Newbie 873 - Game Over.

[dimaba]

/confirm

Looking forward to my first game...

[dimaba]

Hello hello, thanks for the welcome. I'm sure we'll have a good game.

What you (Michel) say seems to make sense. Of course a late response could have been caused by a busy weekend or temporary absence, but I checked foilists13's lasts posts and on both Saturday and Sunday he made several posts in other games/topics that must've taken him quite a bit more time than a simple confirmation. Therefore, I agree that his late confirmation is suspicious.

Also, if you are correct in that actually voting randomly is a bad idea (which considering your role as IC I assume you are), his random vote is not beneficial to the town. I consider "because he's the only one I know" to be random. Of course he could have voted just to get the game going, I don't know wether that is common practice or not.

Until foilist explains his late confirmation and random vote, I will also...

Vote: foilist13

[dimaba]

EBWOP: One thing I forgot to say... I don't quite agree with your point about his profiling as an experienced player. This is a newbie game after all, so it really isn't that inconcievable that he just likes to help new people, maybe show off his knowledge or any other innocent reason. And if he had really wanted to establish himself as helpful and knowledgeable he would probably have given us similar tips on voting tactics to what you posted, when he presented his vote. In other words, I don't believe his confirmation post was a strong enough tell to make it count in my vote decision.

[dimaba]

Well, of course I understand that if he voted at random it would be illogical to expect him to explain in more detail than he has done why he chose Michel as a victim. But an explanation is warranted as in that it'd be nice to know why he voted randomly at all. If it's been established that voting at random is not beneficial to us townsfolk then I'd like to know why he chose to vote at random. Unless that's exactly what you're talking about, in which case I'd like to know why an explanation is unwarranted.

[dimaba]

I'll trust your judgement on that. I did get a feeling that we were rushing things, getting to a lynch with just 2 RL days of play.

unvote: foilist13

While he is still by far the most suspicious player for me, I don't see how it would do us any harm to wait a little longer. I assume by waiting longer with the lynch you're hoping to gain more information from people's reasoning?

[dimaba]

Michel, the only real tell I see in your post against foilist is the late confirm but most of the time, that's just RL. The foilist wagon(including dimaba) has grown far too fast for town comfort. Dimaba seems to be following the SE's/IC, even though foilist

is

an SE.

On the late confirm: as I've said before, foilist posted numerous times in other threads in the two days it took him to confirm. Those posts were far more complicated than a simple confirmation, so I'm not convinced that RL made a confirmation impossible. Foilist's explanation in post 30 doesn't do much to change that.

Then again, it seems a few more candidates (Crimmy and McGriddle) have popped up. My eye isn't completely off Foilist yet but he's not first on the list anymore.

As for me following the SE's/IC: well yes I do think I'm following them. Perhaps a bit too much, I don't know. I started this game with only a basic understanding of what's smart and what isn't and each time new information on what usually works pops up and it makes sense to me, it's likely to change something in how I play. That doesn't mean they are above suspicion. If foilist had given me a list of tips, his late confirmation still would've been suspicious. But I'm assuming that even if one of them is scum, they can't/won't use their position to feed us false information on what is a common strategy and what isn't. As the game goes on I will start to rely more on my own suspicions and tactics.

Now to my new main candidates:

Crimmy has taken a few votes so far and I agree that he's a suspicious guy, but I'd like to bring a bit more attention to McGriddle.

First of all, although he wasn't the one to put foilist at L-1, he wasn't far off. His and Crimmy's votes were only an hour apart. And like Crimmy, he jumped on the wagon without adding his own opinions on which parts of foilist's behaviour he did and didn't find suspicious.

Second, once CSL suggested that a quick lynch would not be to our advantage (something it seems most of us agree with) he found CSL to be 'suspicious', again without explanation.

Now I'll accept that he's just as new as I am and therefore probably knows as little about tactics as I do, but then he would've had to admit his wrongs when it became clear that CSL's comments on quick lynching were generally accepted as true.

Accusation on CSL, I understand he is trying to help us, but it makes it seem like he is trying to persuade us to appreciate his knowledge on the subject.

So his justification is that CSL is trying to look experienced? As I said when foilist was accused of this, it's hardly a reason for suspicion even if it is true. After all, he IS more experienced that we are and if (as McGriddle recognises) he is trying to help us I see no reason not to be happy with that.

