how you're scum. That is important enough to warrant discussion.

Except we aren't discussing how I'm scum, we're discussing what the best way to deal with lurkers is. You haven't made any connection between "singled out one lurker" and "scum". Why is it scummy that I haven't unvoted Coron?

[Zindaras]

Past experience. FoS's are weak.

Weaker than doing nothing at all, as you have done?

Except we aren't discussing how I'm scum, we're discussing what the best way to deal with lurkers is. You haven't made any connection between "singled out one lurker" and "scum". Why is it scummy that I haven't unvoted Coron?

As dragyn_mage said, it's an irregularity that you're singling out Coron, not anyone else. I don't like the way you don't unvote when he posts.

[Jack]

Past experience. FoS's are weak.

Weaker than doing nothing at all, as you have done?

And you have done what?

As dragyn_mage said, it's an irregularity that you're singling out Coron, not anyone else. I don't like the way you don't unvote when he posts.

No, it would be an irregularity if I did everyone one round and then only one person the next round. He hasn't posted any content yet.

[Zindaras]

And you have done what?

I've been consequent and voting bandwagoners.

No, it would be an irregularity if I did everyone one round and then only one person the next round. He hasn't posted any content yet.

It's irregular because you attack one person, but leave similar cases untouched.

[Jack]

It's irregular because you attack one person, but leave similar cases untouched.

This is not irregular, by the definition of the word. You're going to have to come up with a reason of your own rather than piggybacking off of draygn_mage's logic.

[Zindaras]

This is not irregular, by the definition of the word. You're going to have to come up with a reason of your own rather than piggybacking off of draygn_mage's logic.

It is irregular because you use different measures for different people.

Meh, I just liked the way dragyn worded it. It doesn't change the point, however.

[Jack]

This is not irregular, by the definition of the word. You're going to have to come up with a reason of your own rather than piggybacking off of draygn_mage's logic.

It is irregular because you use different measures for different people.

Meh, I just liked the way dragyn worded it. It doesn't change the point, however.

What makes you think this is irregular behavior for me?

[Zindaras]

What makes you think this is irregular behavior for me?

It is not irregular behaviour for you, the irregularity lies in the fact that you treat two similar cases in dissimilar ways.