AGOT Mafia Game 72 - Adventures Beyond The Wall

[House Clegane]

If anybody just sits back and focuses on the low posters because of Rule 2 (or for any other reason, really), they are going to be suspicious. That's something I welcome - its a red flag that would get my attention. So the question is, why would you object to it, when its a chance to set somebody up for suspicious behavior?

People set themselves up doing this anyway. The direction from Grandison and subsequent discussion due to his direction gives more legitimacy towards that route. Agree or disagree?

Here's what you said -

Seems pretty clear that you are saying that making 7 posts would exclude a player from "everybody else's suspicion for the day".

And you also said -

Basically suggesting that we will mostly focus on players with 6 posts or less due to Rule 2.

1) I didn't misrepresent your statement. I quoted it for you above - you said "everyone".

2) Again, if some people are taking the easy route and just focusing on low posters, then I see that as a good thing. We're trying to find suspicious behavior, and that would qualify.

So you view Plumm's concern over Rule 2 as forced and filler for an FM to make a contribution?

Don't like the bandwagon post here by Cerwyn (even if he acknowledged it). Beyond the fact that he jumped on what looks to be a convenient target, I'm also bothered by the awkward wording. Comes off as artificial. The use of 'wow' and 'seriously' and the exclamation point all seems very contrived.

That post does look terrible.

The game got serious before Bracken ever posted.

But I'm serious as a fucking heart attack and you love it. :kiss:

Okay, already I'm starting to freak out. Everyone--and I mean everyone--is acting really damn scummy douchey. Seriously. Could you all stop bickering about stupid shit and calling each other arrogant?

Do you find the bickering to be suspicious? Any one over another?

That said...although I think that Plumm's prickliness in response to Bracken is pretty immature, I actually think his opposition to my idea is a point in his favour.

Is it not a relatively safe stance to pick considering they are not connecting/distancing/etc. to any other one particular player? As an FM it is much easier to discuss ideas/theories/groups of people rather than any one specific person.

And what surprises me is that this fact hasn't occurred to Yarwyck, who's very quick to defend me (the one player with the power to decide who's lynched) but very quick to attack everyone else for rather small details (such as Cerwyn for using the words "Wow" and "seriously").

You read that post as being completely genuine?

[House Mooton]

Pressure on who and what has been the ramifications of said pressure on the quiet group?

Wait, so a pressure != serious mandate? Lacking consistency here IMO.

Good to hitch your wagon to Yarwyck, smart move.

Not ideal would be one way of describing it. I guess Dayne didn't feel that pressure from the one person that gave it, eh?

Why do you think an FM would put themselves out on the line with what you view as a foolish argument?

Whoa - one post dude and you rip every line of it apart? With quotes even?

I think by saying "I will be looking at the low posters" it pressures people into posting more. If it's effective or not is another question, but I think it's worth it to try. Pressure on players is not the same as saying "I will vote out posters with less than 6 votes". There is no lack of consistency. Agreeing with Yarwick is what it is. I agree so far and I said so. Probably not smart actually since Grandison has bad guts on him. Why do FM do anything they do? Plumm probably doesn't think it's a bad argument, but I happen to think it is. Not only did I disagree (which is not crime) but I disliked his detailed rationale for it.

Seriously - that was a rabid and snarky, yet surprisingly content free attack on me. Are you the one Yarwick was accusing of this earlier? If so, then chalk another mark in the Yarwick is awesome column for me.

[House Clegane]

How the hell is this:

a direction to his masters?

Direction/explanation/whatever. That's what I thought on the time so I gave you my stream of consciousness at that point. If you are a symp it is tough to defend your masters if they plop themselves into a controversy foolishly. Spelling out the situation that should probably be clear seemed unnecessary and I thought could be construed as smoothing the road for masters.

I am utterly baffled by Bracken's play at this point. Because FM usually aren't this rabidly aggressive, but he's very...um, erratic. And seems to enjoy commenting on every single throwaway sentence people write and finding a contrived reason for calling it scummy. I really can't make heads or tails of it.

