Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[Tommy]

I have poked Tommy and TonyMontana with the link to the game. Since I didn't include it in role PMs, I'm assuming they simply haven't seen this thread yet.

Keep your hair on - it still hasn't been 24 hours since you unlocked the thread.

I've read the discussion that iamausername has thoughfully pointed to, and I think his claim makes him a little more likely to be pro-town than the rest of you.

I'm most interested in the position Ythill has taken. He's cast aspersions on iamausername, but has cleverly manoeuvred so that people find it hard to challenge those aspersions, by announcing that he doesn't want to get into a theory debate. I don't want to derail the game by introducing a theory debate anyway, but I think it's fair to look at the points of theory that Ythill himself has raised:

Claiming miller unbidden verifies the existance of a cop...

No it doesn't.

...and narrows the search for him.

True. But if we believe him, which I'm inclined to do, it narrows the search for scum as well.

It also creates a good meta strategy for scum if it becomes the norm.

But it hasn't become the norm, so that point's irrelevant.

Is your attack sincere, Ythill? If so, I think you need to back it up a little more before you close the book on it. If not, you're certainly better at subtly getting a bandwagon rolling than some players.

[Tommy]

I really think lowell is the one who needs to elaborate.

QFT

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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

[Tommy]

I think you may be under a misapprehension about what QFT means, crywolf. It stands for "quoted for truth" - it doesn't mean shut up. Why do you particularly dislike post 94?

[Tommy]

Lowell, do you feel like responding to my post 94?

[Tommy]

@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.

There was nothing about TonyMontana's post "clamoring for more flavor", or "implying he wanted to draw more out of the claim". You've made that up, just as you made up suggestions on his part to lynch, counter-claim and fake-claim. I think you're waging a truly see-through propaganda war against him in the hope of a mislynch. You're also ignoring questions from Elias_the_thief.

##Vote Lowell

[Tommy]

Mod

, Lowell's vote is on crywolf, not himself.

[Tommy]

lowell hasnt even got around to answering my initial questions.

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

[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?

[Tommy]

There's lots to say, but I'm afraid I won't be able to say it till tomorrow. Expect a response to Ythill's analysis then, along with a couple of other bits and pieces.

[Tommy]

Expect a response to Ythill's analysis then...

I don't know what there is for you to respond to but... okay.

Well, you did end it with the word "Discuss".

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.

Your first point must refer to post 87, which isn't pure OMGUS at all. The gist is that crywolf may be scummy to fall for Lowell's bait, but that Lowell is scummier for setting it in the first place. I agree with Tony there.

Post 92 is indeed a combination of defending himself and attacking Lowell, but since the scummiest thing Lowell has done was attack Tony, that's perfectly natural. It isn't hard to tell what he's getting at - in fact, I agree with Tony there too.

Since this analysis, you've gone back on part of it. Do you still believe Tony's is a scummy vote, though?

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.

I agree he was vague. He's come up with various reasons since, but he does act oddly - the use of the word "neutral" was very strange, as bionicchop2 noted. Darox appears to have silently retracted "neutral" now. I also agree with you that votes aren't for teaching townies how to play.

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.

Yeah, I think you were a bit harsh. He just didn't word it right. He seems pro-town to me.

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.

She's all over the place, and so you and her other detractors have plenty of ammunition, but this is her first game and I don't think she's doing much for the anti-town side either. Beyond distracting everyone. The "cop-fishing", for example, just looks like thinking aloud to me, trying to work out for the first time how a cop ought to treat his role. And she changes her mind, but she does it when there's no particular advantage for either the goodies or the baddies. She needs to develop a tougher skin, which I think explains her OMGUS behaviour.

Compare Lowell: his focus shifts when he feels the wind changing, but it's always possible to say what he's trying to pull. He's more coherent than crywolf, and therefore more suspicious.

Your analyses of iamausername and bionicchop both sit fine with me, so I'll move onto Oman:

True. But if we believe him, which I'm inclined to do, it narrows the search for scum as well.

Why do something so stupid? Well, geez if we're BELIEIVING people, why don't we just have townies claim, I'm sure teh mafia wouldn't lie!.

I said I was inclined to believe iamausername, and you inferred that I was inclined to believe anyone saying anything. Is your sarcasm intended to make everyone else think I'm stupid? Why would you want to do that?

Finally, MotR stands for "Middle of the Road", bionicchop2.

[Tommy]

I think I believe you, Darox. You can see why you're in trouble, though - you didn't fully explain your vote until some time after you made it. Maybe that'll teach you not to be so terse.

