Rat: Noted. FIgured something simple like that, just wanted to be sure.
To Andrew...
Wait, are you saying that because I'm posting in my usual style, its a bad thing and worthy of a vote? Me being myself shouldn't be held against. I'm aware, at the same time, I can't use this as a defense, but saying "he's posting large posts with little content!" isn't something that holds much water at the same time.
I don't think I've honestly been that lacking in content. True, my text would imply more, but as you admitted, my general posting style (Mafia, real life, etc.) is like that.
Following that up, how can you say I have little content? I put a case up against someone who didn't have one, and backed it up. ADMITTEDLY, most people didn't agree with it, but I did get a response to it from that person that only furthered my suspicions, and he even managed to ignore one of my points against him entirely.
If I'm reading this right, you're saying "he's also not willing to change votes!" I explained why, however:
I would rather vote for someone I feel suspicious of instead of a lurker. At the time, you were lurking, and so was GTAU (Alex was a unique case, blah blah he needs to post, his armor is wearing thin, etc.), who I held back on voting since I want clarification on whether he's going to get Modkilled for lack of posts without reason, or not.
I still feel suspicious of Eviltom. Other people seem to at least think he deserves taking a look at (you even admitted he's a tad suspicious yourself), and as I noted, I prefer to give lurkers some chance.
If you meant before then...umm...there wasn't much of a case made. I started getting the ball rolling, I stated that I didn't feel right about voting based on lurking alone, ESPECIALLY for someone new, and at the time, there weren't real any lurkers besides GTAU cause we were still somewhat in the joke phase. You didn't become a lurker suspect until somewhat after my post that stated that.
ACTUALLY, first person to bring up you was Eviltom himself. My next post is the vote on Eviltom.
How is this reluctance? Cause I didn't vote the instant we got serious? Sorry if I'm not one to jump on someone quickly...in fact, you did the very same thing. You come in, and say this:
Anyhow, can't say anything on Alex, because he's not around to. On a positive note, at least he managed to post something before vanishing. GTAU, on the other hand, is kind of in a stupid position. I'll give him a little more time to post, but this is definitely not looking good.
As far as content goes. So you too didn't vote...and you didn't even give a reason why not to vote. YOu did the same thing; I'm sensing some hipocracy here.
Next off, you claim El-Cid hasn't said a lot. I beg to differ.
Or rather, he hasn't said a lot, but his recent posts have at least some content. I feel a bit of hypocrisy coming in, honestly. You did the exact same thing in your post before this one; come in, say practically nothing, then leave. Then you yourself form a large wall of text (I'll grant you did have some catching up to do), and call me out for doing the same thing? And you claim I have little content, despite bringing up a case on someone new entirely, with reasons behind it?
Meeple's entire posting style, as well as his initial attack angle, seem distressing. They reek of WIFOM and actively challenge some accepted methods that are definitely decent patterns.
I go primarily against LAL on Day 1 (for all that I've been generalizing it lately.) People often Lurk Day 1 cause its hard to get a serious discussion going, and you are especially paranoid day 1 since ANYTHING you say can be held against you, I feel; as was noted in another game, Day 1 Lynches are always shaky, but are necessary to get somewhere.
Day 1 LAL doesn't do much, is my issue. Its *NOT* a decent pattern like you claim. On Day 2 and up? Yeah, that works. That's a way someone can try to sneak under the radar. On Subsequent days, ACTUAL DISCUSSION is happening, and someone can slip under without being seen, which scum would love. However, on Day 1, there's no reason to lurk, beyond having nothing to say (cause frankly, there isn't much to work with Day 1), being paranoid, etc. Not to mention the usual Joke Phase that occurs in the opening parts until someone decides to do something to get the ball rolling.
I reference NR Mafia on how LAL did nothing for us. IHateMyCPU apparently had no actual access to a computer, and moments after he was lynched, he came in, saying he was about to post, and stated he had no time (he was lucky enough to be someone who was a death speaker so he could explain his reasoning, but still.) THIS is why I give the benefit of the doubt often. He flipped town, if you forgotten, and lynching him did nothing for us. The next day was decided on a super fuck up (and me getting modkilled...not my finest moment) that was totally unrelated, based on role powers.
See where I'm getting at? LAL on Day 1 seems to be the lazy way out of Day 1; its "I can't make a case on someone without looking suspicious, better just go for the good old LAL!" At least, that's what it feels to me.
So what about you then? You actually came in, posted something...but had no content in it. You clearly were available for some time, and even had a post earlier; what you did was basically pop in, say something, pop out, hope its enough. Yeah, I'm picking at it pretty hard, but I seem to be not alone in this regard. This is why you seemed worse than other lurkers at the time. Shaky reason? Of course, but its Day 1; everything is shaky barring idiotic scum slips.
So why is Day 2+ LAL more significant?
As I said, REAL DISCUSSION occurs, people lose track of whose speaking sometimes, you can sneak under the radar as a result while people are sniping at others. Dhyer pretty much tried this strategy in Rando Mafia, and it almost worked but Yakko caught onto it, and pulled him out.
No, I am not resorting to Metagaming for my arguments. Yes, I am using past examples, but its merely to establish how LAL has helped and hurt in the past. So no, I don't agree that going against LAL on Day 1 is a bad strategy; and given what Alex just said, I apparently am not alone.
In any event, we finally got some verification on GTAU's situation, so um, yay?
Also, Alex finally posted, though I don't think I agree with him on "relevant content" yet. There's definitely been points made besides "He hasn't spoken, Lynch!" which makes me think he didn't really read the topic entirely, and just skimmed it. Though, suppose his idea of relevant content might be different than mine.
And lastly, I apologize for the wordy post; I actually try to be concise at times, but I fail at it.
