[Ruse]

The way i see it...in a game with very few posts...the scum want to stay nicely in the middle (maybe ever so slightly lower).
Not at the bottom of the post count...as its the bottom that inevitably always get looked at when there is nothing else to go on.

I would bet on the killers being in the middle of the pack as far as post count goes. probably someone that has a mix of spam (too keep up the post count) and some helpful (to look like he is being....helpful) posts.

But all of this is conjecture and doesnt really help this early in the game because of the fact that allot of guys only started later and therefore its hard to spot a posting trend until at least the end of day 2...thats why voting a low poster would be like drawing a name from a hat right now.

[Korlat]

Well, it seems counterproductive to decide to never lynch a low poster on day 1 - even unofficially. We're not trying to make this EASY for scum to hide.

I'll be back in a bit.

edit: cross post

I agree, the strange start to this game lends itself to a bit of leniency for the low posters.

This post has been edited by Korlat: 27 May 2009 - 08:10 AM

[Gamelon]

I'm not that keen on lynching a low poster either day 1. (He says making his 3rd or 4th post) Probably will be our last possible resort but even then I'm not sure if its going to tell us anything of interest.

Well we have 10 or so hours to go. Perhaps with a few more people around something will come up.

[Ruse]

I just want to be clear here before this turns into a full fledged debate.

I think that lynching someone purely on the premiss that they are a low poster is daft.
Not that we shouldnt lynch anyone because their post count is low and lynching someone who has a low post count is wrong.

By all means if you think a particular low poster is scum and its backed up with a case then i will have a look, but i wont vote off someone for simply having a low post count...its just too early on in the game.

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 1. 9 hours and 8 minutes remaining

18 Players still alive: Ampelas, D'riss, Emurlahn, Fener, Gamelon, Hood's Path, Kessobahn, Korlat, Korvalain, Liosan, Meanas, Mockra, Ruse, Shadow, Silanah, Telas, Tellan, Tennes

10 votes to lynch, 9 votes to go to night

1 vote for Shadow: ( Liosan )

Players not voted: Ampelas, D'riss, Emurlahn, Fener, Gamelon, Hood's Path, Kessobahn, Korlat, Korvalain, Meanas, Mockra, Ruse, Shadow, Silanah, Telas, Tellan, Tennes

[Korlat]

Ruse, on May 27 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

I just want to be clear here before this turns into a full fledged debate.

I think that lynching someone purely on the premiss that they are a low poster is daft.
Not that we shouldnt lynch anyone because their post count is low and lynching someone who has a low post count is wrong.

By all means if you think a particular low poster is scum and its backed up with a case then i will have a look, but i wont vote off someone for simply having a low post count...its just too early on in the game.

Normally you will not find me arguing against the idea of needing a case - but think about what you're saying. Basically this can be interpreted as, "if you are scum, post almost nothing in the beginning because it will then be impossible to build a case on you." You've sort of rephrased what you said at first, but it can still be interpreted as "low posters get a free pass on day 1".

Ok, let me ask you this:

People have been coming on and saying "there's not really anything substantial here to make a case on." If, with 2 hours to go there are NO feasible cases, do you feel that is then enough reason to lynch a low poster?

Personally, I would say that it's a fair (not perfect) reason to lynch a low poster, since that means that people here and contributing haven't been caught out for anything, so the probablility of catching a scum on day 1 is higher amongst the lurkers.

Obviously, if there is a more viable case somewhere, I too, will prefer that to just choosing a random lurker. I'm not advocating the lynching of a low poster so much as I'm arguing against an idea that they are somehow off limits.

Edit: added underlining to the main idea of my argument and spelling

This post has been edited by Korlat: 27 May 2009 - 10:31 AM

[Ampelas]

need to catch up, brb

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 1. 7 hours and 3 minutes remaining

18 Players still alive: Ampelas, D'riss, Emurlahn, Fener, Gamelon, Hood's Path, Kessobahn, Korlat, Korvalain, Liosan, Meanas, Mockra, Ruse, Shadow, Silanah, Telas, Tellan, Tennes

10 votes to lynch, 9 votes to go to night

1 vote for Shadow: ( Liosan )

Players not voted: Ampelas, D'riss, Emurlahn, Fener, Gamelon, Hood's Path, Kessobahn, Korlat, Korvalain, Meanas, Mockra, Ruse, Shadow, Silanah, Telas, Tellan, Tennes

[Meanas]

Got a page to read, back in a minute

[Ampelas]

9 hours left and not much to go on. but I'll read the thread again, I've got nothing else to do.

