Mini 432 - RajÔÇÖs Freaktown IV (Raj's Ladies): GAME OVER

[PJ.]

BillyTwilight, I never attacked the lurkers for lurking I attacked them for their bulshit excuses for lurking. Lurking is not inherently scummy but when coupled with a terrible reason or a bad reason, it can be looked to as scummy. If Scot had just said, I'm lurking because it is my strategy, I would have nodded and been like as much as I don't like it, I have to live with it. And as you've contradicted yourself, you said that activity gives the town information meaning inactivity withholds it. Then you said that it isn't scummy because scum attack lurkers because they want to seem active. So if lurking is scummy and attacking lurkers is scummy, what should we do? Ignore it? No, their are very few actions that are scummy in and of itself, it is the motivation and the agenda behind the action that makes an action scummy. May I ask why you agree with Scotmany's excuse?


And again to Billy, if everyone lurked during the random stage, would you find that acceptable? The point is lurking is bad form and can be easily used by scum to withhold information.

FoS:BillyTwilight

Still have my eye on Scot and IH.

[Mariyta]

If everyone lurked during the random stage, we'd never get out of the random stage....

[logicticus]

Which I believe is the problem with this game so far

vote ih

[BillyTwilight]

BillyTwilight, I never attacked the lurkers for lurking I attacked them for their bulshit excuses for lurking. Lurking is not inherently scummy but when coupled with a terrible reason or a bad reason, it can be looked to as scummy. If Scot had just said, I'm lurking because it is my strategy, I would have nodded and been like as much as I don't like it, I have to live with it. And as you've contradicted yourself, you said that activity gives the town information meaning inactivity withholds it. Then you said that it isn't scummy because scum attack lurkers because they want to seem active. So if lurking is scummy and attacking lurkers is scummy, what should we do? Ignore it? No, their are very few actions that are scummy in and of itself, it is the motivation and the agenda behind the action that makes an action scummy. May I ask why you agree with Scotmany's excuse?


And again to Billy, if everyone lurked during the random stage, would you find that acceptable? The point is lurking is bad form and can be easily used by scum to withhold information.

FoS:BillyTwilight

Still have my eye on Scot and IH.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I

never

contradicted myself. I said at best lurking is a non-tell. I completely agree with anyone who says that lurking is bad for town. Lurking = less information = bad for town. I said as much in my post. This DOES NOT mean that lurking=scum. I never said it does. My point is still valid. I find it more likely for scum to attack lurkers because they are easy meat. I FoS'ed you and Lawrencelot because of this. I think lurking is very bad for town, especially after the random voting phase. However, I think that its bad not because lurking is scummy, but because lurking lets

active scum

appear more town.

As for why I believe Scot - he said he doesn't like the random voting stage of the game. Seeing that typically at best the random voting stage can be amusing and at worst it can be downright boring, I have no problem with his excuse for not posting. In fact, I find it less likely that he is scum because of it, because I would think that most scum would post more in order to avoid a lurker tag. FYI I FoSed you based on your FoS of Scot. FoS is generally considered stronger than IGMEOY. It seems to me that you reserved the stronger suspicion for Scot when I felt his excuse for lurking was much better than IH's, which could be an outright lie. Why then, if you are pointing fingers because of peoples excuses for lurking, did you push stronger suspicion on the person with the better excuse for lurking?

As for the question about "if everyone lurked during the random voting stage, etc.", I find this ludicrous. It's both a loaded question and a straw man argument. I never said it was good to lurk, in fact I said it was bad. You specifically twisted my argument to get away from the fact that you are attacking the easiest players to attack and to make my argument look different than what it was. I'll go ahead and give you an answer though. In the unlikely case that no one posted at the beginning of a game, the mod would either abandon the game or institute a deadline to force posting, or modkill players to make an example. The point is s/he would handle it the way s/he saw fit. It's the mod's job to make people post when there is an entire set of players not playing, and freak has done that.

