Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

Lowell · Post Post #16 (isolation #0) » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:15 am

##vote Elias

. I really hate long sig tags.

Lowell · Post Post #18 (isolation #1) » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:25 am

I'm a huge fan of unprovoked, page 1 claims. Just so you know, if I were a mason, I'd be claiming right now....

I 100% believe the claim. Although Ythill makes an interesting point....

Lowell · Post Post #47 (isolation #2) » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:35 am

I feel like all I do is make this argument in various games.

Why you should believe iamausername's claim:

1) WIFOM notwithstanding, it's too risky for a scum to make this claim on PAGE 1
2) There could be multiple scumgroups/an SK/etc. So even if he's scum, there's a chance being "cleared" by town will get him killed by another faction, again making it pointless to fake.
3) Page 1 claims are awesome.

Why you shouldn't whine about iamausername's claim:

1) So what if it narrows the scum's search for the cop? It also narrows the town's search for scum, which is far more important.
2) It potentially SAVES a cop, were one to investigate iamausername by chance and then be put in the awkward position of having to out him/herself AND a role that turns out not to be scum.

##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.

Lowell · Post Post #51 (isolation #3) » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:16 am

There are so many people I want dead.

Lowell · Post Post #89 (isolation #4) » Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:56 am

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.

Lowell · Post Post #91 (isolation #5) » Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:32 am

TonyMontana wrote: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.

Lowell · Post Post #114 (isolation #6) » Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:03 am

##unvote, ##vote crywolf

. Bandwagoning. I don't think we'll get much of a read out of her unless she feels the pressure.

Lowell · Post Post #119 (isolation #7) » Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:07 am

fhqwhgads wrote:
Lowell wrote: Bandwagoning
Are you accusing her, or describing your own actions?

Describing my own. I'm saying I think this is a good bandwagon.

Lowell · Post Post #120 (isolation #8) » Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:10 am

@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.

Lowell · Post Post #123 (isolation #9) » Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:05 am

@elias- regardless of their primary goal, no scumgroup is going to want a miller around at endgame. So he'd have to be AWFULLY certain there are no other scumgroups than his to make such a claim on page 1.

Lowell · Post Post #127 (isolation #10) » Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:57 am

Lame. Vote someone else, already. If my case is a stretch, yours is even more of one.

Lowell · Post Post #140 (isolation #11) » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:19 am

##unvote, ## vote rash

. I ain't claimin', bro. This wagon is too poor.

Lowell · Post Post #149 (isolation #12) » Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:53 am

Tommy wrote:
Elias_the_thief wrote: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.

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

I've answered every question I've seen. If someone "asks" something inane, I reserve the right to pass.

Lowell · Post Post #156 (isolation #13) » Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:26 am

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.

Lowell · Post Post #158 (isolation #14) » Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:03 pm

Elias_the_thief wrote: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?

Lowell · Post Post #206 (isolation #15) » Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:10 pm

Prod received.

I'm in the mountains for Labor Day weekend, my connection and comp time has been scattered. Will be back in force as soon as possible.

Lowell · Post Post #231 (isolation #16) » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:48 am

I'm back. And not buying the case against Darox. I think there's some opportunism going on here. Something about Tommy's "I think I understand you" post set off alarm bells, as did the fact that crywolf seemed to find the coziest spot on the wagon to sit on.