I have not found every post or person scummy. That is generally what I would comment on, however I don't think that it is an appropriate representation of my posts. As for being erratic, it takes a little while to get comfortable with the personalities and connections in a game so early on. Quite a bit can change post to post and I post a good amount, probably too much, take it for what you will.

I'll put my vote on Cerwyn for right now. I don't like the timing or manner in which they defended me nor their post on Dayne.

[House Clegane]

Whoa - one post dude and you rip every line of it apart? With quotes even?

Should I have replied in some other way?

I think by saying "I will be looking at the low posters" it pressures people into posting more. If it's effective or not is another question, but I think it's worth it to try.

So are you giving a pass to Dayne because he is ignoring a clear threat or just, well, for no good reason?

Pressure on players is not the same as saying "I will vote out posters with less than 6 votes". There is no lack of consistency.

I don't see the consistency from saying that you like that it is pressure brought convincingly from the King on low posters and then later in the post you immediately defend someone for a post and run.

Agreeing with Yarwick is what it is. I agree so far and I said so. Probably not smart actually since Grandison has bad guts on him. Why do FM do anything they do? Plumm probably doesn't think it's a bad argument, but I happen to think it is. Not only did I disagree (which is not crime) but I disliked his detailed rationale for it.

Why is it bad to agree with Yarwyck simply from Grandison's gut? Does Grandison feel more innocent to you than Yarwyck?

Re: Plumm, you think he has a bad argument and you dislike his detailed rationale...so you find him suspicious or wrong?

[House Mooton]

I disagree with Plumm, so I find his argument wrong. I find the way in which he makes it suspicious.

Just an FYI, I am not going to answer all of your questions point for point unless I see something I think is a valid point. I just don't have the energy and frankly, you have acquired the status of white noise. You have no focus and mainly you're trying to look all "I'm a hard ass and nothing is getting by me. See how I'm getting people to talk - see how I'm getting to the bottom of things? See? See?"

Having said that, I'm giving Dayne a pass because he's posted one thing. One. Thing. No, it's not pretty and it is, as has been said, middle of the road extraordinaire. It's not a reason to want him lynched at this point. If he makes more posts like this, then yes. If he continues to post and run, then yes. If he gets mod-killed, then we won't have to make that decision. He very well could be a real person with a real life who could only make a single quick post. Shocker.

[House Clegane]

I disagree with Plumm, so I find his argument wrong. I find the way in which he makes it suspicious.

Just an FYI, I am not going to answer all of your questions point for point unless I see something I think is a valid point. I just don't have the energy and frankly, you have acquired the status of white noise.

After no more than a couple posts back and forth you decide to announce you are taking your toys and going home? Just don't answer if you don't want to. I should, and will, follow up if it is something I care about. Man, and people call me a dick.

Having said that, I'm giving Dayne a pass because he's posted one thing. One. Thing. No, it's not pretty and it is, as has been said, middle of the road extraordinaire. It's not a reason to want him lynched at this point. If he makes more posts like this, then yes. If he continues to post and run, then yes. If he gets mod-killed, then we won't have to make that decision. He very well could be a real person with a real life who could only make a single quick post. Shocker.

You don't see the inconsistency of liking Grandison pressuring low posters...and then defending one immediately?

Again, what about Grandison makes you feel leery about agreeing with Yarwyck?

*EDIT*

Fixed quote tags.

[House Mooton]

It's not just my posts you've done this with. I think about half of your questions are valid/useful. Half of them are just digging for no reason. You really want to know "If you should have replied any differently" with the same intensity that you want to know why I let Dayne pass? It's called focus. Get some.

I like that Grandison put some pressure on low posters. I had very little faith that it would actually work. You could argue that I am part of the problem for diffusing the threat, and you're probably right. As a whole, we love to look at and threaten low posters, but in reality - it fucking works because we don't like to go after them. It pisses me off, but it fucking works.

