Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[bionicchop2]

I'm voting for Tony because he is scum. I thought that was obvious.
I also thought it was obvious that I hadn't softclaimed. Because, you know, I never once hinted at something like 'I'm going to get you tonight' or 'I won't let you die' or 'I have proof of guilt' or anything along those lines.
What you interpret from my actions does not equal a softclaim from myself.

This vote has reasons.

I am so ashamed by being confused and thinking you might have more information than others may have.

Your sarcasm and condescending tone are certainly not helpful towards any goals a town player might have.

[bionicchop2]

Can somebody remind me how Crywolf has managed to slip completely out of the picture here?

Sure, Darox soft-claimed

I haven't soft claimed anything.

meh.

##unvote TonyMontana

I kind of thought you were making a soft-claim myself which is why I couldn't provide any solid reasons for following you. Since you are saying you weren't, then I see no reason to vote Tony based on arguments given throughout the game.

NOTE: IF YOU THINK SOMEONE IS SOFT CLAIMING, DON'T POINT IT OUT. All it does is point the mafia to them. The point of soft claiming is to keep it SECRET AND SUBTLE.

I didn't point it out until someone else did and he denied it. At that point I could state my real reason for my vote which I had to defend with weak reasoning when I was actually asked about it.

[Oman]

I know, Bionic, but I thought I'd cover my bases.

And Tony, you're not dealing with 3-year-olds, you're playing mafia. Get used to be questioned and critized or give up now.

[TonyMontana]

Yes, It's the questions and critique that's getting to me

I get irked when you accuse me of not answering straight when I say that I don't think Darox is town.
That means I think he's scum, and I don't know what you would think I could gain from saying something else than "DAROX IS SCUM"

[crywolf20084]

68 Tommy QFTed Tony about wanting lowell to talk, which was kinda vastly agreed but that's when I first picked up on the whole one way Tommy/Tony thing

90 is the frist instance where Tommy goes out of the way to defend Tony.

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".

94 he does it again.

Secondly, you

(Lowell)

're putting words into his

(Tony's)

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".

There was nothing about TonyMontana's post "clamoring for more flavor", or "implying he wanted to draw more out of the claim".

about Tony, and is trying to get lowell to talk about it.

201 he once again is talking about Tony.

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?

This post is a little bit more warrented because he is commenting on a group of people, but still he has more to say about Tony than he does about anybody else.

251 is yet another post. At the end he comments on how people are getting him and Tony confused. I can see why with all of this defending.

457 he starts up again with a nice period of ignoring Tony.

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."

I really don't know why I was saving this, but I feel like now that someone else has noticed it that its a good time to bring this out into the open.

With this I shall

##Vote: Tommy

[crywolf20084]

Are you kidding me....


Let me try this again....

68 Tommy QFTed Tony about wanting lowell to talk, which was kinda vastly agreed but that's when I first picked up on the whole one way Tommy/Tony thing

90 is the frist instance where Tommy goes out of the way to defend Tony.

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".

94 he does it again.

Secondly, you

(Lowell)

're putting words into his

(Tony's)

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".

There was nothing about TonyMontana's post "clamoring for more flavor", or "implying he wanted to draw more out of the claim".

150 he is still talking about Tony, and is trying to get lowell to talk about it.

201 he once again is talking about Tony.

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?

This post is a little bit more warrented because he is commenting on a group of people, but still he has more to say about Tony than he does about anybody else.

251 is yet another post. At the end he comments on how people are getting him and Tony confused. I can see why with all of this defending.

457 he starts up again with a nice period of ignoring Tony.

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."

Yay there we go.

[TonyMontana]

I really don't know why I was saving this, but I feel like now that someone else has noticed it that its a good time to bring this out into the open.

It's certainly an interesting observation, but you don't exactly connect the dots for justifying your vote?
I don't have much of a read on tommy, but I did notice he being "on my team" yesterday.

[Ythill]

NOTE: IF YOU THINK SOMEONE IS SOFT CLAIMING, DON'T POINT IT OUT. All it does is point the mafia to them. The point of soft claiming is to keep it SECRET AND SUBTLE.

Thanks coach. Except that I have a good reason to believe he was lying. Capiche?

As the person who asked some of the questions, I think Tony (eventually) answered me. Darox has not. The former was being mildly evasive and now is simply annoyed with the nitpicking. The latter is the one who is stonewalling. Let's make this very simple...

Darox, name the "reasons" for your vote on Tony. "He's scum," is not enough. Tell us WHY you think he's scum. If you cannot, then we have uncovered your soft-claim gambit and backing out of it now does not clear you.

[fhqwhgads]

I find your vote slightly strange Crywolf.

Well, before I say more, I have a question. Whom do you find more scummy. Tony or Tommy?

[bionicchop2]

@Darox - all of your reasons for your vote seem to have occurred after your vote. Please outline the reasons which came before your vote and made him obvious scum (so obvious everybody else missed how obvious it was).

[crywolf20084]

@fhq: Tommy because he

is

buddying up with somebody very anti-town. Don't get me wrong, I believe that both Darox and Tony are getting what they deserve in the way of questioning.

