Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[bird1111]

If they aren't posting at all, it is better to have the mod prod/replace them.

How is it harder to hide? You aren't participating in the disscussion so it can be harder to spot you; and by doing so, you avoid the notice of people who focus purely on those who look for those who don't post at all.

[Adel]

What a silly disagreement to have. Regardless of which is worse, lurking or near-lurking, we agree that both are bad. Lowell, continuing pressuring those in total lurk. I'll continue trying to get some content out of those that just pop up for air once in a while.

Again I say: anyone who thinks lurking doesn't work as a scum tactic is kidding her/himself. It always works. Always has, always will.

But not this time.

QFT

I really hate lurking as a tactic, it makes the game far less fun for me.

[ryan]

Not contributing is what we are having a problem with right now. Lurking or near lurking or sorta lurking are all not beneficial to the rest of us and that's why A Papaya's "non post" put me on alert to him and enough to drop a vote in his direction. Ripley has been a little quiet as well. I don’t have a problem with putting somebody under some pressure to post something worth reading instead of the one liners we’ve seen so far.

[Adel]

Ripley hasn't posted since Monday, only has 5 posts, her last post was critical of hunting lurkers. Her case was that hunting lurkers gives cover to scum, and calls Lowell scummy for doing it. At least that counts as content.

Aimee is on vacation through Sunday, but while she was here her posts were utterly devoid of content.

So far we already have Sir Tornado (was on vacation, but still needs to post) and A Papaya (posts but doesn't say anything).


Are there any other candidates?

[bird1111]

Vote: A Papaya

If you are a townie, your not keeping your promise to post content is not going to help the town, especially in the long run.

[Ripley]

I post when I have something to say. I'm not going to fabricate reasons for posting to satisfy the post count vultures. And I'll point out, as I so often have before, that I'm a slow starter in Mafia games. If Lowell and his sidekick Adel, who appear to be taking control of this game, are going to demand more than I have to say in these early stages, I will get myself replaced by a player more to their taste.

her last post was critical of hunting lurkers

If you had actually read the post, you would understand that what I was critical of was, specifically, of Lowell's adopting an automated voting method. And I explained why, quite clearly. I did not say I was critical of hunting lurkers, only of Lowell's particular intentions, and it makes me really suspicious that you would twist my words like that.

I totally disagree with you on Lowell though. We need

informative

content posted from all players.

But that's exactly what I said. And that's why Lowell's policy is not only mighty convenient for covering his own tracks, or, rather, for making his tracks useless, it's also useless per se.

Of course, as long as Lowell and Adel continue to police the thread like this, they are able to give the impression of massive protown activity, by repeatedly harassing others to post more.

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Wow, that was very to the point, Ripley.

I would like a Lowell claim by the end of the day.

Unvote Adel, vote Lowell

[ryan]

Wow, that was very to the point, Ripley.

I would like a Lowell claim by the end of the day.

Unvote Adel, vote Lowell

HOLD on a second. Why would we want Lowell to claim already? If he's a power role he could lynched on the first day. I'm not following your reasoning ABR to have Lowell already give out his role

[Ripley]

Wow, that was very to the point, Ripley.

Actually looking back at it my post was a bit sharper than I meant. I was annoyed at being nagged to post when I've made several contentful posts, the most recent only 2 days ago. I shouldn't post when I'm annoyed, and I apologise if it came over as aggressive.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Wow, that was very to the point, Ripley.

I would like a Lowell claim by the end of the day.

Unvote Adel, vote Lowell

HOLD on a second. Why would we want Lowell to claim already? If he's a power role he could lynched on the first day. I'm not following your reasoning ABR to have Lowell already give out his role

Ryan, there are

no

power roles. This is an open setup, 3x mafia, 3x masons, 5x townies.

[Lowell]

Wow, that was very to the point, Ripley.

I would like a Lowell claim by the end of the day.

Unvote Adel, vote Lowell

Haha this I like to see.

I don't claim that I've been particularly useful thusfar. I only said I feel like policing the thread. Don't worry, there will be time for both, calm down.

[ryan]

Ryan, there are

no

power roles. This is an open setup, 3x mafia, 3x masons, 5x townies.

