|
On August 06 2012 13:42 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 11:30 mkfuba07 wrote:
Alright. A bit of policy talk first:
Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little.
I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them. While I agree that blind policy lynching in its purest form is bad (i.e. lynching someone ONLY because they're lurking), I believe policy can be a good guideline to prevent mislynch. For example, given two equally "suspicious" players (one active and one "lurky"), I would be much more inclined to lynch the lurker, on the basis that in newbie games, active mafia are a rarity. Newbie mafia are usually incredibly lurky - especially Day 1 when they are still figuring out how to post.
If they're both equally scummy, then wouldn't there be an equal chance of each being mafia? In that case wouldn't we gain more information from the flip of an active player than an inactive one?
Also, an anti-lurker policy doesn't let mafia hide - it forces them to post and remain in the open. When mafia are forced to be active/scum-hunt, it is near impossible for them not to reveal their intentions. As a result, an anti-lurker policy can only be good for town (as long as it's not taken to logical extremes of course).
I should have been more clear with this part. It was more in response to your assertion that we should not lynch highly active members on the first day, as well as a fear that people would prioritize lurking over logic. As I said above, I don't think that if two people are equally scummy, then we should lynch the one that we know the least about. This throws away the potential information that could be gained from the flip. I'm absolutely not against pressuring each other, in fact I welcome it, but when the time to vote comes we should commit to reason over lurkiness.
|
On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 09:13 Hapahauli wrote:@ Golbat: Welcome! @ Dandel Ion: I disagree to a certain extent - not all scum will suddenly become active and incriminate themselves to bandwagon a player. Many scum in newbie games are comortable staying out of the thread and never being active. I do not believe that the "sudden activity read" it is an excuse to not be concerned with "scum lurkers" early in the game, and we should smoke-'em out as early as possible. On August 06 2012 08:50 Dandel Ion wrote:... On August 06 2012 08:41 Hapahauli wrote:I do not agree with not lynching players just by merit of being active. But since it is highly unlikely that we find a big scumslip on day 1 (though one may hope), I would be fine with getting rid of a lurker day 1. I would also be okay with a no-lynch on day 1, since the chances of correctly lynching without information is 25%, so basically it's a crapshoot. But I'll understand if I find few supporters for that idea... Just putting it out there. No-lynching Day 1 is a terrible terrible idea. Even in the event of a mislynch, town gains so much information from the voting process that even a lynch with "poor odds" is beneficial. Furthermore, I believe town has a higher than 25% chance of lynching mafia if we don't bandwagon on an active/controversial poster (this is where most of the mislynches come from in the recent games I've seen). A no-lynch gives mafia a free night-kill while keeping the town in the dark. But with scum being able to coordinate themselves, I'd imagine it's very easy for them to force a bandwagon on a townie, no? I think you over-estimate the power of mafia. Mafia only have 3 votes as opposed to town's 9 votes. Furthermore, if Mafia violently forces a bandwagon, it reveals their hand and makes them easy lynches in subsequent days. I was reading through the OP and host said that we would know which roles are in the game, but not the number of roles. I'm not sure how Hapahauli knows there are only 3 scum in the game. Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game.
I'm saying this once and never again.
When I'm here I'll be active (as scum or as town look at XIX (scum) and XXII (town) for confirmation) when I am not here I will be at work, parties or with my fiance. During those times I will not post.
On August 06 2012 11:04 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 10:59 Shady Sands wrote:On August 06 2012 10:54 iamperfection wrote:Sup everybody I have come around in my thinking from previous games and agree that lynching lurkers is a good policy to have. When the town is inactive or loses its active players it is very easy for the scum to start leading the town. In my first game my scum buddies were able to dominate the conversation. In my last game that son of a bitch hapa cost me my perfection and i have been in mourning ever since. Its redemption time On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:
Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game. Alright lets not go accusing people of lurking in the first 2 or so hours into the game. We have 48 hours and while i want to see activity its important to remember this is forum mafia there will be times people can be active and not active. On August 06 2012 10:24 Lvdr wrote:
I guess I misunderstood. I thought golbat was a mafia that got lynched d1.
