Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[Tommy]

Rashiminos's post 141 can also now be added to the pile of vain attempts to engage Lowell in debate.

THIS was post 141. What exactly does this post mean?

Quite right - sorry. I meant 131.

In that post, Rashiminos gives his own interpretation of TonyMontana's post, which is entirely at odds with yours and therefore merits comment.

He argues that the reasoning behind your vote for crywolf is inadequate - you could certainly defend yourself there if you felt like it.

Most importantly, he asks you four direct questions, which you've failed to answer. How can you claim you've answered every question you've seen?

[Rashiminos]

What do you think the rest of the town sees from your actions thus far? Why do you suggest we lynch unhelpful townies?

May I ask if you (Lowell) suspect anyone else at the present?

@Tommy's94- iamausername claimed miller becuase he thought it was the right thing to do. When asked for flavor, he gave some. Generally speaking, those who at this point are STILL clamoring for more flavor are not doing the town any favors. More flavor only makes things easier for scum should they decide to fake-claim in the future. The way TM casually brought that up, implying he wanted to draw more out of the claim, is NOT pro-town.

For the record, who are you accusing of asking for more flavor after iamausername claimed Piano Teacher?

These would be the 4 questions of mine you haven't answered, I'll look for more soon.

...by-and-large I agree that one of wolf/Lowell is scum.

Furthermore, I think only one of the pair is scum...

I don't like this line of thinking. Though I agree that it's unlikely both are scum, you've failed to consider that they could both be town. And if they are, what I've quoted above would be a smooth move from the real mafia.

Nothing to hang you over, but certainly worth noting.

I'm still more comfortable with wolf than Lowell but I'd rather have more than two choices before we lynch.

Just because I didn't mention it, it doesn't mean that I didn't consider it. Looking the other way and rewarding their bad play by overly casting doubt on legitimate suspicions is not what I'm about. Sorry if it seems harsh, but I was serious when I asked for a claim.

As for other people to look at, what do you feel makes the reasons for voting crywolf stronger than the reasons for voting Lowell?

##Vote: Lowell

Haven't liked his play at the start and this attack on tony is starting to look more and more of a stretch.

I'm not a big fan of posts appearing to change in meaning unless you can provide some outside support for such an assertion.

IGMEOY: Darox

Que?

"Appearing to change in meaning"?

It seemed that you said the attack was more of a stretch

now

, which would imply that you initially didn't see it as much of a stretch earlier, despite the attack remaining the same postwise.

Am I missing something?

[Rashiminos]

Questions Elias asked Lowell

Why you should believe iamausername's claim:

1) WIFOM notwithstanding, it's too risky for a scum to make this claim on PAGE 1

I don't see why. What makes it so risky? Isn't this claim more believable day 1 then any other time, thus making day 1 the only plausible time to make the claim as scum?

Why are you so blatantly exaggerating points and misrepresenting tony?

[bionicchop2]

I guess I am hesitant to jump on the Lowell wagon because I have played a game with him before and his actions were similar. That does not mean he can't be mafia, but I see nothing incriminating enough for my vote. I do think he needs to address what has been asked.

My vote is staying on cry though (for now). She admitted her vote was OMGUS and says she is comfortable with it.

[Rashiminos]

Judging from the volume of games Lowell has played/replaced in and a sample of posts I'd say his somewhat erratic posting style is not really indicative of alignment here.

[Elias_the_thief]

Well now that I read them, its more like I wanted him to argue some points or admit theyre invalid, which he never does. His 100% belief in the User claim is ridiculous and I want him to respond to my arguments against his reasons to believe it.

[Lowell]

The reason I believe it is that I'm not a WIFOM-minded person. I said "scum wouldn't do that because yada yada" and your response is basically, "ah HA, scum WOULD do that because you wouldn't think that scum would do that! QED scum!"

I prefer to see what's there and not the opposite. For the life of me I can't imagine a scum gutsy enough to fakeclaim miller on PAGE 1, having NO IDEA whether there are other scum groups or anything else about the game setup.

Next question.

[Elias_the_thief]

The reason I believe it is that I'm not a WIFOM-minded person. I said "scum wouldn't do that because yada yada" and your response is basically, "ah HA, scum WOULD do that because you wouldn't think that scum would do that! QED scum!"

Thats not at all what I said. I pointed out that day one is the only plausible time to make a miller claim so making it day one doesnt exactly make it risky. Further, I never said anything along the lines of "QED scum!". My argument is not that User is scum, but that your assertion of "QED miller" is unintelligent for the exact reasons that you believe "QED scum" is unintelligent.

