Mafia 85 - Murder at the Bus Stop (game over)

[Slicey]

I'd say pressure people that seem scummy. If you think lurking is a scumtactic, well that's what you think. Evetually, they will have to post though, and we'll see if those posts seem scummy. I know it doesn't make much sense but whatever. >_>

Mod edit
Votecount:
fouxdufafa (2): Slicey, Megatheory
Wall-E (2): Mana_Ku, farside22
Cream147 (2): Empking, BlakAdder
Empking (1): RestFermata
Slicey (1): Wall-E
Alabaska J (1): fouxdufafa
farside22 (1): martin413
RestFermata (1): Riceballtail
Megatheory (1): Moratorium
Surye (1): Demon Pineapple
farside22 (1): Sir Tornado

Not voting (11): Xtoxm, al4xz, Azuma, Surye, armlx, Alabaska J, Shanba, Cream147, Jebus, Slepz, DynamoXI

[Cream147]

I'd say pressure people that seem scummy. If you think lurking is a scumtactic, well that's what you think. Evetually, they will have to post though, and we'll see if those posts seem scummy. I know it doesn't make much sense but whatever. >_>

But if you do that, then lurkers are more likely than active players to escape! That's probability. It seems to me that if we're not going to pressurise lurkers, and yes, that will need a bit of vote power, then lurking will be a very effective tactic for scum.

[Surye]

Okay, I'm here. I've reread already.
Regarding the lurker issue, lynching lurkers is okay, depending on the circumstance. Most of the time, I'm good with it.
In other news,

vote: Cream147

. She seems to be trying to get the town to lynch lurkers, but she doesn't want to go against the town's wishes so she invents the "I don't want them lynched, I want them pressured" excuse.

I don't see it as scummy or contradictory. Pressure is != lynch, just like wagon != lynch. If you're lurking, sometimes your name coming a lot is enough. A wagon will often get them posting. This is a good approach. Do we drop the hammer though? No, not on policy. If they get to L-2 and they still aren't posting, they should be replaced, not lynched. Especially if you prescribe to the Bored Vanilla Townie Theory.

Cream is being perfectly reasonable. You're being one-dimensional.

[Empking]

You need the possibility of a lynch to add pressure.

[Surye]

Like I said, votes are more often then not enough. If they are lurking, and are not responsive to votes, they might be VL/A without notice. However. If we see them playing elsewhere, and they have a wagon on them, and they are not posting, then I'd say I'm okay with it. But that doesn't change the fact that pressure is not the same thing as a lynch.

[al4xz]

Not neccessarily. If they are going like, "omgz0rz that guy is lurking let's kill him" and crap like that, then they're sure gonna start getting nervous. Then we throw a few more votes on him (essentially, we start the wagon) and he's going whack yellin "I was on vacation!" Then we pressure him some more until we can determine scum or innocent, then we either kill him or let him go. That's what I say. Of course, that will require quite a bit of teamwork from everyone else.

Come to tihnk of it, where's Dynamo?

[fouxdufafa]

If we apply pressure to lurkers then we can see their response to it. They're going to say SOMETHING. They can't remain absolutely quiet because if they do then they're going to be replaced, in which case we know that they just weren't here. It's then up to us as to whether or not their answers are satisfactory enough to remove said pressure.

It can have the threat of a lynch, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're GOING to be lynched for lurking. Lurking can be a scumtell, but townies can lurk. If they have a wagon on them then how stubborn they are about lurking will be the tell.

[Cream147]

If we apply pressure to lurkers then we can see their response to it. They're going to say SOMETHING. They can't remain absolutely quiet because if they do then they're going to be replaced, in which case we know that they just weren't here. It's then up to us as to whether or not their answers are satisfactory enough to remove said pressure.

It can have the threat of a lynch, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're GOING to be lynched for lurking. Lurking can be a scumtell, but townies can lurk. If they have a wagon on them then how stubborn they are about lurking will be the tell.

This is a good and well reasoned opinion.

[Slepz]

[quote=fouxdufafa]It can have the threat of a lynch, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're GOING to be lynched for lurking[/quote]
It has to mean they're going to be lynched, otherwise it isn't real pressure.

[Slepz]

It can have the threat of a lynch, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're GOING to be lynched for lurking

It has to mean they're going to be lynched, otherwise it isn't real pressure.