I didn't get the impression that Grandison particularly liked Yarwick, so that was a tongue in cheek comment from me. A poor attempt at a joke apparently.

[House Stokeworth]

That said...although I think that Plumm's prickliness in response to Bracken is pretty immature, I actually think his opposition to my idea is a point in his favour. He knows that I'm not going to get lynched today.

WIFOM. I don't bring it up often, but it applies here.

Personally, I think a good FM would just act natural and neither kiss up or disagree with you based on your power.

But let's just assume for a second that the FM does decide that he needs to adopt a stance toward the king. Is there really a logical choice, between kissing up to the king or disagreeing with him? Both approaches have their pros and cons. If you agree with the king, maybe he turns a blind eye to you...or maybe he is wary of you trying to be his ally. If you disagree with the king, maybe he lynches you in anger...or maybe he decides that the FM wouldn't risk his wrath by disagreeing with him, and you end up safe.

Point being that it could go either way. So, no, I don't see Plumm's disagreement as a point in his favor. Especially when you consider the context of the disagreement - it's not as if he was standing up to you about suspects, which could actually be a risky move. He disagreed with your plan to focus on low posters. You really think he had to fear you lynching him for that?

If he's evil, he can easily just post seven times and escape my wrath.

Side note - I'm completely bewildered by the assumption that 7 posts automatically escapes the lynch. Even if we assume that you were being honest about using Rule 2, there still remains the possibility that everyone reaches 7 posts and you use different criteria to make the decision. And then add on top of that the fact that the game doesn't end on day 1 - future kings will use today as part of their evaluation. So any FM who would just make 7 posts and think he's safe would be an idiot.

And yes, I think it was a very reasonable assumption to make that I might have been using the lynch-low-posters plan to get away with not lynching my masters/partner if they were among the active players (if you note my question to Harclay, it even occurred to me that my plan could be construed that way). Disagreeing with me about Mafia theory does not make him scum.

I don't think it is a reasonable assumption at all. It's day 1. There are going to be plenty of minor or major points for you to grab on to, to justify your lynch choice. There isn't going to be any obviously evil player that the mob is clamoring for you to kill. If you're evil and a few people are voting for your master/partner/whoever, you can say 'sorry guys, I want to lynch Player X instead, for this reason' and a lot of people will just roll with it. Maybe the people pushing for your master/partner will object and come after you tomorrow, but that's probably going to happen no matter who you lynch.

So why would you have to complicate things? Would be unnecessary.

And no, I'm not saying that you are innocent. :P Just that Rule 2 isn't evidence of you being evil, in my opinion.

And what surprises me is that this fact hasn't occurred to Yarwyck, who's very quick to defend me (the one player with the power to decide who's lynched) but very quick to attack everyone else for rather small details (such as Cerwyn for using the words "Wow" and "seriously").

Where did I defend you? I can remember one post that might read that way - the first half of my first post to Plumm. But aside from that, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Anyway, my approach to the start of day 1 is to look for any excuse to begin a discussion. Plumm made a post that I disagreed with. So I said that, and explained why. I wanted to prompt a response from him, and further question him on his opinions, to see where things would go. FM usually don't like to talk a lot or answer questions in detail, because it can lead to inconsistencies or bind them to a particular opinion that could be inconvenient in future days. So I like to get players talking.

I find it really strange that everyone is assuming that every day 1 discussion is automatically equivalent to "OMG you are so evil!!!" Things often start with a small disagreement, and then build from there. I'm personally looking to ask questions, pressure people, and see if I can get them to post concrete opinions, contradict themselves, be defensive, etc.

With regard to Cerwyn - I'm not sure how you could read that post and think it was genuine. What you call "small details" I call very suspicious.

I know that D1 is when you call people on trivial stuff to provoke reactions, but TBH, I'm not getting a "probing for motivations" vibe. I'm getting a "digging up dirt to make people look bad" vibe. He's accused Cerwyn of defending Vyrwel and Bracken of distracting from the pressure on Plumm, but he's defended me quite a bit. (I mean, obviously, I agree with a lot of what he's saying, since the plan was my idea, but let me indulge my paranoia.)