I prefer to see what's there and not the opposite. For the life of me I can't imagine a scum gutsy enough to fakeclaim miller on PAGE 1, having NO IDEA whether there are other scum groups or anything else about the game setup.

The chances of another scumgroup are very low dude. Not to mention that other scumgroups have higher priorities than millers, especially given that the town would be conflicted over whether to lynch them or not. User (from what I've seen) is a pretty gutsy player as scum, and would be perfectly fine pulling something like this. To automatically say its too risky, instead of leaving him as an uncertainty is well, dumb. And I know you're a smarter player than that, which is why I find it scummy.

[Lowell]

To automatically say its too risky, instead of leaving him as an uncertainty is well, dumb. And I know you're a smarter player than that, which is why I find it scummy.

First, never overestimate my intelligence.

Second, it sounds like we just have a disagreement. I'm convinced he's a miller, and you're not. I get that you object to my "certainty," but that's the way I play the game. I deal in certainty. To me, I file people in my head as "people I want to lynch" and "people I don't." As much as it might be good to deal in shades of gray in the real world, it's useless here. Either you suspect someone or you don't, and equivocating doesn't win you any points in my book. When someone makes the (admittedly inane) post calling someone "OBVSCUM" or "OBVTOWN", we don't jump on them for the certainty in their tone. We either (a) agree with them, or (b) ignore them.

So, I ask again, what are we talking about here?

[bionicchop2]

Actually, certainty anybody is town is one of the bigger scum tells in my book (it is a short book, but a book none the less!). I may be coming around to the idea of Lowell scum.

[Darox]

It seemed that you said the attack was more of a stretch

now

, which would imply that you initially didn't see it as much of a stretch earlier, despite the attack remaining the same postwise.

Am I missing something?

He started out with suggesting Tony was pushing a lynch without tying himself to it, then suggests later that in addition to this Tony is trying to draw out counterclaims, as well as supporting fake claims, metagaming, and flavor-testing.

[Elias_the_thief]

To automatically say its too risky, instead of leaving him as an uncertainty is well, dumb. And I know you're a smarter player than that, which is why I find it scummy.

First, never overestimate my intelligence.

Second, it sounds like we just have a disagreement. I'm convinced he's a miller, and you're not. I get that you object to my "certainty," but that's the way I play the game. I deal in certainty. To me, I file people in my head as "people I want to lynch" and "people I don't." As much as it might be good to deal in shades of gray in the real world, it's useless here. Either you suspect someone or you don't, and equivocating doesn't win you any points in my book. When someone makes the (admittedly inane) post calling someone "OBVSCUM" or "OBVTOWN", we don't jump on them for the certainty in their tone. We either (a) agree with them, or (b) ignore them.

So, I ask again, what are we talking about here?

You can chill with the patronizing tone, you told me what I wanted to hear. I'll be checking your game history, but for now I'll leave my vote off you.

[fhqwhgads]

As I've stated before. Tones like Lowell's does nothing but confuse town or make it more likely for people to vote for him for the smallest of reasons. Now we had this whole discussion, side lining the thread, about Lowell's gameplay style.

While it's not scummy in any way, it certainly isn't pro town either.

I'd much rather hear what crywolf's reasons are for any of her actions, as seeing we have only been getting vague reasons and even an OMGUS as reasoning so far.

[gorckat]

Vote Count

Lowell (5):

TonyMontana, Tommy, Darox, Rashiminos, crywolf

crywolf (3):

iamausername, bionic, Ythill,

Rashiminos:

Lowell

Not voting (3):

Westbrook, fhqwhgads, Elias


**Hoping to get Westbrook's replacement in today**

[Ythill]

Just because I didn't mention it, it doesn't mean that I didn't consider it.

Fair enough, but I cannot read minds. The problem I had with the statement was the ambivalence combined with the surety that one (and only one) is scum.

It's empty as a townie sentiment (because honest surety should flow from evidence and evidence is inevitably linked to one alignment, not two possibilities). To further explain, if somone believes that only one of a pair is scum without attaching that belief to an individual, then he obviously believes that it is possible for either person to be town. The surety that one is scum belies this.

However, from the standpoint of you as scum, adherence to this belief sets up two mislynches in a row. Do you understand what I found suspicious about your play there?

As for other people to look at, what do you feel makes the reasons for voting crywolf stronger than the reasons for voting Lowell?

If you are asking about my reasons, I already explained this in #108.

