a policy lynch doesn't mean anything if you're not going to follow up on it

it's called lynch ALL lurkers for a reason

Also, the deadline is in two days. Day 1 is already more than half over.

I'll start contributing more tomorrow, both in game tomorrow, and real tomorrow. Weekend/Mother's Day and all.

Fair enough.

I suspect that's part of the reason for today's inactivity, but don't expect me to let anyone get away with lurking the day away. If you don't post anything meaningful before the (in-game) day ends, I will prioritize lynching you for falsely promising activity.

@Fred:

In regards to last game, everyone was horrible town. No excuses. Extend this to this game: Be active. If it's worth talking about to you, you talk about it. Lurking to the point of not actually trying to scumhunt to the benefit of the town just hurts town.

As far as your comment about Lilian, either way whatever comparison you are drawing up that makes it similar to what you believe Niklor to be doing is erroneous for reasons I already stated. And no, that isn't trapping in any sense. It was purely fishing. Niklor's scenario only served to gather information and in no way can "trap" a player based on their response. Matter of fact, what is your definition of "trapping" since you have a mind to say that trying to trap someone makes Nik look scummy but is a null on the person he "traps"? For clarity, I don't see how a person responding to his particular question could be trapped because to trap someone, to me, would mean setting up a situation where the person you are trying to trap ends up contradicting something (something that would be known to you like a night result or something) thereby "trapping" them so they can't go back on what they said. My definition though has definite overlap, in my own mind, when I think of fishing. I'm sure I could think of some situations where I would call it both, but that is neither here nor there. In regards to this specific situation, I see no way what Niklor did as "trapping" as there is only one thing to potentially be gained from responses. Information.

Fred


Take a look at this Fred.



I shall revisit this overreacting thing. A call for all people to lynch Niklor is overreacting? How do you define overreacting? Doing something that is unnecessary/unwarranted? If you think that is the case, then I shall divulge exactly what thought process led me to that. We're currently in a game with only 1 scum. Town has 3 power roles: Hunter, Doctor, and Watcher. That is a lot for the lone scum to worry about. This leads me to thinking about what Niklor did. Who benefits the most from fishing for role information (role information in the sense that who has what roles)? The wolf does because he has to worry about the power roles disturbing him. Especially as we get to lower numbers without losing power roles; course by D2 we'll have at most 2 wolves to worry about.

But the overall point is that only the wolf benefits from fishing. Niklor was the first person do any fishing with such a "harmless" looking question that seemed quite obvious to you Fred. But, in the interest of divulging my thought process, consider the role pms we all got. I don't know how JD messaged others in the game, but if it's akin to anything that my role pm contained, then by responding to Niklor and saying, "No, I can't be mute because of this very obvious thing in my pm that says otherwise," then it wouldn't be a stretch for Niklor to conclude that I can't be one of the town power roles. This eliminates one from the number of people to look at that could have a town power role.

This is why I addressed Niklor the way I did and why I gave a call for everyone to lynch him. Is it the best most solid case ever in the history of mafia? Don't make me laugh. Yet, it's better than anything else I've seen this game.


Now in case no one is paying attention, do note that I have moved my vote from Niklor over onto Rubik. Unlike Niklor, in every sense, Rubik came out swinging at me with mud. I have need to reiterate this because, being that my vote is on him, I feel his behavior was opportunistic and scummy. It is not outside my capability to think that Niklor could just be town and is being honest about wanting to get discussion rolling (as opposed to being a wolf hiding behind such an excuse to cover for his attempt at fishing). If that be the case, then looking at someone like Rubik who picks a chance to instigate chaos by simple posts which throw mud, then that kind of person is likely to be scum.

Let's review your posts Rubik:



Unvote, Vote: Neo

My vote will more than likely sit on Neo until the deadline passes. Unlike most others I've engaged in conversation, Neo has not responded to me after having attacked me for my reasoning on Niklor.

At this particular point in time, I feel that Fred and Rubik are both town simply because of my conversations with them.

I can't get a read on you Niklor because of two things:
1.) The whole fishing thing has given me a tainted picture of you. After all, it's completely within the realm of possibility for an active scum to fish and hide behind a simple reason such as wanting to end the joke phase or wanting to get discussion rolling.
2.) You've essentially sided with me against others who attacked me. So far Fred and Rubik have reacted against me. You've not only essentially sided with me, you've defended me on various fronts, and that throws me off because I can't tell if you truly agree with me, or, from a scum perspective, you're just buddying with me so I don't suspect you. Point is, I don't know what to do with you. (Although I won't forget that someone else agreed with me in a sense just not to the extent that you have -- Lilan.)

