The Syndicate

a2thezebra wrote:

Marco wrote: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's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.

a2thezebra wrote:And to answer your concern Marco, I'm not entirely sold on a baddie read of Frog yet, because this approach could just be his style and therefore I could be suspecting him for something irrelevant to his alignment. I do however think that in general going after lurkers is a common baddie tactic, and I also think that the way he's gone about it by denying that it's a policy lynch is very alarming.

Marco wrote: I like that you want to focus on the lurkers but I don't think performing vote gymnastics to build competing wagons is a good idea. This works best if you can believe the Top 8 posters are all town (which I think is very improbable). Following this plan basically means their votes are going to be "random". In the sense that we can't use the vote history later for any information. They will just be splitting their votes among the 4 lowest posters regardless of their own suspicions and we'd be at a loss for vote patterns today. Only people we'll really get information on are the MIDposters for stating their cases for or against the LOWposters. Also, we're not yet past half of Day 1 either, I wouldn't say it's fair to say that the low posters are low posters, just yet. There's plenty of time to post and contribute.

I support the spirit of your plan but not the execution. I have an alternative. We each make a list of 4-5 low posters/lurkers/etc. A list of people we think are trying to skirt by with no effort or just people we want to see more participation for. And then we place our votes accordingly.

Dyslexicon wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dyslexicon wrote:Okay, cool, thanks.

In order to help me solve the game and feel comfortable that I can start substantively reading players (particularly in the early stages of the game), I've found that I like to engage other players in live conversation, particularly after I've recently caught up on a bunch of content, and unfortunately I haven't been able to do that yet.

Likely I'll be working on a rainbow list once I'm caught up as well. Helps me sort my thoughts on everyone and keeps me transparent. And I always like feedback on it, though usually only Golden gives it to me.

I see. I'm partial to rainbow lists. I often do them as well, it's quite common on PerC. However, I don't think I'm going to do one here, cause I just don't feel like it now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'd sooner follow this than Frog's plan, but I'd much rather Day 1 not turn into "let's decide which lurker to lynch". I think it's in our best interest to avoid this as much as possible.

With that said, if multiple players do not post much game-related content by the end of Day 1, then I'm not averse to analyzing what semblance of game-related content is there and judging based on that, if any of that content is particularly suspicious. I just don't want to judge it based on post count alone, and I think we have a lot to base our votes on already, let alone after more discussion.

Marco wrote:Besides our town-reads and scum-reads, we also point out 3-4 people who should be posting more (not just quantity, but content) than they actually are. Yeah, I guess if it's a strong enough read, you can just include them in your scum-reads, but in my experience, I don't get convincing reads on people if they're not posting enough. So this last category can be included to count people who you think are scum but they haven't posted enough posts or thoughts to actually have a solid case against them.

If a bunch of us agree on the "luker" list, I think they will be good candidates for voting on. This tactic will be more useful going into Day 2 or 3, by the way.

Silverwolf wrote:I just woke up and am still a little cranky but I have to rant for a bit cuz it's bugging me and will make me feel better:

In Turf Wars, I went after low content lurkers and turned out to be right that some of them were scum. I was basically discredited by townies in that game as being tinfoil because those posters had low content and they kept going after each other and the wrong people. Even after I was killed, they ignored me.

My MP vote was to get a reaction out of him. I DO NOT appreciate Golden's insinuations that I was going after him for RL which I would never do. Golden kept twisting it to that and it pissed me off. There was nothing wrong with my vote and I have no idea of MP's alignment-I'm gonna go read all his posts a little later-but I DO NOT appreciate Golden interfering with my vote and interaction with MP and defending MP the way he did. If MP is town and Golden is town, it's fine but there is no way for Golden to know that unless he's scum.

I think he's scum who knows MP's alignment. It's the only way for him to be that defensive of him because it's way too early with too little content to get a read on MP so he's not defending a townread as town.

