Bah, I thought I found some actual scummy behaviour but you really diffused my suspicion.
Unvote Nanook of the North Shore
Well, the way I see it the sun is setting and fair amount of discussion has occured. While it’s been educational I haven’t been able to find anything that really says scum to me.
At this point I can either go with a random suspicion or vote no lynch. If I consider the fact that I’m much more likely to vote for a townie if I don’t have anything substantial to base my vote on I think I should
Well, no, in fact I won’t do that, because that’s not the standard. Here is the rule:
So, with the real standard in mind, I would say from your list that #131, #190, #255, #325, and #336 all qualify. And you have not included his responses to my criticism of his zuma vote post, which is (IIRC) at least two more. So that’s at least 7 “non-fluff” posts by my count.
I can’t believe you’re making me defend the person we’re both voting for over this folderol. :smack:
As previously stated, my motivation was that I have no idea what anyone is on Day One. From your posts, I’m not inclined to think you’re scum. That was all. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I haven’t been active the past couple of days because it seems like every time I have something to say I’m beaten to the punch, but this is getting interesting. Anyway, just wanted check in before the Day is up.
This is a bad move. We have to accept that lynches on Day one are not that far from random. In fact, because the scum have information, we’ll probably tend to do worse than random. A Day One that ends in the lynch of a townie isn’t necessarily a bad Day, provided there’s plenty of discussion and information to analyze Tomorrow. You may or may not be scum, but voting No Lynch is an anti-town move because you’re not providing any information about yourself. If you’re vanilla town, you have nothing to hide and no reason to fear death (better you than a power role), so you should be throwing everything out that you have. If you’re a power role, you want to look vanilla until the time comes, so you’ll want to still throw out as much information as you have that doesn’t point toward information that you shouldn’t have.
So, if you don’t agree with the top candidates, that’s fine, say so; it’s even better if you can explain why. But put your vote somewhere that leaves a trail, even if you’re reason is “I found this and that suspicious, but I can’t really explain why.” At the very least, you’re putting information out there. Further, you KNOW that someone will get lynched, so this is clearly nothing but an attempt to avoid attaching yourself to anything.
Can we please NOT argue about what does and does not qualify as a substantive post? It’s a subjective term that will be at the sole discretion of our illustrious mod. I think arguing about it trying to decide if he will or will not get subbed out/mod-killed is non-productive and outside the spirit of the game. If YOU think he’s not making substantive posts, vote for him for lacking content.
Either way, I think it’s a fruitless line of debate, so I’d rather focus on the matter at hand.
The matter at hand is lynching scum, the primary method of lynching scum is dissecting posts, how is pointing out who is not posting anything worth dissecting fruitless?
I agree with you and would prefer not to be wasting time on it, but unfortunately fluiddruid suggested not voting for Mad because he would be mod-killed anyway:
If people might be basing votes on an (IMO) erroneous assumption, I feel compelled to point out the error.
With that in mind…
I believe sach is using the definition he provided us, that is: “non-fluff.” No need to go to a dictionary. And really, this is the last I hope to have to say on the topic, as I think it is a distracting sideline.
NETA: Sitnam, I’m not challenging your vote for Mad, I am simply saying that there is no way in hell he is going to be modkilled - he has clearly participated enough to meet that standard.
My point is, if you think he hasn’t made substantial posts, fine, that’s potentially reason to be suspicious of someone. But arguing whether they’re substantial in the context of whether our illustrious mod will mod-kill or sub him is pointless. So, I’ll ask you: Are you all genuinely suspicious of his lack of content in his posts, or are you all just trying to figure out if he’ll be with use Tomorrow? The first IS fruitful, the latter is not.
ShadowFacts, I agree. If people think Mad is suspicious, give your reasoning and vote for him. Besides, even if Sachetorte did find his participation worth mod action, since it’s only the first Night I’d be surprised if it were anything other than a substitution, so seriously… fluiddruid, this is a point against you. I’ll have to give thought to the motivation tonight in the context of the alignment of Today’s lynch and the identity of Tonight’s hit.
