Wasn't aplz4 the one that drew scum, played quite scummy, then asked for a replacement, and the replacement didn't get as much scrutiny because aplz4's scumminess was written off as a newbie's error? Or maybe wyrm means something else, not sure.

Oh smurf it. One weekend away and I'm already late to the smurfy! Sorry.

Two smurfs smurf out of the crowd: Darko would be a good RVS target for implying that he didn't smurf the OP right away. But drealmer presents an actual reason for suspicion.

Sure, you've retracted it and voted Nacho after all. But only after being called out on it. No lynch on Day 1 is scummy! So I would like a more thorough explanation what you wanted to achieve by it? Was it meant to irritate? To see whether someone would follow you? Or do you actually have a reason to think No Lynch on Day 1 would be a good idea this time?
So, slightly less RVS, at least until I get a smurfy reply:


vote drealmer7

I didn't comment on the a4plz comment because I thought it was rhetorical ("a4plz" pretty sure - we were intimate) - but of course there are handful of players here with no familiarity and so I'll elaborate on wyrm's crypticness.

A4plz was a "new" player (they'd maybe played a little town of salem? something like that?) - seemingly not familiar with the rules or what the implications of anything meant (not even what majority lynch was.) They were given chance after chance after chance to "get with it." They never did.

They hammered a town PR (no flip to confirm though!) without letting the wagon back-off / people unvote after the L-1 claim. I tore them a new one, and then another on top of it (but with the disclaimer "only if you're town does this apply.") They quit over Night, seemingly offended and unable to bear the shame (or something like that.)

In steps RW to replace. Towns it up. Wins the game for scum. Should have PLed that scum RIGHT AWAY, but no, we let "awww, they're new, just let them play!" mentality rule and it was BAD. I knew it was bad. Yogsloth knew it was bad. I don't know that anyone else cared.

Soooo, while my attitude is forgiving and teaching of the new players so they can "come around" a bit, there will come a limit where it will no longer be acceptable and we will have to kill you to make sure you're not playing noobscum and getting away with it. Let's hope it doesn't get there.

I wasn't called out on it, or, if that was someone's attempt, it didn't register as that. Whoopie doo, I voted no-lynch during RVS is how I feel. It's a tester.

It's about 1 of the only 2 votes I feel comfortable casting during RVS (the other being on myself - personally I wouldn't even call it RVS, you all call it RVS, I just participate to the degree I'm comfortable and that is it) and it's meant to get reactions and irritate and see who does what about it. It's "if someone is REALLY going to react to ME voting for no-lynch during RVS, I feel like they're more likely to be scum trying to make an issue, because, it's ME."

It's bait, and I caught something!


unvote nachomamma8
vote lifthrasil

Don't try to be nice to me now, Brasas >.>

Last time you commented on my post, you were talking about how my post was reasonable although you had a weird feeling about me and now you're saying that Trial struggled to respond to a softball question and I overreacted? Where did that jump come from?

If it's bait, it's a stupid one. [sarcasm]'Yea, let's vote something that anyone who wants town to win would disagree with. Then, if someone doesn't like that vote, he must be scum. Because anyone who wants town to win MUST be scum, obviously.'[/sarcasm]

So yes, you caught something: you caught town. And yourself. Because with your OMGUS vote you just confirmed that my vote is in the right place.

-"No outside links" was a rule unique to Drealmer's game. It hasn't been present in any other game here that I've seen.

-To be a little more specific, I'm reminded of posts similar to this. Granted, the setup is different, but a4plz's posting still springs to mind.

-Drealmer's interpretation is not what I was thinking. I was thinking specifically of newly minted scum going role-fishing.


Alright. I silently agreed about Hunter, and Lift was completely afk. I found it curious that JMich was absent from your first list, and Darko was also missing both a certain element of game vitality and from the first list.

Nothing, at the moment. I'll see if it develops into anything, but to me most of it is just white noise.

*shrug* Could be. He does have my curiosity.

Weak meta evidence, but I don't see something I'd expect to see if they were scum buddies.

I don't know yet. I liked Nacho's start, but it has gone somewhat downhill from there.

I never really understood why no-lynch is considered pro-scum, especially on D1 when the odds of town lynching town are higher.
I've been pro-lynch both as town and as scum since it provides with a sense of progress and some knowledge for the following Day, but maybe it comes down to me hating games dragging out for too long.

Drealmer, how is Lift saying that your no lynch vote is bad scummy? Especially when you say you're only doing it for bait?

You're letting generalities cloud your judgement, just like you did with JMich in Vitek's game. Look at the individual player and don't just stick to broad general views of the game and apply them whenever 1 person falls into it, you're going to lynch town more often than scum, scum know better. That is why I was so sure JMich was town, because you don't do that IF YOU'RE SCUM. WIFOM, I know, but, that is why I used this as bait in the first place, because it's a weak-ass reason to vote me and scum would love to try to make a strong case for ME voting NO-LYNCH as SCUMMY. How can they not? I'm SO TEMPTING! (it's what I do)

Now because you were that way with JMich, is the only reason I'm not typing OMG YOU'RE OBVISCUM!!!

Day 1, town knows nothing. So let's say they agree to no-lynch. Night 1, scum kills a townie, and any investigative role (should any exist) get a chance to act. Day 2 starts with town still knowing nothing, but with one less townie among them. Whether there is any information to be gained from investigative roles is unknown, since the role will have to claim to provide their information.

If on the other hand there is a lynch on Day 1, on Day 2 town has a lynch wagon to possibly analyze. Who pushed a bit too hard, who wanted to appear reluctant to be on the wagon, yet didn't hesitate to hammer, who tried to divert attention to someone else. That does of course mean someone will have to do a wagon analysis, but it does give town a bit more to work on during Day 2.

I see it as a trade. If you're scum, it's a good chance you'll have 2 dead townies by Day 2. If you're town, you're playing against the odds but hoping that at least you'll have gained extra knowledge. No-lynches are bad for town, but not exactly a picnic for scum either, depending on the game.

Vitek, where art thou?

Whether there's a difference or not between role speculation or setup speculation is not the point. Day 1 is not the time to speculate on either, there's no benefit for town speculating on either at this point.

amended slightly but I totally agree with you (and know that that is what you mean)

I'll agree with the principle (maybe No Lynch is appropriate for certain setups). Lets be specific for this game, however: is No Lynch good for town in this specific game?