|
On June 29 2012 07:05 Anacletus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 06:48 JingleHell wrote:
So, does anyone besides me even want to make suggestions? Should we go in alphabetical order until someone actually posts?
If that's the case, Anacletus, explain your actions! You've been inconsistent, claiming a role that isn't in the game, without knowing what it is or if one is in the game!
Why would you false roleclaim? Why does your name look like Analfetus? The FoS shall rest upon YOU for now, until people decide to actually post! Bah, you always know how to hit me where it hurts! I regrettably admit to taking a rusted bike chain and strangling the sheriff. But if there's one thing that I didn't do, I didn't shoot the god damn deputy.
See, that's the sort of thing that makes me wonder more seriously. You could easily be trying to pre-establish an alibi for any scum behavior. You let me take the lead, but when I started pushing for participation, you jumped in with a weak suggestion, and now this. It's obviously rather weak as far as tells go, but it's more than I have on any of the people who aren't posting.
And Myles, what could I possibly be distracting from at this point? I'm the only one wanting to find these scum and get rid of them. Anacletus suggested we just start hunting, so I started hunting. If you want to contribute, maybe you should chime in on policy, or announce yourself, or do basically anything besides a low content post that won't help the situation.
|
Actually, if many people neglect to post, it's the worst time to lynch lurkers, so why would you suggest it, Myles? Mathematically, if 6 lurk, then, if we assume 100% of the scum are also amongst the lurkers, we're already at a coinflip to get a scum.
|
EBWOP, errr, Hopeless1der, not Myles.
|
On June 29 2012 07:17 Myles wrote:
Not really defending you, just wondering why he's taking such a lead when we have nothing to go on. Starting a witch hunt is only going to get innocent people killed me thinks. Also, when did you suggest we start hunting?
If nobody takes a lead when we have nothing to go on, we'll never have anything to go on.
The entire purpose of this is to witch hunt in such a way that we eventually flush the scum.
|
And just in case people decide to show up, and start trying to take my lack of posts as suspicious, I'll be leaving in a bit for TKD.
|
Well, Myles, if you have a suggestion for flushing the scum with people not talking until we have something to go on, feel free to elaborate on that plan. Otherwise, I'm going to stick with the established method of getting people talking enough that we either get something to work with, or at least get enough people active to be physically capable of lynching anybody.
|
What about you, monk? The color of the hammer next to your name trying to tell us something? Hell, if nothing else, and we end up with nobody really screaming "scum", we should totally ban the pants off of the banling, just for irony.
Although, Anacletus, I am going to keep that loose eye on you, and one on Myles. I'm not entirely sure why, but something about your posting is setting off... well, not really alarms, more like having a cell phone on vibrate, but leaving it in your other pair of pants, so that mild buzzing sound.
|
On June 29 2012 10:05 Intact wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 09:55 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 09:52 NrGmonk wrote:On June 29 2012 09:46 JingleHell wrote:
What about you, monk? The color of the hammer next to your name trying to tell us something? Hell, if nothing else, and we end up with nobody really screaming "scum", we should totally ban the pants off of the banling, just for irony.
Although, Anacletus, I am going to keep that loose eye on you, and one on Myles. I'm not entirely sure why, but something about your posting is setting off... well, not really alarms, more like having a cell phone on vibrate, but leaving it in your other pair of pants, so that mild buzzing sound. Seems pretty scummy. Telling people to lynch a somewhat arbitrary player when I haven't done anything to arouse suspicion. O_O You seem scummy for calling him scummy. Now this isn't going anywhere..
Which is exactly what a scum would be hoping for. A visible post that doesn't progress things.
That originally joking FoS Anacletus is starting to look serious, rather than just a vital conversation starter.
|
Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Come on people, the ABL has recently had complaints about none of us ever shutting up. Get us somewhere where that can be a virtue, and suddenly it ceases to be the case?
|
I'm using a computer, as evidenced by the whole forum thing, and have unlimited .txt docs, a ton of HDD space, and the ability to copy/paste. I win note taking. Now can we please stay relevant? Maybe discuss suspicions, policy, something along those lines?
|
Your read might make sense, Promethelax, if not for the fact that I'm still trying to get people to actually talk enough that we can have something to make reads with.
I totally see how you could grab a "scum" feel from what I've said so far, but right now I just want people out of their shells, posting, discussing policy, or basically doing anything. Doing something semi-useless is far more productive than doing nothing whatsoever.
And, let's face it. If we try to lynch everyone who's made a non-productive post so far, we'd definitely get a grab bag of town, even if we didn't get any scum at all, based on the numbers.
|
On June 29 2012 12:00 Anacletus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 11:57 Hopeless1der wrote:Anacletus you're actively refusing to participate. Not even neglecting to do so (which I was also doing by joking around), but literally saying On June 29 2012 11:41 Anacletus wrote:
I am not sharing my thoughts as of yet, I don't think that that is in my best interest to do so. Dumb jokes aside, that is garbage and scummy behavior for anyone in this game. You would be better off lurking and pretending you weren't here, and even that could be considered suspicious. Our goal this early should be making whatever little reads we can and start building cases. Unfortunately we cannot do that with joke posts. Are you planning on giving us any reads? Right now, you have at best 1 post so far that I don't consider a complete write-off. Everyone has to start somewhere... I'm not actively refusing to participate. I just don't want to throw around accusations because I think that that will be aggressive and more like scum play. I think I'll wait for a few more people to post before I post any reads.