He's a damn good player. As scum, it is easy to get into an argument and be all logical and level headed and look like town. Who's to say he didn't do that? That said, I'm gonna read all the reactions to is and see what others thing. I incorrectly tunneled Golden in Turf Wars when he was town and even though I realized that and backed off then, I don't want to make the same mistake here. Also, us tunneling back and forth will get us nowhere. I need to get some reads on and ISO others today.

ika defending me is null, he defends me all the time but I need to see more than just defending me here from him when he can post properly again

Dyslexicon wrote:I'm a bit bothered that noone has had more than 3 votes at a point (iirc). I'm not used to that at all. We need more wagons. We need clear lynch candidates.

Silverwolf wrote:I didn't get upset that the fact ika and I were dating was brought up but in Turf Wars we were both early read as scum for concentrating on each other to start the game and that's really NAI with us. It' not alignment indicative and it was frustrating to be scumread for playstyle. That said, I don't do that nearly as much in games now. It helps me broaden my focus.

Pedit-or linki (depending on what lingo I want to use)

I am used to wagoning people as well. For whatever reason they don't do that as much here. I'm gonna check out the wagons later today.

Dyslexicon wrote:Let's wagon Golden then. Only because of love and support, naturally.

VOTE GOLDEN

ika wrote:

Dyslexicon wrote:

ika wrote:so after rereading the first few pages (more like glossed), sig seems odd, I agree on silvers idea of MP being "cautious" (town should not care IMO)

town read delex, frog (not doing the plan), and sloonie.

anyone else want to talk to me go right ahead i got about 20-30 mins

I want to know if you have the intention of reading the whole thread before day ends?

probally not. this is not only due to the fact im heading out, but if i fall behind and try to read i jsut start glossing over and get disintrested.

its noramly why i try to go from the start

ika wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

ika wrote:so after rereading the first few pages (more like glossed), sig seems odd, I agree on silvers idea of MP being "cautious" (town should not care IMO)

town read delex, frog (not doing the plan), and sloonie.

anyone else want to talk to me go right ahead i got about 20-30 mins

Town shouldn't care about where they cast their votes?

"sig seems odd".
1) Does odd = suspicious?
2) How does sig seem odd?
3) Do you suspect sig?

yes, town has a lack of anwareness and woundt car if they voted willy nilly(ie me and silver do it all the time as town), scums try to move their votes little as possible to not be caught by their votes

that being said, what i find odd about sig is that hes diffrent then what i played with him before.

Dyslexicon wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Wagons with this plan it will be easier to pick apart wagons. Better analysis latter, if my lynch is avoided within the 4 provided, yay me! If not, oh well.

Sig is try harding harder than I've seen sig try hard... Or at least it feels that way.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Can you please clarify
- What do you preceive "this plan" to be, and how will it make it easier to pick apart wagons. Examples?
- What do you mean with "the 4 provided".

You mentioned you couldn't read sig, so I wondered why you felt the need to say that. Now you're saying he's different somehow (if I understand you correctly)?

Dyslexicon wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Feeling slightly town about this post, Dizzy. Digging it. Your reads are easy to comprehend yet they appear genuine. Can you elaborate on your reads of sig and Zexy?

Think I had town point on sig at first just due to mention he liked living (seemed like a town mindset). But I've grown suspicious of him, cause I don't feel he adds a lot. Not much else to say, but I should probably ISO him at a point.

Zexy, I don't know. On the townier side of null to me. Just due to the fact that I'm able to look at his whole play and see it as a comprehensive town play I guess. I don't have much specifics here either.

Dizzy, what do you think of PSI this game?

I commented on this in the post you quoted above this one. Most of all I want him to post more now.

Silverwolf wrote:Dyslexicon-I didn't borrow your reasoning but I can see where you would think that as it does look similar. Don't know what else to say. I do agree with you there on Golden but I've given several independent thoughts on him as well as directly interacting with him last night.

ika does not defend me as much when I am scum, he has caught on to me pretty quick in 2 of my scum games against him, the third I fooled him most of the game but this was before we were dating so I think the defending things is due to that plus if he truly believes I am town, he will strongly defend me no matter what. He can answer a lot more to this. He's still out of town.