Now, I want to know why you FoSed Scot for a legitimate reason for not posting during the random phase but only put your eye on IH. I want to know why "its my strategy" is a better reason for lurking than "I get bored in the random voting phase". I want to know why you tried to turn my post into one that supported lurking. And I want you to answer for why you think lurking is scummy when inevitably in almost every mafia game someone gets voted if not outright lynched for lurking, and any scum player worth his salt would go out of his way to avoid a lurker tag. And finally, why is lurker hunting something that scum would not do?

[BillyTwilight]

Which I believe is the problem with this game so far

vote ih

Now, Panzer, if you want a lurker scumtell then this is it. logicticus has only one post without even a random vote, rejoins the game and insta-votes a lurker based on your logic, ignoring the fact that he has contributed less than even IH up till that post. Another problem with lurker hunting is that it gives opportunistic scum an excuse to join a bandwagon with very little reason to do so.

logicticus, could you please give a

reason

for your vote of IH, considering that you contribution to this game has been nil?

[Metatron]

Panzerjager, sorry about that. Raj said you only posted 3 times.

Beyond that, I'm generally against Lurker hunts. They tend to end up as Red Herrings. Still, I can't tell if Scotmany's apparent withholding of information and activity in the early game is a scum tell or just a play style.

Also, there is something about IH's calm attitude, considering he's only made one post, that seems a little...too on top of things. I know that, in game where I play scum (a few meatworld games and a few on other sites or with friends) I tend to be more confident and in control than when I play town. Still, I don't want to appear to be OMGUSing him, so I'll leave the matter alone.

[logicticus]

im voting for ih to generate discussion

[scotmany12]

How exactly am I withholding information? By not posting during the random voting stage except making a random vote. That makes no sense. The only people who are going to have information at this point is the ones that succeeded at their night choices. I was never withholding information. And then you guys think IH's excuse is less scummy than mine? That is BS. His excuse was ridiculous. He didn't know the game was going on because of the server crash. How is that even remotely believable? Raj sent out pm's again, one that even said that the game was on. And some of you think that his excuse is more believable than mine. That's funny.

I think you guys can see that I am suspicious of IH. I am also not set with log's reason for voting IH. I believe we already have enough discussion going on. What has the last couple of posts been? Discussion. I think you are just being very opportunistic. Thus,

Unvote

(If I am voting someone),

Vote: logicticus

Also log, can we try using some grammar in your posts. Maybe some punctuation at times. Stop making your posts look like you are texting someone.

[logicticus]

so you think i have so ulterior motive for voting for ih?



my grammar is fine

punctuation is for suckers

see ee cummings

[scotmany12]

I think you are an opportunistic scum taking advantage of IH's excuse and the suspicion brought up against him. You lurked, and when you saw that someone else was being considered as scum, you jumped on it and voted for him.

[Metatron]

I agree with Billy Twilight, mostly. Mainly, that lurking doesn't really tell us as much as it seems to. Some of the reasons people lurk can be, and how they respond when prodded, but a lurker in and of itself does not a scum tell make. Interestingly, I also find that scum tend to try and get Lurkers lynched, because they make good targets. I'm not saying we let these guys off the hook, but just don't get carried away.

[logicticus]

I think you are an opportunistic scum taking advantage of IH's excuse and the suspicion brought up against him. You lurked, and when you saw that someone else was being considered as scum, you jumped on it and voted for him.

except for the scum thing, you are on the mark

[BabyJesus]

vote scotmany

[PJ.]

Alright, to me IGMEOY and FoS are on the same level, but will try not to yuse them interchangably for now on. Now, to even the score

FoS: IH and Scot

. Alright, the score is tied how it was meant to be. The point that it "was his strategy" would be far better in my eyes because it actually means he is being upfront, when "not liking random stage" seems like an excuse to not post. Alright I never tried to turn it into you supporting lurking, I just felt like your points could have been taking to the level of you contradicting yourself, meaning your points weren't concise. I never ever said lurking was scummy. I said the motivation behind it could make it scummy. Why are you trying to cofuse my points? On top of all the above, most people lurker hunt. Again not inherently scummy, but the motivation behind such things could be interupted as a scummy thing. Both lurking and lurker hunting are not scummy because of the "what" of the action, but can be scummy because of answer to the question "why?"