Again, can you show me where I defended you?

As for the accusation that I'm "digging up dirt" to set people up....obviously, I disagree. I explained my approach above. Not sure what else there is to say.

Yarwyck, my gut reads aren't so great, so do you think this is a fair accusation?

No, I don't think it's a fair accusation, because its not what I've been doing.

Also, what do you think about the point that an FM would try to get on the good side of the king?

As I said earlier in this post, I think a good FM would just act naturally and not take any intentional stance toward the king. A less intelligent FM could kiss up, or could take the opposite approach - both strategies have their risks and benefits. So overall, I find it to be a null tell.

Although...I should note one exception. I think that Bracken is being extremely blatant about insisting that he won't follow the King. To me, that is suspicious. He's beating his chest and shouting to the rooftops that he'll follow his own path. He wants to make it very clear that he isn't kissing up, and I see that as a player who is too concerned about how other players perceive him.

Do you suspect Plumm, or do you just disagree with his interpretation of Mafia theory?

Like I said above, I was looking to start a serious discussion with somebody, and Plumm posted something that I disagreed with, so I chose him. I didn't go into it with any suspicion of him based on his objection to Rule 2, but I wanted to see where things would go. After a few posts back and forth, here's where I stand:

1) I don't understand why Plumm was afraid your plan would lead to people focusing on low posters. As I told him, I would have seen that as a good thing, because they would have stood out as suspicious.

2) I felt like he got over-defensive in his response in post 65. He got upset and claimed I misrepresented his words, when I clearly didn't. I'll be interested in hearing his response to the quotes I posted for him.

3) I think it's strange that Bracken went on the attack when he saw me questioning Plumm. Bracken is now claiming that he is okay with pressuring people, and he's clearly taking that approach to the game himself - yet he was eager to shut down my interaction with Plumm. Normally, I'd say that he's being too obvious to be a partner/symp. But after the most recent game I played in, where the FM blatantly defended each other and that led me to make the incorrect conclusion about them, I'm not willing to say that anything is too obvious. I'm going to judge it on face value, which is that Bracken leaped to defend Plumm for no reason.

So yeah, at this point I do find Plumm suspicious.

[House Mooton]

I went back to pinpoint why Plumm's posts struck me as scummy when Harclay's didn't. Neither of them liked Grandison's announcement. Harclay for the reason that he thought low posting was a null tell. His tone was easy and his reasoning was sound. Plumm's main disagreement was not for the intent, but rather the announcement of it. This I don't really agree on. He claimed that people could argue that Grandison was giving the FM a safe place to hide (over 6 posts), but wouldn't that be a good thing? (that people would bring that point up, not hiding the FM)

... I'm not criticising his idea. I was criticising the announcement primarily, as I personally think it could have the above points brought against it.

So why not actually bring those points up against it, or at least observe to see if this is happening and bring this up tomorrow when you can do something about it? I don't particularly understand this line of thinking. The tone was a lot more formal (which could be a style thing, I admit).

Looking at them both, Harclay comes off much better in expressing his disagreement. Plumm is slightly scummy. This was about the time that Bracken showed up and some of his first comments seemed to resonate with me (claiming Harclay innocent from a comment about RP and declaring Plumm's explanation fishy). I may not enjoy sparring with him, but I don't really find him scummy. Annoying, yes.

[House Mooton]

I think that Bracken is being extremely blatant about insisting that he won't follow the King. To me, that is suspicious. He's beating his chest and shouting to the rooftops that he'll follow his own path. He wants to make it very clear that he isn't kissing up, and I see that as a player who is too concerned about how other players perceive him.

Or it could be a player setting up a pattern so that when/if he gets to be King, he is not seen as suspicious for going against the masses if it suits him.

[House Stokeworth]

You said Grandison asked us to discuss "Rule 2" and then you went and discussed it. I connected the dots that you wanted to follow what he wanted us to do. Was I wrong in thinking that?