This isn't a court of law, it's more like Jerry Springer. You talk to people, you lead into questions that get the discussion going the right way, and you start looking for things to poke at. Waiting for someone else to make a case and then bandwagoning looks pretty scummy too, so you're not doing yourself any favors.
I'd be poking in other directions more, except there's damn few directions to poke right now.
|
On June 29 2012 12:13 Anacletus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 12:10 JingleHell wrote:On June 29 2012 12:00 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 11:57 Hopeless1der wrote:Anacletus you're actively refusing to participate. Not even neglecting to do so (which I was also doing by joking around), but literally saying On June 29 2012 11:41 Anacletus wrote:
I am not sharing my thoughts as of yet, I don't think that that is in my best interest to do so. Dumb jokes aside, that is garbage and scummy behavior for anyone in this game. You would be better off lurking and pretending you weren't here, and even that could be considered suspicious. Our goal this early should be making whatever little reads we can and start building cases. Unfortunately we cannot do that with joke posts. Are you planning on giving us any reads? Right now, you have at best 1 post so far that I don't consider a complete write-off. Everyone has to start somewhere... I'm not actively refusing to participate. I just don't want to throw around accusations because I think that that will be aggressive and more like scum play. I think I'll wait for a few more people to post before I post any reads. This isn't a court of law, it's more like Jerry Springer. You talk to people, you lead into questions that get the discussion going the right way, and you start looking for things to poke at. Waiting for someone else to make a case and then bandwagoning looks pretty scummy too, so you're not doing yourself any favors. I'd be poking in other directions more, except there's damn few directions to poke right now. Yeah I know, I've played mafia before. It's just that refusing to participate is pretty serious and is mentioned in the rules.
He wasn't suggesting that type of refusal, he's talking about not working with us, despite these reads, and pages of notes you claim to have. If you're not helping us look for scum, you're hindering the hunt. If you're not with us, you're against us.
|
On June 29 2012 12:17 Anacletus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 12:14 JingleHell wrote:On June 29 2012 12:13 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 12:10 JingleHell wrote:On June 29 2012 12:00 Anacletus wrote:On June 29 2012 11:57 Hopeless1der wrote:Anacletus you're actively refusing to participate. Not even neglecting to do so (which I was also doing by joking around), but literally saying On June 29 2012 11:41 Anacletus wrote:
I am not sharing my thoughts as of yet, I don't think that that is in my best interest to do so. Dumb jokes aside, that is garbage and scummy behavior for anyone in this game. You would be better off lurking and pretending you weren't here, and even that could be considered suspicious. Our goal this early should be making whatever little reads we can and start building cases. Unfortunately we cannot do that with joke posts. Are you planning on giving us any reads? Right now, you have at best 1 post so far that I don't consider a complete write-off. Everyone has to start somewhere... I'm not actively refusing to participate. I just don't want to throw around accusations because I think that that will be aggressive and more like scum play. I think I'll wait for a few more people to post before I post any reads. This isn't a court of law, it's more like Jerry Springer. You talk to people, you lead into questions that get the discussion going the right way, and you start looking for things to poke at. Waiting for someone else to make a case and then bandwagoning looks pretty scummy too, so you're not doing yourself any favors. I'd be poking in other directions more, except there's damn few directions to poke right now. Yeah I know, I've played mafia before. It's just that refusing to participate is pretty serious and is mentioned in the rules. He wasn't suggesting that type of refusal, he's talking about not working with us, despite these reads, and pages of notes you claim to have. If you're not helping us look for scum, you're hindering the hunt. If you're not with us, you're against us. From what I generally see in mafia, the town is the most active in posting when the game starts, while the mafia generally don't post and lurk a while. I've been posting a lot and I really think it's too early to start calling out scum. + Show Spoiler +I said I had 8 pages of notes, that was obviously a joke, I don't know shit, bro!
We can't make "town does x, scum does y" generalizations, though, especially on D1. Both sides can know the meta game, so we have to start everyone on a blank slate.
|
I'm off to bed, try and get people posting.
|
Just woke up, people, and I must say, it's good to see actual discussion going on. Since people seem to think I'm chaotic at the moment, allow me to try to explain a simple concept. If nobody is talking, we can't kill scum. Someone had to pull everybody out of their shells, and in this case, it was me.
If you go back to my very first posts, I'm not saying we should scrap all policy, I'm just saying let's be prepared to take cases individually, rather than hoping some blind set of policy works to crush all of our scum.
|
Anacletus makes me edgy right now, but I can't justify a vote on him quite yet. I don't like the idea of policy lynching, in particular, since it's something the scum can work with.
AmericanUmlaut is also making me a touch nervous, because he's leaning in the direction of getting early bandwagon votes on someone, and trying to make it sound like a justifiable policy, and leaving room to get a scapegoat if Anacletus is mislynched.
FoS AmericanUmlaut
|
Finger of Suspicion. It's like saying "I'm watchin you".
|
Anacletus, do you have anything to say for yourself? You're getting to be pretty popular.
|
Since, of the two I suspected, Umlaut has responded to my doubts in a way that made clear sense, and Anacletus hasn't, I think I'm going to ##Vote Anacletus for now, unless someone else reveals themselves as a better suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