Now, I believe Logictus is acting incredily scummy right now and I'm with Billy and Scot on this.

Unvote, Vote: Logicticus, Un-FoS:Scot, IGMEOY still: IH

I like Meta's point on IH and I hate everything Log has said since he started being active. For the record therre was nothing to belive about your excuse scot, I just didn't like the excuse. I still dislike and think that IH's excuse is bullshit.

[PJ.]

Why Babyjesus?

[logicticus]

Which I believe is the problem with this game so far

vote ih

Now, Panzer, if you want a lurker scumtell then this is it. logicticus has only one post without even a random vote, rejoins the game and

insta-votes a lurker based on your logic

, ignoring the fact that he has contributed less than even IH up till that post. Another problem with lurker hunting is that it gives opportunistic scum an excuse to join a bandwagon with very little reason to do so.

logicticus, could you please give a

reason

for your vote of IH, considering that you contribution to this game has been nil?

i just want to record to state that this is an assumption (and an incorrect one at that).

[BillyTwilight]

And again to Billy, if everyone lurked during the random stage, would you find that acceptable?

If everyone lurked during the random stage, we'd never get out of the random stage....

Which I believe is the problem with this game so far

vote ih

Which I believe is the problem with this game so far

vote ih

Now, Panzer, if you want a lurker scumtell then this is it. logicticus has only one post without even a random vote, rejoins the game and

insta-votes a lurker based on your logic

, ignoring the fact that he has contributed less than even IH up till that post. Another problem with lurker hunting is that it gives opportunistic scum an excuse to join a bandwagon with very little reason to do so.

logicticus, could you please give a

reason

for your vote of IH, considering that you contribution to this game has been nil?

i just want to record to state that this is an assumption (and an incorrect one at that).

logicticus, given the chain of events that lead up to your vote, can you please explain how I misinterpreted or "assumed" something about your motives? You plainly stated that the problem with the game so far (as you saw it) was lurking in the random phase, then you voted for someone who was a lurker in the random phase. Not to mention that you stated it in such a fashion that it seemed you agreed with Mariyta, and thus with Panzer. When asked to elaborate on why you voted IH, you declined. If that wasn't the reason you voted IH, why didn't you elaborate on it when asked? Your answer of "to generate discussion" doesn't swing with me, considering you didn't add anything to the discussion other than a vote.

[Lawrencelot]

I don't agree with Billytwilight, but not with Panzerjager either. Lynching lurkers is wrong indeed, but voting lurkers is good. Everybody is attacking someone who votes for a lurker here, that's stupid. Voting lurkers makes them post, and if they don't post they don't help the town either. So, my opinion: voting lurkers is good, as long as they don't get lynched without a chance.

unvote, vote: logicticus.

You just act too scummy. At least act like someone who's on the town side if you want to defend yourself.

[logicticus]

BillyTwilight, I never attacked the lurkers for lurking I attacked them for their bulshit excuses for lurking. Lurking is not inherently scummy but when coupled with a terrible reason or a bad reason, it can be looked to as scummy.

This was the logic I thought you were referring to not

And again to Billy, if everyone lurked during the random stage, would you find that acceptable?

And I did it to generate discussion, which if you hadnt noticed, was successful

Now as for LL, who is quite the hypocrite it appears.

Lynching lurkers is wrong indeed, but voting lurkers is good.

Alright, thats pretty straight forward. And I voted for a lurker (IH) so thats good, right?

Everybody is attacking someone who votes for a lurker here, that's stupid. Voting lurkers makes them post, and if they don't post they don't help the town either. So, my opinion: voting lurkers is good, as long as they don't get lynched without a chance.

