Day 2 has begun. UncertainKitten will be notified of my absence as soon as this post goes through.
With 7 alive, four will lynch. Deadline is the 7th of July, at precisely 7:00pm EST
To me, M=W, you seem to be saying that active lurking is worse than lurking, but here you're voting a lurker, not an active lurker. Perhaps you realised that the StillAwesome wagon was going to build quite quickly and made your vote early to avoid looking suspicious if/when he got lynched. You've experience with mafia games, and you've admitted that you love being mafia, so I'm thinking you'd be capable of reading such possibilities.Me=Weird wrote:@STM: You said that Post 19specificallyhad expressed your stance, not that you had expressed your stance. Needless to say, post 19 didn't express your stance. Is it bad to vote someone for not posting when they said they would? However, I am thinking you're slightly townish. The vote was mostly pressure, but now I have a new time to expect it, so I'll take it off.With that,Just now I wrote: Is it bad to vote someone for not posting when they said they would?
Unvote, Vote: StillAwesome
I do agree with Zaj about active lurking vs. lurking. With lurking, for all you know, the person had some relatives over(what happened to me; why I didn't post yesterday). With active lurking,Zaj wrote:IMO active lurking is worse because we know that that person is reading the thread and has time to respond, but isn't providing content.
My comments on your analysis:Me=Weird wrote:My view on Skunkape.
SKUNKAPE: One of my suspects, has posted very little. How is making you lose the game(curse you!!) scummy? It's annoying, but in no way makes someone more likely to be scum. The most recent post by him: An analysis.
Apologizes for not making the player-by-player analysis he promised. The "so I can continue to be helpful to town" sounds kind of forced and fake, like he's trying to be obviously pro-town or something. It is very unlikely scum would quicklynch day 1, as it would only cause them to be lynched next day. Possibly some more, how to put it, "well, I warned against something scum might do* so I'm confirmed townie". It's hard to describe that.
*Not that they actually would.
Naturally, I'm still suspicious of stillawesome, and thus karma, but will see him play before revoting him. That's right, I'm about to
Unvote.And with nothing better to do yet (I will post views on other suspects later)
Vote: Skunkape
You do realize you don't have to vote, right? At least until you find something really, really scummy.Me=weird wrote:And with nothing better to do yet (I will post views on other suspects later)
UnLoved wrote:I'm going to see if there's any way that Zajnet could not be scum.
Good point. Pretty jumpy there.Putting him at L-1 without any sort of good reasoning 4 pages into the game? Then switching your vote 2 posts later to a lurker after someone calls you out on it? You getting nervous there, scum?
Yes, Zajnet overreacted towards Doubtful, in my opinion.Here he attacks Doubtful for not understanding the RVS. To me, Doubtful's confusion just came off as newbish, a null tell. You jumping down his neck for it is an obvious example of taking advantage of an easy target.
Zajnet wrote:This post sounds really off to me. Off enough toSkunkape wrote:I won't be able to make a large post for awhile, real life events are keeping me busy this week, however AurorusVox has dispelled most of my concerns on shadow2222.
So that I can continue to be productive to the town, I'm going to go ahead andUnvoteandVote:StillAwesomefor lurking.
KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS L-2, ONE MORE VOTE PUTS HIM IN RISK OF BEING SPEEDLYNCHED - Act cautiouslyVote: Skunkape. Stating that you're voting a lurker so you can continue to be productive to the town sounds really, really scummy to me. The over dramatization in the last line really makes me think you're scum. If anyone were to speed lynch him and he flipped scum, cool. If he was speedlynched and flipped town, the people that were those last 1 or 2 votes would have some explaining to do. This post reeks of scum trying to distance himself from a wagon on someone he knows to be a townie.Yes, you have a point, Zajnet, but you vote someone else for the same reason right after attacking Skunkape. And why blatantly accuse Skunk, and then vote someone else? Just doesn't make any sense at all to me.Zajnet wrote:Unvote, Vote: shadow2222
He's posted no content whatsoever. At all.
Vote: Zajnet
I think you've got some 'splaining to do.
Yes, there is a way. In any case, your introduction to your vote sounds like you're trying to look at all cases, which you should do even in normal analysis. It just doesn't sound right at all.UnLoved wrote:I'm going to see if there's any way that Zajnet could not be scum.