Mini 776: End of the World Zombie Survivors Mafia: Abandoned

[Rishi]

@mod

what would happen to the gun if the gun holder were to be killed for any reason?

Hmm. Do you know something? I don't see how anyone will die except through lynching.

@OGB - Why don't you think semioldguy should get the gun?

[Rishi]

@mod

what would happen to the gun if the gun holder were to be killed for any reason?

Hmm. Do you know something? I don't see how anyone will die except through lynching.

I was thinking nightkills if the gun was not used on day 1. I assume there are normal nightkills in this game.

Oh. Duh. For some reason, I thought the gun could only be used on Day 1.

[Rishi]

Looks like that's kinda where we end up anyway. Whoever gets the gun will get a big target painted on their back if they don't use it day 1.

I think it definitely needs to be used Day 1. If the gun-wielder dies Night 1, then we lose the opportunity to use it. If they do not die, it sets up a WIFOM situation where we have to figure out if the gun-wielder is scum or not.

[Rishi]

Well, things seem inevitable at this point. May as well do the deed.

Gun: semioldguy

[Rishi]

We should confirm from gorckat that it's not a vote. I could see it interpreted as a vote (the word vote in bold followed by a player name).

By the way, if we're going to use the gun as an extra lynch, remember that we are then going to have to have two lynches before deadline. I'm okay with SOG killing someone who is close to a lynch at his discretion, in order to speed the game up.

[Rishi]

If I thought that SOG could not be trusted with the gun, then believe me, I would not have gun-hammered, but his posts make sense and I don't think he would use it irresponsibly. I know that we had five more days - but if SOG was likely going to end up with the gun (I'm sure someone else would have voted for him), then why delay? I don't think discussion was being especially productive at that point. As for the fact that I was "killing discussion," I think that argument only works with an actual hammer - one that ends the day.

I agree we shouldn't direct SOG too much about how to use the gun, with the caveat that he should use it on Day 1 for reasons already discussed. It's like directing a claimed power role - too easy for scum to manipulate and it means that SOG would have no responsibility for his actions.

@Diamond - No one is voting except for Lowell (well, Gateway is voting now but wasn't when you made your post), so why single out Amished for not voting?

[Rishi]

Code: Select all

Gateway

Obviously an awesome townie.

I never really like when people include themselves in their own analysis. May just be personal opinion.

It was kind of funny. Lighten up. So, are you saying that it's scummy or just that you don't like it?

This is a blatant exaggeration of the game state. Three of those pages were gun discussing, which means we've essentially at the beginning of the actual game.

QFT. And I think one of the main reasons no one is voting is that we all decided to skip the random voting stage - perhaps because the gun discussion generated some actual content to get the game going.

[Rishi]

So, I am not sure why so much attention is focused on Lowell. I've played with him a couple times before and modded him in completed games. He ALWAYS plays like this. His behavior is a null-tell.

I think a lot of people are going after him because he's an easy target.

[Rishi]

Can someone fill me in quickly on the special rules?

Hey again, DGB.

I don't think there are any special rules. Closed setup.

The only thing is the gun, which is a one-shot daykill, and was distributed by a vote. We voted for semioldguy to receive it.

Other than flavor, I don't think anything else is different from a normal Mafia game. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rishi]

Fell behind. Will catch up soon.

[Rishi]

No time for a full post right now, but as I said, I think Lowell's behavior is a null-tell, but I don't like a couple things about his last post. First off, after he criticizes Kabenon for jumping on bandwagons, he does the same thing himself. Also, we all agreed to let SOG use the gun the way he wants.

@SOG - why was your gun question directly specifically at Amished?

@Lowell - Can you summarize the case against Hero?

[Rishi]

---

No time for a full post right now, but as I said, I think Lowell's behavior is a null-tell, but I don't like a couple things about his last post. First off, after he criticizes Kabenon for jumping on bandwagons, he does the same thing himself. Also, we all agreed to let SOG use the gun the way he wants.

When you say that Lowell's behavior is a null-tell, does that include the things you pointed out here, or do you mean Lowell's earlier behavior?

Lowell's earlier behavior is definitely a null-tell. His most recent behavior (especially his most recent post) actually does seem a little scummy to me. I think Lowell is an easy target in a lot of games because of his playstyle (which, admittedly, is somewhat anti-town), so I don't like that people were jumping on him earlier. Now, I think he has some legitimate questions to answer.

No, this isn't a full post, yet.

