Lurker lynches aren't lacking in information because lurkers don't give reads. (Though that does often happen.) They're less useful because they meet with varying degrees of apathy and "well, he is a lurker". I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who want to do that.

Overall...an interesting post. Tinged with genuine outrage; caught little hints of something towny but also a vague outline of caught for the wrong reasons.


I said one reason was flimsy. Not all. I'm not even on your wagon because of that! thx for misrep

So basically you're saying that "either we're stupid or we're scum". Riiiight. Gotcha.

Do you think I am scummy independently of your wagon? What about your other wagoneers? The first time I said you were misrepping me, I was joking. Now I'm not. A good portion of the accusations against your slot are valid. I think it's perfectly normal, actually. And why would scum want to pretend? There's little benefit when the record is public. Can I trouble you for quotes or postlinks?

There are a number of ironies here. I'm on RW, admittedly, just for gut reasons that at least on the surface can be attributed to him doing to doc/babark what I did to Ix.

Ix reacts negatively to Babark voting for the loudest vote on his wagon, ironically glossing over the fact it's exactly what he did. (And, side-note apparently is still doing?)

I do actually agree with pretty much everything RW says in 944, and one of two main reasons I haven't actually voted him despite several days of temptation. It's largely gut (reminded of the way RW carefully nudged things along in his last sub appearance) more than something specific I can point to. And yeah, I'm not pumped about lynching someone more involved.

I totally agree with the notion that we need to move forward. Had actually written that out more specifically in my long response to drealmer's posts but after seeing the mod-kill and contemplating, deleted it. It's unfortunate that the gamestate keeps changing unrelated to peoples' actual plays.

Realistically, the two wagons look like Stan and Babark. I think we're approaching the point where, if someone wants to make a serious push for an alternative, whether that be no lynch or another player or whatever you want to push it has to happen soon. (Ahem, people with a singlet vote or not voting anyone).

But imo we absolutely need two wagons, and everyone has to make a case for why they are on one and not the other. No lurky not voting for anything crap. Worst case we end up with dual town wagons (50%); best case two non-town wagons (6%).



Different players having different reads of meaning happens even if they find the same thing scummy, or townie. Happened on the Ix wagon, IIRC.

If you think RW's interpretation of you was shifting and that it's indicative of motive rather than naturally evolving thinking (I know I often am working through the logic of what I'm thinking in iterative fashion), I'd like it spelled out more clearly - I'm not going to go back digging atm.

Voting is one way to apply pressure as well. I'll look again later, but I don't find his "voting because I find him scummiest" and "voting to clarify" as incongruous on the surface. Voting is useful for pressure, after all.

Or am I not understanding your point?

I see this a a complete misrepresentation of what RW said. I've gone over his statement to you and he explicitly asks you

"So let me get this straight, you just don't see anything fishy about that quote at all? "

and then states

"You don't see the implication that your previous self knew there are so many wolves they can afford to lynch one of their own for town cred? You don't see the broader shade being put on everyone on that wagon based on what seems like insider knowledge?

But honestly, I was not expecting you to argue your way out of that statement.... "

Where in that is RW backtracking on finding the post by docbear as off? You are reaching to make him look bad and I don't get it. Is it because he is voting you and you are trying to deflect?

I found the statement by docbear as scummy too and your response to it as a scared scum trying to figure a way out. Only focusing your attention on anyone who was on your wagon as possible scum and trying to cast shade on them. At this point all you are is a person of interest, you have a few votes on you and people want to hear what you have to say. Your trying to cast anyone who has a vote on you as scum and not even looking at everyone in the game is not a town play at all, to me I will be hard pressed to move my vote after seeing your reaction.

Hnnngh.

{Ix}
{Nacho, Brasas, Tammy}
{RWare, cristi, bler}
{Wyrm, Quadr, yog}
{trent, Lif, Dessimu}
{babark}

Still fiddling with this.

Quotes or postlinks of what? If you mean RW suddenly changing why I was being suspected, it is in my response to him.

But since we're talking about it (and talking about talking about it), could you please clarify what exactly makes docbear's post suspicious specifically to you?
-We've already established that that you find the "docbear knows the size of the scumteam!" argument flimsy.
-Another argument (what RW went with initially, and what I quoted in response to him) is "docbear's post somehow revealed that scumteam has decided to throw one of their own under the bus, and they likely have a daychat as well!"
(I personally find this one extra ridiculous, which I guess RW realised it was too, because then he switched to the scumteam size argument)
-A third argument (by Quad, and then later "expanded" by trenton) is that docbear's post somehow shows that she/I had insider knowledge that Ix was scum...or not scum. I'm not even sure, and I'm not even sure that they're sure.

So is it one of those arguments, Stan, or a new weirder one?

Ah, okay, I think I see it. Thanks. This is the one I find semi-valid as an argument, though I don't concur with it. I'm reading you for things outside that post, as I think I've said.

The OMGUS (fun fact - I don't know what this means. I mean, I know what it *means* but I don't know what it stands for) vote so soon after the naked wagon push on Stanari (and again, this coming from someone who likes to push wagons).

I am. And in my defense, I DID admit I did that more in character / in frustration / for dramatic effect. Here, let me fix that.

Unvote bler144

Vote QuadrAlien

Another little known fact about me - I also like lynching lurkers. I think in the early game it's a nice place to hide while townies scream at each other. I mentioned earlier I felt Quad's quoting led to a wagon forming quickly on docbear (now babark). I think I'm happy here for the moment. We do need something to happen soon though, people are dropping like flies.