I agree with MP that ika should let me answer for myself so ika, please do that, TIA.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Silverwolf wrote:Dyslexicon-I didn't borrow your reasoning but I can see where you would think that as it does look similar. Don't know what else to say. I do agree with you there on Golden but I've given several independent thoughts on him as well as directly interacting with him last night.

ika does not defend me as much when I am scum, he has caught on to me pretty quick in 2 of my scum games against him, the third I fooled him most of the game but this was before we were dating so I think the defending things is due to that plus if he truly believes I am town, he will strongly defend me no matter what. He can answer a lot more to this. He's still out of town.

I agree with MP that ika should let me answer for myself so ika, please do that, TIA.

What's TIA? Sorry, the abbreviations are numerous and I'm catching most, but not all of them.

Marco wrote:

Zexy wrote:Marco 43 – Too many one-liners, kinda “fake” activity if you ask me. Not feeling too good about him yet.

What do people think about this? I ISO'd myself and I can sort of see some one-liners, but I can't really see how Zexy is calling my activity fake. She feels disingenuous IMO. I have had other reasons to suspect Zexy, too, but it could be that it's OMGUS-motivated, so I request others to ISO me and tell me what they think about Zexy's read on me.

a2thezebra wrote:

Marco wrote: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's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.

Dyslexicon wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I find it very much in character for Golden to defend me, regardless of his alignment, since it's something we both will not hesitate to do if we think the other one is town and is attracting heat early on, since we both often talk a lot and attract a lot of early suspicion, whether fairly or unfairly. A town Golden will not hesitate to defend with conviction any player he believes is town, but a scum Golden would have a similar incentive here since he would know I'm town. So the fact that he defends me is NAI, but I wanted to elaborate upon this nonetheless, in an attempt to provide meaningful context for Silverwolf and anyone else interested.

Do you think Golden had any reason to read you town at that time?

a2thezebra wrote:Oh and one last thing, I'd just like to make a comment about how all the newcomers are doing an outstanding job with the game so far, regardless of alignment. You all should fit in nicely here.

Silverwolf wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: I do however think that in general going after lurkers is a common baddie tactic, and I also think that the way he's gone about it by denying that it's a policy lynch is very alarming.

Well, I hate to self meta but here goes, I will try to keep lurkers around as scum. I would much rather go after a higher quality poster. That said, and I believe this was already brought up by someone, it isn't the quantity of the posts that matters but the content. I do keep that in mind and more try to go for UTR (under the radar players) that I can't read or who are not being noticed more than just low content overall.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Silverwolf wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: I do however think that in general going after lurkers is a common baddie tactic, and I also think that the way he's gone about it by denying that it's a policy lynch is very alarming.

Well, I hate to self meta but here goes, I will try to keep lurkers around as scum. I would much rather go after a higher quality poster. That said, and I believe this was already brought up by someone, it isn't the quantity of the posts that matters but the content. I do keep that in mind and more try to go for UTR (under the radar players) that I can't read or who are not being noticed more than just low content overall.

I would say that's generally the most common mafia approach; it's rarer for them to kill off lurkers and keep the talkative ones around, but that strategy has merit as well, as it leads to more tinfoiling.

Marco wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Marco wrote:Quick semi-OT:
1. Can someone explain the color tagging here to me?
2. Is there any way to have the quoted post be linked in the quote box? The board I come from lets us attach the post number after the player's name - quote=ProfessorX;2837489. Convenient, especially when you want to cut out superfluous text but don't want to make tough for people to find out the context.

Did anyone ever answer this question of Marco's, does anyone know? Sorry if it has been answered, but I saw it asked a little while ago on page 5 and I haven't seen a response yet. If not, I can respond.

Yes, I asked this a couple times already and no one responded.

Lastly, the ped tag is for pedantic statements, and it was created recently by Golden. Pedantic pink is for when you're feeling pedantic. It can be generated by [ ped ] and [ / ped ] without the spaces.

