Newbie 694 (over)

[Xtoxm]

*Games becoming more inactive

No, that is a false statement.

[infamousace2]

Are we ever gonna lynch someone?

[hambargarz]

@infamousace2: It's a bit early to call lynches. Longer days are better for the town. In my experiences a day can last for about a couple of weeks.

@ClockworkRuse: His post gives a certain vibe. So I'll do my best to explain. Here's the quote..

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

He is explaining that the move to encourage discussion is pro-town. Which kind of goes without saying. Mentioning the word pro-town just strikes a chord with me. As a suspicious way to word it. He could have said, "good idea, lets discuss blah blah" or simply, "he's encouraging discussion" not something like "you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour". That just sounds unnatural to me. Immediately following is a fence sitting sentence.

[ClockworkRuse]

@infamousace2: It's a bit early to call lynches. Longer days are better for the town. In my experiences a day can last for about a couple of weeks.

@ClockworkRuse: His post gives a certain vibe. So I'll do my best to explain. Here's the quote..

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

He is explaining that the move to encourage discussion is pro-town. Which kind of goes without saying. Mentioning the word pro-town just strikes a chord with me. As a suspicious way to word it. He could have said, "good idea, lets discuss blah blah" or simply, "he's encouraging discussion" not something like "you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour". That just sounds unnatural to me. Immediately following is a fence sitting sentence.

That's not what you called him on though. You said that he was actively lurking. It helps if you try to explain what you find scummy as clearly as you can the first time, rather then just saying something simple like active lurking or something of the sort.

[infamousace2]

Oh...so there is no set time limit for days...

gotcha

[militant]

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Discuss.

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

And why did you feel the urge to say this? Just because I said discuss?

Yes that is why I posted what I did.

@ClockworkRuse: His post gives a certain vibe. So I'll do my best to explain. Here's the quote..

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

He is explaining that the move to encourage discussion is pro-town. Which kind of goes without saying. Mentioning the word pro-town just strikes a chord with me. As a suspicious way to word it. He could have said, "good idea, lets discuss blah blah" or simply, "he's encouraging discussion" not something like "you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour". That just sounds unnatural to me. Immediately following is a fence sitting sentence.

You are voting me because of the way I speak?

I am not lurking and just because I phrase things in a different manner.

Would one of the ICs elaborate on the meaning of the term "lurking", as I understand it, it means that a player is not contributing or is trying to "fly unerneath the rader". If I am correct in my understanding then I do not think I was lurking due to the fact taht I was posting and contributing to discussion.

[hasdgfas]

VOTE COUNT:

GIEFF(2): militant, RealityFan
militant(2): Xtoxm, hambargarz
hambargarz(1): ClockworkRuse
RealityFan(1): Elennaro
Xtoxm(1): infamousace2

Not Voting: GIEFF, urielzyx

9 alive, 5 to lynch


*if you want someone prodded, just let me know.*

[ClockworkRuse]

You are being accused of actively lurking though, Mil. Basically, that boils down to posting to appear active but not really giving any content. Saying that my self-vote was an attempt to stimulate discussion is just stating the blatant facts without adding anything to it.

At anyone who isn't an IC; Is self-voting pro-town? Or is it the opposite?

[militant]

You are being accused of actively lurking though, Mil. Basically, that boils down to posting to appear active but not really giving any content. Saying that my self-vote was an attempt to stimulate discussion is just stating the blatant facts without adding anything to it.

At anyone who isn't an IC; Is self-voting pro-town? Or is it the opposite?

Oh right. Something quite different. Posting to appear like I am contributing but not actually adding anything of substance. I was in a bit of a pickle in that situation, I thought creating discussion was protown as I mentioned but I could not quite get my head around why you were doing it.

Clockwork, I don't like you question because it is leading, it is asking whether something is one or the other. I am not sure whether it is pro town or not; the concept of self voting had not occured to me before. But it depends on the context entirely or more importantly the motives for the self vote. As I previously stated though it creates discussion which leads to scumhunting like in this case with me being voted, in that sense I see it as good but otherwise I don't know.

[ClockworkRuse]

I'd like everyone who isn't an IC to answer that question. I'm not really sure how Xtoxm feels about it but I want to show everyone some things about it.

[hambargarz]

self voting, to me at least, is generally an anti-town play.
There are some instances where it is good though (ie. gambiting).
At this point in the game, I see you're self vote as neither one or the other because it doesn't escalate much.

In my last game 2 people self voted. The context was much more significant than here however. (Though the behaviour was seen as anti-town rather than scummy).

Asking stuff like this strikes me as a bit scummy. You want the town's position on your behaviour? That only helps you if you're scum in my opinion.

FOS: ClockworkRuse

[Elennaro]

Clockworkruse, I challenge your statement. I think it's a reasonably good policy (though exceptions are always possible). The only thing the mafia can do to avoid getting lynched is post, which increases the chances of them slipping up. Of course we should lynch clear targets (like false claimers) before we lynch lurkers, but in case of doubt, lynching a lurker seems like a good idea to me. At best, you lynch a scum member that was not going to give you information, at worst, an unhelpful townie (or power role, that would be unfortunate, but it's easily avoided).