I get the feeling that PopPa is town this game. It feels like he's contributing a bit more than last game. Course, if the active people die first this game, then I'm sure everyone will know who needs to be lynched. *Wink wink nudge nudge@PopPa.*

I'm grouping Zinger, Tiny, and Neo as the lurkers for this game. Out of them, I'm going to, as mentioned above, focus on Neo.
Out of this group, Zinger has been the least active. Tiny was somewhat active, and Neo a bit more than him. Unlike Tiny and Zinger, Neo atttacked me and never responded. He still hasn't responded. Yes, I know he recently posted saying he'd contribute more tomorrow. Guess what? I don't care. I'm going to play the "bad guy" in regards to not giving someone a pass just because they promise to contribute and give excuses. Numerous days have passed. Plenty of hours, minutes, and seconds have gone by since you posted your transgression against me Neo and I posed a question to you. You've failed to address it, and this makes me believe you are the wolf of this game. You attempt to hide among the least active people while somewhat "contributing" in the most minimal way possible which is next to almost nothing. All you've done is:

Posts by Neo


In short: You're dirty scum and need to be lynched.

@Rubik: No, not fair enough. No need to give a person a pass for any reason. This isn't about you and me. It's not about getting back in. It's about one last chance to play with the best of the best. It's about playing the game. Because at the end of the day, it's all about the game.

Nah, I'm going to lurk as much as normal.

I agree with Neo's previous statement about your case on Niklor being weak (not necessarily the vote attached to the post nor the lack of elaboration, however). Sure your Niklor case was better than having literally no case, but not by much.

I never had any intention of implying that you lynching Niklor and you saying you'd LaL were directly connected, but I felt like it was important to point out that making an exception to LaL for as flimsy of a case as the one you had on Niklor (despite voting Niklor before supporting LaL, I treated the lack of vote change as a statement that you valued lynching Niklor over lynching a lurker, which in my mind strikes me as inane) was a perfect example of saying you support one thing (LaL) and then never supporting it in practice (I find it unlikely that a day could pass without something triggering you to tunnel on someone active who has a similar chance of being scum to a lurker). In practice this would lead to never lynching lurkers. I had no way of knowing except now in hindsight that you planned to drop your Niklor vote as the deadline approached.

I appreciate the quote, but I'm not going to vote him unless he fails to post anything meaningful. I think a Neo wagon is perfectly fine, but I'm still more interested in eliminating Zinger or Tiny at the moment unless Neo is lying about contributing.

@Numbers: Can the doctor prevent someone from being sired?

For the record, I don't think Niklor was fishing, I think he was just making a funny comment on KoD's voting patterns. Day 1 cases have to start somewhere though.

Zinger completely ignoring the angry mob talking about him and making one post and then leaving strikes me as scummier than Neo disappearing after making a weak vote.

@Lilan:

There is a glaring difference between Neo and Zinger.

Zinger literally has made only one notable post that I am aware of. He wasn't a part of the early discussions/jokes, and he isn't talking a lot. Neo on the other hand has talked at various points. He spoke up during the jokes, he chimed in with a "I agree!" post during the discussions on LyLo, and he event threw out a post towards me (with a vote). Yet he isn't anywhere near active as others since all of his posts are broken up over long lengths of time. He's literally between the two extremes -- not super active, but not super lurky.

I fully believe that scum will tend to play safe rather than doing something that makes them the center of attention. I also believe that scum won't take it upon themselves to not contribute thereby making them an easy target for a lurker lynch. This is why I fully believe that Neo is the wolf as he fits what I consider to be a scum's safe approach to playing the game.

Also, Niklor pretty much admitted he was fishing Lilan. To his credit he also said he did it as a means to get serious discussions going rather than stay in the joke phase.


@Rubik:

Flimsy is a matter of perspective. You feel it is flimsy because -- what? He makes a comment to fish and because it is obvious it's ok not to worry about it? And because of that, my case against him for fishing is therefore flimsy? Or is it because you feel that because I talked about LaL and still focused on Niklor that made the case flimsy (even though that has nothing to do with the case)?

If it wasn't your intention to imply that (referring to another part of your post now), then you should be careful with how you word your posts. Someone could take what you say the wrong way.



