Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[bionicchop2]

What would you ask if you were town and didn't know what they meant?

I thought it was obvious, from the context, that he meant MotR. I also thought asking which he meant would be a good way for scum to appear helpful. I don't think this means you are mafia (it's too assumptive to be a reliable tell), but I mentioned it because it seemed relevant.

Could you tell me what MotR means?

[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.

[iamausername]

neutral as in you have no read on him, or neutral as in 3rd party alignment?

When I read Darox's response I thought, if I was scum I would ask Darox what he meant by neutral. Don't know that this says anything about bionic's alignment, but the thought came up so I figured I'd mention it.

Your comment makes no sense to me. Is somebody who is 'neutral' to you right now the scummiest person you can find? Does that mean everybody else is coming across as clear town to you?

I endorse this product and/or service.

You're essentially saying "this line of questioning is scummy", and then also saying "I agree with this line of questioning" here. What's up with that, Ythill?

You are falsely lumping the questions. My interest was piqued by your first question which I found (mildly) suspicious due to my own thoughts about the “neutral” statement. However, I found the other two points valid: that a “neutral” player seems to be Darox’s best guess for who is scum and therefore, if he is town, his overall suspicions must be unreasonably weak. Which suggests that he isn’t town.

Hey, I'm actually not bionic.

I thought it was obvious, from the context, that he meant MotR. I also thought asking which he meant would be a good way for scum to appear helpful. I don't think this means you are mafia (it's too assumptive to be a reliable tell), but I mentioned it because it seemed relevant.

I didn't think it was immediately obvious that Darox meant neutral in that way, and I certainly don't think scum would be any more likely to ask about that than town, but this makes sense; I can see where the theory came from.

[bionicchop2]

What would you ask if you were town and didn't know what they meant?

I thought it was obvious, from the context, that he meant MotR. I also thought asking which he meant would be a good way for scum to appear helpful. I don't think this means you are mafia (it's too assumptive to be a reliable tell), but I mentioned it because it seemed relevant.

Could you tell me what MotR means?

OK, now that I know this means 'middle of the road', I can respond. I assumed that is what darox meant (it was darox who said this, right?) and was why I asked my question. I can't see why anybody would vote for somebody they were putting right in the middle.

[Darox]

I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as

scummy

.

I think he is playing in a poor manner. Like I said above.
I am undecided on whether this makes him scum or an idiot, but I am leaning scum. Like I said above.

Nobody has done anything to come across as anything near clear town to me. Ythill is probably the person I find most helpful to the town. Elias has been pretty good.

Since it has worked out so well for me in the past, I'll have to go with Misrep again Jerry.

I called him neutral because I am undecided on whether he is scum or an idiot. LIKE I SAID ABOVE.
I used the words neutral and scummy in my initial post. SEE ABOVE.

I hope you can understand this, because if I roll three misreps in a row I have to go directly to jail and do not collect my $200.

[gorckat]

**Lowell has been prodded**

[Lowell]

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.

[fhqwhgads]

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.

QFT. I agree with this assessment, as it is the same feeling I get. We should be very careful of setting a president though, so she's not completely of the hook yet.

Regarding the Darox argument: I don't believe it's giving a tell on him either way, not for me at least. I think its just one comment being dragged out of proportion, probably due to a misunderstanding to his initial meaning.

Lowell's response should be interesting. Meta be damned, he's still the most scummy in my book.

[iamausername]

I used the words neutral and scummy in my initial post. SEE ABOVE.

Yes, you said his

playstyle

comes off as scummy. That's still not the same as saying that you think he's been scummy in this game. And even if you meant to say his play in this game has been scummy, why did you use the word 'neutral' at all?

Regarding the Darox argument: I don't believe it's giving a tell on him either way, not for me at least. I think its just one comment being dragged out of proportion, probably due to a misunderstanding to his initial meaning.

I disagree. I think his original post was very clear in its meaning; there's no way you'd say "I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as scummy." when what you meant to say was "I think he is scummy."

Darox proposed a policy lynch to "correct" Lowell's behaviour in future games, and when people pointed out that this is a terrible idea if we want to win

this

game, he completely changed his story. It's backtracking, plain and simple. And I think that's a scummy reaction.

[fhqwhgads]

Ok, given, his motivations for voting are shady at best.

I saw his statement as a variant on my own earlier, stating that his play style is probably going to bring him under fire for lesser infringements than it would if his style/personality was more palatable. Personally, that's not enough reason for me to vote for him, but he's not helping town by hogging suspicion and giving scum cover.

[Darox]

I used the words neutral and scummy in my initial post. SEE ABOVE.

Yes, you said his

playstyle

comes off as scummy. That's still not the same as saying that you think he's been scummy in this game. And even if you meant to say his play in this game has been scummy, why did you use the word 'neutral' at all?