[Tommy]

What is wrong with someone being put at L-1, exactly?

Nothing, if you want them lynched. A lot, if you don't. What iamausername is pointing out is that your "mixed feelings" seem to have given rise to contradictory behaviour. Here's a straight question: when you wrote post 189, were you hoping Lowell would be hammered imminently?

[Tommy]

I do not want Lowell to be lynched based on his current behavior. I want him to speak up more and try to clear his name.

What is 'a lot' wrong with L-1, exactly?

If you didn't want him lynched, you should have unvoted. This is the inconsistency that iamausername has discovered.

Now, what's the reason for it? The first possibility is absent-mindedness: perhaps you didn't realise he was only a vote away from death, or you forgot one of the votes was yours. The second possibility is that you wanted him dead but planned to wriggle out of carrying your share of the blame afterwards. A third possibility, which is I think the one you're going to stick to, is that you didn't want him dead but didn't believe anyone would hammer him.

Everyone else, what's your best guess about Darox's motives?

[Tommy]

The last quote in 226 should be attributed to Rashiminos.

[Tommy]

Lowell has refused to claim. I support a hammering.

There's still a week before the deadline, so if people need to discuss this further, that's fine by me. But personally, I agree. Lowell remains the scummiest player, and I'd like to see him swing. Darox and crywolf have been playing poorly, and we should keep an eye on both of them during day 2, but neither has avoided questions as blatantly as Lowell, and neither has lied about another player in an attempt to get them killed.

[Tommy]

Compare Lowell: (1) his focus shifts when he feels the wind changing, but (2) it's always possible to say what he's trying to pull.

That’s pretty ridiculous, Tommy. (1) You cannot possibly know what Lowell is “feeling.” (2) Is the above “bait” an example of this? I fear you are projecting.

Well, if it comes to that, I can't possibly

know

very much at all. But that doesn't stop me from discussing my impressions of people. I shall rephrase:

my impression of Lowell is that

his focus shifts when he feels the wind changing, but it's always possible to say what

I think

he's trying to pull. If it would help you read my posts, please append IMHO to every sentence.

And yes, the end of post 47 is an example of Lowell trying to pull something. I wouldn't call it "bait" myself - that was Tony's word - I'd say it was more of a smear. Let's see it again:

##unvote, vote tony. His post is all over the map. He's trying to sow the seeds of doubt without having to take responsibility himself.

Now, you and I disagree about the truth of this statement, but I think we can say uncontroversially that it's vague. It doesn't cite examples or give Tony any concrete points to respond to. Is this vagueness intentional? To answer that, I think we need to look at Lowell's next post, after he'd been asked to elaborate. Does it substantiate the attack, or provide more detail? Well, here it is - the entire post:

There are so many people I want dead.

I don't think it's fair to say I'm projecting - Lowell was deliberately stonewalling. Or, if you prefer, Lowell was deliberately stonewalling IMHO.

He's more coherent than crywolf, and therefore more suspicious.

So a player who plays the VI well is more likely to be scum? I don’t agree with that. In fact, I’d say it makes it more likely to be a null-tell, since a coherent VI is more likely to play similarly regardless of alignment.

No, I'm not saying he's coherently playing like a village idiot. I'm saying he's coherently playing like scum. Rather unsubtle scum, but scum.

Now, Darox. He still sounds surprised that anyone could dream of suspecting him. He's asked again what the case against him is, and fhqwhgads has offered this:

I thought the case was that you seemed to think his play style is scummy, yet refused to remove your vote at L-1.

I think that could be phrased better: he posted during the critical period and could have removed his vote but didn't, despite his recent claim that at that time he didn't want Lowell dead. Oman is happy that Lowell only wanted "pressure", but that level of pressure carries the risk of a hammer, and Darox has said explicitly that he didn't want a hammer. As I say, all this pales into insignificance beside Lowell's behaviour, but Darox is definitely one to watch.

Talking of which:

He was not at L-1 again, he was on the same 5 votes he had been on since Tommy unvoted when he was at L-1 the first and only time.

Slander! Libel! Or maybe a Tommy/Tony mix-up! I would like to remind everyone that I've only voted once this game and have campaigned steadfastly for Lowell's death ever since.

[Tommy]

Thanks for the detailed analysis, iamausername. Here are my comments.

Rashiminos

voted Lowell in #131, placing him at five votes. This came at the end of a very long post, which is about half about Lowell. A lot of detail, but it's still kind of parroting Elias/Tommy, and I don't think this is a strong enough reason for Lowell to go from one vote to five in the space of a single page.