I disagree. Voting for the sake of voting is beneficial to start discussion but once discussion is self-sustaining (which I think it is at this point) it loses it’s purpose. In fact, one might say that it’s harmful because it gives weight undeservedly and can lead to laziness. If I don’t vote that requires that people look at ALL of my previous behavior and not just end-of-day positions.
By creating this rule of thumb that one should ALWAYS vote, it makes it harder to differentiate between real suspicions, vague suspicions and obfuscatory votes from scum.
I thought it somewhat likely that someone would be suspicious of my non-vote because the “always vote” rule of thumb had been expressed earlier. But by stating that rule it gives a guideline to scum. So scum can avoid suspicion with non-voting and just vote vaguely. Now we have a situation where some townies are voting based on weak suspicions which is the perfect hiding place for scum.
I really have no experience with what’s standard. I simply wanted MadTheSwine’s lurking to be acknowledged, if he’s reached the minimum required I’ll accept it but to proclaim there’s no clear evidence of it is.just.not.true.
Both. The invisible man in the room may or may not be evil, I just want him to be seen. The fact that few others care makes me wonder how the hell town’s going to win.
But your right, I’ve said my peace, I’ll shut up now.
Your premise is flawed. By you voting, it doesn’t let the scum avoid suspicion by voting vaguely, they may or may not do the same thing regardless of what you do. The point of voting is that it forces accountability. This way, you don’t just say “Here are my suspicions, you all figure them out” you say "These are my suspicions and I’m staking my perceived towniness on it. By not voting, you’re not putting any conviction behind what you say. This allows you to go “Oh, I didn’t vote for him” or “See, I was suspicious of him” however it suits your needs, and that is not acceptable.
Still, you make a point about not voting here so that your whole Day gets looked at… okay, fine. Who are you suspicious of, and why? I can’t recall off the top of my head that you were suspicious of anyone besides who you unvoted. Who are you most suspicious of, why, and why isn’t that good enough to warrant a vote? If you can’t pick out a specific person as most suspicious, give me the two or three you’re most suspicious of, why, and why you’re not willing to put a vote on the one of them you think has a good chance of getting lynched.
The “always vote” isn’t a rule of thumb. If you’re allowed to skate by with smudges and snuggles but no accountability assigned to either, then why aren’t scum? Accountability forces a risk/reward situation and risk/reward will force a decision based on the motivations of that person.
By voting solely out of a sense of duty I would be putting conviction where there really isn’t any.
I’m suspicious of Peekercpa. He claimed I said something when I didn’t but then threw suspicion on MadTheSwine when he voted for me based on the misinformation. Then he ended up voting for someone else. I explained earlier (to him) how it could be interpreted as trying to smudge and could seem scummy.
But then it just seemed in line with his aggressive playing and probably only stood out to me because I was directly involved.
I’m was suspicious of pedescribe for being suspicious of me for seemingly no reason and then just waving it away as talking aloud.
Finally, I was suspicious of Nanook but that was dispelled when she explained herself more clearly.
I really don’t know how to stand on people who contribute less because I myself found I had little to say when the conversation was dominated by role-talk for a long time.
Frankly, I’m somewhat suspicious of you. You’ve been very demanding of players; forcefully laying out exactly how you want others to behave. I gather this is just your playing style and an attempt to inform new players like myself so that they’re harder to manipulate by scum. On the other hand I get a vague notion of you using your forcefulness to make others play by your rules, making them fall in line with your plans.
I don’t propose that people should only smudge and snuggle. I just don’t think people should vote on less than strong suspicion. My point is that the distinction should be clearer. We probably agree on that point but disagree where the line should be drawn.
I’m not seeing the bandwagon. Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong, but a bandwagon started by random votes on a sick person is unlikely (in my opinion) to catch scum.
Also, my case against W F Tomba is slowly leaking, as everything he’s posted since is substantial enough to throw weight against my earlier suspicions. It’s not enough for an unvote, but it is close.