[Rishi]

Caught up in all my games except this one. This will be my top priority the next time I log on.

[Rishi]

Have you guys even bothered to check my activity on the rest of the site? This isn't a newbie game, so I'm not sure why I have to explain this here, but there is a difference between being busy and lurking - lurking means that I am intentionally avoiding this game. Being busy, I haven't been posting anywhere on the site that often. I'm not going to bring personal information into this game, since I don't think anyone wants to hear a sob story, but believe me, I had good reason to be absent up to this point. I should be able to contribute somewhat regularly from here on out.

So, I am surprised that semioldguy took absolutely no heat for shooting OGB. OGB has zero votes at the time, and he presented a case primarily based on lurking. (See my first paragraph of this post to let you know what I think of lurker-hunting.) Yes, we're close to deadline, but he gave OGB only two days before the shot, during which time OGB did not log into the site once (or at very least didn't post anywhere). After making the shot, he immediately started a case on me IN THE VERY NEXT POST without even seeing the result of his shot. He was not in the least bit interested in gathering any information from the kill - he just wanted someone dead.

Now here is the BIG PROBLEM with the lurker hunt. This is EXACTLY what the Mafia want. When you lynch a lurker, you get very little information from the lynch. You can scan the posts of a lurker and get nothing from them - and as long as the lurker isn't scum, the scum remain fat and happy. Tomorrow, we could be down THREE townies and be in basically the same situation we are in today.

I know I've been flipping a little on Lowell, but I find Lowell very difficult to read. His analysis on all players was an attempt to be helpful, though, which is more than I have seen from him previously. I will not vote for Lowell at this point.

The only viable wagon other than my own right now is Musher/RisingPhoenix. Again, a lurker who is not going to give us much information on the lynch.

I'm voting for SOG right now. His shot on OGB with little justification was terrible - and the fact that he seemed completely uninterested in the result of the kill makes it even worse. I know that deadline is in a couple days. I don't like the Musher/RisingPhoenix wagon (though still better than No Lynch), but hope that a viable counterwagon emerges. I'll be on sporadically through the weekend.

Vote: semioldguy

[Rishi]

If you're advocating killing lurkers, that amounts to a policy lynch. Call that a difference in opinion, but I think that the object of the game is to determine the alignment of players, not to quibble with playstyles.

Drawing lurkers out with pressure votes and direct questions is the best way to deal with them - if they are intentionally evasive to direct questioning, then there is a justification for lynching them.

Yeah, obviously he wasn't going to shoot himself, but I would have liked to see him at least question the person he was going to shoot (and wait more than a couple days for an answer) and perhaps go after someone the town was suspicious of. There is no evidence that he didn't shoot OGB for any other reason than the lurking bugged him - it was not because he thought OGB was scum.

[Rishi]

Just because I don't intend to post the details of my personal life in this thread does not mean I don't have a legitimate reason for not posting.

The game situation has changed somewhat since the last time I promised a large post. I don't recall everything I was going to say, but much of it is no longer relevant.

[Rishi]

Your attempt to be evasive and not respond to the points levied against you is noted, SOG. Also, Amished's attempt to deflect the pressure from you is also noted. Still, other than the last few posts, Amished has seemed pretty pro-town, so I'll give him a pass for now.

My top suspects other than you are probably Hero (vote hopping, pretty thin reasons for some of his votes) and DGB (playing differently this game – I've played with her a decent amount and she's usually more aggressive and active. The fact that she's more docile this game is odd).

I would have, at the very least, given someone the opportunity to log on (or be prodded) before shooting them. The crux of my argument, however, is not that you didn't wait for a response, but that you didn't particularly care if OMG was scum or town.

Here, I'll even write out questions for you: Did you think OMG was scum? Or did you shoot OMG for lurking? Did you even care what OMG's alignment was? What information did you hope to gain from killing OMG?

And, I'm turning your question back on you: who do you think are scum? I want an actual reason why you think people are scum other than "oh, they're not posting much, so they must be scum."

You've had suspicious of myself, Musher/RisingPhoenix and OGB – all for the same reasons, that they are lurking and haven't contributed much. You did have a vote for Hero, but you pretty much just said, "I agree with Diamond" and left it at that. You expressed suspicion of Lowell for trying to direct use of the gun, but other than that, all you've done in this game is discuss theory and make wishy-washy non-committal statements about people and vote hopped. Look at this:

Musher hasn't added much content or brought anything to the table. I don't get a scummy vibe, but not enough from Musher333 to get a townie read at all.