Then he unvotes foilist who he still called suspicious less than an hour earlier, again with only a vague oneliner as explanation.

All that just to say that while Crimmy takes more votes, I think McGriddle is close to being just as suspicious.

[dimaba]

Well, easy explanation for this. When you are friends with people on this game you are less likely to lynch and more likely to find excuses as to why not we should lynch. All I said was I am suspicious. I did not vote CSL, I am just watching him. I unvoted foilist with the hopes that the voting would slow down and we can have discussions over time that will result in a vote, rather than a first post. I admit I probably shouldn't have voted so soon, but I unvoted to get a fresh start at this and to give everyone a chance. My focus is slightly lifted off of CSL and foilist. I honestly don't have any ideas as to who could be scum.

As for Crimmys vote, I don't believe for 1 second that it was a Random Vote, but I don't know if I can recognize that as a scummy thing to do, or a newbie way to get someone lynched to narrow down possibilities.

Who's friends with who exactly? I don't quite get that part. Actually, I don't quite get most of it. It doesn't seem like you've explained yourself a whole lot more than you did with those oneliners before. I'm still suspicious of you.

As for Crimmy's vote, I'll agree that it probably wasn't random. Hardly a new insight though.

@Crimmy: well rather than wait for somebody to change his/her mind, why not try to change their minds yourself? I'm assuming you don't want to get lynched... Try to convince us of your innocence

[dimaba]

Well you could at the very least explain who you were referring to with that remark about friends being less likely to lynch eachother...

At a stretch I could accept that you're not able to explain any further, but it's a very simple question I asked and you didn't answer it. It's very possible that it's my fault that I don't get it, but would it hurt you to help me figure it out?

vote: McGriddle

for the reasons I gave in post 41 and for being uncooperative

[dimaba]

EBWOP: In the sentence "At a stretch I could accept that you're not able to explain any further, but it's a very simple question I asked and you didn't answer it.", not being to explain any further applies to the reasons for your voting behaviour and by the 'simple question' I mean my question about the 'friends etc.'. I just re-read my post and noticed it was a little vague.

p.s. remind me to start previewing my posts...

[dimaba]

Pay attention. I said he is trying to appeal to everyone, meaning make some virtual friends. Not saying I don't LIKE the guy, just saying if I did like the guy I would be less likely to vote him.

Right, now you're finally making some sort of sense. Would've been nice if you'd answered the question first time around... Now I finally get the connection between your opinion on CSL and the post where you explained your reasons. Thanks for clarifying that for me and yes you were right. It was my fault that I didn't make the connection. In the future, maybe you could use quotes to make it more obvious what you're responding to so even morons like me can see the connection instantly.

As for your theory... Well I find it rather obvious that he'd try to make us his virtual friends. I think most of us want the others to be our friends, since none of us want to be lynched. That's why most of us try to cooperate as much as possible (unlike you), answer any questions about our reasoning (unlike you) and try not to rub people the wrong way (also unlike you, if you ask me, but that's just bad manners and not a reason to vote for you).

The vote stays in place. Your reasoning is still unsound, you're not being cooperative when asked to explain your actions and you seem to be bullying us into not voting for you ("You are making a mistake") rather than convincing us of your innocence.

[dimaba]

Well I'll see if I can keep this short and to the point for you...

I'm always wordy, with anything I write. Wether it's essays, stories or in this case reasoning, I use more words than necessary. I like to be detailed, I like to be precise and I always worry that leaving things will cost me. I don't know what is and isn't considered obvious around here, so I might be stating the obvious a lot.

Sure, considering all possibilities is a good thing, but when the actual process of it is plastered everywhere, it seems as if he's saying, "I am a Townie, looking for scum at every possible angle. Notice how logical and pro-Town I'm being."

I was always taught that when presenting argumentation it is important to show that you are aware of the other side of the issue. I think this is especially true in a game like this. I figured McGriddle might want to play the newbie card, wanted to prevent that and wanted him to give a proper answer first time around. Unnecessary? Perhaps. Scummy? No.

Sure I'm trying to look pro-town. Sure I'm looking for scum everywhere. Sure I'm trying to be logical and pro-town. And what's wrong with that? If my reasoning is sound and logical, what does it matter how I present it? If all my words aren't used to cover up false arguments, does it matter if I publicly consider all posibilities?
If you disagree with my reasoning then say so and we can debate it. But in my opinion giving more information than necessary is not a scumtell, certainly not as much as giving too little.

