Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Crub]

Why have you overlooked a bunch of people who haven't commented on Andy at all?

Being inactive and/or ignoring it all together is different from acknowledging it and then proceeding to ignore it.

Also, you haven't answered my question about Elmo.

I felt Elmo was stretching to make himself look good to glork

[Elmo]

Unvote

Why are you unvoting IH without revoting, in response to something Patrick said?

Hi Everyone So Glork who are we lynching?

What information have you gained thus far?

Not much, from this boring town, being controlled by you

Elmo loses town points.

I felt Elmo was stretching to make himself look good to glork

You've trying to buddy up to Glork, and you're saying I look anti-town because you thought I was trying to make myself look good to him? There seems to be a contradiction. My response is pretty standard, for me - with all respect to Glork, I don't go in for sycophantism. I very much doubt I would have taken Patrick's side previously (I thought) if that were the case. I also fail to see why trying to impress a 'celebrity' (for want of a better term) is anti-town. Why is it anti-town to try and make yourself to look good to Glork with a good, logical case on Andy?

[Crub]

good, logical case on Andy?

As I said laughable.

[Ether]

3 Andycyca (IH, Crub, Elmo)
2 appleof88 (Ripley, Patrick)
2 Ripley (appleof88, wank)
1 IH (JDodge)
1 wank (Andycyca)

3 Unvote (Glork, Shanba, Sikario8)

12 alive; 7 to lynch.

^^ You used up your good luck this month.

Indeed. I'm grounded and typing this from school, and

it's all your fault.

Such a jinx.

[wank]

Unvote

Why are you unvoting IH without revoting, in response to something Patrick said?

I like to know as well.

[wank]

My pressure on rip never gained momentum. (IH did make random comments that he said he will address.) The andy wagon is falling apart. Who to pick on next?

[Ripley]

I'm going to be quite honest here, I read back a few pages yesterday and the quality and pace left me seriously doubting whether I should carry on with this game. Pages 5 and 6 in particular. I've spent too long recently in dire games that were dragged on endlessly regardless of the quality of the play or the interest of the players, and I guess my tolerance has been exhausted somewhat.

I wrote a long post, was uncertain whether to actually post it, cut all the comments about specific players, was still uncertain, decided to sleep on it. I still have doubts but am going to include the first paragraph unchanged here:

"I'm already struggling to keep up interest in this game. There needs to be a certain percentage of participants who are active and interested and posting coherent arguments, and for those people not to let the inactive/lurking/posting-nothing-but-crap minority get away with it, if a game is to have any quality at all. This game doesn't seem to have enough of those people. If it's like this now, what's it going to be like in a couple of months' time after six replacements and four rounds of mass prods? The people posting good stuff will get nightkilled; it’ll just get worse. I’m especially weary of trying to persuade people to participate when they clearly don’t wish to. You can't force people who don't want to play Mafia to play Mafia, and it's an ongoing mystery to me why so many of these people continue to sign up for Mafia games."

I went on to grumble at some length about how the lurkers are being left to do as they like while someone who tried to prod the lurkers into action got jumped on, which is only likely to make things worse.

(All this was before the recent exchange between Patrick and Crub.)

Anyway, sorry to dither like this. I'll make a decision one way or the other in the next couple of days.

[Glork]

Why is it amazing?

I didn't say I was 100% OMG SUPER CERTAIN he was town. If I was, I'd be voting Glork. I'm just of that opinion (leaning that way) at the moment.

Why would 100% certainty of Patrick's alignment lead you to vote for me?


Ripley's attack on apple still seems wonky.

I am perfectly content with Crub's play. I'd give very strong odds that he's town.

Ripley: Given that we've seen plenty of "Village Idiots" on both protown and scum sides in the past, what made you conclude that Apple's behavior was more indicative of him being a scum-VI rather than just... an idiot?

Patrick's switch to Apple still feels weird, too. I think the FoS served to indicate that his vote had gone from "not serious" to "serious"... is there anything wrong with that? If Apple had instead said "I guess I'm pretty happy with my vote on Ripley," do you think you would have reacted differently?

I still don't understand the Andyhate. IH cited Post 42:

FoS: Elmo I'd like an explanation on why you mentioned Patrick so suddenly.