Yes, you were wrong. Again, I wasn't arguing that we should do as Grandison directed. I was pointing out that there was no reason to avoid discussing Rule 2. By encouraging us to discuss it, he made it clear that he wasn't trying to keep his plans secret, and so I felt comfortable talking about the ramifications of Rule 2.

People set themselves up doing this anyway. The direction from Grandison and subsequent discussion due to his direction gives more legitimacy towards that route. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. First, I don't think most people focus on low posters on day 1. I can't remember the last time we lynched somebody on day 1 just for being a low poster. It's rare. Usually the low posters get cut down later, after we've given them a longer chance to participate, and people get frustrated with their failure to do so.

Second....again, I think that anybody who chooses the route of only focusing on the low posters is suspicious, regardless of what Grandison plans. And therefore, I doubt anybody is going to take that route, because they should be smart enough to know that it's suspicious. I really have a hard time believing that anybody is going to show up and say "well the King is only willing to lynch a low poster today, so I'm just going to ignore everyone else."

But I'm serious as a fucking heart attack and you love it. :kiss:

No, I don't. While I prefer to avoid getting personal, the fact is that you have been extremely obnoxious thus far. You can play an aggressive game without being a jackass.

[House Stokeworth]

I need to get some sleep. My vote is on Cerwyn. My other suspects right now are Bracken and Plumm.

[House Mooton]

I wanted to make a point about Cerwyn, but Yarwick beat me to it. Cerwyn defends Bracken on the basis that he was the one to turn this conversation serious and was getting heat for it. It was Plumm and someone else maybe?

I want to amend this. I was originally thinking of it in context of the Plumm/Yarwick discussions. Why was Cerwyn defending Bracken but not Plumm - I now understand that's not what he was getting at. While Plumm and Yarwick certainly were serious, with an assist from Harclay, the tone got a whole lot more combative when Bracken entered the picture. I see Cerwyn was defending Bracken for being abrasive, not for any particular argument. It's more of a null tell for me now that I understand it better.

What I didn't like about Cerwyn is his relative uninvolvement in the discussions. Qorgyle too. They were around but not engaging in anything other than the most trivial of points. It's that time folks ... time for a tier.

Qorgyle, Cerwyn

Plumm

(everyone else)

Bracken

Yarwick, Harclay

Vote going to Quorgyle. It's close and Cerwyn's bandwagon of Dayne nearly pushed it the other way. A part of me thinks that's too easy a reason though, so Qorgyle gets the vote.

[Lady Gaga]

No, I don't. While I prefer to avoid getting personal, the fact is that you have been extremely obnoxious thus far. You can play an aggressive game without being a jackass.

Yarwyck, I like that you are pressing Plumm and being aggressive, but Bracken is really not being that obnoxious. It's harder to see it sometimes when you are the one being badgered, but from my point of view I think you are overreacting to it more than he is.

I would endorse a Cerwyn lynch at the moment. I am also suspicious of Plumm and Tarbeck.

I would not support a lynch of Bracken, Yarwyck, Harclay, or Reyne at the moment. Bracken and Yarwyck have been aggressive and free with their suspicions which does not seem very scummy. Harclay and Reyne have not posted much, but they have seemed less suspicious so far.

Of the rest, I have some suspicion of Tarbeck and Dayne. I hope that they and Vyrwel and the rest participate more before decision time.

[Lady Gaga]

I want to amend this. I was originally thinking of it in context of the Plumm/Yarwick discussions. Why was Cerwyn defending Bracken but not Plumm - I now understand that's not what he was getting at. While Plumm and Yarwick certainly were serious, with an assist from Harclay, the tone got a whole lot more combative when Bracken entered the picture. I see Cerwyn was defending Bracken for being abrasive, not for any particular argument. It's more of a null tell for me now that I understand it better.