I'm really just trying to get some opinions going. You can easily go back and see the results of that game. takes 2 seconds and now people are going to start questioning your effort http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=353315Speaking of previous games i would like to know how yourharry is going to aproach this game. If we are going to get your logic that makes no sense where your "sure" sombody is town or mafia i say we lynch you know before your logic festers and contaminates the town. One of the reason i lynched calgar in my previous game is because he actually used your logic in his own defense. Unforgivable in my view. Your thoughts? I'm not accusing Prome of lurking, I'm just saying that his behavior this game doesn't match up with his behavior last game (when he flipped green) and his behavior in XIX (when he was scum). On August 06 2012 10:28 Golbat wrote:On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:On August 06 2012 09:13 Hapahauli wrote:@ Golbat: Welcome! @ Dandel Ion: I disagree to a certain extent - not all scum will suddenly become active and incriminate themselves to bandwagon a player. Many scum in newbie games are comortable staying out of the thread and never being active. I do not believe that the "sudden activity read" it is an excuse to not be concerned with "scum lurkers" early in the game, and we should smoke-'em out as early as possible. On August 06 2012 08:50 Dandel Ion wrote:... On August 06 2012 08:41 Hapahauli wrote:I do not agree with not lynching players just by merit of being active. But since it is highly unlikely that we find a big scumslip on day 1 (though one may hope), I would be fine with getting rid of a lurker day 1. I would also be okay with a no-lynch on day 1, since the chances of correctly lynching without information is 25%, so basically it's a crapshoot. But I'll understand if I find few supporters for that idea... Just putting it out there. No-lynching Day 1 is a terrible terrible idea. Even in the event of a mislynch, town gains so much information from the voting process that even a lynch with "poor odds" is beneficial. Furthermore, I believe town has a higher than 25% chance of lynching mafia if we don't bandwagon on an active/controversial poster (this is where most of the mislynches come from in the recent games I've seen). A no-lynch gives mafia a free night-kill while keeping the town in the dark. But with scum being able to coordinate themselves, I'd imagine it's very easy for them to force a bandwagon on a townie, no? I think you over-estimate the power of mafia. Mafia only have 3 votes as opposed to town's 9 votes. Furthermore, if Mafia violently forces a bandwagon, it reveals their hand and makes them easy lynches in subsequent days. I was reading through the OP and host said that we would know which roles are in the game, but not the number of roles. I'm not sure how Hapahauli knows there are only 3 scum in the game. Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game. Promethelax might be trying to be quieter than last game, because those 10 posts in six hours were a big part of getting him lynched, were they not? I should probably be doing the same, but posting is just so much DAMN FUN. That's exactly my point. In XIX Prome was scum and led discussions actively from D1. In XXII Prome was town and posted a ton of fluff, and posted a bunch of weak cases. In XXIII, Prome is not posting. Weird Or its been only three hours and its sunday night and he dosent work on monday so he is getting drunk. Or like he stated before the game starts he some times works on sundays.
Glad to see you are here for me bud! Yeah, I was working.
Also Shady: my cases were actually pretty strong. The one on you was obviously wrong but it was a good case. (lets leave this til XXII finishes)
I see there is a lot of policy talk, I don't like policies and feel that they don't contribute to town. I will be making a case on someone and voting for them on that case. Their posting habits may be a factor or may not but I will not make a policy on it.
On August 06 2012 16:25 YourHarry wrote:
Lynching a player based on inactivity is good on multiple grounds.
1. It encourages discussion, whether or not the player is scum. Discussion should be good for town.
2. Scums tend to lurk. Case in point: XIX
3. Having an inactive town around is a potential mod-kill that could mean losing the game, e.g. in LYLO.
1. True!
2. Did you read that game? I had town by the nose by virtue of not lurking.
3. No! Bad YourHarry, lynching a townie is always bad. Lynching a bad townie hurts town because we lose a townie.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 06 2012 16:50 YourHarry wrote:
Shit LOL messed up the quotes. Oh well, more work for you guys.
I'm pretty sure this post is a joke but this does not show a town mentality
##FoS: that dude, Harry or whatever
+ Show Spoiler +I'm high as balls. I don't know how much of this makes sense. If you need a translator ask tomorrow
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 06 2012 16:47 YourHarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 11:30 mkfuba07 wrote:
Alright. A bit of policy talk first:
Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little.
Policy lynching is not blind. It is a tested method to encourage discussion and is generally a pro-town strategy. This is different from lynching anyone who forgets to post one day. Further, if we allow lurking - and by allowing them to live, we are allowing them to lurk - there cannot be much "reasoning" to basis your "catching the correct people" on. Show nested quote +
I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them.
