Posted September 18, 2016
RWarehall: Look, many players have been talking about how you don't get much information by lynching lurkers as a reason not to vote them. I personally disagree. But you may have to work to make the lynch worthwhile. Press them, get their opinions of other players before they get the noose. Make them take a stand. That way, even if we are wrong, you have their scum reads. And if we are right, we have some information to analyze on who might or might not be their scum buddies.
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". Or we could lynch all the people who have something to say and take positions...and have a day 3,4 and 5 full of lurkers whose contributions amount to joining easy and convenient wagons without providing anything new to the discussion...
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.
babark: No? I thought I made it quite obvious. There are a number of people on my wagon, for, as you admit yourself, "flimsy" reasons. Like I said, you can't all be ignorant or that bad judges of character, so there's likely a concerted effort in my direction. You were simply the furtherest along already towards a lynch.
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?
I'd figure it'd be first the position of those making flimsy (again, as you said) accusations to first solidify them a bit before they're worthy of defending against.
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. You don't think it matters that several people came up with different reasons why docbear's post was such a scummy revelation? Adding to that the fact that the same people (in this case RWarehall) can't even consistently stick with one reason they were so surprised by the revelation?
That stinks incredibly to me of "Hey, this person seems to be in trouble, so let me lay on them in whatever way possible" followed a dozen pages later with "Okay, everyone's still laying on this person, but my initial reason was a bit ridiculous, so I'll pretend my issue was something completely different, hopefully less ridiculous".
I think it's perfectly normal, actually. And why would scum want to pretend? There's little benefit when the record is public. That stinks incredibly to me of "Hey, this person seems to be in trouble, so let me lay on them in whatever way possible" followed a dozen pages later with "Okay, everyone's still laying on this person, but my initial reason was a bit ridiculous, so I'll pretend my issue was something completely different, hopefully less ridiculous".
I'm again, curious, why the ridiculous claim? RW has basically admitted that nothing I say would change his opinion of what docbear said, so I don't see the point of even addressing it. I mean, what would be a suitable response, even for someone else? "You're overreading into it"? "It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means"? "Read it at face value"? Perhaps if there was a consistent reason why people think it is suspicious (and why that reason keeps hopping about like crazy insteading of staying constant, at least with the same person), I'd be able to address it better.
Can I trouble you for quotes or postlinks?