Second, since the flavor role is a sorcerer I'll use my level 11 Storm Sorcerer from my RL DnD game. Expect to be (harmlessly) lightning'd.
And third,
Oh, and nice to meet everyone.^^ Now let the RVS begin!
Indeed I do.Doctor wrote:Of course I assume you jest due to mentioning the RVS.
Mmm...I'm actually hoping this is an RVS vote because this is a very bad logical fallacy. Last game I was in a newbie and IC were scum. There are just so many combinations of scumbuddies that even when playing the numbers the SE's are just as likely to be scum as anybody else.easjo682 wrote:cause i'm sure at least one (SE) is a mafiascum
My my Dimaba, you certainly seem to be jumping on the vote right off the bat. Yeah, okay, Frost's reasoning makes sense but mind bringing some of your own ideas to the table instead of just following the SE?dimaba wrote:Hello hello everyone, sorry for missing the first 24 hrs of this.
No problem. I have a test coming up tomorrow that I had to study pretty hard for. I've been doing that + sleeping for the past 24 hours. The test'll be done tomorrow and I won't be lurking after that.Doctor wrote:@Dimaba and Cdubs
If either of you are active could we have reasons for why you are not interacting with the rest of the group?
vote: The Tracker
Because I support RayFrost's reasoning.And I'll add a tiny thought of my own which I admit is farfetched.RayFrost wrote: 2. seems to be attempting to bring support for the LaL[urkers] policy, which is terribly anti-town, since the town gets very little information from a lurker dying (easy mislynch, no connections to other players makes it low info, etc). He obviously knows about prods and replacements, so his support for LaL[urkers] is scummy.
3. He says there is not enough information to scumhunt, yet he does nothing to provide information to aid in scumhunting. Very " well, we can't do our job without information, but I'm not gonna put myself out there *baits somebody else to do so* " type of thing.
Considering this...... Tracker's joke about Doctor roleclaiming in his name could theoretically be an attempt to draw a reaction.Yosarian2 wrote: Even just joking about a doctor, or anything like that, can give hints, either hints from the person making the joke, or hints based on how other people react to a joke.
I'll start with 2. First, anti-town doesn't equal scummy. Besides, lurking is in and of itself anti-town, so really it all comes down to your personal feelings on the matter. I will not go with a policy lynch unless I see no better alternatives (which hasn't happened yet), and even then I would prefer we lynch someone who's more scummy.RayFrost wrote:I'm ashamed of Yos2.
unvote
vote: tracker
1. Fakeclaiming in his name. ( )
2. seems to be attempting to bring support for the LaL[urkers] policy, which is terribly anti-town, since the town gets very little information from a lurker dying (easy mislynch, no connections to other players makes it low info, etc). He obviously knows about prods and replacements, so his support for LaL[urkers] is scummy.
3. He says there is not enough information to scumhunt, yet he does nothing to provide information to aid in scumhunting. Very " well, we can't do our job without information, but I'm not gonna put myself out there *baits somebody else to do so* " type of thing.
I said I would support it if it came down to it. I never said it was a good idea. Yes, it clears out a valuable read for the town and I'd much rather be lynching someone who's more likely scum, but again if there are no better alternatives I would support a policy lynch. Supporting a play and thinking it's a good play are two different things. I consider a policy lynch a last resort, nothing more.Jackabomb wrote:However, this may not satisfy ray. Even by my reckoning, you still have some explaining to do for his second point. What made you think Lynching lurkers who haven't posted would be a good idea?
I assume you mean this? I was posting a general rule of thumb. Obviously if I thought there was a need for the last resort, I would have pointed out one of the lurkers and started attacking him. Or I would have at least voted. I wasn't trying to steer a lynch, I was posting a personal feeling.The Tracker wrote:Votes may not pressure enough and they can ignore pushing. Best to get rid of them.
Got sniped by this. Trust me Ray, lynching me will not help. Also, since I had a different user on that site and played all of three games (got fed up with the random crap) that won't give you much information either.RayFrost wrote:Hows abouts we lynch tracker and see what we can dig up from the site we found him at. (wiki + obituary reference = win)
He appeared out of the blue and used 90% of RayFrost's argument against me. It could be an attempt at bandwagoning a mislynch, and obviously doing that is scummy. Even if he believes in the cockles of his little heart I am scum and he is truly Town, at the very least starting to turn a vote into a wagon is suspicous.LordChronos wrote:@Tracker
How is dimaba coming in, posting, and putting thesecondvote on you scummy? As I recall, he did give reasons for his vote.