On the contrary, policy lynching forces people to post. And with posts, there can be discussions and logical reasoning. With lurking, these things come by scarcely. Policy lynching is not a mean to an end. It is a strategy to enrich resources that townies can use. And I experienced first hand that the experienced player(s) support policy lynching lurkers. In the long run, it can be argued that this is also beneficial to the TL mafia community as a whole. Steer the TL mafia culture, where players are expected to actively participate. Show nested quote +
I think it's best if we avoid short claims like this without elaboration. Is the scumslip supposed to be that they both defended Golbat when Lvdr spread incorrect information? Or is it the spreading of information that is questionable? I could see arguments for both. Though it may be my inexperience showing a bit, this post seemed vague and despite your request for discussion only led to my confusion. Why call for discussion and then not clarify your own position?
In this situation, Golbat seems to be simply defending himself from an accusation while Hapahauli was correcting misinformation. As for Lvdr, I don't think a mistake like this is enough to peg him as scum. If he makes a similarly misinformed statement later it would arouse my suspicions, but for now I'm considering him just about equal with everyone else.
Your rest of the posts... there are way too many conditionals and wishy washy stuff. You see arguments for boht. You think your inexperience may be what's causing you to be wrong in your judgment. All to end in a wishy washy conclusiong - Lvdr is just as scummy as everyone else. Vote mkfuba
I'm genuinely surprised that you found enough of concern in this post to instantly vote for me. I hope my previous post was enough to clarify my policy lynch position. I vote based on logical conclusions from the information I've gathered, not from standards of activity. I believe that there will be more than enough discussion D1 to make an informed vote, and based on the flip we will be able to carry out more discussion. That should cover everything that I intended to say about policy.
Everything in the third nested quote looks reasonable to me. I asked that we actually support our own claims instead of asking others to support them for us. I stated that the claim was vague, and provided a few ways in which it could be interpreted. I then stated that both possibilities could be (weakly) supported, and therefore I could not determine what his claim actually was. I then attempted a bit of discussion regarding the situation. Since I found the case to be vague, I stated my observations for each of the possibilities. There is one conditional, and that is: if Lvdr provides another easy-to-refute statement, then he gets an FoS. If anything is wishy-washy, it's because there is not enough evidence to prove anything, which was my conclusion. Oh, and I don't believe myself to be in any way "wrong in my judgement."
I find it reasonable that I point my FoS at YourHarry for voting for someone within 12 hours of the game starting, after a single post, and with contrived evidence.
(I hope it's alright that I modified his post in my quote so that it was correctly formatted. This made it much easier to read.)
|
EBWOP: It's hard to see in there, so for clarity - FoS: YourHarry
|
On August 06 2012 16:27 YourHarry wrote:
I know this is a semi-open set up, but were the power roles selected with game balance in mind? Or is it more or less random?
The setup is balanced.
|
For the people that are conerned about policy lynching
Its important to remember that a policy is not and end all be all statement if we dont want it to be. The fact is the more we force scum to post the more likely the things they post will start not making sense. This is because their goals are diffrent than ours. If we construct an enviroment where the scum feel it is neccesary to post they are more likely to screw up.
That said were as the game goes on we are not gonna lynch someone just because they are lurking we will have more information and we will take the whole case into consideration.
|
The two people that have not posted yet are:
TolEranceNA
Sideni
If you are scum well fuck you but if your town its time to get active. Now i know it can be intimidating and you probally dont know what to say but you aint helping us be being silent. Just jump in the water feels great.
|
ebwop
Im espcially curious of you sideni since you seemed kind of anxious to get the game started before but now your a no show.
|
|
|
On August 06 2012 18:54 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 16:50 YourHarry wrote:
Shit LOL messed up the quotes. Oh well, more work for you guys. I'm pretty sure this post is a joke but this does not show a town mentality ##FoS: that dude, Harry or whatever+ Show Spoiler +I'm high as balls. I don't know how much of this makes sense. If you need a translator ask tomorrow
This is scummy. Discuss.
|
On August 06 2012 16:50 YourHarry wrote:
Shit LOL messed up the quotes. Oh well, more work for you guys.
Why would you ever do that? Fix you post in an EBWOP instead.
Now you come across as wanting town to have more work with analyzing you (seems pretty scummy to me), and also like a moron (not helpful for town in any way). I'd like to know what you were thinking there, just for reference.