Edit: no that was 7 hours apparently ty PS

This post has been edited by Ampelas: 27 May 2009 - 11:08 AM

[Meanas]

This is the first mention of lynching low posters. FFS its day 1, why would you lynch a low poster day 1? Looking for an easy lynch and possibly drawing out a roled player. Bad form

Liosan, on May 26 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

Well, as always, we can pursue two different avenues on Day 1 lynches

1) we can do something we never do, and dlynch a low poster

2) we can try picking someone we think may be suspicious, and run with our gut feelings.

I used to dislike Shadow earlier in the day, as he seemed to be jumping at shadows (pun unintentional) a lot. But it would seem he's calmed down somewhat, so now I'm fairly stumped.

I'll be heading to bed soon, hopefully sleep will grant me some insight.

But wait, you already knew why its bad to try and go after the low poster (so why bring it up?)

Liosan, on May 26 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Korlat, on May 26 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

We always say we'll lynch a low poster, but never do. Too much sympathy for day 1?

Too much fear of hitting a power role, I'd say

and, Korv, I'm leaving soon, cba to log in invisible.

Vote Liosan

For not only being lazy, but also for being inconsistent.

[Korlat]

Telas, on May 26 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

Hmmm... I'm off for the time being. May be back later.

Ok, I just reread the thread (not bad, since it's only 6 pages) and only this stood out. Telas says he'd try to make some sort of case, but nothing stands out. Then in his next post he makes a thoughtful "hmmm" noise and disappears. He's not really trying, but is trying to sound like he is.

[Ruse]

Korlat, on May 27 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

Ruse, on May 27 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

I just want to be clear here before this turns into a full fledged debate.

I think that lynching someone purely on the premiss that they are a low poster is daft.
Not that we shouldnt lynch anyone because their post count is low and lynching someone who has a low post count is wrong.

By all means if you think a particular low poster is scum and its backed up with a case then i will have a look, but i wont vote off someone for simply having a low post count...its just too early on in the game.

Normally you will not find me arguing against the idea of needing a case - but think about what you're saying. Basically this can be interpreted as, "if you are scum, post almost nothing in the beginning because it will then be impossible to build a case on you." You've sort of rephrased what you said at first, but it can still be interpreted as "low posters get a free pass on day 1".

Ok, let me ask you this:

People have been coming on and saying "there's not really anything substantial here to make a case on." If, with 2 hours to go there are NO feasible cases, do you feel that is then enough reason to lynch a low poster?

Personally, I would say that it's a fair (not perfect) reason to lynch a low poster, since that means that people here and contributing haven't been caught out for anything, so the probablility of catching a scum on day 1 is higher amongst the lurkers.

Obviously, if there is a more viable case somewhere, I too, will prefer that to just choosing a random lurker. I'm not advocating the lynching of a low poster so much as I'm arguing against an idea that they are somehow off limits.

Edit: added underlining to the main idea of my argument and spelling

no i am not giving low posters a free pass.
It works both ways...you saying that we should lynch low posters if we have no other option now means that you are now giving high spam posters a free pass?

How do we decide how the killers have decided to play?

especially since now we have been discussing it im sure you wont fiond a single scum sitting among the low posters out of fear of getting lynched for symply being a low poster.
This very thing has been debated to hell and gone and the general consensus is you cant come to any conclusions on day one about low posters. some scum lurk...some semi post and others talk allot.

So being a low poster alone can not be a basis to lynch someone...makes no sense on day one.
You say we should vote of "lurkers" if there is no one else....but on day one how do you distinguish who is and isnt a lurker?
As far as i am concerned some of the guys that are sitting at the top of the post counts are ACTUAL lurkers....because they are here all the time and say next to nothing about the game...yet they are the "high posters" that should be spared on day one?
you can only find someone to be a lurker after a few days....sometimes people just cant get online on day one and then get labled low posters/lurkers.

you might as well pull a name from a hat...for all the good it would do.