I imagine Mr. Peterson went down from a chronically inactive heart, caused by an excess of inactivity and boredom.

Here is my response to the post
"Thank you quad for pointing out docbears post. This is the part that I find odd "He has a convenient wagon forming, and with so many players, scum could throw one of their own under the bus, so to speak"

Is she saying it's a convienent wagon for scum to get on to throw one of their own under the bus? That would imply she knows for sure Ix is scum and only scum would know that. Maybe she meant Ix is a convienent wagon for scum to be on, and that would imply she knows Ix is town and again only scum would know that.

I don't like that post at all. "

I wanted clarity from docbear as to what she meant, she left the game and we did not get it. But for me no matter how she tried to spin it her post implied knowledge no one but scum could have. If she was implying Ix is scum and scum were trying to throw one of their own under the bus she could only know that for sure if she's scum. If she was implying that Ix's wagon was a convenient wagon for scum to be on because he's town, the only way she knows Ix is for sure town is if she's scum. Thus my vote and wanting her explanation. Your response to the votes on you are not easing my doubts.

I'm sorry, trentonlf, but your logic makes no sense to me. It suggests that the entire point of voting (and even this game) is pointless, and that non-scum have no standing with which to form opinions on who scum is.

So if I say that you (as an example) are scum, does that mean that I am scum because only scum would know who scum is?

You mean the question where you are asking about "unspecified role"?

I was riffing on his compulsive claim trying to see if I could provoke a neutral reveal because of the similarity to the Thief role I had in my game. Clearly, my own role, if I have one, does not include such an adjective. All I'm saying on the matter since you are prying.

On the topic of "unspecified", seems the consensus was leaning to drop the issue because it might provide scum too much insight. I ignored that question on purpose. If I say anything on the matter, it reveals more on the matter and additionally something about my own role or non-role.

The only thing I will say regarding "unspecified" is the topic itself seems more likely to reveal who has a role regardless of faction than help us scum hunt. I highly doubt, Drealmer will repeat the mistake of my game and have a town-only mechanic which can break the game Day 1.

Speaking just for myself, I don't really give much of a hoot about whether it was a thin slip, or whatever. I don't think that it was, and think there's pretty much zero way to tell short of either your flip and/or getting a flip of whatever scum might be on town!Bab's wagon. And I'm not overly concerned that others might see it that way. Your problem, not mine. ;)

Barring a bizarro setup, they're not all scum pretty obviously. And on D1 people end up voting thin shit.

I'm willing to give you some grace that you came into the game having to play defense. Fair that you'd do some of that. But I, and presumably every other townie in the room, have zero idea if you're scum or town or whatever.

If all you do is play defense and accuse your wagoneers of being scummy, at some point that defense matters for bupkis. You'd play defense and cast doubt on them regardless of alignment. Realistically, if you're scum, they're probably all town. If you're town, maybe 1, maybe 2 of them are scum. Maybe 0.

Maybe you and Stan are both town and scum are just patiently waiting to decide which to ride.

Maybe forget your wagon, particularly RW, and maybe try to help look at the bigger picture, or at people who aren't voting you, etc. There may or may not be scum on your wagon, but there are 99.99% likely scum not on your wagon.

That is not what I said at all, in docbears statement she implied having knowledge no one but scum could have. "**Ducks* I'm trying not to be all over the place. Cristi asked why I voted for Quad, and I responded. There has been a lot of back and forth (discussion wise) on lx. He has a convenient wagon forming, and with so many players, scum could throw one of their own under the bus, so to speak.
."
Why would she say Ix's wagon is a convenient one? What knowledge does she have to make that statement? The only way she knows Ix's wagon is a convenient wagon to be on is is she possesses knowledge that only scum would know (that would be what Ix's alignment is)

"OMG U Suck!"

That one, yes. I don't think I was going quite the same direction you're taking it though, and dispute the assertion I was prying about you or your role.

My question was "if he's compulsive and non-town why claim the compulsive" part at all? Not about whether you believe he's compulsive or not.

If your view is you were just angling to see if you could sweet-talk him into 'fessing up, I guess I'll buy that but find it amusing. In your scenario he's just fake-claimed a town role, right?

Why's he going to turn around cop to that lie when pressure has already started to burn off? On D1. With no other wagons of note going. He'd risk being policy lynched or LALed out of the building in a heartbeat.

Haven't had the chance to read the novella but see that dragon is dead. Reading a bit more intently now.

You want to know what sort of "out" or townie response I was looking for from Docbear?

Here's an example, "What I meant was the wagon on Ix seems too easy. I don't know how many scum there are. I misspoke and was just idly speculating as to whether this could be a case of scum bussing their own."

To me, that would seem a fairly honest response. Instead we have a replacement...

What I'm hoping from you, Babark, is some legitimate activity and analysis that isn't just "Oh My God, You Suck (OMGUS) for voting me".

That way, should you somehow be town, we'd have your best insights and could use them in future days.
Of course, if you are scum, like I suspect, we'd be able to look at your "reads" in another light...

-----------------

@Stanari, Tammy

On the topic of lurker lynches, what I'm really saying is we probe, we pressure, we make lurkers go on record and then judge them fairly. I really don't care how easy or convenient they are to join at first. If we make people go on record, they are no longer a lurker lynch, right? After they explain themselves, those wagons are no longer that easy or convenient to be on.