Regarding the Darox argument: I don't believe it's giving a tell on him either way, not for me at least. I think its just one comment being dragged out of proportion, probably due to a misunderstanding to his initial meaning.

I disagree. I think his original post was very clear in its meaning; there's no way you'd say "I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as scummy." when what you meant to say was "I think he is scummy."

Darox proposed a policy lynch to "correct" Lowell's behaviour in future games, and when people pointed out that this is a terrible idea if we want to win

this

game, he completely changed his story. It's backtracking, plain and simple. And I think that's a scummy reaction.

/facepalm

Now I have to go to jail for rolling three misreps in a row.

My sole experience with Lowell has been this game. His playstyle to me, is his actions in this game.

I used the word neutral, like I have said twice before, because I am not 100% sure whether his play in this game is the result of him being scum or him just playing badly.

I never meant to say "I think Lowell is scum guys, lynch please", stop putting words in my mouth.

How have I changed my story?

[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.

[Ythill]

Just checking in to tell y'all I'm on my usual Monday-Tuesday routine, not much time for internet.

I may post tomorrow but probably not. Definately will be back by Wednesday evening.

[iamausername]

I never meant to say "I think Lowell is scum guys, lynch please", stop putting words in my mouth.

But you were happy to keep your vote on him when crywolf put him to L-1? That sounds like you were happy with a lynch to me.

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.

I'm starting to see the possibility that the 'neutral' bit was just poor word choice, and you WERE saying you found Lowell scummy. In that case, I'll go back to this one; if you think Lowell is scum, why do you want to break him out of the habit of acting scummy?

[Darox]

If only I had a dayvig.

I FIND LOWELL SCUMMY, LIKE I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE. HOWEVER, I THINK THIS COULD JUST BE BECAUSE OF HIS PLAYING STYLE, WHICH I FIND IS ANTI TOWN. I USED THE WORD NEUTRAL INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE IT DISPLAYS MY MIXED FEELINGS ON LOWELL.

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

[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?

[Darox]

I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as scummy.

neutral as in you have no read on him, or neutral as in 3rd party alignment? Your comment makes no sense to me. Is somebody who is 'neutral' to you right now the scummiest person you can find? Does that mean everybody else is coming across as clear town to you?

I'll choose misrep for twenty dollars Jerry.

I think he is playing in a poor manner. Like I said above.
I am undecided on whether this makes him scum or an idiot, but I am leaning scum. Like I said above.

Nobody has done anything to come across as anything near clear town to me. Ythill is probably the person I find most helpful to the town. Elias has been pretty good.

So, I'm going to have to come to the conclusion that your question is loaded.

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?

[iamausername]

If only I had a dayvig.

I FIND LOWELL SCUMMY, LIKE I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE. HOWEVER, I THINK THIS COULD JUST BE BECAUSE OF HIS PLAYING STYLE, WHICH I FIND IS ANTI TOWN. I USED THE WORD NEUTRAL INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE IT DISPLAYS MY MIXED FEELINGS ON LOWELL.

Yeah, I actually got that. That's not what I was asking. This post here:

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.

I'd like some elaboration. What habit do you want to break Lowell out of? Why?

[Darox]

I want him to stop acting in an anti town manner. Because... it is anti town?

[crywolf20084]

I want him to stop acting in an anti town manner. Because... it is anti town?

Well ain't that a perfect argument.

[fhqwhgads]

I want him to stop acting in an anti town manner. Because... it is anti town?

Ok, ok, I get your 'neutral' statement and accept your explanation. What I believe user is asking, is do you feel that if it is apparent that he only seems scummy because of his gameplay, that you think he should still be lynched, so he can 'learn' not to act like that in the future?

[Darox]

Only if no one manages to make themselves look scummier and a deadline threatens, but I find this unlikely.

[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?

[Darox]

Why should I have unvoted him?

You still have yet to explain why being at L-1 is somehow fundamentally wrong.

I knew he was at L-1 when he was put there, but I felt the added pressure would be useful.

As far as I can tell, this line of questioning is based on the assumption that no one would ever have a reason for not unvoting when someone is at L-1 excluding wanting that person dead. This is not the case.

[iamausername]

Why should I have unvoted him?

Because when someone is at L-1, they are in imminent danger of being hammered. If you see that the person you are voting for is at L-1 and choose not to unvote, and then someone hammers, you are directly responsible for that lynch as much as the guy who placed the hammer vote. And if you're as uncertain about Lowell's alignment as you say, I wouldn't think you'd want to be in that position. Did the speed that the wagon on Lowell grew not give you any cause for concern?

Only if no one manages to

make themselves look scummier

and a deadline threatens, but I find this unlikely.

I find this phrasing interesting. Town are looking out for people who are actually acting scummy. Scum are looking out for townies who are making themselves look scummy.

---

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

You've probably figured out where I stand on this by now, but:

The second possibility is that you wanted him dead but planned to wriggle out of carrying your share of the blame afterwards.

This.