As for the second part of your post, what I found suspicious about foilist was his late confirmation despite being active on the forums. Nobody else had done anything scummy that I had recognised (I didn't recognise putting foilist at L-1 as a scumtell since I didn't know how frowned upon that was until a few posts later). Therefore, he was the scummiest player as far as I was concerned. I did realise it was a weak tell so I wasn't very committed to the vote. I also noticed that the deadline was so far away that I would have plenty of time to vote for him again if necessary. So I decided to trust the experience of the SE and be the one to unvote. That is why I unvoted even though I found him the most suspicious player.

And tbh, considering the reactions we got after those posts I think I made a rather sound decision.

[dimaba]

Let's stop right there. I truly wonder what sort of education you're getting if they teach you to present both sides of the argument. In persuasive essays, for instance, you never focus on the opposing side--you never focus on what they

could

be right about; it takes away the effect of being

persuasive

. In debates, you never say what the other is right about, just what you're right about. Think about presidential elections: Do you think they'll announce to the people, "They're right, but you should vote me?" Your thinking is flawed.

Conceding a point to the opposition is not poor debating at all. Why dispute or ignore something you know is true? No, better to mention it yourself and explain why you feel it is insignificant. I mentioned something he might try to use as an excuse and explained why I felt it wouldn't be good enough. That's not poor debating, that's just anticipating what the other might say and shooting it down in advance.

You're misunderstanding my argument. It is not a bad thing to

be

pro-Town or to

look

pro-Town--it is not a bad thing to be logical and deductive--but what

is

a bad (and, yes,

scummy

) thing is when those qualities are put on display: "

Look at me, everyone! I'm being so pro-Town! Don't consider me as scum!

" is the message I get out of your posts. Yes: scummy.

Oh I got your point alright, since you said pretty much the same in your earlier post... You seem to think that I'm scum just from the fact that I use more sentences to make the same point. I would agree with you if I was trying hard to push

false arguments

on you, if I was trying to overwhelm you with words so you wouldn't notice the fallacies. But I haven't heard any comments on my actual reasoning yet. I'd like to debate the content of what I say, not wether I should take 3 or 30 lines to present it. As long as my actions match up with my appearance, I still don't see how a long post makes me scummy. So what if I am trying to say "don't consider me as scum"? If I don't vote as scum and don't reason as scum, I don't see how it's wrong to make other people notice that.
I'm giving you my entire thought process, I'm doing so because I hope it may be of use to people in making up their own minds, because I want to be so complete that my words can't be misconstrued later on and because I want to know what other people think of my thoughts.The message you should be getting from my posts is "I think McGriddle is suspicious, and these are my reasons. However, I realise that I could be making mistakes and I want you to point them out to me.". Speaking of which, do you agree with my opinion on McGriddle?

It is generally accepted that those who talk too much are the ones that have something to hide. I don't care if you're always wordy in essays and such (in fact I have no reason to actually believe you), so I'll definitely keep your talkative style in my scumdar. Come on, now, haven't you ever seen Death Note? (<-- joke: for you can't-pick-up-jokes-on-interwebs types) Read your own paragraph above, and then read my edited version below. Which is less scummy?

First, thank you for summarising my point so effectively. Second, I don't find one to be more scummy than the other. The first is harder to get the point from, that's for sure, but if I read that from someone else I wouldn't find it scummy. As long as I don't get the feeling someone is omitting, misrepresenting or falsifying information, they can write it as a sonnet for all I care. Perhaps another more experienced player could give his opinion on that, because if my writing style is likely to get me lynched in this and other games I'll work on changing it in the future.

[dimaba]

Well I won't go into the good debating argument any further. I'll just say this: recognising the validity of a point the other side is making or is likely to make does not weaken your own argument,

as long as you make clear why it is to be considered irrelevant. Which I did.

I presented an argument I thought he was likely to come up with and shot it down beforehand. It's one less useless reply he could've given me.

I am not here to debate if your argument is valid against McGriddle or not, I am here to make an argument of my own against

you

. Your case against McGriddle may be justified, but I'm not concerned about it, to be honest.

Well I am. Tell me, is there anything in the content of my accusation you object to?

