Open 320- Tit for Tat: Game Over!

[Coventry]

Hello, everyone.

Thank you, Eyes, for finding the random vote stage distasteful. I know the game has to start some way but I like this way better.

I think a no lynch is a gift to the bad guys. I would prefer not to give them one.

I do not believe in lynching inactive players. I believe in lynching based on information. The more information the better. But I also understand that this is a weakness in my game. So I do believe in aggressive moderators who replace inactive players quickly.

I don't like lurkers for much the same reason. The more information we have as town the better for town. The less, the better for the bad guys.

One other thing I don't like, or at least something that usually gets a faint buzz from my antenna. Someone who tells me what is and isn't a null tell in their game play. Especially in an introductory post.

IH, do you consider your vote on Eyes RVS?

[Coventry]

Eyes, I’m sorry but now I am beginning to feel a little discomfited by your behavior.

When I played Mafia regularly I often saw scum identify players who they believed were easy to push into fits of bad behavior and ride them until that person became an inevitable (mis)lynch. I just saw it again, in the very first game I replaced into.

Another thing I am generally suspicious of is what seems like a deliberately false or misleading case.

First, literally 50% of DarkCoffee’s posts had not alluded to being in a game with jilynne. Two of five posts had as of the first time you brought it up. Three of nine posts had at the point where you made the claim, the third because DarkCoffee was answering you.

This wouldn’t bother me a lot except that you listed DarkCoffee’s random vote for Jilyenne as part of your list of his posts that “allude” to having been in a game with Jilyenne before, as well as his two posts which actually did.

So I have two questions for you, if you would be so kind as to answer them:

You have clearly read a game in which DarkCoffee was provoked into quitting as town. So do you believe that provoking him in the way you have (and please don’t claim that you weren’t, because no simple search for information requires you to tell someone you’re not their “expletive kindergarten teacher”, for just one example) is beneficial to town? If so, please explain in what way.

What was your thinking in producing the list of quotes that accompanied your “literally 50%” accusation?

Thank you for any answers you provide.

[Coventry]

Hi, Jilynne,

If it’s all right I would like just a little clarification on your answers to Eyes’ questions.

When you write that you will vote anyone who gets a prod or who you’ve seen on-line 3x without posting are you indicating a willingness to policy lynch or a pressure tactic aimed at getting the lurker to contribute?

I’m a little concerned about your answer to Eyes’ second question because it both signals a possible unwillingness to actively scumhunt and sets up a false expectation that if you should be inactive it is an indication that you are town.

It also concerns me a little because it seems to be in direct contradiction to your third answer. You have indicated that you are likely to lurk as town because being town is boring. But if someone else lurks you intend to vote for them as at least a personal policy. Can you reconcile these two positions?

Thank you for any answers.



Oh, and Magna…2/9 = 3/12, right?

[Coventry]

StefanB

, if you don’t follow a lynch all liars policy then I would like to tell you that when I typed 2/9 = 3/12 I was making a sarcastic jab at Eyes. If you do…yeah, numbers are hard and I am really stupid. Thank you for pointing it out so kindly.

Eyes

, thank you very much for your answers.

VeryDark

, this is a small thing, but the following quote of yours, joined with your apparent disdain for Eyes' approach in taking us rapidly beyond the RVS (which seems to have largely worked and which you simplified somehow as only an attempt to avoid OMGUS), has made me curious:

I LOL at people posting their "Top Scum Pick" or are

already

accusing people of being scum. I personally have nothing to base an argument on currently, other than a lot of flared tempers and pointless bickering.

I don't have a "top scum pick" nor have I accused anyone of being scum. But there is more content in the first three pages of this game than in the first twenty of some games I've played. Now it is early on day one and you've only made three posts so far, but your last post was so lacking in helpful content and dismissive of those who seem to be trying to scumhunt, as well as, from my perspective anyway, unrepresentative of what is actually in thread, that I would like to ask its purpose. I would also, I suppose, like to ask how you prefer to go about trying to identify the bad guys.

Thank you in advance for your response.

[Coventry]

VeryDark, thank you very much for your answers. You were quite correct, when I mentioned the number of posts you'd made it was to point out that it is early, not that you hadn't posted enough. I quite like your description of how you scum hunt.

I want to be clear about the post of yours which I referenced, however. I was not criticizing you for not having made your own bad guy list or having cast a serious vote. I have done neither of those things myself. It was the disdain you seemed to be showing for both the process so far and the efforts of those who were pushing the discussion. Pushing that discussion is what gives us leads and for many players the placing of an early serious vote or making an early list of who they feel are behaving in the scummiest fashion is their way of applying the pressure that will help them develop their reads. That was the attitude I was questioning, both because it made me wonder about your mindset, because it seemed to discount the scumhunting that was going on, however small the current pool in which it can be done is, and because it seemed designed to having a chilling effect on those who were trying to move the game forward.

Thank you for clarifying.