a2thezebra wrote:Okay, now I have a total of 11 posts. I am no longer in the bottom four.
...And yet I am just as likely to be bad as I was before I started posting.
Frog can deny it all he wants, but the methods he's using to base his vote are absolutely advocating a policy lynch.
a2thezebra wrote:If you're fine with a policy lynch, okay, whatever, but advocating a policy lynch while denying that it's a policy lynch is highly suspicious to me. Especially when that policy lynch is based on going after the lurkers. I have seen baddies use lurker policy lynches time and time again to pick off the civilian lower posters while cruising their way to endgame by being very opinionated and very vocal, and almost every time I've seen that they have always advocated lynching lurkers while shying away from the term "policy lynch" as much as possible.
I appreciate the effort and analysis Frog, but my personal opinion on that tactic - if it is genuine - is fuck that noise.
a2thezebra wrote:Not to mention that I've gone after lower posters as a baddie while being extremely loud and obnoxious myself. I've totally used the myth that lower posters are more likely to be baddies than higher posters to my advantage, almost every single time I've been bad in this game. Even after people got used to that being my meta both here and on RYM, it would still work.
"Zebra can't be a baddie even though she did this suspicious thing and that suspicious thing...she's posting so much! I say we lynch one of the lurkers!"
-A few hours later-
"Ah shit, RIP So-and-so. I was so convinced, too. Well, what other lurker could we lynch tomorrow?"
The lesson is never learned.
I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?
This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.
Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.
To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.
Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.
While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.
Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"
I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:
1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.
It can be generated by [ ped ] and [ / ped ] without the spaces.