I don't see us coming to an agreement on the 'making a presentation of it' issue. Perhaps you're right, perhaps stepping to the foreground a lot and being as long-winded as I am is a common way for mafia to hide. In that case I'll have to change my ways if I'm ever to be a good player. I'll wait for the other players' verdict on that. I would never see it as a scumtell myself though. It seems to me that the more you talk, as a mafia, the more chance there is that you'll slip up.

This is basically the same thing as above. If you made mistakes, someone will point them out to you. You don't need to ask someone to point out your mistakes, in which doing so you

are

saying, "Notice how I consider all possibilities." If you have pro-Town attributes, don't point them out. They'll be noticed and acknowledged by others.

Sure they'll point out my mistakes when they see them. But I think that if I give more information about my thought process it'll be easier to spot my mistakes. Wether that helps or not I haven't a clue. I can see how it would make it seem like I'm showing off my pro-town-ness but that didn't bother me at the time since I don't consider it a scumtell myself.

Who's more scummier in your mind, McGriddle or myself?

McGriddle obviously, or I would've changed my vote. I think you genuinely believe that I'm scum. You are open about your reasons, you are outspoken in them. Your arguments, although I disagree with them, are constructed logically. You've taken time for a serious discussion and you've placed yourself in the spotlight by picking out your own target rather than jumping on a wagon. McGriddle on the other hand jumped on and off a wagon (and only did so after suspicion had been placed on the near-quick-lynch), has been very vague in explaining his votes/suspicions (see the post above this one) even when directly asked to explain. I think he slipped up when he called CSL suspicious for trying to prevent a bad strategy. A slip-up which he then tried to explain by saying CSL was trying too hard to make friends (almost sounds familiar ), a claim he failed to back up sufficiently.
He's acting scummy. You're pro-town but you're wrong, and it's up to me to change your mind.

[dimaba]

Right now I'm wondering why Brother was killed, since he only posted maybe three times, and was solely concerned with Dimaba. This makes Dimaba look scummy in my eyes, as he could easily be scum trying to protect himself. Or maybe the scum did it to throw us that way, or maybe Dimaba did it to make us think the scum was trying to throw us that way, or maybe the scum did it to try and make us think Dimaba did it to try and make it look like the scum did it to make it look like Dimaba did it to throw us that way.

Ah, the endless circle of blame...

Anyway, if I may defend myself... From what I have read the general response after my debate with brother was that we were most likely two townies going at eachother. In other words, brother's arguments against me didn't put me at risk of a lynch. I have no reason to suspect that he would have been able to put me in that position on day 2, so I don't see why I would have felt a need to kill the guy.

Also off to do some re-reading, now that I've finally got some time for it.

[dimaba]

@Dimaba - Haven't heard from you in too long. Get posting my friend.

Will do. I've been reading everything that's going on and haven't had time to respond yet. I'll get on it now...

Uh oh here comes my scummy post, anyway, I agree with crimmy (see I told you it was scummy) about CSL and Jack.

As Michel said, why don't you let us know why you agree with him? And explain to me exactly why it is scummy to agree with Crimmy.
And while we're at it, which of the two do you think is more suspicious?

In my opinion CSL is the more suspicious of the two. Jack at least asked if he should hammer (post 121 and 126), apparently wasn't sure what the best course of action was, and seems to have been convinced by CSL (post 127 most of all). But this doesn't clear Jack completely. It's interesting to see that from claim to lynch took half an hour, in which all but one posts were made by CSL and Jack. Waiting at least a few hours wouldn't have done any harm and would've given others a chance to agree or disagree with CSL.

@foilist: why didn't you mention cades as someone we need to see more content from? The post I quoted was his first post since the lynch and doesn't exactly qualify as 'content'.

[dimaba]

It just dawned on me. When I allegedly told Jack to hammer, I was actually trying to tell him after the comments, and other shit.

tl;dr: Did one thing, while thinking of another = Absentmindedness.

Wait, that just dawned on you? As in you suddenly remember what you were actually trying to tell him, having forgotten all about it for 4 pages? If I interpret your post correctly, you say you were actually trying to tell him to hammer, but to only do so after more people commented. You seemed to have forgotten that in all of about 10 minutes. (Post 127, which I assume it is about that you're now claiming 'I wanted to tell him to do it after comments', to post 129 in which you said "That's hammer" and waved McGriddle goodbye took about 10 minutes.) There's no mention of "I should have told you to wait for comments" in post 129, which I assume you would've said if that had been your intention.
Tbh, it sounds more like you never wanted tot tell him to wait for comments in the first place. You're just changing excuses because the one you were using isn't working.