OMG I am an idiot. I misread the first post by our mod when I posted my response. I thought we had a cop (mixed in with the townies) I apologize for my misread

[Albert B. Rampage]

Lowell's behavior is the exact opposite of other games in which he has been townie. Also, Lowell is not a particularly crafty player to think of WIFOM tactics. I think Lowell would be the best bandwagon to start the day off with.

[Adel]

Nice FoS on me Ripley. Will you have a similar argument for every future player that targets you? I really appreciated these points

the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread.

of course you weren't directly saying that those actions are scumtell, just that this

other

played with those same qualities turned out to be scum

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town, and you have a minor difference of opinion on how he bases his vote. The reasons behind his vote was explained, makes sense from a pro-town perspective, and is the sole evidence you have against him. And you base your vote against him on

that

?!?.

Fos: Ripley

for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again. Extra heavy

FoS

on Albert for following along so easily.

Take your time in responding. I am much more eager to hear from A Papaya.

[Adel]

Actually looking back at it my post was a bit sharper than I meant. I was annoyed at being nagged to post when I've made several contentful posts, the most recent only 2 days ago. I shouldn't post when I'm annoyed, and I apologise if it came over as aggressive.

I wasn't try to nag you- I was trying to identify lurkers and near lurkers. I thought I was pretty much eliminating you and Aimee for now with my post.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Watch these three posts:

Lowell: I think you are on to something about the least content and I guess with A Papaya promising content and than failing miserably I'm wondering if the scum is starting to shine through

I'm a lurky player generally (what with playing too many games at once and playing them all at work), but I've said why that just ISN'T going to fly in this game. I'm going to try my best to keep this moving.

Basically, I want this game to be more turnbased than usual. Anyone who disappears is a HUGE question mark to me.

Which is fine by me.

It is MUCH harder to hide with posts like "Here I am, nothing to add, gotta go to work" than it is by disappearing altogether. Out of sight, out of mind.

I don't expect everyone to just pile on lurkers cuz I say so. I DO, however, expect that in the long run it will be useful to have someone who does so.

Call it what you want. The point is, we need players to post. And for now, I don't even really care if those posts are mostly placeholders. People who continue to post placeholders and say nothing will get attacked on those grounds anyway (see: a papaya). In a game like this, I'm more concerned with players who disappear altogether.

Again I say: anyone who thinks lurking doesn't work as a scum tactic is kidding her/himself. It always works. Always has, always will.

But not this time. Vote stands.

All these posts seem to be hinting at one conclusion: the systematic lynch of lurkers proposed by Adel:

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following

"lynch the lurkers"

to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

This is the exact ploy that Ripley has so cleverly brought to light, and explained why such a tactic would be destructive to the town. Even if Ripley is mafia, he has effectively squashed the mafia team's dreams of an easy win by simply remaining active and posting fodder content.

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

FoS: Adel

[Ripley]

The reasons behind his vote was explained, makes sense from a pro-town perspective, and is the sole evidence you have against him. And you base your vote against him on

that

?!?.

Let's not argue any further about Lowell's motives, which I have said I find suspect, and which you appear to accept with such total unquestioning faith, because clearly we'll never agree on that. But the rest of what you say here is

provably

wrong. Look back at post 38 to remind yourself of the reason I voted Lowell. You'll find it predates the entire automated voting issue.

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

[Adel]

The trend I'm sick of is seeing on Day 1 is active players only scum hunt among other active players, with the result being the mislynch of a townie on a wagon started by a townie and the hammer being dropped by a townie.

I'm not following Lowell, I was just happy to see another player on the same page as me. I'd rather we coordinated a little better, if anything. The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

The point in hunting lurkers is to get everyone up to a decent level of content, so that I (as an active player) will have a decent pool of information to shift through for scum. I do think the best approach for masons is to follow the best approach for regular townies: Post content and hunt for scum. The post at #38 gave me pause, but doesn't prove what you think it does. I think it amounts to a "lynch the lurker-lyncher" meta, which I do not like, but I would rather debate that later. Can we just hold the Lowell wagon until the lurkers have flushed?

If A Papaya is scum, and all he has to do to avoid the current wagon is to do nothing, we are totally rewarding lurking. How would that be good for town?

I think Albert B. Rampage needs to reread the last line of mine he quoted. What was I trying to say with that? Does it support your conclusion? Isn't reading comprehension a prerequisite for good play?

