Sen (Thomas Grant)
NumberTwo (Lilliam Brady
ika (David Graham, Edward O'Connor)
Fragos (Ernest Mitchell)
Calix (Thomas King, Ernest Mitchell)
SuperJack (Thomas King)
Klingoncelt (Margaret Smith)
Firebringer (Bertha Anderson)
Orpz (Roy Larkins)
Frozen Angel (William Reed)
Mikecall (Clara Wilson)
Apocist (Joseph Johnson)
Timetrx (Walter Livingston)
Secondpassing (Ethel McAllister, Clarence Shephard)
powerofdeath (Florence Palmer)
Helz (Harry Smith)
Damus_Graves (Mary Hughes)
ThePaladin (Fred Robinson)
Silverwolf (Gertrude Banks)
AIVION (Thomas Grant)
I have yet to get lynched (Thought technically was going to be lynched in yours before it was halted mid day)
I just get repetedly targeted for night actions by players, primarily I think is because I am just active in the game.
When your options for a night action are to target someone who is active or someone who has zero posts, your more likely going to target the person posting. I really don't think its anything I am doing specifically, I mean some people can correct me if I am wrong.
I don't think my play is terrible, though there is definitely room for improvement. I think its just a part of our meta that is anti activity. If you are active, you are focused on because the ones not posting just don't seem like a good target for a night action because they are hiding in a corner in the room.
Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.
There's just a certain vibe in the way youmovetype that attracts people to you. Or it's the way you deflect criticism that gives the impression that you have something to hide.
Or it's the fact that you just forget that the pleb lurkers exist. I would have thought that Investigatives would have been more likely to pick lurkers because the little they post are more telling and it means you are less likely to waste a night on someone who will die early.
In terms of posts, this M-FM was around 2,880 posts. Cop Out and watermeloann still top the charts ;)
Then why not try to make it so everyone who plays a game is active, instead of joining the cancerous side of the lurkers? If everyone is active, then noone would be singled out because of that.
Hell, I'm getting killed during n1 or 2 every other game unless I play Town leader, which I hate, yet I'd never consider lurking as a valid strategy just to survive.
I am not saying that you should lurk, I am saying I see the incentive to do so. If your scum game is shit, it feels easy and way safer to just not post. I don't have any respect for that, and honestly my play in last FM was atrocious cause I was only active Day 1 really, and then lurked out the rest of the days. So its not like I am above anyone else (so not to single anyone out)
I don't know how you get the games to just not lurk period. Threats of modkilling only go so far, we could force replace too, but we have difficulty filling up the games to begin with.
So its just a bad situation, and the lurkers know this.
Trust me, the mods in this game threatened to mod kill me and force replace me in the game, I said "Who you going to replace me with?"
Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.
Both of the invite-only games were active.
Getting rid of lurking issues in your games is easy if you know who the lurkers are and you don't invite them. Of course, this invite-only system has many flaws, since it excludes both new players and a lot of people who might not be lurkers and who didn't come to the mind of the host when sending the invites.
As for modkills and stuff, you don't threat about replacing or modkilling, you do it right away like I did with the two randms who joined R&J.
And regarding people with bad scum play, noone will improve thir play -scum or not- by being inactive; you learn by fucking up over and over until you figure out how to stop doing it (I swear I'll win as a Jester someday ;__;).
I think we can stop the lurking problem if the community as a whole works together to get rid of it.
and I'm agreed with helz that lurking is hurtful to the very nature of games. If you want to play join the game. being scum is just a part of games
I naturally lurk more as scum than town but I'm still not a lurker as scum. I've been working hard to even it out since I sometimes hyper post as town.
If it's only invite-only, there should be a more difficult time to fill up M-FMs. So the real problem is a lack of active players.
Changing people's behaviors is a natural goal when its a problem, but it seems really hard to actually do so.
It's been discussed before, but it would be nicer to have more people play here, that way we have more people to replace in and keep the games exciting.
If I am not too lazy, I'll work on seeing if I can do something about getting more people.
More people -> less lurkers -> more exciting -> more participation
Banana rant here.
I have been skimming your spam in this post game thread in the sidebar. I haven't read all of your arguments, but many of you are probably repeating yourselves over and over, whether its something you've said here or something you've said in another thread about the subject. It's spammy and annoying.
My first hosted game had 22 pages in the game with 4 days and 48 hour days set and I consider it to have been successful.
While I don't appreciate those that post once in 48 hours, the host can take care of those that post once or twice and that's it. Those that post 5-10 posts in 48 hours - that's completely reasonable and acceptable. Spamming a game to 30+ pages a day makes it annoying to read and gives less incentive to those who don't post 50+ times a day to keep up.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I feel like this is true to an extent but night actions reflect reads or lack of reads. By being active as scum players can improve their scum game and by asking players post game "Why did you target me specifically" you can learn what you did that drew their attention.
@BananaCucho
I agree that 5-10 posts can be all a player needs to make but the only time I really saw it done right that comes to mind was a FM that Yayap played. He hardly ever posted. Maybe 3-5 times a day but every post had real analysis and original contributions. I would say 9 times out of 10 players that hardly post also do not do any analysis or provide any reasoning in their posts. I can try to dig it up if you want the example but that entire game I never once pushed his slot for contributions in spite of it having an extremely low post count.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
It depends on the content, not on the quantity. If you post 5 times a day with something actually relevant to the game, that's perfectly fine for me. Not everyone's go the same ammount of free time, and that's alright.
We aren't talking about that. Lurking isn't a matter of post count, it's a matter of intentionally not participating in the games you signed up for, whether it's because you're bad and don't think you can win by actually playing, or because you are an asshole who doesn't care about the games they sign up for, that doesn't matter.
This is about those who never do shit unless the host forces them to, or who only post 5 times a day to excuse their lack of participation because "omg, I have a real life". Everybody does. Don't have time to play? Though shit. Replace out or don't sign up to begin with.
If a player making 5-10 posts is only making posts without content, instead of spending 1/4 of the posts in thread plus post game posts complaining about it, lynch them and be done with it.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
What's the point of that when the simpler solution is to keep them from entering the game in the first place? No point in upsetting the balance of the game by having to spend 2-3 days policy-lynching. That's boring and nobody wants to sign up to lynch an inactive slot.
That's exactly one of the major problems; in small setups, sometimes you can't afford to waste a day policy lynching a lurker. Setups are balanced with all players at least doing the bare minimum, not with lurkers in mind.
eg; if you have a single idle townie, that's one mislynch you are forced to do because they are preventing the town from reaching enough votes to lynch. A mislynch plus nightkill instead of a scum lynch -which could happen without lurkers- results in a D2 start with 2 fewer townies. And that's if you have a single lurker, which more often than not isn't the case.
People shouldn't adapt their game based on those who don't even care about participating in said game.
Sure, that's the immediate solution but still unbalances the game in terms of the Town being deprived of an opportunity to scumhunt and lynch actual scum that day. It's possible the player in question ends up being scum, but not necessarily, and assuming a random distribution between Town and scum lurkers, you will probably end up lynching a Townie on average. Seems to be the need to couple this with a healthy amount of criticism directed to that person post-game so it doesn't happen again.
Conversely, if someone find themselves not being able to play for an unexpected reason, he or she should discuss with the host and replace out as soon as possible. Having your spot do nothing because of real-life obligations makes the game worse for everyone else. At least try to damage control it and leave the game so someone else can take your spot.