@cades, you're being useless. All you've given us, especially since the lynch, have been one or two line posts without reasoning. Take some time to explain yourself. You say "I bet you vote me now", I say if you keep posting like this I bet I will.

[dimaba]

Sorry for the lack of activity. I got the prod this afternoon. Vacation time now so for the rest of the game I'll be posting much more often.

As for my thoughts on who to lynch...

Although I find this to be an interesting point...

Also, cades has a convenient habit of disappearing when we're talking badly about him. Then he reappears quite a few posts(or pages) later and easily generalizes everything we hit him with into one, misrepresented argumentative point which he then proceeds to refute with his special brand of clever-talk that generally tends to be nothing more than horrid grammar and one illogical, untrue fact repeated several times, making less and less sense each time.

...especially when combined with this (which was actually about me)...

An active scum player may come to the thread and see attention on another player, or minor questions asked of himself. He then chooses not to post, and allow attention to drift away from himself, which most often it does. Later people may look back and realize his inactivity, but often not.

I agree that cades is pretty much too stupid to be scum. Random voting, crappy reasoning and AtE's all over the place attract so much negative attention that I find it hard to believe scum would do that on purpose. I also find it hard to catch him on inconsistencies and mistakes, as he's just packing his posts with so many of both that I can't see through the chaos. I'd say give him another day to at least admit that he's playing poorly and try to change it.

CSL looks the better lynch to me, considering the consistently suspicious behaviour he has shown in the hammer situation and in his defense afterwards. (For what I said about CSL earlier, see posts 212 and 194.)

In my opinion it is our best option to lynch CSL unless he drops the 'oh I'm going to die but you'll regret it tomorrow' thing and brings up something new and interesting to save his life.

[dimaba]

What info do you think there is to gain from prolonging day 2? And how do you think we should try to get this info? Investigate the posts of players who haven't really been under suspicion so far to see if we've missed something?

I'm assuming we want a claim before lynching, as we did with McGriddle? Or is this...

Eh, I'm screwed.

Have fun in lylo.

...to be considered an implicit townie claim?

While waiting for everybody else's opinion on this, I'll go re-read Day 2 and try to find a second scum suspect for myself.

[dimaba]

I was referring to opinions about wether we should lynch now or wait a little while. My guess would be that most of us don't see the point of waiting longer, I haven't seen it said explicitly. Or did I just miss that?

[dimaba]

Cades is something to be considered tomorrow. He could be scum playing so unexpectedly insane that he's slipping through our radar, but there's less concrete evidence to suggest that than there is to motivate a CSL lynch. I'm not against a lynch, I see no better candidate, and I think this day is pretty much played out.

[dimaba]

I can confirm that we're playing with 1 goon, one mafia roleblocker, a cop and a doc. I am the cop. I was roleblocked on my first investigation and investigated cades (now Kyiv) on night 2. Kyiv is innocent. I did not come forward with my investigation on day 2 since I had nothing of interest to report. Had I claimed cop without presenting any information it would have been easy for the mafia to roleblock me all the way through while trying to kill off the doc, while the only thing it would've done for the town was to confirm that a roleblocker is in play. It would've made me useless as a power role until we found and lynched the mob roleblocker.

Noting that nobody else has claimed doc, I will assume that Crimmy's claim is correct.

The obvious conclusion is that foilist13 and jackabomb are scum.

[dimaba]

How could you possibly think it would not be a good idea to go for another protect, rather than outing yourself, and ensuring that you would be killed?

Simple maths maybe?

Knowing the setup of the game, knowing that we now have 3 pro-town players left, he had the choice between guessing who was town and who wasn't, hoping to lynch and protect correctly, and encouraging claims. Encouraging claims would give us at least 2 confirmed townies and depending on the results of the cop's investigations maybe a few more certainties. Although it's clear that outing himself would result in a kill, the odds would still be far better than if he kept quiet.

Dimaba, who was your N1 investigation?

I also think the

times

they were 'role-blocked' are curiously convenient. Look. Crimmy claims to be roleblocked night 2 when his target dies. He protected the experienced guy(the proper move for doc), but was roleblocked. How tragic.