[Ruse]

Korlat, on May 27 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

Obviously, if there is a more viable case somewhere, I too, will prefer that to just choosing a random lurker. I'm not advocating the lynching of a low poster so much as I'm arguing against an idea that they are somehow off limits.

Edit: added underlining to the main idea of my argument and spelling

well....i never said that they were off limits...just that you cant use low posting alone as a reason to lynch.

[Ruse]

Korlat, on May 27 2009, 07:24 AM, said:

Telas, on May 26 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

Hmmm... I'm off for the time being. May be back later.

Ok, I just reread the thread (not bad, since it's only 6 pages) and only this stood out. Telas says he'd try to make some sort of case, but nothing stands out. Then in his next post he makes a thoughtful "hmmm" noise and disappears. He's not really trying, but is trying to sound like he is.

I didnt like the way telas seemed to slightly go after you when you, when you had that rubbish case on shadow.
Smelled to me like a signal to shadow....

So far for me its shadow, then telas on my lynch worthy list.

in fact
Vote Shadow


edit - was became way

This post has been edited by Ruse: 27 May 2009 - 11:32 AM

[Korlat]

@Ruse,

I was thinking about it, and I realized that hitting a low poster on day 1 who turns out inno is likely to yield zero information. And you're right, low posters are eventually looked at, so it's only a "buy time" tactic in the end.

Ultimately this discussion is more of a distraction than helping much. Let's just leave it and try to find scum, wherever they may be.


edit: cross post

This post has been edited by Korlat: 27 May 2009 - 11:34 AM

[Meanas]

So neither of you feel like acknowledging my post? That sucks.

[Ampelas]

Meanas, I acknowledge your post.

[Meanas]

Ampelas, on May 27 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

Meanas, I acknowledge your post.

Thanks! Whew, for a minute, I thought I was talking to myself. Amp, who do YOU want to lynch? Outsider looking in and all of that.

[Korlat]

Meanas, on May 27 2009, 04:16 AM, said:

This is the first mention of lynching low posters. FFS its day 1, why would you lynch a low poster day 1? Looking for an easy lynch and possibly drawing out a roled player. Bad form

Liosan, on May 26 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

Well, as always, we can pursue two different avenues on Day 1 lynches

1) we can do something we never do, and dlynch a low poster

2) we can try picking someone we think may be suspicious, and run with our gut feelings.

I used to dislike Shadow earlier in the day, as he seemed to be jumping at shadows (pun unintentional) a lot. But it would seem he's calmed down somewhat, so now I'm fairly stumped.

I'll be heading to bed soon, hopefully sleep will grant me some insight.

But wait, you already knew why its bad to try and go after the low poster (so why bring it up?)

Liosan, on May 26 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Korlat, on May 26 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

We always say we'll lynch a low poster, but never do. Too much sympathy for day 1?

Too much fear of hitting a power role, I'd say

and, Korv, I'm leaving soon, cba to log in invisible.

Vote Liosan

For not only being lazy, but also for being inconsistent.

He does seem to suggest it as an option, and then says why it's not a good idea - in a later post. A little inconsistent, but I sort of read the first post as a "here are our equally crappy options".

Ruse, on May 27 2009, 04:31 AM, said:

Korlat, on May 27 2009, 07:24 AM, said:

Telas, on May 26 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

Hmmm... I'm off for the time being. May be back later.

Ok, I just reread the thread (not bad, since it's only 6 pages) and only this stood out. Telas says he'd try to make some sort of case, but nothing stands out. Then in his next post he makes a thoughtful "hmmm" noise and disappears. He's not really trying, but is trying to sound like he is.

I didnt like the way telas seemed to slightly go after you when you, when you had that rubbish case on shadow.
Smelled to me like a signal to shadow....

So far for me its shadow, then telas on my lynch worthy list.

in fact
Vote Shadow


edit - was became way

Telas does that? I'm not sure I see what you're saying.