Shanba voted for Elmo, stating that he was "amazed" that Elmo could have gotten a read. I guess I fail to understand how Andy's FoS seems to be insincere, whereas Shanba's vote has gone largely unmentioned.

Just on gut and voting patterns, I'd say

maximum

one of Andy/Apple is scum. I am currently of the opinion that both are protown.

See, IH's explanation at least makes sense (the fact that Andy did it after Elmo's response had taken place). It shows a logical distinction between Andy's behavior and those of [Glork, Patrick, Shanba]. While I don't have a problem with IH's probe, I still question the validity of those who followed.


General gameplay question for everyone...
Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

The exchange between Patrick and Crub makes me feel somewhat better about Patrick's alignment.

Why are you unvoting IH without revoting, in response to something Patrick said?

Simple.
My vote on IH was a random vote from Page 2.
We are well out of the random voting stage, and having a random vote on IH wasn't really doing anything, especially as I get a somewhat protown vibe from IH.
I didn't feel up to speed on the game yet and didn't want to lay down a poorly-educated vote.

You've trying to buddy up to Glork, and you're saying I look anti-town because you thought I was trying to make myself look good to him? There seems to be a contradiction.

Yeah, I noticed this, too. The way I looked at it, Crub didn't really see the "buddy up to Glork" thing as being particularly scummy, but when IH voted him for it and I said I was tempted to follow, he obviously re-evaluated. I don't think that Crubs' behavior in this instance is indicative of one thing or another (which is probably why I didn't mention it earlier).

Nevertheless, I'd like you to explain this:

with a good, logical case on Andy?

...when your explanation of your Andy-vote is based almost entirely on the way his posts have "felt" or "seemed" to you. Where is the intersection of

gut

and

logic

here?



In all...

Protown:
Crub
Elmo
IH
Glork
Andy


I'd like Wank and Sikario to share what they think of each player's alignment.
I'd like

Modprods

on Appleof (who hasn't posted in eight days), and JDodge (seven days).
I'd also like JDodge to move his vote somewhere nonrandom (or to explain why it's still on IH if it is no longer random).

And, finally, I think I'll

Vote: Ripley

for now.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Add Apple to my protown list. >.<

update: Apple and JDodge have been prodded.

[Patrick]

Ripley, I hope you stay. I can see where you're coming from in the general sense, but eh, I don't think this game has been that bad. A little slow maybe, but nothing worse than that.

Patrick's switch to Apple still feels weird, too. I think the FoS served to indicate that his vote had gone from "not serious" to "serious"... is there anything wrong with that? If Apple had instead said "I guess I'm pretty happy with my vote on Ripley," do you think you would have reacted differently?

(Shrug), I guess it wasn't so much the "fos" symbol itself, as what he said and the timing. It just seemed like the only reason he decided to do it was because he'd got you behind him, whereas previously he said his vote wasn't serious at all. I suppose it doesn't help much that I'm not really seeing the Ripley hate. Not a big issue as I've said, but I felt it was enough to put my vote somewhere.

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

Inflammatory as in.. annoys people? It's probably scummier to just post without adding anything, at least, it's something I see scum do from time to time. But I'd need context to be sure. JDodge fits the profile of someone posting and saying nothing, but annoyingly my meta tells me it's a null tell. Sikario has posted and added nothing, but again, a brief meta of it tells me it probably doesn't mean too much at this point. I think in general it's scummier later on in the game.

Elmo seems town to me. IH has seemed reasonable to me so far, but not much more. Crub I find more difficult. I think his comments about me are pretty much crap, and I think they ignore at least one other person who actually has done what he's claiming he thinks is scummy. Then again, I'm not sure yet I can see any particular scum motive in him attacking me at this point, and it seems like there'd be easier targets around for him if he's scum. I suppose he could be scum with 2 people who are being bandwagoned right now, but it seems pretty unlikely.

That said, Crub, what do you think of wank's behaviour around the Andy wagon?

[IH]

If it helps Ethermod I've been sick.

Will catch up soon = (

[JDodge]

I'll look through again later and tell you who the scum are

[Andycyca]

@Ripley: I don't think this game is bad. Maybe a little slow (and I'm guilty of not posting as much as I would like, but you know, end of term...)