N1 I attempted to investigate Crimmy.

As for the 'curiously convenient' times we were roleblocked... If Crimmy had protected someone else, or if you two had killed somebody else, Crimmy wouldn't have known there was a roleblocker. There's nothing curiously convenient about it, it's just the only way he could know there is a roleblocker.

Dimaba is

still

scum lurking.

I haven't replied for.. what... 24 hours? I have a life. Lurking = constantly reading the thread but not replying. I don't read the thread all the time, but I do reply whenever I'm around.


On Crimmy...

The fact that you are attacking me for showing the obvious danger is extremely scummy.

I'll give you that it isn't an intensely smart way to deal with it, but I think we've established throughout this game that Crimmy tends to respond a little too emotionally to opposing opinions and suspicions... In that light, it isn't inconsistent with his playing style and is just as likely that he is a pro-town who thinks the SE is presenting this knowledge to conveniently steer the town in the wrong direction or something like that. (That isn't an accusation I hold myself, btw. It's a valid point that you raised and I'm sure you would also have raised it had you been pro-town.)

Your claims are fundamentally inaccurate and misleading. Even newbie town don't make those kind of mistakes.

newbie scum then, I imagine?

This is one of the most fundamental and widely accepted scum tells of this game.

Says who? Do we have any other source to trust for that, other than your experience?

Michel, our confirmed town IC said, as did I that that was a bad idea. I would also like all of you to notice that our confirmed town IC agreed with me solidly for the first two days. I think that gives me some major town points here.

With you on what? On game tactics? So you proposed the same strategies he did... Anyone with more experience than me would know which strategy is used when. On votes? If I recall correctly, you voted for Crimmy on day 1 before unvoting when McGriddle became the top suspect. You then voted Crimmy on day 2, calling him 'suspicious from yesterday' while calling CSL 'genuine' and not picking up on his responsibility in the hammer (post 164) (which Michel never agreed with) before switching to CSL after everyone became suspicious of his hammer-action. At that point you suddenly became very aggressive towards him and forgot all about Crimmy. You voted for CSL in post 218, way after Michel did. He didn't magically agree with you all the time, you just changed your vote to match his.
Or on behaviour in the game? You wanted jackabomb to get a replacement when he announced that he might be inactive for a short while, something Michel spoke explicitly against (post 18). And you criticised Michel for 'not presenting enough analysing, which wasn't hard for him to dispute (posts 188 and 190).

There's also evidence of mutual protection between jackabomb and foilist after the McGriddle hammer.
Foilist:


Jackabomb (post 203):

I beleive that foilist was the only one not aware of the current situation at the time of the hammer.

...which has been proven wrong by Michel and Crimmy in posts 205 and 206.

Foilist (196):

If it comes down to these two, I'd vote CSL. Jackabonb asked if he should hammer, and CSL told him to, which means that Jackabomb could more likely be easily led town/newbie

who did what the SE told him to.

We can't say he's scummy for hammering, when he didn't know that that was the wrong thing to do, and then the SE told him it was the right decision. So basically I see it that CSL may as well have hammered. (Little exaggerated, but I do feel like he bears most of the responsibility).

An obvious attempt to clear jackabomb of the hammer and at the same time shift blame onto CSL.

@ Crimmy: don't go lurking now. Kyiv's vote is the only one that matters. We have to convince Kyiv together that we are town players and we can't do that if you become emotional and run away.

vote: foilist13

[dimaba]

EBWOP: My quotes got screwed up there...

where I said:

Your claims are fundamentally inaccurate and misleading. Even newbie town don't make those kind of mistakes.

newbie scum then, I imagine?

This is one of the most fundamental and widely accepted scum tells of this game.

Says who? Do we have any other source to trust for that, other than your experience?

It should've said:

Your claims are fundamentally inaccurate and misleading. Even newbie town don't make those kind of mistakes.

Neither would newbie scum then, I imagine.

This is one of the most fundamental and widely accepted scum tells of this game.

Says who? Do we have any other source to trust for that, other than your experience?

[dimaba]

Good game everyone. Congrats to the scum team for your play upto Crimmy's claim. You went completely unnoticed.

I'm sorry I couldn't pop in more often, I wasn't too happy about it myself as I realised that it made me look like a lurker. I couldn't help it much though. I just had way too much other stuff to do.