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

[Lawrencelot]

A serial killer is more likely than a vig, because it stroke night 1.

Random

Vote: IH

We have to be quick, 2 weeks are gone before you know it.

[Lawrencelot]

Panzerjager, why is your vote on Mariyta not random?

[Lawrencelot]

Let's vote for the lurkers. Oh, I already voted IH. People, please do the same! (but don't lynch him yet, we should test his defense first)

[Lawrencelot]

Unvote IH, vote: Scotmany.

This doesn't mean I trust you, IH, the crash is over some time now, and raj sent an extra pm as panzerjager said. But I unvoted you because you actually did something, and scotmany basically said he didn't do anything yet on purpose, because he doesn't like the first pages.

[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.

[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

[Lawrencelot]

I was planning to say: "let's stop the lurkervote discussion, because scotmany, ih and logicticus are posting now", but now there are others who don't post much, like mert and maryta. So this discussion still is important. I still think placing a vote or 2 on a lurker is good, as long as not everybody will jump on them causing a quicklynch. I voted 3 lurkers, Ih, scotmany and logicticus, and now they are all posting, whether it is because of the votes or not you have to admit that.

My vote on logicticus was mainly because of his attitude, not revealing much information and such, but that was after 3 posts of him. Now he's more open, I'll unvote him for now.

Unvote: logicticus

. However I still don't like his attitude, (it's not very townie-like) I admit I can't give a really good reason to keep my vote on him.

My suspicion goes to babyjesus, who doesn't give any reasoning for his votes, and mert and mariyta, who don't post much content either.

Topics that don't need that much attention in my opinion: whether IH recieved his pm or not, he is posting now so it doesn't matter. And whether or not it's up to the mod to handle lurkers, because the people who lurked/are lurking didn't lurk that much to ask help of the mod.

[Lawrencelot]

Lawrencelot wrote:
My suspicion goes to... (snip) mert and mariyta, who don't post much content.


You must have missed the bit where I said I was away. I only got back yesterday and have been trying to catch up.

Lawrencelot wrote:
Topics that don't need that much attention in my opinion: whether IH recieved his pm or not, he is posting now so it doesn't matter.


Erm, it was only you and Panzer that seemed interested to begin with, if memory serves.

You see, the best thing is that you have loads of posts saying "lurker hunting is wrong" but your posts don't appear to have much content that doesn't involve lurkers in some way.

Post 38 - "Lets vote for lurkers"
Post 48 - "I don't trust IH, the crash has been over for ages"
Post 67 - "Lynching lurkers bad, voting lurkers good"
Post 70 - "You didn't say why you were lurking like the others did"
Post 86 - "Let's stop the lurker conversation; here're some lurkers I don't like"

You've made eight posts in this game in total. One was a random vote, one was a slight addendum via-EBWOP, one was a question and the remaining five were about lurkers in some way or another.

Seems to me like you're lurking in plain sight, a far worse crime than your garden-variety lurking.

I didn't know you were away indeed. Ok, it's true I have only been talking about lurkers/lurking, but that's because that was the main discussion going on. You looked back at my posts and concluded it was all about lurking, but have you looked back at other's posts? The main discussion was about lurking, so I gave my contribution to it. Something that cannot be said about everyone.

LL, initially you wanted everyone to vote for IH. As soon as he posted and FoSed you, you backed off. Why? You pretty much have done that for everyone you've voted for: placed the vote, waited to see if any real pressure would build up against that player, then moved it as soon as it looked like things weren't going to get hard for that player.

Panzer, you are guilty of the same thing, but even more so with your most recent vote switch. Like Mert, I want to know what the "hat" was that dropped and made you switch your vote to LL.

Both of you are really getting by skin up. Panzer, you tried to change a point I made against you and twist it into an argument that I wasn't trying to make, LL you are flighty as a bird with your votes. Neither of you seem to be willing to really scum hunt, but just jump on the closest bandwagon and hop off again as soon as said bandwagon starts to evaporate.

That was my whole point. I was voting for the lurkers to get them posting, I gave my opinion on that too often. I voted 3 lurkers: IH, scotmany and logicticus, they weren't posting then but after my votes they were posting, so I unvoted. Whether or not they posted because I voted them, the lurker-voting was a succes. For me, it had nothing to do with bandwagoning.

Now please let's end this discussion about lurker-hunting, because by now there are no more lurkers I think. And babyjesus, you still didn't give much reasoning behind your votes.

[Lawrencelot]

And why? I hate those people voting without giving any reasons, and you even put me at -1. I gave my defense, what should I do to help myself? Roleclaim? If you let me roleclaim, it will only help the mafia.

In case this is my last post, you should watch out for logicticus. But please don't vote me because of a bandwagon, like mariyta did. I gave a reaction to every accusation if I'm right, so I don't know why I'm the target. It's just a scummy bandwagon. Lynch the bandwagon starters, not me!

[Lawrencelot]

Not because of a bandwagon, but nice try. It's common practice to at least try to defend yourself at this point, instead of crying.

I defended myself often enough. Now I even proposed to roleclaim, which would only help the mafia, and no one responded so I won't do it. How can I defend myself if you vote me without giving a reason? IH does accuse me, as quoted below, so I can defend myself from that.

Lawrence wrote:
Now please let's end this discussion about lurker-hunting, because by now there are no more lurkers I think. And babyjesus, you still didn't give much reasoning behind your votes.



Scummy mcscummer scum trying to distract away from the issue at hand. One of the biggest issues with him is his 'views' on lurkers and lurker hunting. So if we end the discussion, then we end the discussion of the suspicion on you.

So my view on lurkers is why everybody voted me(even you didn't say it in the post where you voted me)? If they had just said that, I could defend myself. Alright, let's keep this discussion until the deadline then. Although I just keep telling the same thing over and over again:

I voted lurkers to get them posting. I didn't want to lynch them, and I always planned to unvote when they did post, except when they posted really scummy things of course. I voted three lurkers, and they all posted after my vote, although that might not be the reason why they posted, but it worked, so I unvoted. After I vote a lurker I will unvote if they post, or unvote if they get in danger.

Now, I've said this multiple times and no one told me why this view is wrong, so actually some of you don't have the right to vote me.

IH: your vote on me didn't include a reason, although you probably told the reason in different posts. Here's my reaction (above), now please say that it's wrong or unvote me.
Panzerjager: you voted me without any reason given in the same post, and billy mentioned some points about it so now you have to give a reaction.
Mert: the reason why you voted me is different from the others, it's because I was only mentioning lurkers, now look at what IH does when I want to end the discussion about lurkers... I also gave a reaction to you btw.
Mariyta: is this defense good enough? If not, tell me why.

I think I forgot some people, but that will come later.

[Lawrencelot]

Vote: no lynch.

N1 there was a mafia killed, if we're lucky it will happen again this night. If we don't, we have more information and can be more sure who to lynch, so that we don't lynch town. If we wouldn't have a deadline I wouldn't vote no lynch btw.

[Lawrencelot]

MOD EDIT: Sorry you had your time to speak last night before you were lynched.