DrWilgy wrote:

Dyslexicon wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Using the hammer by this means will help us gain valuable information based on flip. If I cannot be judged based on my little contribution, at least by this plan I can assist town in some way.

The only negative I see is the potential of hitting a low key civ power role.

No I'm horribly behind. I've been looking for my name during my skim though. Still have a bad gut feel on Sloon. I'm having trouble reading Sig. I have a bad gut feel on Golden.

What valuable information would be gathered by lynching a lurker?
What information do you see coming out of lynching you based on you having low content?

What is your reason for mentioning you have trouble reading Sig, is there a point to this?

Wagons with this plan it will be easier to pick apart wagons. Better analysis latter, if my lynch is avoided within the 4 provided, yay me! If not, oh well.

Sig is try harding harder than I've seen sig try hard... Or at least it feels that way.

Marco wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'd sooner follow this than Frog's plan, but I'd much rather Day 1 not turn into "let's decide which lurker to lynch". I think it's in our best interest to avoid this as much as possible.

With that said, if multiple players do not post much game-related content by the end of Day 1, then I'm not averse to analyzing what semblance of game-related content is there and judging based on that, if any of that content is particularly suspicious. I just don't want to judge it based on post count alone, and I think we have a lot to base our votes on already, let alone after more discussion.

I agree. Day 1 is too early to follow this tactic. I think this revised version I suggest is better.

Marco wrote:Besides our town-reads and scum-reads, we also point out 3-4 people who should be posting more (not just quantity, but content) than they actually are. Yeah, I guess if it's a strong enough read, you can just include them in your scum-reads, but in my experience, I don't get convincing reads on people if they're not posting enough. So this last category can be included to count people who you think are scum but they haven't posted enough posts or thoughts to actually have a solid case against them.

If a bunch of us agree on the "luker" list, I think they will be good candidates for voting on. This tactic will be more useful going into Day 2 or 3, by the way.

Marco wrote:I don't generally make rainbow lists but I like when others do as it helps a lot in reading them, so let's see these rainbow lists. And in the interest of others getting the same insight of me, I'll post my rainbow list too, but as of now, it's pretty gray along the middle.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Marco wrote: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's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.

For those that care about meta, I want to say that this is 100% within zebra's typical meta. NIA for me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Marco wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Marco wrote:Quick semi-OT:
1. Can someone explain the color tagging here to me?
2. Is there any way to have the quoted post be linked in the quote box? The board I come from lets us attach the post number after the player's name - quote=ProfessorX;2837489. Convenient, especially when you want to cut out superfluous text but don't want to make tough for people to find out the context.

Did anyone ever answer this question of Marco's, does anyone know? Sorry if it has been answered, but I saw it asked a little while ago on page 5 and I haven't seen a response yet. If not, I can respond.

Yes, I asked this a couple times already and no one responded.

I got this.

1. I'm not sure whether you mean how to do it or what they're for, so I'll assume you meant both.
The off-topic (OT) tag is for when in-game players want to comment on something strictly not game related. Such as if I talk about what my favorite album is, what movie I just watched, or whether ika was visiting Silverwolf. It can be generated by [ OT ] and [ / OT ] without the spaces.
The dead tag is for players who are dead and talk strictly off-topic, so it's basically the OT tag but for players who are no longer in the game. It can be generated by [ dead ] and [ / dead ] without the spaces.
The np tag is for non-players who talk strictly off-topic, such as the Moderator on Duty (in this game, Dom). It can be generated by [ np ] and [ / np ] without the spaces.
The sarc tag is for players when posting something sarcastic and want to make it apparent so that another player doesn't miss that point or get pissed off, since tone can be difficult to convey via text only. For example, if I wanted to say "What a great point!" when I really think it was absolutely absurd and want to use sarcasm to emphasize the absurdity of that person's point, I'd put it in orange. It can be generated by [ sarc ] and [ / sarc ] without the spaces.
Lastly, the ped tag is for pedantic statements, and it was created recently by Golden. Pedantic pink is for when you're feeling pedantic. It can be generated by [ ped ] and [ / ped ] without the spaces.