...Stupid Slepz

[Slicey]

If we apply pressure to lurkers then we can see their response to it. They're going to say SOMETHING. They can't remain absolutely quiet because if they do then they're going to be replaced, in which case we know that they just weren't here. It's then up to us as to whether or not their answers are satisfactory enough to remove said pressure.

It can have the threat of a lynch, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're GOING to be lynched for lurking. Lurking can be a scumtell, but townies can lurk. If they have a wagon on them then how stubborn they are about lurking will be the tell.

...That's exactly what I was trying to say.

[fouxdufafa]

...That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Well then I agree!

[fouxdufafa]

It has to mean they're going to be lynched, otherwise it isn't real pressure.

...Stupid Slepz

That's the point, there is the danger of getting lynched. I'm saying the lynch would be the result of their response to the wagon on them. If they are going to continue to blatantly lurk after getting votes on them for it then why would we let them get off for it?

[armlx]

Unvote, Vote SirT

Attacking random votes = no.

[BlakAdder]

@Cream: That's what I'm saying. I'm good with lynching lurkers. You're the one that's being wishy-washy about it.
@Surye: I'm sorry, but I disagree. Now that we've discussed it openly in the thread, lurkers, particularly scum lurkers, are going to be less willing to stick their heads back into the game.

[Moratorium]

Sir Tornado wrote:

farside22 wrote:

It's just a random vote.

And, what does it achieve?

Why do you feel the need to criticize a

random

vote? Your question here, like my rhetorical one, does nothing but muddy the water for town. We really need to move away from playing "Jokevote/Randomvote Gotcha!", especially in a game this large.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

Well, Moratorium, you smartass, why don't you come up with a better case against scum then? Practice what you preach much?

Well, fine. To be honest, all I'm seeing from Sir Tornado at this juncture is a shotgun-style approach to questioning, questioning random votes, asking multiple people benign questions that don't seem to be meant to actually learn anything, but just scream "I'm helping!".

I had voted for Megatheory originally for starting that whole lurker metagaming theory block quote circlejerk, and I'll keep a

FoS: Megatheory

in his general direction. I still get the feeling that it was all just meant as a "Hey, I'll put out a theory, possibly mega, about paying attention to lurkers, and then all my scumbuddies can respond, increase post counts, and scum will heretofore be known as the Anti-Lurker Justice League" or whatever.

But what I'd like to know from you at this point, Sir Tornado, is what kind of information you were intending to gather from your line of questioning, particularly that of questioning a random vote.

Oh, and hey. Since we're all so keen about pressure today, here's a big ol' cup of pressure for ya.

Unvote

Vote: Sir Tornado

[Surye]

@Surye: I'm sorry, but I disagree. Now that we've discussed it openly in the thread, lurkers, particularly scum lurkers, are going to be less willing to stick their heads back into the game.

Awh, I'm sorry. Does discussing things make you uneasy?

[BlakAdder]

unvote

. Thinking again, I don't know whether Cream or Sir Tornado is scummier at this point. I'll let more stuff unfold before a cast my vote again.
@Surye: No, I was just trying to support my point. I realized now that I did a very bad job writing that. The point I was trying to make was that it is even more important to put the threat of an actual lynch on the lurkers to get them talking, due to the fact that we have now discussed it in the thread.

[Wall-E]

For the record: I agree with lynching lurkers in a deadlined large game for the first few days. After a few days has passed, I'd not be so inclined to lynch a lurker. Dunno if everyone wants to just discuss lurking for two weeks, but I'd rather not, so that's my stance and I'd appreciate it if everyone posted their stance and we moved on to other things.

Suggested topic: Cream's post which garnered a small amount of attention. Good, bad, what?

Personally, I think Cream's a bit scummy.

[Megatheory]

We shouldn't be talking about if pressure should lead to lynches on lurkers except regarding specific cases. What pressure means should be for the town to know and the scum to find out. But since the cat's out of the bad anyway, whether or not a lurker should be lynched is highly situational and any kind of policy will almost certainly bite the town in the ass.

Pressure is pressure. That should be the end of the discussion.

Oh, and I don't think we can find out who is town or scum based on their position on this issue.

Unvote

unvote:
vote: Wall-e

No matter the alignment you always seem scummy.

A) what akes Wall-E scummy now?

B) How can you be sure he is scum if you always find him scummy?

