Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[Tommy]

While I'm waiting for lowell to come back and explain himself, I might as well pick up on this:

If a miller dies, we have an easy lynch with you.

Do people agree with this sentiment?

Happy birthday, crywolf.

[bionicchop2]

If a miller dies, we have an easy lynch with you.

Do people agree with this sentiment?

I wouldn't expect multiples of any role (other than mason) is a mini game, so I would be willing to lynch off of it.

[Ythill]

If a miller dies, we have an easy lynch with you.

Do people agree with this sentiment?

A dead miller would certainly be solid evidence against user. FTR: I have played minis with multiple cops and docs but I think multiple millers would be generally unbalanced.

Tommy, after you have your answers (or sooner if you feel it's appropriate) I'd like to know what you hoped to learn by asking this question.

[Elias_the_thief]

If a miller dies, we have an easy lynch with you.

Do people agree with this sentiment?

Yeah. Two masons in one game? Seems REALLY unlikely. I dont think its ever been done and the game woud be swingy as hell. I think gorcs a better mod than that.

[Rashiminos]

Ermm.. didn't Elias mean two millers in post 78?

[Elias_the_thief]

Yeah I did. Good catch there.

[Tommy]

Tommy, after you have your answers (or sooner if you feel it's appropriate) I'd like to know what you hoped to learn by asking this question.

I wanted to check with players who are more experienced than me whether bionicchop's heuristic was reliable. If so, it means I know what should happen if we find another miller - and also makes iamausername's claim more believable (because more risky). If not, it means I should suspect bionicchop of trying to set up a potential mislynch. I reckon I've got my answer.

[Elias_the_thief]

Tommy, after you have your answers (or sooner if you feel it's appropriate) I'd like to know what you hoped to learn by asking this question.

I wanted to check with players who are more experienced than me whether bionicchop's heuristic was reliable. If so, it means I know what should happen if we find another miller - and also makes iamausername's claim more believable (because more risky). If not, it means I should suspect bionicchop of trying to set up a potential mislynch. I reckon I've got my answer.

Eh, the claim isnt that risky because millers are very uncommon roles in todays forum meta. So like, its actually a fairly safe claim.

[iamausername]

Speaking with the knowledge of my role: If another miller showed up dead, I'd assume that meant there was no cop, and that gorckat deliberately designed the setup to throw us off guard.

Speaking objectively: If another miller showed up dead, I'd probably want to lynch me too, if I were anyone else.

---

##Unvote, ##vote: crywolf

. I don't like the way she pushed a Tony wagon in this post without actually commiting to it herself. Feels like she was fishing to see if it would gain any traction, and retracted her 'suspicion' when it became clear it wouldn't.

[TonyMontana]

@Tony: Your vote on Darox seemed to be too serious too soon. You’ve ignored him since then. Why?

Wasn't really serious, emphasis on the random part.

[fhqwhgads]

I don't like the way she pushed a Tony wagon in this post without actually commiting to it herself. Feels like she was fishing to see if it would gain any traction, and retracted her 'suspicion' when it became clear it wouldn't.

QFT,

FOS: crywolf

For now, I'm going to believe user's claim. This does not mean, however, that I'm going to stick with that belief.

Still waiting on Lowel. Maybe this (

##unvote, ##vote: Lowel

) will help.

[gorckat]

Vote Count

TonyMontana (2):

Elias, Lowell

Darox:

TonyMontana

Ythill:

Rashiminos

crywolf:

iamausername

Lowell:

fhqwhgads

Not voting (6):

bionic, crywolf, Darox, Tommy, Westbrook, Ythill

**Westbrook has received his first prod.**

[TonyMontana]

Unvote, vote: crywolf. I don't like the way she pushed a Tony wagon in this post without actually commiting to it herself. Feels like she was fishing to see if it would gain any traction, and retracted her 'suspicion' when it became clear it wouldn't.

I agree it seems fishy, especially given that all she had to add to my list of crimes was "talking".
But I also feel lowell was the one putting out the bait. He laid suspicion on me, and stamped it with a vote, without really leaving me with anything to defend or explain. I'd welcome another attempt, Lowell.

##unvote, vote: Lowell

[bionicchop2]

I find it odd that people agree with crywolf looking scummy, but then vote for Lowell.

##vote: Crywolf

[Lowell]

Oh, noes!!! Two votes!!!!

@Elias- if you were soft-claiming mason in 78, just come out with it and be proud! I'll protect you. D1 mason claims are game-breakers. I promise!

@Tony- without looking back, IIRC your post in response to user's miller claim was something like "Well, I personally am inclined to agree. But everyone should make up his or her mind. If anyone wants to

VOTE

for

IAMAUSERNAME

I wouldn't be opposed to that

VOTE

on

IAMAUSERNAME

, even though I, personally, would never dream of

VOTE

ing for

IAMAUSERNAME

."

It's just a half-assed way of looking at things. It looks a lot like you're setting yourself up for a "change of mind" were others to start not believing the claim.

