Its not WIFOM. To call it WIFOM is to misuse the term. There is no benefit to scum intentionally refusing to do this. It is possible that scum are unable to quicklynch, although every player not voting for you has posted since armlx put that fourth vote on. But there's no benefit to refusing to.farside wrote: Just looked at Jenthron and Kloud's profile. Kloud has been around posting elsewhere since his last post on this game. Jenthron's computer went down it seems and has not posted since the 23rd. So if Kloud votes does the fact that no one quick hammer look less scummy knowing one player is out of commision? Makes it harder for the scum to do a quick hammer if one of there own are MIA.
Like I said I experience this myself in Poly game where Grimmy went MIA as well so right now the idea of scum hammering looks WIFOM to me based on the two low contributers.
I don't think WIFOM means what you think it means. See above.caboose wrote: Yes, that is what I've got. It seems like it's valid too:
caboose wrote: Tell me with a straight face that I would put my alleged scumbuddy in lynching position 24 hours before deadline.
Indeed it would. But you might have done it for the perceived benefit of making it appear that you and armlx were not buddies. Which is why its WIFOM. To extend that, you could be doing something that is bad for your alignment to make it appear that you are not that alignment. (For the record, I agree with you, its far more likely that empking/goat are the other partners, but the point is still WIFOM.)caboose wrote: Not WIFOM at all. I'm saying that I wouldn't put the lynching vote on my scumbuddy with 24 hours to go before deadline in this kind of set-up, where scum bussing is suicide. If I was scum, that move would be pretty dicey, don't you think?