What I didn't like about Cerwyn is his relative uninvolvement in the discussions. Qorgyle too. They were around but not engaging in anything other than the most trivial of points. It's that time folks ... time for a tier.

Qorgyle, Cerwyn

Plumm

(everyone else)

Bracken

Yarwick, Harclay

Vote going to Quorgyle. It's close and Cerwyn's bandwagon of Dayne nearly pushed it the other way. A part of me thinks that's too easy a reason though, so Qorgyle gets the vote.

Hmm... well I don't think calling Cerwyn out for defending Bracken is a trivial point, but if you think it's a null tell, then I guess it looks trivial to you. Is there anything else? You haven't given me much to go on here.

Also, the point against Cerwyn is not about what he was defending Bracken from, it was that he was defending Bracken at all. Bracken was not in need of defending and Cerwyn looked to me like he was currying favor with a strong player. Also, as was pointed out, Bracken did not start the non-RP phase of the game. There was serious discussion preceding that, and I don't think your and Cerwyn's characterization of Bracken's influence on that is accurate. Yarwyck has done at least as much.

[House Mooton]

I agree, Yarwick was doing well in digging and questioning to get it to a serious phase. But it was, to a degree, civil and polite. Bracken's style was much more abrasive and add that to Yarwick's assertiveness, it upped the ante. The questioning of Harclay was done and about milked out, and Plumm had barely started to defend himself. I can absolutely see a difference in tone. People weren't attacking Yarwick personally, yet were attacking Bracken that way. That is what I think Cerwyn was getting at. Just because you don't like someone's style, that is not a reason to think them scummy. As he said, he was nipping it in the bud and I have seen players do this time and time again (innocent and guilty).

No, Bracken did not need any help. He is clearly a big boy and capable of defending himself. It might be something to look at when we have more info, but on it's own I don't think it's as scummy as people are making it out to be. Ditto on the bandwagon. I'm not dismissing those points, but I think they are also very easy points to latch onto to get a mob going on someone.

Like I said, what I didn't like is that you and he were around in the thick of the conversations but didn't really engage. Like you were letting the more vocal ones slug it out and take the bullets while you tried to find smaller points to latch onto.

Why do you suspect Tarbeck and Plumm? It's probably in the thread, but would you please spell it out for me?

edit: I thought you were saying that the point against Cerwyn was trivial. My mistake - you were saying the fact that you called him on it was not trivial. I have to agree, it was the most relevant point you made. Calling out Vyrwel was trivial, pointing out Tarbeck was - maybe not trivial, but not hugely relevant. Not saying it's not a valid point, just comparing it to what was going on at the time. I don't remember reading any of your opinions about Plumm at all, yet you list him as a suspect.

[House Thorne]

The game got serious before Bracken ever posted.

Why are you so concerned about Vyrwel? Was there a reason to defend him and speculate on why he isn't posting?

Do you feel that Qorgyle's post to Vyrwel somehow makes Qorgyle more suspicious? If so, why?

Firstly, there's serious, then there's serious. Bracken moved it fully into serious mode. where before it could have easily slipped back in my opinion.

Secondly, I have no concerns for Vyrwel himself. However, yes I am concerned when people start trying to push others for non contribution despite them not having had an obvious opportunity to contribute.

Yes, it does make him more suspicious, as claiming he's been non-contributing is misleading when he hasn't had an opportunity to contribute. It's twisting the truth, making issues out of what at closer inspection is clearly a non-issue.

I uh ... was at the whorehouse with Qorgyle. I just had more money to spend apparently. :smileysex:

This sends MAJOR alarm bells ringing. It's only that it's perhaps too obvious that I'm not going to outright call it a symp clue.

I figure tiers will help the king as much as a single vote from each of us, if not more. It is a way to hold ourselves accountable for our actions and seriously - tiers are always a helpful thing, Kingmaker game or not.

While tiers are more informative in some ways, a single, solid vote made with the intention of having the king eject a single player is far more revealing. I'd rather a traditional vote, but would strongly encourage tiers before the end of the day all the same.