______________
+ Show Spoiler [Promethelax] +On August 06 2012 18:54 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:On August 06 2012 09:13 Hapahauli wrote:@ Golbat: Welcome! @ Dandel Ion: I disagree to a certain extent - not all scum will suddenly become active and incriminate themselves to bandwagon a player. Many scum in newbie games are comortable staying out of the thread and never being active. I do not believe that the "sudden activity read" it is an excuse to not be concerned with "scum lurkers" early in the game, and we should smoke-'em out as early as possible. On August 06 2012 08:50 Dandel Ion wrote:... On August 06 2012 08:41 Hapahauli wrote:I do not agree with not lynching players just by merit of being active. But since it is highly unlikely that we find a big scumslip on day 1 (though one may hope), I would be fine with getting rid of a lurker day 1. I would also be okay with a no-lynch on day 1, since the chances of correctly lynching without information is 25%, so basically it's a crapshoot. But I'll understand if I find few supporters for that idea... Just putting it out there. No-lynching Day 1 is a terrible terrible idea. Even in the event of a mislynch, town gains so much information from the voting process that even a lynch with "poor odds" is beneficial. Furthermore, I believe town has a higher than 25% chance of lynching mafia if we don't bandwagon on an active/controversial poster (this is where most of the mislynches come from in the recent games I've seen). A no-lynch gives mafia a free night-kill while keeping the town in the dark. But with scum being able to coordinate themselves, I'd imagine it's very easy for them to force a bandwagon on a townie, no? I think you over-estimate the power of mafia. Mafia only have 3 votes as opposed to town's 9 votes. Furthermore, if Mafia violently forces a bandwagon, it reveals their hand and makes them easy lynches in subsequent days. I was reading through the OP and host said that we would know which roles are in the game, but not the number of roles. I'm not sure how Hapahauli knows there are only 3 scum in the game. Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game. I'm saying this once and never again. When I'm here I'll be active (as scum or as town look at XIX (scum) and XXII (town) for confirmation) when I am not here I will be at work, parties or with my fiance. During those times I will not post. Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 11:04 iamperfection wrote:On August 06 2012 10:59 Shady Sands wrote:On August 06 2012 10:54 iamperfection wrote:Sup everybody I have come around in my thinking from previous games and agree that lynching lurkers is a good policy to have. When the town is inactive or loses its active players it is very easy for the scum to start leading the town. In my first game my scum buddies were able to dominate the conversation. In my last game that son of a bitch hapa cost me my perfection and i have been in mourning ever since. Its redemption time On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:
Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game. Alright lets not go accusing people of lurking in the first 2 or so hours into the game. We have 48 hours and while i want to see activity its important to remember this is forum mafia there will be times people can be active and not active. On August 06 2012 10:24 Lvdr wrote:
I guess I misunderstood. I thought golbat was a mafia that got lynched d1.
I'm really just trying to get some opinions going. You can easily go back and see the results of that game. takes 2 seconds and now people are going to start questioning your effort http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=353315Speaking of previous games i would like to know how yourharry is going to aproach this game. If we are going to get your logic that makes no sense where your "sure" sombody is town or mafia i say we lynch you know before your logic festers and contaminates the town. One of the reason i lynched calgar in my previous game is because he actually used your logic in his own defense. Unforgivable in my view. Your thoughts? I'm not accusing Prome of lurking, I'm just saying that his behavior this game doesn't match up with his behavior last game (when he flipped green) and his behavior in XIX (when he was scum). On August 06 2012 10:28 Golbat wrote:On August 06 2012 10:12 Shady Sands wrote:On August 06 2012 09:13 Hapahauli wrote:@ Golbat: Welcome! @ Dandel Ion: I disagree to a certain extent - not all scum will suddenly become active and incriminate themselves to bandwagon a player. Many scum in newbie games are comortable staying out of the thread and never being active. I do not believe that the "sudden activity read" it is an excuse to not be concerned with "scum lurkers" early in the game, and we should smoke-'em out as early as possible. On August 06 2012 08:50 Dandel Ion wrote:... On August 06 2012 08:41 Hapahauli wrote:I do not agree with not lynching players just by merit of being active. But since it is highly unlikely that we find a big scumslip on day 1 (though one may hope), I would be fine with getting rid of a lurker day 1. I would also be okay with a no-lynch on day 1, since the chances of correctly lynching without information is 25%, so basically it's a crapshoot. But I'll understand if I find few supporters for that idea... Just putting it out there. No-lynching