oh... wow... I sleeped and BOOM! 6 more pages...
not gonna read post before my post on page 13 unless it's necessary to do so...
Also postibg on my phone now so I'll make a post per page about my thoughts. If I miss something, let me know.
here goes nothing...
Page 13
In post 321, RationalMadman wrote:Tbh, I suggest a policy lynch of a lurker d1. Town that doesn't contribute should be gotten rid of and if they happen to be maf it's a bonus.
NOT A GOOD IDEA AT ALL!!! WHY POLICY LYNCH A TOWNIE WITHOUT A READ???
Well I'm also being inactive for the first half of the day because of RL issues, but I'm free now. Let say this policy lynching started at the beginning of this day. Some had ugent things to do in RL and let say that they are all townie. (Let's also count people who are getting replaced.) They have little to no reads and have potential to catch a scum. Also, scum players will have a great advantage over this.
In post 322, ConManMick wrote:If we go about policy lynching, however, we could potentially put strain on ourselves. It'll make things easier for the scum players if we lynch people for the sake of it rather than actually suspectung them of being scum. Strikes me as a tad counterintuitive.
^this, exactly...
Point taken... but it seems scummy for some reasons...
1. He just got replaced.
2. He didn't give any reasons on his vote. Even though it's not L-1 or a hammer, voting someone without a reason (excep in RVS) is a scummy thing ro do IMO.
3.This follow-up post is scummy. It's like "HEY! Vote me if you don't like it!". It just sounds so wrong for me...
Plot, thanks, I know now it was a mistake (as was ric's response, probably) but people keep asking me about it! I'm just gonna link them to a previous answer now, and hope the mod is ok with that?
appologies mod! Does that sound like a good strategy?I've not made reference to it out of a) the joke and b) people asking me about the joke! Does that make sense?