[Adel]

How about the four of us involved in this little squabble take a deep breath, hit pause, and let other players weigh in on it. There is always a chance that we are four pro-town players who are just creating noise that will make finding scum later much harder. I am proposing a truce until five other players have posted. No one is in danger of being lynched, and we do not have a deadline. Truce?

[theopor_COD]

I'm all for flushing out lurkers but scum are just as likely to play aggressively and contribute high post counts. Content is the thing.

Ripley from what I can see has delievered decent content, Papaya hasn't yet.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I thought you above Ad Hominem, Adel. You know who you remind me of ? Eminem. He bashes america repeatedly in song called White America. At the very end, in the outro, he says "Just kidding America". Saying your "not sure how far we can safely take it" sounds synonymous to your "not sure how everyone else can swallow this proposition without me appearing scummy". Relax Adel, your safe, Lowell is on the hot seat for suggesting this bastard scheme. Your next if he turns scum, for supporting his idea and taking it a step further which I have included in my last post. Heh, you even gave it a cute name

If A Papaya lurks, we will kindly ask him to be replaced. If he persists, we can pursue a case on him with the mod to forcibly replace him for unsportsmanlike behavior.

While you may be sick of lack of activity and content day 1, I have my own sickness. In one game, which I dare not link to because it is ongoing, we had a player who REFUSED to post any content whatsoever. But we had other issues at hand, more pressing issues. But we couldn't lynch the scum because of this ONE lurker, and everyone grew IMPATIENT and annoyed at this player. We quickly bandwagonned her and she came up as townie. This was a particularly important stage of the game, and her unsportsmanlike play had damaged the town severely.

That is why I am of the mindset that lynching lurkers is an obsolete idea. We will replace A Papaya et al if needed, but lynching a lurker is not to our advantage.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Hmm double-posted with Adel.

There is no truce Adel, why are you distancing yourself ? Maybe if you just surrendered and admitted how bad your idea of lynching all lurkers is, we can move on to start the first bandwagon of the day.

[Adel]

I do not know for sure if Lowell is scum or not, but I will continue to defend him on principle against these silly arguments.

A Papaya is posting- he will not be replaced. Accusing you of not understanding what you are reading and quoting is not an

ad hominem

attack. I guess you don't know what that means either. The example you give is why lurking can't be tolerated- lurking is an anti-town activity. Did she get a prod first? Then she is a terrible player who cost her side the game. It isn't unusual for a terrible player to cost a team a win in any game. Lurking by any player hurts town and benefits scum, in your example the result is that now you are unwilling to lynch lurkers which provides cover for any scum out there. Hey scum: if you don't want Albert to vote for you, just lurk, and that way you don't have to risk making a mistake in one of your posts.

If A Papaya lurks, we will kindly ask him to be replaced. If he persists, we can pursue a case on him with the mod to forcibly replace him for unsportsmanlike behavior.

600+ game posts of experience and you think that player who posts a paragraph every two days can be replaced by the mod "unsportmanlike behavior". Seriously?

And the part that really gets me is that you are so unwilling to agree with someone who will vote for lurkers that you are willing to actually lynch a hunter-of-lurkers. Seriously?

Does this make sense to anyone other than Ripley and Albert?

[Adel]

Hmm double-posted with Adel.

There is no truce Adel, why are you distancing yourself ? Maybe if you just surrendered and admitted how bad your idea of lynching all lurkers is, we can move on to start the first bandwagon of the day.

I wasn't distancing myself. This whole conflict would be settled if lurkers would post some content. Us calling a truce would give that a chance to happen. Here is the downside: if Lowell is town and you or Ripley are town... lynching Lowell would be the best thing in the world for scum right now. Are you sure Ripley is town? Are you running distraction for A Papaya or Sir Tornado? Your case is so weak son, I have to guess at other motives. Lowell's are clear: to get a decent amount of content posted by all players.

[Albert B. Rampage]

What a load of logical fallacies.

I think Albert B. Rampage needs to reread the last line of mine he quoted. What was I trying to say with that? Does it support your conclusion? Isn't reading comprehension a prerequisite for good play?

You are attacking my person by saying I can't read. And what I have quoted supports my conclusion one hundred percent. You are clearly giving support to lynching lurkers.

The person I was referring to has over a thousand posts. That means nothing.

I want to lynch someone who proposes a system that facilitates the mafia's job.