Scien wrote:So I guess I want to ask a few questions to the above:
EB? What's your current views on Hewitt and Maemuki?
Hewitt? Whats your current views on EB?
Maemuki. Whats your current views on EB?
On Maem: Meh. Light RVS banter was amusing but not really productive, since then she's mostly commented on the 'confusing' nature of the scien/farside debate, which strikes me as a little odd: she seems to state both that she doesn't get it and that she's not reading it, asks for summaries and when those are given ignores them. Hopefully she'll start focusing on the other conversations that are emerging. Still resolving a read.
On Hewitt: Not too thrilled so far. Iso shows some interesting patterns: admits his lack of contribution but excuses it based on the s/f walls (though he hadn't participated before those, and they're the only thing he mentions in the first half of his posts). Goes on to 1. Defend not pushing evidence until it's significant (doesn't reply how we should get out of RVS), 2. Defend lack of scumhunting/content as charges that are only 'schoolyard bullying' and indefensible 3. Attempts to overstate/stifle votes, saying we shouldn't cast them until we're serious about a lynch (again a curious statement when combined with his lack of ideas of how to move out of RVS) - generally I find any attempt to tell players not to vote or control when they do to be harmful to town 4. Identifies attempts to prevent lurking as eagerness to lynch townies. Basically he seems more inclined to dismiss investigations and attempts to find evidence than to weed out scum.
@Scien - Very curious that all your questions revolve around me. Any particular reason? What's your read on me so far?
hewitt wrote:Anyways the thing that bothers me the most about ElectricBadger is his insistence about the lurkers. I feel like it's really fake and that the whole anti-lurker/lynch the lurker strategy could very possibly be a scum ploy to get us to lynch lurker town.
Maemuki wrote:@ EB, eeeh, pretty much wants to lynch the lurkers and no one else. Follows the town, and it seems like he's more likely to vote for a town-lurker than a scum-active poster. That bugs me.
The only reason I'd lynch lurkers is if they are intentionally doing so: deliberately posting here only enough not to be booted and not posting anything with content. Do you feel such actions are pro-town, or a scum tell? What effect do you think these players will have on endgame and potential LYLO situations? How do you suggest we address those situations?
You're welcome to disagree with my methods against lurkers, but it would be more helpful if you could provide an alternative more helpful to town.
What're your views on Fuzzy's admission of deliberate lurking in his post 7:
Fuzzyman wrote:ElectricBadger wrote:
I did address one comment to Fuzzy, who posted several times on D1 but ignored this thread (see his profile/recent posts). He hasn't responded why he did so, so I'm left to assume he WAS lurking.
I prefer the term "minimally neccesitated to speak".
Players that simply aren't posting just need to be replaced, not lynched, which I'd rather do sooner than later.
farside22 wrote:EB - Why did you fall into this joke of a band wagon?1 What was the assurance from maemuki that you talked about in post 25?2 Please explain what you meant in post 36 to nik.3 I don't see how nik is calling anyone really scummy. Most people feel that anyone who uses the newbie defense is more likely scum. Do you find this normal?4
Quite the barrage of questions, and of all things about my RVS votes, not my later ones with real content. Why are you playing so aggressively on weak tells this game?
1. I assume you mean the Maem wagon? RVS. Bandwagons in RVS are fun. I was curious if Maem was bluffing; calling a bandwagon on herself seemed more likely to be scum preemptively dismissing any RVS votes as comical than town trying to get reads on people. It was also some pleasant joking. The exchange lacked any tells so I moved my vote.
2. Post 21: it was a joking response to her assurance that her cookie was scum free and wouldn't kill me in the night.
3. Very curious question, as you commented previously - when I first directed you to it - that you then understood my reasoning for voting him because of it. Why the return to the statement, then? But to answer: he said he'd vote you (implying you're suspicious) except that you weren't doing anything suspicious. I took it as an attempt to instill doubt without presenting a case, which is anti-town.
4. The only place I can recall running into the newbie defense is newbie games, and I never really tallied whether it was used by scum more often than town. Had you tried to dismiss a slip with it, yeah, probably would have been scummy: but you didn't, which made a derisive comment about it sound like stretching to me.
Also, YJ is being prodded and probably replaced (since he hasn't responded yet). I'd call him on it, but no use talking to an empty chair.
