dakky21 wrote:Cyanineeter wrote:the white rose wrote:but are one of the quieter players less or more likely to be scum?
I take offense about that.
Wait, what? You got offended because rose called you "scum" in a mafia game? wtf.
They didn't even call him scum, they questioned whether absence did or not. This is a rather bizarre response to return with after an absence.
To answer twr, common procedure is that if someone is continually inactive while occasionally checkining and making a bare minimum post they are acting scummy or "scummarining". Whereas if a player is just totally absent, it is not alignment indicative although some read it as they are likely vanilla and don't care about the game. A vanilla player who doesn't care about the game is not a great asset to town, so they would be a "safe" lynch. I hope that clears up why people tend to go after inactives, especially on D1. So you have to determine why a player is being quiet, and if that makes them a potential scum.
So it appears this day has turned into a dakky vs mitch. I often read both of them as scum and this game is no different. However, since I always see them as scummy, it doesn't really mean much. With the approaching deadline though, it looks like we must choose between mitch, dakky, twr (although streaker is also listed as having two votes, but only one name is listed.
@end, is this a mistake?) or a no lynch.
At this point I would lean towards mitch, but not very strongly. His thinking the game was 50% scum instead of 50% pr reeks to me of someone trying to appear as though they cannot be scum because they don't have a clue how many scum there are. (Although I will concede that is likely a case of look for scumminess in a player and you will find it) His blatant OMGUS vote on dakky is also a tick in the negative column. At this point,
vote mitch which puts him at L3 I believe.