When three people vote for similar reasons, it isn't necessarily just bandwagoning: they may be good reasons! When good people agree on good reasons, good things happen.

Elias_the_thief

unvotes Lowell in #139, placing him at five votes, because he is a sane person who can spot a scum-led wagon when it goes from 0 to 6 in 2.5 seconds.

I'm interested in the word "scum-led" here. Who do you think is leading this wagon?

And, btw, I still don't get the "we're promised a lot more information in night than usual" statement. Yes, we're pretty likely to have a cop, but that doesn't mean the rest of us will be getting any great wealth of info tonight.

If a cop is more likely, then it's in turn more likely that the town will learn about a guilty investigation result in the morning.

crywolf

unvotes Lowell in #195, placing him at four votes, admitting that her vote had no real basis besides OMGUS, and after apparently doing some meta-reading on Lowell. This still doesn't excuse her putting it there in the first place, but the attention had moved away from her at this point, and I think she could easily have maintained the vote without taking more heat than she already had. Interesting.

I think it's a sign that she's learning how to play the game - she's now taken the lesson on board about avoiding emotion-led play.

Darox

unvotes Lowell in #237, placing him at four votes, because he's not ready to see Lowell lynched. After just having argued that there was no danger of this when Lowell was at L-1. Very strange. What made you decide that Lowell suddenly was in danger of being hammered, Darox?

Totally with you here. I've been interested in hearing his answer to this one since you first pointed it out. Intriguingly, he's squirmed and ranted rather than addressing it.

[Tommy]

Damn. Just when I was boasting about my voting consistency.

##Unvote

It's painful to let Lowell off the hook again, even if only temporarily, but I need to work out whether I've been wrong about crywolf. I'll dedicate this post to that because it's more important than anything else, and then post separately with comments on some of the things other people have said recently.

Please could you answer the following questions about post 265, crywolf? The sooner, the better.

1) Your reason for voting Lowell is that he avoids and ignores questions. Is there anything else, or is that the sole basis for your suspicion?

2) When you say "Lowell's play style means nothing to his allignment", do you mean that it's actually impossible to find any evidence against him, and that a Lowell-lynch will always be a blind guess?

3) If the answer to question (2) is yes, how do you square that with the reason I mention in question (1)? If the answer is no, when did you start feeling there was evidence against Lowell? What was it that began to change your mind?

4) Given that you were in a hurry and that you were reluctant to be blamed for Lowell's death, you could have waited till you had more time to carefully construct a detailed post giving the reasoning behind your change of heart. Why, then, did you feel it was necessary to get your vote on the table right then rather than, say, a day later?

[Tommy]

Here's the promised follow-up post, which is to be considered much less important than 273 above. If you're reading this, crywolf, reply to the other one first! Quick!

I gather that you're willing to lynch any of three people, fhqwhgads, and that two of these alternatives are policy lynches, on people who you think are likely to be town. What gives?

Darox, you've been asking again for a summary of your crimes. I don't think quite as much ink has been spilt on any other topic, but it's virtual ink and it doesn't cost anything, so - on the off-chance that you'll listen to me this time - here I go again:

I fail to see how being asked about why I didn't unvote ASAP when Lowell was at L-1... is bad, when the reason I was voting was to pressure, not to reach a lynch.

that level of pressure carries the risk of a hammer, and Darox has said explicitly that he didn't want a hammer.

It may be that you thought there was no such risk, for reasons that you haven't yet disclosed. Your recent unvote, on the other hand, shows that by that point you

did

think there was a risk, which is why iamausername has asked you this question:

What made you decide that Lowell suddenly was in danger of being hammered, Darox?

You haven't answered that yet.

[Tommy]

This is difficult. Darox is looking increasingly suspicious, but Lowell is worse. At the moment, crywolf seems worse still to me, and I desperately need her to come back and answer my questions before the deadline. I wish I had more time to post, but I have lots of stuff to do.

[Tommy]

So you were worried you wouldn't be able to post again before the deadline, crywolf? And you wanted to have your vote on someone when that arrived? It sounds to me as though your vote doesn't have much more behind it than that, which is worrying. But it fits into my impression of you as a new, and possibly pro-town, player.

My panicked unvote was because I couldn't think of any reason why you'd vote then rather than later, except for the possibility that Darox was your scum-buddy and you wanted to put some oomph into Lowell's wagon before Darox's overtook it. I now think that's less likely than the possibility that Lowell is scum.

