Could you be more specific?

Your issue obviously isn't with the lurker train, as others have done it and you only specified me.
I don't see how voting for the scummiest person can be a problem.
Encouraging people to become more active shouldn't be a problem.

I'm with kod here, wherein lie the problems?

So, altimis, since you quite clearly ended up with my card, do you agree with my assessment that it's really easy to notice, and if I were to out its capabilities, it changes the dynamic of the game in an undesirable way?

(Also, do you agree that it's super disappointing? <.<)

Yes. I already spammed zinger with questions on its mechanics.
I thought I figured a way around it, but to no avail; at least some good came of it, though it's too soon to see how long it will last.

I guess the easy to notice part is that my vote-strength changes. I do not want to reveal how it changes as, with what Mown said, it can lead to an undesirable outcome (and I don't mean just for me).

Ok, mostly caught up, I'm alive.

Yes. This is quality posting.

I approve.

US, you need to die.

@PopPa:

Please respond to my question in my previous post. It was directed at you.

I'll get around to it.

Vote: PopPa

At least until you get around to it.

Well, looks like I didn't miss much this weekend.
Right now, PP and PK are the two people that I think we should lynch. I'm keeping my vote where it is now, if PK gets replaced, or if it looks like we are not going to have enough to lynch, I'll move to PP

Right now NeoSilk does have some sound logic.
Any chance that we can get an update to the potentiality of a replacement zinger?

I feel dirty just saying that.

Still working on it. I am hopeful.

1. Altimis drops how he's going to vote. Sure, he uses the word "probably", so it's no guarantee he votes for myself or urzas, but there's a difference in interpretation between "I'm going to vote for lurkers" versus "I'm voting for the lurker with the most votes". The first one reads as a policy, and while there isn't anything substantial differentiating specific lurkers, there is a difference between masking who you're going to vote for and telling mafia who you're going to vote for.
2. Generally you should be voting for whomever you feel is scummiest, unless your intention is to lynch a lurker. If that's the case, why even suggest that you'll vote for the scummiest person? Don't we assume that people vote for players they feel are mafia? Why is it necessary to specifically outline that you'll do so?
3. Telling everyone else to vote and create activity just reads really wrong. It's as if it isn't up to you to make activity, and it's as if you believe that activity comes from votes (unless the portions of the sentence are two separate ideas, in which case I apologize for interpreting it wrong). There are plenty of ways to stir up activity other than voting, an voting tends to spur only those voted for into talking, and it acts as a temporary measure. This is better than nothing, but discussion comes from, well, discussion. Saying "hey guy, let's have some activity" doesn't actually cause activity, and makes you appear to be trying to pretend to be helpful.

What's the difference between myself and urzas?

Is there a difference between an intentional lurker and an unintentional one?

Why is one better/worse than the other?

I have my own opinions on these but I'd like to know yours.

Okay that's all my talking for the next week probably.

@PopPa:

My vote is going to sit on you now. The "problems" you pointed out are not problems.

1.) He clearly stated his intent to *probably* go for whichever lurker has the most votes. There's nothing wrong with that. Especially given that the mafia can easily determine for themselves that a lurker is probably going to get lynched (more than likely you) due to the votes thrown out. So really I don't see the problem here, unless the problem is that the mafia is using Altimis's known position to their own ends. To which I say, eh? Because, at this point in time, Altimis is really going to make that big of an impact, right?

2.) Notice how he puts an or in his sentence. He'll vote for the lurker with the most votes OR, in the case of increased activity, the person (he feels) that is most scummy. The logic here is not hard to follow in that he does one or the other depending on what happens today with activity.

3.) Typically, and as given by your last post, we wouldn't even have activity (much less from you) without others doing something. Whether that is calling on others to vote and do stuff or just posting a bunch is null. Using this as a "problem" is the only thing that is wrong here.

It's okay to admit you're wrong kod.

I hope that voting causes activity simply because, I (myself) dislike voting baselessly. I assume others are like that (which is probably the wrong thing to do ), but if someone places a vote, their should be a semblance of a reason why they voted the way they did. Thus with votes laid out for all to see we have some knowledge, and potential things to discuss.

I don't necessarily have any policy except to do what's best for my team be it mafia, town, neutral or whatever other happens to fly by. Right now, if we are going to be down a player anyways, I'd rather vote that player than place a vote on someone I don't have good reads on. If I have reads on someone I'll put my vote there. Thus the "scummiest".

While it's far from a LAL policy, I feel that lurking is bad form. I'm not going to hunt one down for it, but I will acknowledge and judge for myself whether I think the person is afk, or intentionally lurking and why. With mafia the more information the better. So yes, I ask for information, and yes I request that people participate to keep the game readable. This is all just my opinion on things.

I hate myself...