Two days later:

I disagree with Herodotus on several points so far this game. But I know that just because I disagree with someone doesn't make that person scum. The points I don't agree with I see as just being because the two of us look at the game differently. I'll be keeping my eye on him for that reason. I wouldn't be surprised if Herodotus said the same about me in regards to our different play styles/views (He more or less has a time or two already). I generally get a pro-town feeling from him.

Vote: Musher333

I haven't really seen anything of real substance come from him yet. His posts have either been following or agreeing with others.

One day later:

Before I had just seen him as having bad logic, which I still believe. Diamondilium has pointed out Herodotus has contradicted himself.

Unvote; Vote: Herodotus

Basically, what you're doing is keeping your options open on players so that you can move a vote to them later, if the game demands it.

So, what I would like you to do is a post a list of your suspicions in a more in-depth way than checking people's post counts.

[Rishi]

Hey folks. Sorry that this got a little long. The following is just a really long argument against SOG. As for other players, I really don't like RisingPhoenix's last post, but it could be a newbie who has gotten in over his/her head. The other thing is that I still haven't responded to Hero's last post, which was somewhat directed at me, but I didn't want this to get insane.

Yes, I though OozingGolfBall was scum, and I gave several more reasons other than lurking for why I suspected him as such.

Okay, let's see what your reasons were:

During the early stages you supported the idea of shooting someone who got to L-1/L-2 but have done absolutely nothing to progress a game state toward that point. It no longer appears realistic that a double lynch with the gun can happen without being rushed. I would have wanted to go by the shooting someone who was built up close to lynch to get two lynches out of the day, but you are one of the players who has done nothing to help make that happen despite the fact that you agreed with the idea to begin with. You have not voted once. You have almost no unique contribution. Your posts all contain very little or often no actual content. You have been actively lurking all game.

Okay, your main points against OGB are:

1. Has done nothing to progress the game towards a lynch.
2. Has done nothing to help make that happen.
3. Has not voted.
4. No unique contribution.
5. Very little to no content in posts.
6. Actively lurking.

Aren't these all basically different ways of saying that OGB was lurking? And your reasons for suspecting OGB seem contradictory with your statement here:

Information is dependent upon alignment (obviously) and looking at whether or not others suspected him or avoided him, whether they supported the shot or if they didn't prior to the reveal all are useful things. Unlike you, he actually took a couple positions and took stances on the cases against a couple different people and now we have an alignment based insight into the positions he took.

Okay, so which is it? Did OGB have little to no content in his posts or was there insight in his posts that we can use for information? What information specifically can you mine from his posts? Because I'm looking at OGB's post and see almost nothing useful. So what information did you get?

Also, if you thought OGB was scum, why was the post where you threatened to kill OGB the first time you had mentioned any suspicion? In fact, you had only mentioned OGB twice prior to the post where you asked for the claim. Here's one:

I doubt OozingGolfBall is DGB's alt. Not only is OozingGolfBall listed as male, but I'd credit DGB to come up with more creative/fun alt names like she has in the past. Either way I don't think we should assume the two to be the same player just yet.

If you thought OGB was scum, is this your version of scumhunting? The other post you mentioned OGB was a half-joking post where you had asked DGB what she thought of her "evil twin" OGB. Also, if you thought OGB was scum, why did you wait until a week before deadline to take the shot and ask for a claim from a player who, let's be honest, was unlikely to respond prior to your arbitrary two-day deadline? I think you picked someone who you knew wasn't going to respond, so that you could justify your kill.

Furthermore, I'll mention that, in the post after you killed OGB and voted me, it was very first time you mentioned me except for addressing a question that I had directed towards you early in the game.

My first post regarding Musher333 was a direct response to Gateway, but I like how you omitted that part. I have not thought Musher333 to be scummy, at the time the vote was to apply pressure so that he would actually come to post and players could get a read off him.

I didn't omit that part. I merely omitted the part that was a response to Gateway. Here's the full content, for those of you playing along at home:

Code: Select all

Musher333

You have been clear about your thoughts and added posts with content to help out, good townie vibe from this guy.

I disagree with this. Musher hasn't added much content or brought anything to the table. I don't get a scummy vibe, but not enough from Musher333 to get a townie read at all.

The exact same quote I pulled before in its full context. How does this change my point that your opinion of Musher was just wishy-washy non-committal language? Then you voted for him two days later. If you had another post about Musher in the interim, please enlighten us.