I never had that intent. I just go with the flow of the game and base what I do upon what I see happening in the game. As I've already mentioned before, I'm completely unsure about Niklor. If I truly felt he was the scum, I would keep my vote on him and keep it there to help in getting him lynched. However, I'm no so blind as to remember that there is only one scum in the game at the moment, and that people will come off scummy for a variety of reasons. As such, I have to weed out who I feel is town so I can get a better grasp on who might be scum. To do that, I have to take into account a variety of aspects such as how much someone lurks, what someone says in detail, and a whole host of other things whatever they may be.

As more people chime in, or don't, it affects my views of the game so I shift my actions to better reflect my change of thought. One aspect that I always keep at the forefront of my mind is how scum will tend to play safe more often than not. So when I get into an argument like I do with you or Fred, that helps give me the idea you may be town. Simply because why would scum want to get out into the light and foster disagreement while they are at the center of attention with me? Course, I'm speaking from a WIFOM standpoint since an active scum, such as JD or even a potential Niklor scum, would literally confuse me. Instead of being afflicted with inactiveness for fear of such a thing, I'd rather act on a likely course and pursue it till the end so at least I am doing something rather than nothing like most people tend to do for some strange reason.

Now for something interesting:

Rubik


Why? What is it about Zinger and Tiny that is so much more interesting than Neo? Last I saw, you had mentioned all three of them as being "deadweight" despite the fact that two of the three have contributed something past the joke phase (Neo and Zinger) and the last (Tiny) has not. Matter of fact, this is an issue to me because you've, yet again, switched your tone. Why? Are you the lone scum seeking to use the lurkers as a device to score easy lynches without risk to yourself?

FoS: Rubik

Again: the case is flimsy because Niklor was fishing for entirely harmless information (there is no bastard mime role in this game). Anyone who would somehow slip up on something so minor would inevitably blunder anyways.

There is always the possibility of misunderstanding, KoD. Communication is inherently imperfect. You can't more or less say "be sure everything you say cannot possibly be misinterpreted" because that would be essentially impossible for anything other than the most basic of exchanges.

How have I "yet again switched my vote"? Unless I'm mistaken, I've been voting Zinger all day. Who is slandering who now?

KoD - he clearly was making a joke about the mute - could you really imagine a game where someone couldn't talk - and you were trying to make it seem scummy.

Honestly - I'm not that sure what to think right now. Meta discussions, jokes. With just 1 person, I'd think it's easier to hide even while staying active. I have no plans on being inactive this game. As you can see from my game history, I'm not that active on weekends, ever.

It's D1, and there's one scum. Reasons are flimsy, especially to start. I find it funny that you were focusing on me, while others have votes flying around without any reasons. Feels a bit like a tunnel to me.

It's easy to hide by lurking, but it's also easy to hide by starting arguments.

I see you've met KoD.

Sidenote: I've just gotten back in town. I've been having to post off of my phone for the past couple days. I should be able to quote posts more appropriately now that I can use a mouse and keyboard again.

I'm glad you asked Rubik, but first...

Of course there will be misunderstandings. Of course there will be mistakes. Are you using this as a reason to not act? Please, spare me. What matters is taking action. Taking no action because there may be a misunderstanding is a petty excuse.

Now, as for your tone.

First, your vote on Zinger was made during the joke phase. You never elaborated on it or anything. You, instead, went straight into a discussion about when LyLo would occur. So there is no reason at that point to assume you voted for any legitimate reason other than to just vote because why not. Not to mention others were throwing votes all around.

Second, the next time you pop back up, you do so to misinterpret my case on Niklor and my willingness to pursue LaL. It is during this discussion you make several things clear, but before I start mentioning those I would like to mention that before we get to your posts, Lilan was still on the whole jokes and voted me for unvoting Zinger and thereby not contributing to the "lynch zinger agenda" as per Lilan's words. This is important because your so called "being on zinger from the beginning" is noting more than parroting Lilan.

Now, as for the several things: (Incoming several quotes from you.)

1.

2.

3.

Established here are your views. You would prefer to scare lurkers into activity rather than kill them, and your view is that this should be done early and not delayed. You'd already prefer to deal with active scum rather than lurky scum.

And this is perfect because what do you do immediately thereafter? You jump behind Lilan for lynching Zinger and agree that he is the ideal lynch. All this despite the fact that he was your joke vote in the first place, but turned into a good person to lynch because lurker right? course, let's not forget that Zinger actually came in and contributed something despite how little it was. And, by your words, there were two others that were deadweight. What about Tiny? Of the three, he's contributed far less in quite a literal sense. Oh right, for some reason Zinger has your attention possibly because you're able to get behind other players who have decided to jump on his wagon, making him a safe one to go after.