Day 1 is a terrible terrible idea. Even in the event of a mislynch, town gains so much information from the voting process that even a lynch with "poor odds" is beneficial. Furthermore, I believe town has a higher than 25% chance of lynching mafia if we don't bandwagon on an active/controversial poster (this is where most of the mislynches come from in the recent games I've seen). A no-lynch gives mafia a free night-kill while keeping the town in the dark. But with scum being able to coordinate themselves, I'd imagine it's very easy for them to force a bandwagon on a townie, no? I think you over-estimate the power of mafia. Mafia only have 3 votes as opposed to town's 9 votes. Furthermore, if Mafia violently forces a bandwagon, it reveals their hand and makes them easy lynches in subsequent days. I was reading through the OP and host said that we would know which roles are in the game, but not the number of roles. I'm not sure how Hapahauli knows there are only 3 scum in the game. Also, why is Promethelax so quiet? In the last game I played him, he racked up 10 posts in the first six hours of the game. Promethelax might be trying to be quieter than last game, because those 10 posts in six hours were a big part of getting him lynched, were they not? I should probably be doing the same, but posting is just so much DAMN FUN. That's exactly my point. In XIX Prome was scum and led discussions actively from D1. In XXII Prome was town and posted a ton of fluff, and posted a bunch of weak cases. In XXIII, Prome is not posting. Weird Or its been only three hours and its sunday night and he dosent work on monday so he is getting drunk. Or like he stated before the game starts he some times works on sundays. Glad to see you are here for me bud! Yeah, I was working. Also Shady: my cases were actually pretty strong. The one on you was obviously wrong but it was a good case. (lets leave this til XXII finishes) I see there is a lot of policy talk, I don't like policies and feel that they don't contribute to town. I will be making a case on someone and voting for them on that case. Their posting habits may be a factor or may not but I will not make a policy on it. Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 16:25 YourHarry wrote:
Lynching a player based on inactivity is good on multiple grounds.
1. It encourages discussion, whether or not the player is scum. Discussion should be good for town.
2. Scums tend to lurk. Case in point: XIX
3. Having an inactive town around is a potential mod-kill that could mean losing the game, e.g. in LYLO.
1. True! 2. Did you read that game? I had town by the nose by virtue of not lurking. 3. No! Bad YourHarry, lynching a townie is always bad. Lynching a bad townie hurts town because we lose a townie. + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 16:50 YourHarry wrote:
Shit LOL messed up the quotes. Oh well, more work for you guys. I'm pretty sure this post is a joke but this does not show a town mentality ##FoS: that dude, Harry or whatever+ Show Spoiler +I'm high as balls. I don't know how much of this makes sense. If you need a translator ask tomorrow
Please make posts that make sense too.
So you either were high and use that as an excuse to lurk until tomorrow, or you want to post confusing nonsense-fluff.
Either way, not the best start in my book
______________
(I hope it's alright that I modified his post in my quote so that it was correctly formatted. This made it much easier to read.)
Thank you for that..
The rest of your post was fluff and OMGUS stuff, but at least I could read YourHarry's post.
______________
And as iamperfection pointed out: Sideni and ToleranceNA, get active. If you don't post, you're gonna get modkilled, you know?
______________
@Synystyr: You didn't post anything of substance yet, so I'm gonna ask you this: What do you think of Golbat?
|
On August 06 2012 22:42 YourHarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 18:54 Promethelax wrote:On August 06 2012 16:50 YourHarry wrote:
Shit LOL messed up the quotes. Oh well, more work for you guys. I'm pretty sure this post is a joke but this does not show a town mentality ##FoS: that dude, Harry or whatever+ Show Spoiler +I'm high as balls. I don't know how much of this makes sense. If you need a translator ask tomorrow This is scummy. Discuss.
Care to enlighten us on why? Also you didnt vote right.
|
BTW, correction on my previous post citing importance of lynching lurkers. I was actually referring to game XXI, rather than XIX.
mkfuba wrote:
If they're both equally scummy, then wouldn't there be an equal chance of each being mafia? In that case wouldn't we gain more information from the flip of an active player than an inactive one?
We keep going around in circles. The point is that by carrying out policy lynches, we will get active participation from all players. Thus, the goal is force everyone to be active.
It is true that we may be able to gather more evidence from a flip of an active player, but especially in the beginning of the day, that also means that we have to forgo subsequent discussions by lynching an active player.
Dandel Ion wrote:
Why would you ever do that? Fix you post in an EBWOP instead.
Now you come across as wanting town to have more work with analyzing you (seems pretty scummy to me), and also like a moron (not helpful for town in any way). I'd like to know what you were thinking there, just for reference.