Regarding Rishi; lurking isn't the sole reason, or even the primary reason, why I suspected you to begin with. In addition to what I addressed earlier, now you have an OMGUS vote as well as several misrepresentations of me in your recent post.

There you go again with "the reasons that I stated earlier." Let's look at the post that you had on me before:

Unvote; Vote: Rishi

You've been laying low quite a bit this game. You also have not voted once. In fact, until Post 242 you hadn't even mentioned someone even being a little bit scummy. At this point you mention Lowell as a little bit scummy, who you had been defending prior saying his play was a null-tell on more than one occasion. The rest of us have had suspects and have put our votes on them, you have called out no suspects and I find that scummy.

Okay, your points are the following:

1. Laying low (i.e. lurking – no longer true)
2. Not voting (i.e. lurking – no longer true)
3. Hadn't talked about anyone being scummy (i.e. lurking – no longer true)
4. Seeming flip-flop on Lowell

I addressed the flip-flop on Lowell by saying that I find him incredibly hard to read. He plays like this in every game as both town and scum. And, frankly, I'm just not sure about him. I just don't know what his alignment is. If you want to use that as a point against me, then so be it.

Okay, so your new points are OMGUS and "misrepresentations of you." Just because I'm voting for you after you voted for me does not make it OMGUS. I think I put together a reasonable argument against you, which, frankly speaking, you're not taking very seriously. Calling it OMGUS makes it seem as though I have no backup for my arguments, which is simply not true. And, as for misrepresentations, I think I showed in my post how what you claimed were misrepresentations were actually not. If you want to claim any further misrepresentations, please quote my post and then quote your own posts which show reasons.

You're not actually refuting any of my arguments. You're just making general comments that aren't true without any evidence to back it up.

As for the post that I was promising earlier, I say it's no longer relevant. I'm leaving it at that. If you want to lynch me because of it, then so be it. I think you're harping on a fairly minor point because you know you don't really have anything else against me.

[Rishi]

Well, not a lot of people have been weighing on the argument between me and SOG, so I'm not sure how productive it is. Let me make a few more points:

1. What I was pointing about the reasons you were voting OGB is that they all pretty much were linked to the fact that he wasn't posting much. Perhaps "lurking" is the wrong term – but let's go with "non-contributing." Everything that you pointed out – not voting or posting suspicions is linked to the same thing – that he wasn't playing.

2. I didn't ask you to give another general statement. You say that the little content that OGB posted can be used. LOOK AT OGB'S POSTS AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SURMISE ABOUT THE OTHER PLAYERS.

3. You didn't realize that OGB wouldn't post in two days? Do you look at people's posting patterns in the thread and elsewhere on the site? OGB was not in any other games and final three posts were dated April 27, April 30 and May 4. He did post more often before that, but I think it's fairly evident that he was posting less and less often in the thread.

4. I don't necessarily find a vote on a player in the first post that you mention a player to be suspicious. However, I do find it scummy when someone jumps on a bandwagon in the middle when they weren't suspicious of someone before – because now they aren't just voting, they are contributing to a lynch. Your dayvig of OGB amounted to an extra lynch – it wasn't a vote, so you should provide justification for what you did. As Amished said early in the game:

For the L-1 gunning, I don't know if that's the right way to go. I feel that it will just make it easier for scum to pressure somebody and get a role-claim out of them, and if it's a worthless claim in their eyes they can abandon it or reduce their heavy opponents (referring to anti-scum power roles). As Semi has the gun now, I'm thinking that he should go after somebody who he thinks is scum and then force him to account for his actions and reasoning after it is done. That way we can also decide if it was truly a pro-town kill, or if there was something shady to do.

(And, yes, I find it interesting that Amished did the exact opposite of what he said – he never forced you to account for your actions, and even criticized me for questioning you after I did.)

5. As for Musher, I personally find the statement, "I don't get a scummy vibe, but not enough from Musher333 to get a townie read at all" to be non-committal. I can see your viewpoint too, so people can see what you said and I said on this subject and make up their own minds. (And, by the way, if you never had suspicions of Musher, why were you voting him at one point?)

6. As for OGB's alignment being relevant to my alignment, your points against OGB are nearly identical to your reasons for voting OGB. OGB flipped town – so obviously the fact that you thought he was scummy was wrong. Do you feel that you've learned everything you can about Mafia or do you feel that your opinion on the game is constantly evolving? How many "non-contributing" townies do you have to lynch before you realize that you can't just get rid of people who aren't saying anything? You have to make a genuine attempt to determine their alignment.