That being said, I don't advocate lynching right now, but my vote stays where it is, because a little pressure will do the town no harm.

Please explain why policy lynches only hurt the town.

[Elennaro]

EBWOP: that was a reply to your post at the end of the previous page, I hadn't seen this page yet.

[hambargarz]

In my last game we had a couple of lurkers that didn't post. They survived right till the end with townies lynching other townies in the meantime. At the end at lylo with 3 people left (all 3 were originally lurking. 2 were replaced), the remaining lurker was lynched (on the reasons for lurking). Turned out the lurker was town and scum won the game.

So I say lynch lurkers earlier rather than later.

[Elennaro]

Exactly. If they're town, they're not being helpful anyway. So if you have no really good reason to lynch a non-lurker, you'd best lynch lurkers.

[ClockworkRuse]

self voting, to me at least, is generally an anti-town play.
There are some instances where it is good though (ie. gambiting).
At this point in the game, I see you're self vote as neither one or the other because it doesn't escalate much.

In my last game 2 people self voted. The context was much more significant than here however. (Though the behaviour was seen as anti-town rather than scummy).

Asking stuff like this strikes me as a bit scummy. You want the town's position on your behaviour? That only helps you if you're scum in my opinion.

FOS: ClockworkRuse

No, I'm going to be making a point to the newer players after they all answer.

I didn't say that lynching lurkers hurts us, I said that policy lynches hurts us. By saying you are going to lynch someone on policy, you are saying that because they are doing something that may not necessarily be a scum tell, you want them to be lynched.

An example of this would be Lynch all Liars. There are pro-town reasons to lie, for example if a watcher lies about their role while mass claiming to see what the people they have watched claim. A policy lynch of lynch all liars would say you should lynch the watcher for lying. See my point.

[hambargarz]

Exactly. If they're town, they're not being helpful anyway. So if you have no really good reason to lynch a non-lurker, you'd best lynch lurkers.

It's tricky because a live townie is better than a dead one even though they are lurking. It's usually best to bide our time and lynch people acting scummy. We have a lot of time to discuss. You never know you could lynch a townie who is about to be replaced, or even worse a pro-town role. That said, leaving lurkers too long, can end up like my last game, where you only have 2 people out of 5 posting, and that doesn't help the town at all.

[Elennaro]

I still think lynching lurkers is a good idea, as long as you don't forget why you're doing it. After all, the lurker may be mafia as well, and this would force them to stop using that strategy. Wouldn't the mod tell us if someone were going to be replaced? And yes, there's always a risk that you'll lynch a pro-town power role, but that's the same with non-lurkers. In fact, I'd argue that power roles are less likely to lurk, as they feel they have something more interesting to do with the game.

I'm all for biding our time, though. Discussion has hardly begun yet, so lynching now would be a bad idea.

Clockworkruse: I don't know. I figured that mafia might do it to cut short investigation (if it's the final vote) but town probably wouldn't do that, AFAIK. I can see it happening just to get things over with if some peopl are lurking for long periods of time, though.

[hambargarz]

You could also say that pro-town roles have a reason to lurk/keep a low profile. Problem with lynching a lurker, is the lurker has no opportunity to role claim before he's hammered.

[urielzyx]

u could let everyone FoS the lurker, and let him know if he doesn't claim or contribute until some deadline, you'll lynch him.

Clockworkruse: I never thought of self voting, but it would seem that it is not strictly one or the other, it is very context related.

About policy lynching, I think it depends what that policy is, lynch all liars is a bad policy, lynch all lurkers may be a good policy, I would probably lynch a probable scum over a lurker, but if u don't have suspicions u may have just as much chance of lynching a scum or a power role as with non lurkers, the difference is that a lurker won't help as much if he's vanilla as an active player does...

[Xtoxm]

Inf's recent posts strike me as odd, even coming from someone not used to the pace of games here.

[urielzyx]

Actually, when u think about it, he only has 6 posts in the thread,

1st post - confirmation.
2nd post - we asked where everybody lives and he says florida.
3rd - vote Xtoxm(RV).
4th - mentions he loves RV.

After that he disappears for a long time, until we start talking about lurkers, then he jumps out with a wierd question, and doesn't contribute anything.

In addition, he did not cancel his RV yet.

Vote: infamousace2

[Xtoxm]

Now that the game has kicked off, i'd like to see him come into the game more, there are a couple things to comment on, rather than just vote him. If it continues in this fashion though, I shall feel the need to vote him.

[Elennaro]

I never said you should lynch lurkers without giving them a chance to defend themselves. And anyway, the only town power role who should really try to remain hidden is the doctor, and he could play active townie just as well, it should be really easy for him, because he has no knowledge the town does not have (unless he prevents a kill, and even then it doesn't mean anything in games with a vig). Lurking should not be a good way to keep a low profile. But, of course I'd rather lynch a probable mafia than a lurker.

What's wrong with lynching liars, by the way? I mean, of course exceptions must be possible, but what is wrong with it in general?

[Xtoxm]

No, all town power's want to stay hidden on Day One, really. There are a couple of exceptions, but certainly not in this game.