The reasons I asked these questions is that I noticed anti-town behaviour in both your play, which could be explained by the way you two answered those questions. However, if your answers differed from how you acted, those actions would have been a major scumtell.
To show more clearly what I mean, I'll start by answering the questions I posed to Saberwolf and Far_Cry.
MichelSableheart wrote:I would like to hear your opinions on the Random Voting Stage. What is it? Why does it exist? How should people behave during the RVS? When does it end?
Personally, I would define the RVS as the part in the beginning of the game where it is accepted that players joke around a bit without being very serious. In my opinion, there should be no such thing as a RVS. Discussion should be started, and voting arbitrarely is a way to start discussion, but it is not THE way to start a game. In fact, I find it a very suboptimal way to start the game, especially because people know random votes are generally accepted and are therefore not very likely to respond to them. If there is such a thing as a RVS, it should end as soon as possible, to be replaced by discussion that is more likely to be productive.
Considering this, post #51 by Far_Cry struck me as anti-town. Toast was the first player who actually posted something that had a chance of getting conversation going other then probably unproductive random votes. I may be misunderstanding what Far_Cry was trying to say, but it seems to me he was attacking Toast at least partially because Toast basically said "let's talk some", in other words because Toast was trying to get actual useful conversation going, or even harsher formulated: for doing exactly what should be done by town during the RVS. The facts that FC believes useful information can be drawn out of the random voting stage, and that he believes conversation does not automatically end the RVS, make his move there less suspicious.
What I most wanted to hear from Saberwolf was how he believes the RVS ends. The reason for this is his vote in post #57, and his later comments on it. At that point in time, there were some serious things that could be discussed. In particular, Toasts questions could be answered, or he could have elaborated on Far_Cry's response that Toast's post was scummy. But instead, he voted one of the players involved in the starting discussion, Far_Cry, for reasons that were not game related, while commenting he wanted to get back to the RVS. He basically continued the RVS when I believe he should have tried to end it. The fact that he feels that not much can be read from the RVS alone makes this behaviour more suspicious.
MichelSableheart wrote:Please give me your definition of lurking. Do you believe lurking is scummy? Why (not)?
Personally, I make a difference between lurking and being inactive. Someone lurks if he keeps up with the game, posting often enough not to be replaced, but intentionally doesn't contribute much, in order to stay under people's scumdars. I consider this scummy behaviour, as there is a definite advantage for scum to stay out of other people's sights, whereas town generally need to be more proactive to find the scum. On the other hand, someone is inactive when he simply doesn't post enough to be considered playing the game. Such a player should end up being replaced. I don't consider being inactive on purpose an acceptable game strategy: if you signed up for a game, you should play it, and if you're replaced, you aren't playing the game anymore, and therefore can't win. Because of this, I don't consider inactivity to be scummy behaviour.
In post #144, saberwolf made a list of all players in the game, along with the number of posts they made. He called those that made the least posts lurkers, and placed a vote on one of them. He failed to show why the person he was voting for was more likely scum, and he failed to show why it was unlikely the person he voted for would be replaced. I consider this to be antitown, because you are far more likely to hit inactives rather then lurkers this way. His answer to my question did not alleviate my suspicion. If lurking is only scummy depending on the circumstances, he should IMO have provided the reasons why lurking was suspicious in the case of jackinthebox in post #144.
I find it very interesting that saberwolf dismisses my questions as unhelpful to town first, and only asks why I asked them after that.
I very strongly dislike how donkeyz fills in my reasons for asking those questions without waiting for an explanation from me. In particular, I did not consider my questions to be unassociated with this particular game.
For reasons similar to Far_Cry and Saberwolf, I would like to see Sudai answer his question too. Unfortunately, the value of his reply has diminished now that he is aware of my reasons for asking these questions.
---
Donkeyz, I will state exactly who I want to see lynched, why I want to see them lynched and vote for them to get them lynched, but only after I've read the entire thread thoroughly.
There is no 'a' in Michel.
