OK A PROPER RESPONSE huzzah
meowmixx Wrote:@Kyrastri; cough cough 
(sorry for the late response, I saw/pinappled it earlier) .... wow ._______.
*edit: Also, why Mr Mime for a second choice? Hoping it's not um... as eccentric as your reason for jynx
Holypie Wrote:Yeah I get what you mean, in other games I play day 1 usually ends up being a random lynch so I'm not too sure what to do on early days. Have we already gone through all of the quiet people?
We've gotten everyone to post at least once (to my knowledge anyway), but I think at this point we should be pushing for more discussion, even if it's not necessarily logical scum hunting or doing that mass roleclaim.
Nobody's really pushed for the mass roleclaim either so I don't think that's going to happen at this point...
LuvDWayULie Wrote:Chill, Simple. My vote is just to get you talking, which you did.
I don't know if valiantly throwing defenses can count as really contributing, though ._. The only instances I've seen Simple talk were to vote or defend themselves.
Simple Wrote:Why? I've posted just as much as Hypermug so why am I being targeted?
Minor disclaimer: I personally think that you just have nothing to contribute at the moment, but even mindless flavour posting might be better on Day 1. But if I were to justify voting for you, I'd be using the fact that:
1) Your posts so far have been all defenses and only to those who accuse you or votes.
2) You've gotten awfully defensive (throwing your own accusations), which I guess is natural but it's Day 1 and there's only one vote on you. That's not a cause to freak out over.
3) Hypermug's 'contributed', in a way, more than you have so far. They've been posting stuff about flavour, even if they have no real leads.
Simple Wrote:Is not talking a reason to vote someone off? Does it mean they are scum?
One vote doesn't necessarily mean that you're being voted off. I know it does feel like that, but keep in mind that there's around 17 other people hanging around, and any lynch that reaches majority today will only be by a very small margin. The only time we would make a majority lynch today is if any of the mafia slip up, and that's pretty unlikely.
edit: thanks TheBirds for pointing this out, but in no way do I mean that we vote off silent people on day 1. Day 1 is no man's land; these generally apply from the second day onwards and even then, there's people who play the inactive role and pull it off for their faction win.
But yes, not talking is very much a valid reason to vote someone off. Under the safe assumption that everyone in Town actually wants to win and wants to help everyone else win, to me it implies that they are either
1) Inactive town (active town has no reason to lay low)
2) Inactive neutral
3) Active unhelpful neutral laying low (active helpful neutral has no reason to lay low)
4) Inactive mafia
5) Active mafia laying low
Lurking town doesn't really do much to help town to win, and the likelihood of a helpful neutral deliberately keeping quiet is low. This increases the likelihood that people keeping quiet are more or less either of little use or are trying to harm the town (by taking away one of the few things town has during the day; discussion, and scumhunting).
Not to say that people aren't allowed to afk ever, but a little forewarning would be appreciated so people know where you are. Even if it's complete bs (which I hope people don't pull because I like to trust people :[ ).
I'm aware that, especially given the recent games, it's very much possible that the mafia are chatting among us and even manipulating us faon-style. But at least they're chatting; they have a higher chance of slipping up than if they were silent (last game is a textbook example, I don't think I have to say more on that), because the silent can't slip up and
show a glowing neon sign that they're mafia.
Simple Wrote:Why isn't the opposite true? Like someone posting a lot and voting for people at random being scummy?
In a game where posting is your only means of communication, how is posting a lot (as long as it's not garbage) a
bad thing? Flooding can be an issue, but the most active poster is still limited to how much they can discuss by the other players.
I agree with your second point, but only in the right context. On Day 1, fluffy (random) voting is to be expected. We're trying to pull everyone into the game and trying to make the best out of what is normally a slow start. Bandwagoning votes should be watched of course, since people who follow and place the second and above votes will need an increasingly strong argument as a basis for why they're voting for that person. And that's the same with every other day to follow, though by the second day we have actions to throw votes around for.
Simple Wrote:What if you call out the doctor or cop and get them voted off because they don't want to reveal themselves on day 1? That sounds pretty scummy to me.
If you've read any of the recent games, the power roles will be posting. They know that keeping silent isn't the best choice, and honestly, they have no business trying to make themselves a target for town at all.
)
)