Open 55 - Vanilla 2:10 (Abandoned) before 542

destructor · Post Post #25 (ISO) » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:52 pm

I was kidding. I have nothing to give me a good indication of anyone's alignment right now.

I'm more interested in what people think about lynching lurkers.

TylerJ · Post Post #26 (ISO) » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:13 pm

I'm back. Now that the holidays are over, perhaps more people will post.

destructor · Post Post #27 (ISO) » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:08 am

How about going one step further and posting

content

. You didn't do that in your last post.

destructor · Post Post #28 (ISO) » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:09 am

The point I'm making is that you could have. Instead you post telling us that hope more people will post, which really doesn't tell us anything useful.

Lowell · Post Post #29 (ISO) » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:18 am

destructor wrote:I was kidding. I have nothing to give me a good indication of anyone's alignment right now.

I'm more interested in what people think about lynching lurkers.

I'll lynch lurkers with you.

Unless you start to get annoying about it, in which case I'll lynch you.

pwayne66 · Post Post #30 (ISO) » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:51 am

Lynch lurkers? Perhaps as a last resort. Just because there are no power roles does not mean that townies will be more interested in this game. In reality, a lynch all lurkers approach to this game seems to provide scum with an exact blue print for making it to the end game. In the end, we will be just be lynching lazy townies with only a a sliver of a chance that we hit an especially dim scum.

On a side note, if I was scum that had no intention of lurking... I might suggest that we lynch everybody that does also.

TylerJ · Post Post #31 (ISO) » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am

okay, there are two pages, what did you expect me to write? So for you accusing me of hypocrisy I will

vote: Destructor

destructor · Post Post #32 (ISO) » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:41 pm

pwayne66 wrote:Lynch lurkers? Perhaps as a last resort. Just because there are no power roles does not mean that townies will be more interested in this game. In reality, a lynch all lurkers approach to this game seems to provide scum with an exact blue print for making it to the end game. In the end, we will be just be lynching lazy townies with only a a sliver of a chance that we hit an especially dim scum.

On a side note, if I was scum that had no intention of lurking... I might suggest that we lynch everybody that does also.

I don't know why anyone would bother signing up for an all vanilla game if they weren't interested in it. This is as plain as it gets.

Lynching all lurkers will make the game better for the town in the long run. It's meant to be an incentive for ALL players to actually

play the game

. The moment townies start lurking, it's more acceptable for scum to. Scum only really have to play as well as the worst pro-town player.

If we agree to lynch lurkers, we set a bench mark. At best, everyone posts regularly, we have lots of content to analyse and out scum. At worst, every pro-town player sucks, in which case this town deserves to lose anyway. I'm going to be an optimist about this and assume we've got something closer to the best case scenario.

Tyler, what did

you

expect

others

to write?
And when did I accuse you of hypocrisy? I pointed out your no-content post.

Jester · Post Post #33 (ISO) » Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:37 am

I've gotta agree with pwayne on this one. I haven't seen a single game type yet where lynching lurkers would be a pro-town strategy. Scum will stay active enough to avoid the noose, while two or three townies, no matter the game type, are always either quiet by choice or quiet because they're afraid something they say will be misinterpreted. So no, there's nothing special about the Vanilla game type for this argument, IMO.

I do find it kinda ironic that Lowell is agreeable to lynching lurkers. In every game I've been with him to date, he's been one. I'll devote my optimism to hoping this isn't another such game. Whadaya say, Lowell?

I might try designing a game where lynching lurkers would be advantageous to the town when I mod my first theme game, just to see how such a game would play.

TylerJ · Post Post #34 (ISO) » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:05 am

I'm not in favor of lynching lurkers.

@destructor, we are still pretty much in the random stage, so if people wrote just about anything, it could help (exaggerating of course). Second point was you mentioned the hypocrisy of me encouraging people to post content when I didn't.

pwayne66 · Post Post #35 (ISO) » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:11 am

days since last post:
Flameaxe-10
pwayne66-0
Dracion-never
Jdodge-9
TylerJ-1
Tobiassen-10
DeathSauce-4
Elmo-10
d3sisted-19 (supposed to be back tomorrow?)
Lowell-2
destructor-2
Jester-1

I think some prods might be in order.

TylerJ · Post Post #36 (ISO) » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:31 am

Wow, one nine, three tens, and one 19. Amazing.

destructor · Post Post #37 (ISO) » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:02 pm

Unvote
Vote: TylerJ

Posting without content.

Also, this game is not really taking off.

Mod: hello, can we have prods, please?

TylerJ · Post Post #38 (ISO) » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:22 am

destructor wrote:
Unvote
Vote: TylerJ

Posting without content.

Also, this game is not really taking off.

Mod: hello, can we have prods, please?

And all you did was vote, that's maybe 1% better...

Jester · Post Post #39 (ISO) » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:26 am

mod:

I'd also like to request some prods. Flameaxe seems to have dropped off the site and will probably have to be replaced. Dracion, DeathSauce, Jdodge, Tobiassen, Elmo, and d3sisted would all seem to deserve prods as well.

DeathSauce · Post Post #40 (ISO) » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:34 pm

Sorry, this game was stalled for so long it kinda fell of my radar.

All I've got from this game is that TylerJ seems most suspicious to me at the moment.

UltimaAvalon · Post Post #41 (ISO) » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:51 pm

Currently seeking replacements from d3sisted and dracion, as they have not picked up the first round of prods from earlier.

Flameaxe has, contrary to popular belief,

not

disappeared from the site, and will not be replaced.

prodding Flameaxe, JDodge, Tobiassen, and Elmo by request.

Flameaxe · Post Post #42 (ISO) » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:27 pm

DON'T YOU DARE PROD ME! I just forgot to put this on my watch list...And I have limited access for a bit too...Sorriez UA.

destructor · Post Post #43 (ISO) » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:30 am

DeathSauce wrote:All I've got from this game is that TylerJ seems most suspicious to me at the moment.

This almost makes we want to change my vote to DeathSauce.

Jester · Post Post #44 (ISO) » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:19 am

Flameaxe wrote:DON'T YOU DARE PROD ME! I just forgot to put this on my watch list...

You also apparently forgot to put the other game you and I share right now on your watch list, and you've already been prodded there.

Jester · Post Post #45 (ISO) » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:24 am

P.S. Oh, and for the record, JDodge and Elmo are active in other games. Tobiassen hasn't posted on this site since before Christmas.

Elmo, when you return to us, I've noticed a pattern in your play in previous games I've been in with you: some games, you totally ignore or post only one-liners, and other games, you over-post to absurd (and quite often hostile) lengths. Care to discuss?

TylerJ · Post Post #46 (ISO) » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:00 am

DeathSauce wrote:Sorry, this game was stalled for so long it kinda fell of my radar.

All I've got from this game is that TylerJ seems most suspicious to me at the moment.

Reasons being...

DeathSauce · Post Post #47 (ISO) » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:21 pm

Because you are acting suspiciously! I would have thought it was obvious.

destructor · Post Post #48 (ISO) » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:51 pm

It'd be grand if you could tell us what makes him suspicious.

Tobiassen · Post Post #49 (ISO) » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:59 pm

Okok, im happy, stop prodding me.

NOONE is acting suspiciously, and i blame deathsauce,