Still on the same page as you. Generally putting pressure on lurkers elicts a response from them. But at the same time they need to have a chance to response.

unvote, vote: logicticus. You just act too scummy. At least act like someone who's on the town side if you want to defend yourself.

What what what? Where did this come from? I did exactly what you just outlined. Its not like IH is lynch -1 or anything. And now Im acting all scummy??

I smell someone who sense an opportunity to get on a bandwagon thats forming.

unvote, vote lawrencelot

[PJ.]

I don't like LL at the moment. I think he could be an SK of sorts, because I think Logiticus is scum WITH IH, making the vote a way to distance each other and LL seems to not care who dies.

[Lawrencelot]

What I said after voting you has nothing to do with what I said before that in the same post (i understand if you thought so). I did not vote you because you voted a lurker, in that point we both agree. I'll clarify why I voted you:

-NOT because of who you voted, we both agree on the lurker-voting.
-because you just joined the discussion without saying why you were lurking yourself. (The others did say this.)
-because your posts are so short, they almost don't contribute to the discussion (although I hate those really long posts). This last post is an exception though.
-I just think your scum according to your behaviour. This was the most important reason why I voted you, but you only had 3 posts then, so this might change.

By the way, some of these arguments count for BabyJesus too, who just votes without giving a reason.

FOS: babyjesus

You might be right about the bandwagon though, I didn't realize you already had 2 votes on you, so I might unvote if you'd get in danger so you could try to defend yourself.

Panzerjager: I don't really understand this last post. Who is distancing who with who's vote? Of course I care who dies. But I admit I am changing my votes much now, but it's the beginning of D1 so I hope you don't mind that.

[Lawrencelot]

EBWOP: most of this last post was for logicticus, panzerjager posted while i was typing

[PJ.]

Logicticus is distancing from IH.

[scotmany12]

I'm fine with LL's explanation for his vote. At first I though he was being a little hypocritical, but he had other reasons for voting for him instead of his lurkiness.

Also, babyjesus. Can you provide some reasoning in voting for me? I think we are past the random voting stage now, so you must have some reason.

[logicticus]

What I said after voting you has nothing to do with what I said before that in the same post (i understand if you thought so). I did not vote you because you voted a lurker, in that point we both agree. I'll clarify why I voted you:

-NOT because of who you voted, we both agree on the lurker-voting.
-because you just joined the discussion without saying why you were lurking yourself. (The others did say this.)
-because your posts are so short, they almost don't contribute to the discussion (although I hate those really long posts). This last post is an exception though.
-I just think your scum according to your behaviour. This was the most important reason why I voted you, but you only had 3 posts then, so this might change.

By the way, some of these arguments count for BabyJesus too, who just votes without giving a reason.

FOS: babyjesus

You might be right about the bandwagon though, I didn't realize you already had 2 votes on you, so I might unvote if you'd get in danger so you could try to defend yourself.

Panzerjager: I don't really understand this last post. Who is distancing who with who's vote? Of course I care who dies. But I admit I am changing my votes much now, but it's the beginning of D1 so I hope you don't mind that.

Wow, my scumdar just broke.

In my experience, when someone writes something and then votes for someone in the same post, that writing applies to the person. People dont talk about something seperate and then vote for someone that had no connection to their post.

So then you go on to list some grievances against me:

1) I didnt tell everyone why I was lurking (thats pretty weak, especially since people have been berated for their terrible reasons for lurking. Are you looking for another reason to go after me?)

2) My short posts (but you dont like long ones, so you dont like this one)

3) My behavior. (So from those three short posts I had you figured that I was behaving as scum?)

Nothing there is really substantial in my opinion. You are just looking for reasons to look legit.

Then my favorite part. Pretending you were oblivious to the current vote count...a huge scum tell. Especially since all the votes for me were on the one page when i stopped lurking.