I tend to agree. I've noticed in all the games I've hosted and the few that I've played, the agents tend to have almost universally, a "blame the lurker" strategy. It's easy to pick on someone who isn't here to defend themselves, and town is usually quick to jump on the bandwagon, and that results in innocent townies dying. If someone is away, and then comes back and contributes, that happens to most of us at one time or another, and I know for sure that it usually results in innocent townies dying. It might be used as a shield this time, but it shouldn't indicate town or mafia one way or the other.
What I suggest is more likely is those lurkers who almost never post, and when they do, it's one or two posts, then leave again for a long time. Lurkers who lurk for legitimate reasons (not connected to the internet, away for work, real life issues) tend to get blamed by the mafioso who will then lurk for real.
The reason I'm pointing this out, is that any mafioso who are listening had better start posting more, because they would condemn themselves by being a true lurker. They usually leave telltale signs when they post, and when they are here they can respond to interrogative questioning, or be rightly accused of avoiding the question. In any case, posting more is better for town. Long periods of silence doesn't help town's investigation and can only help mafia.
The scummy pattern of behavior is easier to identify; contributing little to the game for most of the game, and then having accusatory postures later on to throw town off. I'm looking for those in particular, because if they are here, they are online, but they don't bother posting (like Warmaster Horus did in Chaotix's FF mafia... I caught him deliberately avoiding the thread and he was mafia) then that's usually really scummy behavior.
Bookmarks