Indeed, it is not. However, I prefer to defend while attacking, if that makes any sense. Covering myself while directing my own questions to my attacker could very well give me some useful information for a read later on.dimaba wrote: Indeed, that could very well be. Which is part of why I'm not convinced enough to want you to be lynched. But I do believe fishing for a reaction as a response to an accusation, and thereby shifting focus away from yourself, is not the same as fishing for a reaction while on the offensive.
*Raises an eyebrow* If I was using your absence for a quick vote, don't you think I would have said more than I wasn't liking how you were lurking? I never switched stances, but I had to give massive explanation for my points since apparantly saying you would support lynching lurkers means you're scum.cdubs wrote:Also the tracker I feel was hoping to use my absence as a route for a quick vote. Tracker was less tactful and has been drawing fire which has also caused plenty of switching stances.
'Twas Jackabomb, my friend. I never played with Dimaba before.easjo682 wrote:dimaba wrote:Certainly does. Didn't help us much at the time, but they certainly did deserve it.easjo682 wrote: Hey, dimaba, doesn't lynching somebody because they vote without reason sound rather familiar?
Too familiar.[/color]
@Jackabomb: do you feel cdubs' presented reasons are strong enough to make the initial reasonless vote irrelevant?
@Doctor: what scumtells have you noticed about my play other than the would-be bandwagon? I'm not saying there aren't any, I just don't see them.
I am also going tounvote. I have said earlier that the original scumtells on Tracker (LaL-policy and non-participation) have become less valid and in my last post I also mentioned that my later reason for suspicion (agressive response without answering question) has also become less valid. Tracker is at L-2 I think it's better if I withdraw my vote for now.
I didnt write that quote you're quoting, that was Tracker
I'm willing to give him the BotD for now due to newness, but if his next explanation doesn't turn off the scum alarm going off in my head then I'm voting him for sure.LordChronos wrote: I'm not Jackabomb, but I also have a vote on cdubs. Personally, I was not particularly convinced by his excuses. His accusations of Yosarian, and Tracker trying to lynch him on a policy lynch of lurkers are simply untrue. This means either he hasn't actually read through the thread carefully, or he is intentionally skewing the matter to try to divert attention to himself, which I would find scummy. Also, I find his excuse of not realizing there was more than one page a little suspicious.
Can you elaborate on this for me please? I use it as part of my playstyle to get a reaction and otherwise glean information for later. Reasoning is if it's scum attacking me, I can drop them in the hot seat and if it's Town then the argument will eventually blow itself out.Yosarian2 wrote: if you attack someone because they're attacking you, that's scummy anyway.
But no, there's no way in Hell it could be that I tend to withhold my vote until I'm sure about something. I don't vote a lot, and when I do I rarely change it more than once or twice. But this is all meta stuff you wouldn't know yet, so moving on...cdubs wrote: Though it is true that tracker never specifically voted based on lurking, he did suggest voting against people who had not posted yet. I feel he was waiting to see how discussion of this went before he cast a bandwagon vote.
You're generalizing what I'm saying. I said our best choice was to get rid of them, yes. HOWEVER, I was not trying to steer a vote by saying that. Your reasoning is flawed, good sir.Yes I understand getting rid of lurkers is necessary but to suggest doing so very early in the game does seem scummy. Then when pressured for it, tracker said he doesn't like policy lynching when he was previously endorsing. He said it should only be done when there are no better options, yet to suggest we get "rid of them" so early is by no means a situation where there are no better options. Forgive me if my harping on this point is obnoxious, but I feel as though people feel it has been resolved when I do not think it has.
This is just wrong.I think tracker is scum.
First, it can't be an OMGUS vote because I never directly attacked you. And votes on D1 are never 'quick and easy.' I am looking for conversation so I know who to vote for, yes, but that's what everyone does. Saying me doing it as a scumtell is asinine.I repeat this is not an omgus vote. I truly feel he was hoping to allow conversation for a quick and easy vote that would allow him to vote guilt free, and since he got heat for that the things he's been saying seem very scummy.
Sorry Ray. I knew I forgot someone. Anyway, my read of you is a zealous Town right now. Yeah, you attack but you always have a reason for it.RayFrost wrote:Tracker didn't say his read of me.
<--- left out