Having said that, I'm giving Dayne a pass because he's posted one thing. One. Thing. No, it's not pretty and it is, as has been said, middle of the road extraordinaire. It's not a reason to want him lynched at this point. If he makes more posts like this, then yes. If he continues to post and run, then yes. If he gets mod-killed, then we won't have to make that decision. He very well could be a real person with a real life who could only make a single quick post. Shocker.

Rather than posting what amounts to a lot of nothing in a large block of text, if he was merely rushed it'd be better to just say "Checking in, no time right now, catch you all later."

Broken post

^Just click the link above to read this. It has Grandison down as saying something Rayne said, broken

[House Thorne]

Yarwyck, I like that you are pressing Plumm and being aggressive, but Bracken is really not being that obnoxious. It's harder to see it sometimes when you are the one being badgered, but from my point of view I think you are overreacting to it more than he is.

I would endorse a Cerwyn lynch at the moment. I am also suspicious of Plumm and Tarbeck.

I would not support a lynch of Bracken, Yarwyck, Harclay, or Reyne at the moment. Bracken and Yarwyck have been aggressive and free with their suspicions which does not seem very scummy. Harclay and Reyne have not posted much, but they have seemed less suspicious so far.

Of the rest, I have some suspicion of Tarbeck and Dayne. I hope that they and Vyrwel and the rest participate more before decision time.

This just seems incredibly opportunistic to me. Voting's going against me, someone sticks the pair of us in their top tier, and suddenly you hop in to throw a vote on me too? If it was "one of us has to die" time of day fair enough, but with this long left in the day?

I'm also not too hot on the fact that the stronger players are in your trusted list and vice versa. Currying favour, trying to make friends and become trusted by the dangerous players while simultaneously attacking others less likely to bite back? Hardly the way an innocent goes about establishing themselves in a game.

[House Mooton]

While tiers are more informative in some ways, a single, solid vote made with the intention of having the king eject a single player is far more revealing. I'd rather a traditional vote, but would strongly encourage tiers before the end of the day all the same.

I didn't advocate not voting - I wanted people to vote AND post tiers. You'll notice I did just that.

Firstly, What? Most of us would love a 50% success rate when digging for reactions.

Secondly, did you just seriously say we should lynch inactives, but also say that it isn't something you will focus on, because we don't lynch inactives? It seems like you REALLY don't want to attack the inactive players, but also want to be on record as hating them. That doesn't sit well with me at all.

I meant that he was tearing into everything. Maybe I am exaggerating because I was one of his targets as soon as I poked my nose into the game, but instead of pulling out relevant quotes, he quotes everything in the post and makes a comment on it. He also repeated questions when I thought the answers were pretty clear. Granted, if he's digging or dissatisfied with the answer of course he should follow up. Some of the follow ups were more along the lines of repeating his assertion rather than explaining why he found the answer unsatisfactory.

I didn't actually say we should lynch inactives. I absolutely don't like them and they frustrate me, but to lynch someone just for being inactive - I'm probably not going to do that. I'd rather lynch someone for something a person said. I do applaud any effort to put pressure on the low posters. We all know that in reality, however, if a person is going to be a low poster, nothing we as a group will probably change that.

As for the symp clue, all I am going to say on that is if I get lynched for that I am going to throw a fit.

[House Thorne]

Right, I have stuff to do, so I may as well give you all my current thinking in case anyone hops on to discuss it.

My tier right now would be:

Tier 1: Dayne

Tier 2: , Plumm, Reyne

Tier 2.5: Quorgle*

Tier 3: Grandison, Harclay

Tier 4: Yarwyck

Tier 5: Bracken

*would be tier 2, but I can;t help but feel there's some OMGUS from me in there. Without the OMGUS, I'm not sure if I'd still rate him a tier 2 or drop him to a tier 3. He's said a few things I don't like, yet was very non-reactionary when I tested him on the whole post count thing.

edit: Anyone missing hasn't given me a reason to place them on a tier yet, obviously. :-p