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

I find scummier people who post without contributing. I mean, even inflammatory comments can give some info based on the reactions (sometimes) but not contributing in a game where discussion is crucial it's certainly bad.

...that's why I asked Crub to post something with more content after he pressurevoted me.
----------
I'll post more content tomorrow, I'm a bit overloaded now. And, I'm sorry to say it, but

I'll have zero Internet Access during this weekend (23-25 Nov)

[wank]

@glork: I can't tell who's scum at this point....I find everyone townie but...perhaps ih or sika has a sprinkle of scumness. IH for his possibly random comment which I think was a direct metagame post for the other game I am in now except he is being ridiculously vague about it when I asked. Sika for being a village idiot. I am of the opinion that a bad townie is as bad as scum if not worse. I also feel glork and pat is playing...too much. A lot of exchanges between them and in general. None of the above warrants enough for a vote so...this is going to be a long day.

[wank]

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

I think it's contradictory to label one inflammatory and contributing weakly. Instigating people can provide an angle not otherwise obtained.

[Patrick]

I also feel glork and pat is playing...too much. A lot of exchanges between them and in general.

What does this mean? Why do you find it scummy that we're contributing alot?

[Glork]

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

I think it's contradictory to label one inflammatory and contributing weakly. Instigating people can provide an angle not otherwise obtained.

That's not true at all. Somebody who is busy lashing out with insults instead of providing meaningful discussion is the kind of person I'm talking about.

[wank]

I also feel glork and pat is playing...too much. A lot of exchanges between them and in general.

What does this mean? Why do you find it scummy that we're contributing alot?

I am getting sick of people putting words in my mouth. Now that is scummy.

At best, you can say I implied you were scummy. But that's at best. I mentioned it in passing. After suggesting ih and sika. To your defense, maybe I should have mentioned it below my last sentence.

This should be kept secret but I am of the opinion that those who post too too much is scummy.

[wank]

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

I think it's contradictory to label one inflammatory and contributing weakly. Instigating people can provide an angle not otherwise obtained.

That's not true at all. Somebody who is busy lashing out with insults instead of providing meaningful discussion is the kind of person I'm talking about.

I don't think anyone is busy lashing out insults. Or anyone ever will. That's rather extreme. A rather forward and impolite comment is good in my book. I already revealed one secret above so allow me to keep this to myself.

[Patrick]

I am getting sick of people putting words in my mouth. Now that is scummy.

At best, you can say I implied you were scummy. But that's at best. I mentioned it in passing. After suggesting ih and sika. To your defense, maybe I should have mentioned it below my last sentence.

You ended the whole paragraph saying, "none of the above warrants enough for a vote..." which suggests you found all the behaviours you described scummy. I can't understand why you're arguing the semantics of it with me, especially when you've just said that you're of the opinion that posting too much is scummy. I'm not especially interested in whether you outright declared it scummy or just threw in a suggestion that it's scummy, I want to know WHY you find it scummy to post alot.

[wank]

I value semantics. The devil is in the details no? Let's take a quick lesson. Where did I say that "posting too much is scummy"? As to the reasoning, think about it. And when I say it, I mean guilt.

[Patrick]

Where did I say that "posting too much is scummy"?

This should be kept secret but I am of the opinion that those who post too too much is scummy.

How else am I supposed to intepret the second quote? It would be great if you could stop being pedantic and give straight answers so we don't have to keep going back and forth.

[Glork]

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

I think it's contradictory to label one inflammatory and contributing weakly. Instigating people can provide an angle not otherwise obtained.

That's not true at all. Somebody who is busy lashing out with insults instead of providing meaningful discussion is the kind of person I'm talking about.

I don't think anyone is busy lashing out insults. Or anyone ever will. That's rather extreme. A rather forward and impolite comment is good in my book. I already revealed one secret above so allow me to keep this to myself.

Funny how I wasn't not even referring to you when I made that comment. You can stop being an egotistical prick and start answering my question anytime you'd like.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Oh, now that I read that again, it doesn't look like you thought I was referring to you.


I still want answers from people.

[wank]

The egotistical prick will refrain from further comments at the moment.