[Rishi]

First of all, you just said that you would force SOG to account for his actions after the vig - you didn't give the caveat that you wouldn't do so if you agreed with the play. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his choice, don't you think it's worth probing why he did it? Even if you disagree with the method that I'm questioning SOG, you must surely see the value in forcing someone to account for his actions?

The point about knowing when OGB would post or not post might be reaching a bit - but my point stands that SOG waited until a fairly late date to confront OGB, who he was not suspicious of before, and then gave him little time to respond. Whether two days was reasonable or not is subject to interpretation - but I was just presenting facts that it should have been expected that OGB would be slow to respond.

BTW: How many non-contributing players (since you shouldn't know if they're townie or not) do you have to leave alive (in a constantly deadlined game) to play a decently paced game of mafia so the people that are trying to be active don't give up out of boredom or frustration by not having people play? You show me *ONE* game that was fun for everybody that had lurkers in it. Please.

The point of Mafia is not to lynch people because you don't like the way they are playing, but to determine their alignment. Let me ask you this: do you think not contributing is a scumtell or that they are just not fun to play with? In the average mini game, there are 3 Mafia (usually between 2-4). Of course, weird things could happen with an SK or vig or protective roles, but you can reasonably expect to get 2-3 mislynches before losing. Not contributing might have dozens of reasons associated with it - most of which have nothing to do with the game, so in my mind it's a null-tell. If we just go around lynching the players who are not contributing, by the time we're done, we may have already lost.

[Rishi]

Simul-post with SOG. Since neither of us are in danger of getting lynched, we should probably take this up tomorrow if we're both still alive. I no longer see this argument as being particularly productive.

One point though - I was not saying that your vote on Lowell was scummy. I was speaking in general terms. I think your vote on Lowell is valid, as you've expressed suspicion on him before.

There's only two viable wagons right now, and I prefer a RP lynch over Lowell:

Unvote, Vote: RisingPhoenix

[Rishi]

I apologize if my argument got muddled. But, just to clarify my position:

I feel that lurking and not contributing is detrimental to a game and to the site in general. I would never say that lurking is preferable to contribution - just that it's understandable why it happens.

I just would never use non-contribution as the sole reason to lynch someone. For me, winning is fun - and what I find frustrating is when people simply go on a lurker hunt just to have that lurker flip town. It's harder in a game with set deadlines, but I think there's a way to pressure lurkers into contributing that gives more insight into their alignment - which is better than just setting a policy lynch.

[Rishi]

What do you see in RP that's scummy? Obviously you can't pull out the disagreeing with a playstyle, nor really lurking as your excuse due to your argument with SOG. Protecting a scumpartner much? Or perhaps you know Lowell is town, and you're still scum. I really wish we had more time, but like I said, I'm coming after you tomorrow.

I really should use preview. I said why I don't want Lowell to be lynched - his behavior is a null-tell, and I think he's set himself up to be an easy target, and I think a lynch - ANY lynch is better than No Lynch. Therefore, RP is preferable to Lowell.

[Rishi]

Going to bed in about 3 hours and won't log on again before deadline. Will check the thread periodically, but are any of you Lowell voters willing to budge?

As I said, ANY lynch is preferable to No Lynch - so I'll switch to Lowell if absolutely necessary.

[Rishi]

We really don't have time to do this now, but since you insist...

It's not a double standard. We're in a deadline situation, and any lynch is better than No Lynch - that's fairly commonly accepted Mafia theory. If there was another viable wagon at this point, I would consider it, but even if there is little information to be gained from a lynch, it's better than ZERO information.

Besides, there is a

HUGE

difference between a lynch and a dayvig. In a lynch, at least you can analyze who is on the wagon, how they got there, and when they jumped on. For the dayvig, we can only question the vig and people's reactions to the vig - which is why I was hoping more people would weigh in on your kill of OGB.

I don't have a good read on Lowell, but he leans town for me based on the way that I have seen him play in previous games. I agree we would get more information out of a Lowell lynch - he's posted more and given his opinions on most of the players in the game, but I think he's less likely to be scum.

[Rishi]

I'm here, for at least an hour or two more, but, as we're on different wagons, we need a third to make a lynch happen.

[Rishi]

.22 * (very good) + .75 * (moderately bad) + info gained from both us lynching a target, and reducing where scum can hide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 * Zero information at all, as Mafia will pick off one of us.