These are all customs that developed organically in Lostpedia-based mafia communities way back when and have become a normal part of The Syndicate culture for that reason, since many of the site's original (and current) members originally came from one or multiple of the various LP-based mafia communities (all now long defunct).

2. Unfortunately, we don't have this mod currently added to the site (consider this on the to-do list though, since I want it). You can always copy the URL of a specific post by clicking the "Re: Mafia Championship Scrimmage" at the top of the post, so that URL will lead directly to that post. That's what I do when I want to reference a post specifically, since you can use [ url ] and [ / url ] tags to make text linkable. Like this.

Hope that sufficiently answers your questions.

Marco wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Marco wrote: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's both. I take no shame in soft(?) defending the lower posters, if for no other reason that I feel like they get taken advantage of by manipulative baddies almost every game. I'm not ruling out the possibility that any of them are bad, but I am ruling out the possibility that they are bad simply for not posting a lot of content.

For those that care about meta, I want to say that this is 100% within zebra's typical meta. NIA for me.

I'm leaning on town with her responses too. But is it really typical of zebra to even discourage pushes on low posters, not actual lynches? Maybe I'm reading into it a bit much and she doesn't care about the push and if that's the case, I understand.

Silverwolf wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Silverwolf wrote:Dyslexicon-I didn't borrow your reasoning but I can see where you would think that as it does look similar. Don't know what else to say. I do agree with you there on Golden but I've given several independent thoughts on him as well as directly interacting with him last night.

ika does not defend me as much when I am scum, he has caught on to me pretty quick in 2 of my scum games against him, the third I fooled him most of the game but this was before we were dating so I think the defending things is due to that plus if he truly believes I am town, he will strongly defend me no matter what. He can answer a lot more to this. He's still out of town.

I agree with MP that ika should let me answer for myself so ika, please do that, TIA.

What's TIA? Sorry, the abbreviations are numerous and I'm catching most, but not all of them.

Yeah, I'm trying to explain as many as I can. It is thanks in advance

At the risk of looking like I'm defending him, why do you want to lynch ika?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dammit, I screwed up, and on my most key point too. EBWOP: ika said town try to move their votes as much as possible. Not little (that would be mafia). But what you criticized me for was a propensity to not keep my vote where it was (i.e., move it around).

ika wrote:@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

Marco wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dammit, I screwed up, and on my most key point too. EBWOP: ika said town try to move their votes as much as possible. Not little (that would be mafia). But what you criticized me for was a propensity to not keep my vote where it was (i.e., move it around).

ika is in a weird spot for me and dont't take this as a defense, but IIRC he said that "mafia tries to move their votes as less as possible" and not "town tries to move their votes as much as possible". While they both sound similar, they are quite different things.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

ika wrote:@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

ika wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

ika wrote:@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

And how many times have I said in the past 2 games I say "screw logic"?

I don't care for logic one bit.

ika wrote:And as I have said, I've been mobile posting so I can't make proper post just snips here and there.

I didnt answer cus all it is is just that odd

Still don't see a vote from you

VOTE MOVING PICTURES

Let's lynch this

ika wrote:I have named them

Your scum cus you took so damn long to back up your accusations with a vote.

Eat rope

I lack reasons cus it's guy as I have said in my games that you seem
To have ignored

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Marco wrote:

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.

Marco, regarding this post on zebra and lurkers, I have the following (succinct) thoughts:

Regarding your first paragraph and the questions contained within: Yes, yes, and yes.

zebra's MO is "passionate" and "theatrical", so I think that's what you're picking up. You even note that zebra isn't against pressuring them, just policy lynches, something I've seen her say multiple times, but something I'm in agreement with, at least at this stage in the game.

If you want to engage more with respect to this conversation, let me know, but I don't feel like I had anything more to say between this post and the others I've made on the topic today.