The reason why I didn't fix was because the post was still readable, and being unable to make edits meant that I have to make a duplicate post with no additional info. But I agree with you that I should have done that anyway. I should also use the preview function.
|
This is the identical copy of my previous post where I messed up my quotes. Fixed:
On August 06 2012 11:30 mkfuba07 wrote:
Alright. A bit of policy talk first:
Blindly doing anything is a poor decision. If we're going to catch the correct people, it has to be based on reasoning and not the potential threat of a lurker. By the end of D1, we should have some read on most of the posters. It's much smarter to make a comparatively informed decision regarding someone we have interacted with than a random selection from those who have said very little.
Policy lynching is not blind. It is a tested method to encourage discussion and is generally a pro-town strategy. This is different from lynching anyone who forgets to post one day.
Further, if we allow lurking - and by allowing them to live, we are allowing them to lurk - there cannot be much "reasoning" to basis your "catching the correct people" on.
I think policy lynchings (or safeties) are a bad idea in general. It not only limits the amount of logical reasoning involved, but it gives scum the means of avoiding suspicion, hiding in the holes we've created for them. Force them to defend themselves and we'll force information out of them.
On the contrary, policy lynching forces people to post. And with posts, there can be discussions and logical reasoning. With lurking, these things come by scarcely. Policy lynching is not a mean to an end. It is a strategy to enrich resources that townies can use. And I experienced first hand that the experienced player(s) support policy lynching lurkers.
In the long run, it can be argued that this is also beneficial to the TL mafia community as a whole. Steer the TL mafia culture, where players are expected to actively participate.
I think it's best if we avoid short claims like this without elaboration. Is the scumslip supposed to be that they both defended Golbat when Lvdr spread incorrect information? Or is it the spreading of information that is questionable? I could see arguments for both. Though it may be my inexperience showing a bit, this post seemed vague and despite your request for discussion only led to my confusion. Why call for discussion and then not clarify your own position?
In this situation, Golbat seems to be simply defending himself from an accusation while Hapahauli was correcting misinformation. As for Lvdr, I don't think a mistake like this is enough to peg him as scum. If he makes a similarly misinformed statement later it would arouse my suspicions, but for now I'm considering him just about equal with everyone else.
Your rest of the posts... there are way too many conditionals and wishy washy stuff. You see arguments for boht. You think your inexperience may be what's causing you to be wrong in your judgment. All to end in a wishy washy conclusiong - Lvdr is just as scummy as everyone else.
Vote mkfuba
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On August 06 2012 23:01 YourHarry wrote:
Vote mkfuba
On July 26 2012 19:11 prplhz wrote:
[*]Please vote in the following format: ##Vote Qatol. Votes not done in the correct fashion may not be counted. Vote counts will be updated whenever intermittently.
On July 26 2012 19:11 prplhz wrote:
Please vote in the following format: ##Vote Qatol
On July 26 2012 19:11 prplhz wrote:
##
|
On August 06 2012 22:44 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 22:42 YourHarry wrote:On August 06 2012 18:54 Promethelax wrote:On August 06 2012 16:50 YourHarry wrote:
Shit LOL messed up the quotes. Oh well, more work for you guys. I'm pretty sure this post is a joke but this does not show a town mentality ##FoS: that dude, Harry or whatever+ Show Spoiler +I'm high as balls. I don't know how much of this makes sense. If you need a translator ask tomorrow This is scummy. Discuss. Care to enlighten us on why? Also you didnt vote right.
He is sure that my post was a joke, but still suspects that I am scum at the same time. Scum Harry may intentionally mess up the quotes to make it more difficult for town, in which case I won't be joking. Town Harry would accidentally mess up the quotes and joke about not fixing the quotes.
So it seems to be a forced argument to show commitment and throw fake "reads" out there. This is scummy because scums have harder time coming up with genuine reads because they have to build a case on someone they know is town.
|
Sorry, sorry.
##Unvote
##Vote Promo
|
FOS Tolerance and Sidni for lurking.
|
HARRY. DOWN BOY, DOWN. BAD DOG.
But forreal. 4 posts in a row is unnecessary
At the moment, I'm suspicious of three-ish people. I'll have cases written up on them probably within 8 hours.
Right now, however I need to go beat tuition money out of my high school guidance counselor, and then go suit shopping. I have no clue when i'll be back, or if I'll be able to post in between. See you laters.
<3
|
EBWOP: Five posts in a row.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