It's a question of getting possible anti-scum information vs getting zero anti-scum information. The only time I've ever heard of anybody saying that a No-Lynch is the proper course of action is in a 4 player (3 townie 1 scum) Lylo to raise chance of hitting scum from 25% to 33%. Even if you read how to be a good IC, they say that the only time you can self-hammer is to *prevent* a no-lynch. This setup had to be run through and at least looked over to try to be balanced for a townie lynch every night (and most likely a townie vig-kill D1) so to No-Lynch and not get anywhere more than where we are and get picked off is very very very bad (not just somewhat bad).

Was writing out a post to this effect, but Amished said it better. I 100% agree with this. This is pretty basic Mafia theory here.

[Rishi]

Yeah, Hero, but the three of us are here. With 6.5 hours to deadline, I don't want to switch my vote to Lowell and hope that someone else who is not on the Lowell wagon will log on. For all we know, we might be the only ones still awake.

Of the people not on the Lowell wagon, we know that DGB is on vacation and Lowell won't self-vote. And, this sounds mean, but I don't think RP really knows enough about what's going on to place a vote on Lowell.

That leaves Diamond, kabenon and Kieraen. Willing to switch if necessary, but we need one of those 3 to log on.

[Rishi]

Sorry for the double post. But I should also point out that if I do switch my vote before signing off for the night, and you two are the only ones who log on before deadline, it then makes any lynch impossible.

I'm not going to bed just yet, but probably not too much longer.

[Rishi]

I'd still like Rishi to address Post 384.

That's a very long post and I have addressed some of the points. What specifically would you like me to address?

[Rishi]

I'd still like Rishi to address Post 384.

That's a very long post and I have addressed some of the points. What specifically would you like me to address?

Aside from the Lowell comments... what other points have you addressed in my post since then? I want all of the points addressed, minus the point about the vote on Lowell which was already addressed.

You also never responded yesterday with what your read on RisingPhoenix was. When I asked, you just gave me more opinions of your read on Lowell and completely omitted anything regarding a read on RisingPhoenix.

So you think that all points in that post are really relevant? There's a lot of chaff in that post. If you want those points answered, you are going to have to restate them. Thanks.

My read on RP was neutral. I thought Lowell was leaning town. To avoid a No Lynch, I jumped on the RP bandwagon early (NOT at the last possible moment) to try to get something going. I think it's perfectly reasonable to vote for someone you don't find all that scummy in the face of a deadline. You even switched to RP eventually to avoid a No Lynch.

As for current suspects, it's hard when the activity is so low. Still you, but not enough for a vote just yet - my theory that you and Amished could be scumbuddies has been altered.

[Rishi]

Having some personal (out of game) issues. Will catch up in this game in the next few days.

[Rishi]

SOG - I am still here. At this point, pretty much anything I say to you, you're going to pick apart, so I don't really feel the need to spend a lot of time responding to that entire post just so that you can post another long reply. We're just going to go back and forth like we did at the end of Day 1.

If there is a specific question that is burning a hole in your brain, then I'll gladly answer it, but I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to that entire thing, especially since you won't consider it particularly probative. You're just looking for more ammunition.

I want to do a re-read of Day 1. There's probably something there. But, I second the request for prods.

[Rishi]

I got a tad bit aggressive to take suspicion away from Hero and Kiernan (since you guys decided to go on a lurker hunt).

SOG - Shooting OGB without expressing suspicion beforehand was uncool. I would have said that as town too, though maybe not pushed the point as hard.

And SOG and Amished, you guys were way too aggressive. You made the game not fun to play, at least for me. So I think that's a big part of why the game got abandoned.

[Rishi]

There are all types of styles, and if you can't handle aggressive gameplay, I don't know what to say. If everyone is just laid back and doesn't press issues, it's as good as voting out of the RVS.

You can be aggressive while still remembering that you're playing a game with other real players.

In any case, you're probably not as bad as I remembered. The lurker hunting strikes a particular nerve with me. It shows a complete disregard for the alignment of the other players and trying to impose a particular style on everyone else.

[Rishi]

I wasn't lurker hunting. I was hunting people who contradicted their stated intentions in the game. It just so happened two of you were lurkers, but that was never the cornerstone of my case, nor was it something that all lurkers possess nor something that is limited only to lurkers.

Well, I can't blame you too much, because I was scum. What worries me is if we're in a game where we're both town and you play the same way... since my playstyle is similar as town (though I still make slips as scum - I have so few games as scum that it's not a role that I'm comfortable with just yet).