I had voted for Megatheory originally for starting that whole lurker metagaming theory block quote circlejerk, and I'll keep a

FoS: Megatheory

in his general direction. I still get the feeling that it was all just meant as a "Hey, I'll put out a theory, possibly mega, about paying attention to lurkers, and then all my scumbuddies can respond, increase post counts, and scum will heretofore be known as the Anti-Lurker Justice League" or whatever.

Whoa, I didn't think you were being serious at first. Am I being singled out because I was the first to post on the subject, and if so, how does that make me scummy? Would anybody else who posted first about lurkers be suspicious also?

[al4xz]

Of course. Mega, by doing this, unintentionally or not, you've caused a stir of talking that both allows you to pretend your contributing and lurk in the open at the same time. Though, if it helps, I don't think you're too scummy. But perhaps that's because you're not contributing much. *glares* Whoooo aaarr uuuu? *chuckles*

I gotta stop being so non serious...=.=

[farside22]

I thought about what was being talked about and even though it is the random vote stage, votes are meant for reaction so my vote on xtoxm was useless. So I decided to unvote and vote for the Wall-E as a joke vote because if you read his games he has a tendency of being lynched D1 or D2 and so far is town every game. He just comes off scummy.

[Moratorium]

Megatheory wrote:

Whoa, I didn't think you were being serious at first. Am I being singled out because I was the first to post on the subject, and if so, how does that make me scummy? Would anybody else who posted first about lurkers be suspicious also?

I was actually fine with all of it until post 65, where you responded to the response of a response of a response etc... with "That is so true". And I'm sitting there going "what was the point of all that?"

So are you being singled out because you were first? No.

Would anyone else who posted first be suspicious? That wasn't my premise, but let me just state bluntly "Based on just being first to post, No, that's silly."

[Sir Tornado]

Unvote, Vote SirT

Attacking random votes = no.

And, you want me to do what instead of doing that? Keep on discussing whether lurkers should be lynched till the deadline comes?

Why do you feel the need to criticize a random vote? Your question here, like my rhetorical one, does nothing but muddy the water for town. We really need to move away from playing "Jokevote/Randomvote Gotcha!", especially in a game this large.

Explain how I am "muddying" the water for town. Also, the question to armlx applies to you to, and the fact, that I did exactly what you are saying we need to be doing.

Well, fine. To be honest, all I'm seeing from Sir Tornado at this juncture is a shotgun-style approach to questioning, questioning random votes, asking multiple people benign questions that don't seem to be meant to actually learn anything, but just scream "I'm helping!".

I use this kind of play style for games modded by Lawrencelot. I refer you to Open 35: Big Love Mafia, in which I played exactly in the same way I am planning to play in this game.

I had voted for Megatheory originally for starting that whole lurker metagaming theory block quote circlejerk, and I'll keep a FoS: Megatheory in his general direction. I still get the feeling that it was all just meant as a "Hey, I'll put out a theory, possibly mega, about paying attention to lurkers, and then all my scumbuddies can respond, increase post counts, and scum will heretofore be known as the Anti-Lurker Justice League" or whatever.

I tend to agree with this.

But what I'd like to know from you at this point, Sir Tornado, is what kind of information you were intending to gather from your line of questioning, particularly that of questioning a random vote.

What kind of information do you want to hide from the town?

Not neccessarily. If they are going like, "omgz0rz that guy is lurking let's kill him" and crap like that, then they're sure gonna start getting nervous. Then we throw a few more votes on him (essentially, we start the wagon) and he's going whack yellin "I was on vacation!" Then we pressure him some more until we can determine scum or innocent, then we either kill him or let him go. That's what I say. Of course, that will require quite a bit of teamwork from everyone else.

"kill" and "teamwork"

Coming back to the main point about me voting farside22; the only information I had, at that point was that farside22 had voted for xtoxm, in what she called a random vote, during the time xtoxm was away.

Now, if you see the first few pages of most games, you'll notice that there is some sort of interaction directly between person and the person who he has voted on the first page or so. Voting a person who is V/LA avoids that interaction. This is the single most scummy incident on page 3 (heh).

[armlx]

And, you want me to do what instead of doing that? Keep on discussing whether lurkers should be lynched till the deadline comes?

Umm, not necessarily. I don't expect you to try to call someone scummy for a completely null action.