If you are asking my opinion about others' reasons, I must admit that I have not yet read them closely enough to give a definitive answer, but I'll glance back now and give some impressions in my next post.

[Ythill]

As promised...

Those voting for Lowell

:
Tony: I don’t like the way he agrees with user about wolf’s actions, but somehow translates that to a point against Lowell. His vote is pure OMGUS. Later (in #92) he backs this up with a post that is such a defense-attack combo that it’s hard to tell what he’s getting at. I think this is the scummiest vote on Lowell.

Tommy: I think his vote is solid, though my experience with Lowell is that the tells mentioned by Tommy are unreliable. No suspicion of Tommy here, I just don’t agree with him.

Darox: Like all of his vote changes, the reasons for this one are vague. I don’t like baseless assertions, but there are scummier votes on this wagon.

Rash: I already talked about how I didn’t like the eeny-meeny approach to this vote, but I can follow the reasoning and it seems to me like Rash is honestly trying to determine Lowell’s alignment in later posts.

wolf: Pure OMGUS, and confirmed as comfortable @ L-2. A vague statement about aggression is her only other reasoning. This vote is a close second for scummiest on the wagon.

Elias (who has unvoted): This vote came with a solid case that was the strongest of several stated suspicions. It was accompanied by reasonable follow-up and removed when appropriate. No problems with this vote at all.

Those voting for wolf

:
user: The reasoning is a little empty, considering wolf’s play, but it makes sense. He’s followed it up with a little bit of nitpicking. This vote is not a town-tell but it seems honest enough to me.

bionic: I particularly like his initial pressure vote because it was based on a trend that was concerning to me as well. He made some valid points in his follow-up case. I like the way user keeps an eye on the big picture and my read on him is starting to lean town, which is based on things separate from his vote but generally helps me to view that vote as more valid.

Ythill: Obvtown. All of his votes are jedi-ninja cool.

Lowell (who has unvoted): This vote is a Lowell-tell. I don't like it, or agree with it. If I'd not played with Lowell before, I'd even find it suspicious. But I have played with Lowell before. Those who haven't should seriously take the time to meta him.

Discuss.

[gorckat]

Oman replaces Westbrook.

Now- where's vollkan...

[TonyMontana]

As promised...

Those voting for Lowell

:
Tony: I don’t like the way he agrees with user about wolf’s actions, but somehow translates that to a point against Lowell. His vote is pure OMGUS. Later (in #92) he backs this up with a post that is such a defense-attack combo that it’s hard to tell what he’s getting at. I think this is the scummiest vote on Lowell.

Pure OMGUS? I gave Lowell a chance to defend his accusations, along with several other people, and he in turn goes on a senseless rant in a weak attempt to justify his initial vote.

Now we got people saying "thats just typical Lowell, that crazy bastard". Well maybe it is, I haven't played with him before, and maybe I'm particularly sceptical about letting it go, but I think we're all in agreement that his push on me was without basis, and suspicious, play-style notwithstanding.

[Ythill]

I don't disagree with you here, Tony. But with all Lowell has done, I find it unsettling that your main problem with his play was limited to his attack against you. Hence my "pure OMGUS" comment.

Will you address the way you used user's statement about wolf's actions to lead into your complaints about Lowell's attack?

[fhqwhgads]

Aw, you missed me. Dont want people to think I'm actively lurking

[Ythill]

Did you place a vote on one of the wagons? I was going from vote counts and memory, neither of which showed you voting for Lowell or wolf. Am I mistaken?

[Darox]

I am of the opinion that meta can't be used to defend poor behavior.

The idea is they eventually get broken out of the habit.

[TonyMontana]

Will you address the way you used user's statement about wolf's actions to lead into your complaints about Lowell's attack?

I dont think i was translating his points to my vote on lowell. I was rather cooveying that i was in the camp of thinking that one of them are scum, and I was thinking Lowell was the best bet.

[bionicchop2]

I am of the opinion that meta can't be used to defend poor behavior.

The idea is they eventually get broken out of the habit.

The poor behavior is not being defended, simply the poor behavior is not a scum tell. Being a bad townie is never a scum tell.

[Ythill]

@Darox: I'm not here to improve Lowell's play. I'm here to win this game by hanging scum.

I dont think i was translating his points to my vote on lowell. I was rather cooveying that i was in the camp of thinking that one of them are scum, and I was thinking Lowell was the best bet.

Okay, I hear ya. I reread and now see that I misread one "she" as being a "he" in your post, which threw me off.