This is what I mean about your tone. You contradict your own views because it benefits you.

And just for emphasis:



Right. Keep pressure on them to get them to post. Yet even when they don't contribute as much as you seem to want, you'll want to kill them anyway. Quite the contradictory person you are.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Oh look. Ironically Neo has come back and posted now as opposed to later. And all because I focused on him. Funny how that works. I'm definitely happy with my vote on him.

Neo and Tiny both outnumber zinger in posts almost 10 to 1. And Zinger's post didn't have any content in it. I'm not letting someone end the game without doing anything all game. Neo disappeared for a little and I don't like the tone of his contributions much, but there are harder lurkers in this game right now. Tiny hasn't contributed anything of substance either, but he's below Zinger on my Lynch All Lurkers hit list.

EBWOP: btw Rubik, remember how I said you should be careful how you word your posts?

Rubik


KoD



And Neo,

First, refer to Niklor's own words. No jokes. He meant to fish. So already you're wrong.

Second, your history means nothing to me. What matters to me is what you do in this game, here and now, that we're in. Speaking of honesty, a person can use whatever means to win which includes using their history to help paint the wrong idea or lying about something else. The only way I wouldn't question a person is if they were like Glare with his NLP. But you're not him, so you're subject to every bit of criticism that comes your way just as I am subject to the such.

Third, reasons are not flimsy. Niklor fished, I stated why it was scummy and, recently, showed how it was scummy. If there is anything flimsy, it is the case. The reasons though are fine as long as you don't find a case where the reasons are stretched so much that it is grotesque to behold.

Anyway, my focus on you has been clearly stated. Did others throw votes around with no reasons? Yes. I was one of them. Yet, that was during the joke phase. So already that is null. Am I focusing you? Yes. Is it a tunnel? Hardly. Before you've I've already focused on Niklor and Rubik. You're just the final person I feel comfortable leaving my vote on for justified reasons Mr. I'm going to attack you and then not respond for a while.

Finally, yes it is easy to hide by lurking. Is it easy to hide by starting arguments? Possibly. Experience tells me that most people who play as scum won't do that though. Hell, the conversation that was held at the end of Intervals Mafia summed up how scum will act here on this forum. Apparently, lurking is the thing to do. Being active like me isn't the best if you want to survive. As far as I am concerned, scum won't hide in the spotlight (unless it is a scum like JD, then that is another beast entirely). They will lurk their way to victory because, it seems, people will do nothing about it.


Edit#2:

@Lilan:

One problem. All of Tiny's posts are within the joke phase (which I mark as being before Niklor's bait post, yet his posts were even before the discusson on LyLo which I don't believe he participated in). So yeah, he has more posts. That are useless.

EBWOP:

Nope, I was wrong to a point. He has one post past the discussion of LyLo where he voted PopPa. The rest is accurate though.

I voted for Zinger during the joke vote phase because I wanted to get a reaction from one of the few (if not the only) players who had yet to post in the thread. Zinger's recent "contribution" was literally nothing more than a delayed joke phase post, and yet you have had the gall to refer to it as "content". Zinger has not contributed in any substantial way, shape, or form and shame on you for implying otherwise.



I don't know where in that quote you got the notion that I supported doing that, but it certainly isn't anywhere in that quote or any other post I've made this game. I've already explicitly stated I fully intend to unvote people who stop lurking.



It could just as easily be because I said that I planned to vote for him if he didn't end up posting content. Or because he intended to do so in the first place. But no, it's got to be you and you alone.

Must have misread it on my phone, could have sworn it said "vote". My bad. You're right on this one.

On the contrary Rubik. He has contributed. He just hasn't expanded upon what he's done so far. I believe Niklor was the one who asked Zinger to expand on what he said. In case you don't get what I'm saying here, his vote on Fred is content in and of itself. Further explanation on why he has done so helps though.

Beyond that, he's already done more than Tiny has. So, again, yes he has contributed more than Tiny has.

And no, no you didn't Rubik. Nowhere in any of your posts, minus this current one, have I seen you say you will unvote people who stop lurking.

And yes, Rubik, it was me and me alone. I certainly didn't see you making a big fuss on Neo to begin with. Besides, you still have Tiny to contend with Mr. anti-Lurker.