Yes, It's the questions and critique that's getting to me

I get irked when you accuse me of not answering straight when I say that I don't think Darox is town.
That means I think he's scum, and I don't know what you would think I could gain from saying something else than "DAROX IS SCUM"

Please use the three E's as my professors have preached to the classes.

Explain.

Elaborate.

Examples.


And ya know what, people wouldn't be getting on your nerves if you would just follow that, because guess what, it's the lack of those three things that everyone is questioning you for!

[crywolf20084]

EDIT: Darox, that goes for you too...

[gorckat]

Vote Count

(6 to lynch)

TonyMontanav(2):

Darox, Oman

Darox(2):

Ythill, TonyMontana

Tommy:

crywolf

Not voting (5):

Elias, Rashiminos, Tommy, fhqwhgads, bionic


I'll be checking on prod status and any needed replacements later in the day.

[TonyMontana]

And ya know what, people wouldn't be getting on your nerves if you would just follow that, because guess what, it's the lack of those three things that everyone is questioning you for!

"everyone" being darox and oman. ¬¬

[crywolf20084]

Add-on to Fhq: Either Tony or Tommy would be a good lynch for today because:

A) If Tommy is gone, how long will Tony last without Tommy's defence.

B) If Tony's gone, what kind of opinions can Tommy bring to the table that haven't already been spewed forthwith by Tony.

[crywolf20084]

And ya know what, people wouldn't be getting on your nerves if you would just follow that, because guess what, it's the lack of those three things that everyone is questioning you for!

"everyone" being darox and oman. ¬¬

And Ythill if I remember correctly. It saves us all trouble if people would just EXPLAIN themselves.

[TonyMontana]

Add-on to Fhq: Either Tony or Tommy would be a good lynch for today because:

A) If Tommy is gone, how long will Tony last without Tommy's defence.

B) If Tony's gone, what kind of opinions can Tommy bring to the table that haven't already been spewed forthwith by Tony.

And then we go back to looking for scum?
I can't vouch for Tommy (And would like to be totally unaffiliated with him, given the circumstances) But I know 100% that 50% of this "team" is innocent, and your willingness to lynch either one of us, tells me you're really not putting the towns interest first here.

[bionicchop2]

cry - you are making a huge assumption if you think one player defending another means both are scum.

[crywolf20084]

cry - you are making a huge assumption if you think one player defending another means both are scum.

I can understand defending a person once or twice if you disagree with the attacker, but constant like its been? Like I said, I'd rather lynch Tommy vs. Tony

[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.

[crywolf20084]

9 is not a cincidence. sorry

[TonyMontana]

9 of what?
I was very prominent in yesterdays discussion, as far as being involved in lowells actions. So just because Tommy would mention my name when he was criticizing lowells plays, doesn't mean he was "defending" me, or standing up for me everytime.
It seems like you're trying to give this more credibility than it deserves, which can be exemplified by your mentioning #150, but noticeably not quoting, because it's an example of Tommy mentioning my name with

no

implications of a defense for me.

[fhqwhgads]

@Darox - all of your reasons for your vote seem to have occurred after your vote. Please outline the reasons which came before your vote and made him obvious scum (so obvious everybody else missed how obvious it was).

QFT. Also, because I screwed it up the first time

##Vote:Darox

. You better have something better to say than 'Because he is obviously scum, and if it isn't obvious, my argument is."

@fhq: Tommy because he is buddying up with somebody very anti-town. Don't get me wrong, I believe that both Darox and Tony are getting what they deserve in the way of questioning.

This answered my concerns...

Add-on to Fhq: Either Tony or Tommy would be a good lynch for today because:

A) If Tommy is gone, how long will Tony last without Tommy's defence.

B) If Tony's gone, what kind of opinions can Tommy bring to the table that haven't already been spewed forthwith by Tony.

... however, this brings up some new ones. It is fine if you believe Tommy is more scummy for buddying up, but you are now assuming both scum?

[bionicchop2]

cry - you are making a huge assumption if you think one player defending another means both are scum.

I can understand defending a person once or twice if you disagree with the attacker, but constant like its been? Like I said, I'd rather lynch Tommy vs. Tony

You also need to realize scum will defend town in order to buddy up with them and force a mislynch on the 2nd player. You are correct in saying Tommy would be the lynch over Tony if this situation convinces you at least 1 of them are scum.

I guess my point is that Tommy defending Tony would not incriminate Tony if Tommy turned out to be scum.

[bionicchop2]

9 of what?
I was very prominent in yesterdays discussion, as far as being involved in lowells actions. So just because Tommy would mention my name when he was criticizing lowells plays, doesn't mean he was "defending" me, or standing up for me everytime.
It seems like you're trying to give this more credibility than it deserves, which can be exemplified by your mentioning #150, but noticeably not quoting, because it's an example of Tommy mentioning my name with

no

implications of a defense for me.

Unfortunately, now you are defending him. The accusation that Tommy is defending you really doesn't require a response from you.