@all- as for my post about wanting a lot of people dead, let me explain. I said that because I want a lot of people dead. Not

everyone

, mind you, just... you know.... most people. All the scum, and some of the more useless townsfolk. Just me and maybe one or two others remaining. Is Britney Spears (circa 1999) in this game? She can stay.

[Tommy]

without looking back

I'd like you to defend your criticism of TonyMontana WITH looking back. Only then can you feasibly accuse anyone else of being "half-assed".

[Lowell]

Well, I guess it's kinda redundant, whether we imagine he was investigated or not.
We really just have to decide for ourself if we believe user is a miller. Personally, I think he is, but it's a sticky situation, seeing as there's no way to confirm it other than a lynch. Or, heaven forbid, someone counter-claims.

Truth be told, this is the first game I've heard of the role, had to look up the wiki to find out what a miller was, so I don't know how usual the role is. The more frequent milllers appear in games, the less likely it would be for user to be a scum. (ie, doesnt have much risk of a counterclaim)

Nonetheless, I think claiming initially was a good move, if for nothing else than to kick-start the game.

The flavor seemed plausible as well..

Here is the post. It's dumber than I remember. He suggests, at various times: lynching, counterclaiming, fake-claiming, metagaming, flavor-testing.

This post reeks of tony trying to bait someone else into opposing the claim.

[TonyMontana]

Here is the post. It's dumber than I remember. He suggests, at various times: lynching, counterclaiming, fake-claiming, metagaming, flavor-testing.

This post reeks of tony trying to bait someone else into opposing the claim.

i
Lol, what?
You are grasping at straws and exaggerating to make it feasible.

Throwing out keywords and wrapping it up with packaging like "he suggests" and "at various times" (like my post is riddled with it)
I mentioned the word "lynch" once. (far from suggesting it)
Sure the word counterclaim came up twice, in a fashion that makes sense, if you were reading the post without trying to extrapolate scumminess from it.
The rest, fakeclaiming, metagaming and flavor-testing, is just you trying to make your weak attack look more valid by spreading butter on a skinny slice of bread.

[gorckat]

Westbrook is /out. I hope to have a replacement very soon.

[Tommy]

Whoa there, Lowell. Firstly, there's no need to be rude.

Secondly, you're putting words into his mouth. He doesn't suggest lynching, counter-claiming or fake-claiming. It's particularly impressive that you accuse him of suggesting counter-claiming, since he introduced that concept with "heaven forbid".

He does indeed appeal to both meta-game patterns and the authenticity of iamausername's piano teacher flavour, but how can those things possibly count as "trying to bait someone else into opposing the claim"? Both of them support the claim's truth!

FOS: Lowell

[fhqwhgads]

@lowell: I strongly dislike this macho, bombastic, jock gameplay style. It pisses off half the players, make people think you are scummy on much less justification than is normally necessary and just usually confuse the hell out of everyone (except scum of course, they are enjoying this outburst, assuming you aren't one of 'em).

##Unvote

for now, as my vote was cast initially only to get you talking, which it did. But you're not off the hook yet. A whole

HOS:Lowell

, because of all that bull you just pulled out of one post. If you want to accuse someone, I want facts, not exaggerated insults.

[crywolf20084]

Whoa there, Lowell. Firstly, there's no need to be rude.

Secondly, you're putting words into his mouth. He doesn't suggest lynching, counter-claiming or fake-claiming. It's particularly impressive that you accuse him of suggesting counter-claiming, since he introduced that concept with "heaven forbid".

He does indeed appeal to both meta-game patterns and the authenticity of iamausername's piano teacher flavour, but how can those things possibly count as "trying to bait someone else into opposing the claim"? Both of them support the claim's truth!

FOS: Lowell

I perticually don't like this post, and you were also quick to defend Tony in post 90 as well, but in post 68 (sorry none of these are linked) you told Tony to shut the hell up. Why the change in heart?

##Unvote, ##vote: crywolf

. I don't like the way she pushed a Tony wagon in this post without actually commiting to it herself. Feels like she was fishing to see if it would gain any traction, and retracted her 'suspicion' when it became clear it wouldn't.

How was I "pushing" for a bandwagon in that post? (It's post 50) I FOSed him, and that was good enough for me at the time. I didn't go shouting that we need to lynch Tony that moment.

@Fhqwh: You told User to shut up, then FOSed me, as though you agreed with him. May I ask why you agree?


As for user's claim for Miller, I'm just going to let it be a big red arrow pointing at his head, saying I shouldn't be completely trusted just yet.

[crywolf20084]

Edit:

As for user's claim for miller, I'm just going to let it be a big red arrow saying that he shouldn't be trusted just yet.

[crywolf20084]

I find it odd that people agree with crywolf looking scummy, but then vote for Lowell.

##vote: Crywolf

Can I ask what I've done scummy in your opinion before I get a little ticked off at the vote?

[fhqwhgads]

@Fhqwh: You told User to shut up, then FOSed me, as though you agreed with him. May I ask why you agree?

Well, I... wait what?

I never told user to shut up? I agreed with his reason to FOS you, as I thought was implied in my statement 'QFT'.