##Vote Lowell

@Tommy: It's interesting to me that you have healthy suspicion for both Darox and wolf but still say that Lowell is worse. How do you justify those thoughts when both Darox and wolf have dropped scumtells while pushing Lowell toward the noose?

In fact, at the moment you posted, I thought crywolf was worst, but now my feelings are as you describe. You're right that it's unlikely that all three of them are scum. From that fact, you draw evidence that Lowell is likely to be pro-town. For me, it's the reverse effect: I think Lowell is most likely to be scum, which takes a certain amount of heat off the other two in my eyes.

[Tommy]

HUZZAH!

Tommy, could you explain why you IGMEOYed me?

Again, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that Tony and I are different people.

[Tommy]

Could it not just be that they wanted to get the miller out of the way rather sooner than later, and save power-role hunting for when they have a better shot?
No scum wants a miller in a endgame. And the chance that user could've been fakeclaiming to protect himself would be a bonus.

Can you explain what kind of Bizzaro world where a claimed miller is harmful in the endgame to the scum team?

Makes it easier to confirm a cop...Seriously, any non-vanilla role hurts scum in endgame.

You mean, confirm a cop's sanity? Or confirm that a cop is a cop? I don't see how the second one would work.

[Tommy]

Can you explain what kind of Bizzaro world where a claimed miller is harmful in the endgame to the scum team?

Makes it easier to confirm a cop...Seriously, any non-vanilla role hurts scum in endgame.

You mean, confirm a cop's sanity? Or confirm that a cop is a cop? I don't see how the second one would work.

Roles often work in pairs. Miller+cop pair is likely to exist.

You're using the word "confirm" really oddly, then. But I doubt this conversation is getting us anywhere, so let's leave it.

Want to expand on your judgement of Ythill?

[Tommy]

I'm afraid I'm going to have very limited access until Thursday evening. Sorry.

[Tommy]

I do however think that Lowell should be given time to explain himself. Lynching him now based on his current actions would be a bad idea and ultimately would leave us stranded in D2.

This was post 331. The "time to explain himself" turned out to be 24 hours, after which Darox hammered him. In between, Lowell posted lengthily but hardly mentioned his own actions or motives.

Darox, do you feel that Lowell explained himself between posts 331 and 346? If not, why did you hammer? Did you lynch him based on his day 1 actions in the end, despite saying above that that "would be a bad idea"?

[Tommy]

I'm still waiting for you to explain your vote, Darox..

Tony, was this crossposted with 446?

[Tommy]

Could it not just be that they wanted to get the miller out of the way rather sooner than later, and save power-role hunting for when they have a better shot?
No scum wants a miller in a endgame. And the chance that user could've been fakeclaiming to protect himself would be a bonus.

I just thought of another reason to kill user. So the scum can be like "why on earth would they kill user?"

Can you please explain to me what prompted you to defend the mafia nightkill choice?

This isn't really defence. He's trying to work out how the mafia are thinking, which is pro-town. It would be bad if he was saying, "I think X and Y are Mafia, but let's be nice and not vote for them."

[Tommy]

He's trying to work out how the mafia are thinking, which is pro-town."

Excuse me?
How?

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.

Because working out how the mafia are thinking, coupled with working out how specific players are thinking, increases the chance of identifying the mafia.

Tommy - why did you feel the need to answer for Tony there?

I didn't really answer for him; I answered after him (see 461). I thought it would puncture Darox's aggression by making his sophistry more transparent. Didn't work.

I think that both of the antagonists on this page are looking rather shifty, but that Darox is worse.

[Tommy]

I'm aware that I've twice attacked Tony's attackers. I can see how this makes it look as though I'm trying to protect him. In fact, though, as I said in my last post, I think he's looking quite shady at the moment, so I have no wish to defend him.

So against crywolf's case, I plead coincidence: it just happens that the scummiest player today, like the scummiest player yesterday, has been attacking Tony in fascinatingly flawed ways. I'm far more interested in Darox than in Tony.

[Tommy]

Can I quickly state that I doubt Ythill to be scum right now.

Can I again ask you to expand?

[Tommy]

Rashiminos, what are the reasons for your vote?

[Tommy]

I've just asked gorckat to replace me. I moved to London during Night 1 and started a new job - I don't know if you noticed my level of engagement drop since then. I've been finding it difficult to squeeze Mafia in. Sorry guys - I thought I'd be able to handle the commitment, but it's not working.

**replaced by pickemgenius**