educate yourself, fool
VOTE: twistedadvice
6 months and you don't know what a hydra isIn post 28, burn_209 wrote:This is my first game with a "hydra." What are they and why do people do them? Lol
i don't remember a lot of macho bluster from you in double dayIn post 75, Bicephalous Bob wrote:snarky
never pegged you for the needy type, greyice...In post 87, GreyICE wrote:Annnnntiiiiii!
You don't have an opinion on me Anti!
I'm sad.
Why meta anti?
benmage'dIn post 97, Hopkirk wrote:And anti-hero want to respond after avoiding it in your last couple of posts?
respond to what?In post 109, Hopkirk wrote:Again anti-hero want to respond?
you gave the responseIn post 113, Hopkirk wrote:You know in 80 you said "your turn".In post 112, Bicephalous Bob wrote:notice how you're immediately choosing to cast what hopkirk is doing in the scummiest light without considering that maybe you don't know what the hell he's talking about
Then in 84 right after that i responded.
Then you ignored the response?
If you indirectly and directly ask for a response then there is something wrong when you ignore said response.
there's a chance hopkirk is foot in mouth townieIn post 115, Bicephalous Bob wrote:parallelism
right, because it's important to "win"In post 119, Hopkirk wrote:So no response to what i'm saying? If you simply say it's wrong then the only thing there is your opinion rather than solid logic backing- which i have. when it comes down to logic vs someone saying "nah i don't think i even need to bother refuting the logic" then logic wins.
see, he's even admitting itIn post 121, Bicephalous Bob wrote:I'm whiteknightingMonkeyMan576 wrote:So...Bob and hopkirk are on the same team? I don't see any reason for Bob to be defending hop so strongly.
also tying us together in case I go down
you're anti-meta? i guess you learn something new every day... :\In post 132, GreyICE wrote:"You don't sound like you did in X Bob!" Meta makes me sad, Anti. Sadness can only be cured with murder.
Is jbomber the scums, anti?
amendment: expound on your monkeyman one too, i think that one's interesting as well.In post 164, Antihero wrote:@kk
i'm guessing your scumread on beast, monkeyman and i stem from your read on hopkirk and bob?
the one i'm really interested in is beast, please expound on that one
toxicity of the hopkirk wagon increasing....In post 176, Katarina LeBlanc wrote:VOTE: Hopkirk
How does it feel like being caught so early in the game? Are you the type to bus?
are...In post 196, Twisted Advice wrote:Dang it, that totally worked on me.
it's called scumhunting and gauging reactionsIn post 246, Hopkirk wrote:Lots of flipping and putting votes on every wagons seems so opportunistic. It doesn't really seem you care who is lynched just you get a lynch/can sow as much distrust as possible/stir stuff up.
not on the wagon, but i'll take this oneIn post 261, notscience wrote:Can someone on the hopkirk wagon (I'd prefer one of the later votes) explain why it's a thing? "Bcoz he's scummy" is not an answer.
with the kind of scumlords we have floating around out there? bob and khan, for instance.In post 295, notscience wrote:I failed english
Is the last quote me speaking or him.
I feel like burn/hopkirk will make their alignments known after a while, I've seen burn get run up every game he's had thus far and hopkirk is kinda out there. I'm waiting for a good non-lynchbait wagon.
right...In post 313, GreyICE wrote:Nah but it's mostly the way this is like the first real conversation we've had, and it's all sarcastic and shit.
no, but it's still part of the "vote hopping is scummy" argument.In post 323, jbomber732 wrote:Are you blind? I quoted bob's post. where did I ask anti any question?
that's one explanation for itIn post 337, Turkish Van wrote:Antihero, you discuss the appeasing thing in 237. Looking at it along with his subsequent play, do you still think jbomber is scum trying to placate his critics?
this would be good if khan was... i don't know.. an "intermediate" player (like me)In post 337, Turkish Van wrote:Grey, I'm not sure about Khan right now; I agree that his stances are less than solid, but I'm also seeing some genuine attempts to figure people out in the process. I disagree about jbomber quite a bit though. His reaction to you calling him out on not voting doesn't read scummy. He eventually places a vote but didn't exactly leap to appease you in the process. I'd expect scum to move one way or hte other, especially with the slight town read on you he professed right around the time you called him out. Brown-nosing scum seem more likely to do that along with placing a vote, or get paralyzed and not vote at all.
you're really self-conscious about how other people see you and really want to be seen as townIn post 339, jbomber732 wrote:what do you mean by people pleaser?
actually, just had a look at khan's profile and it's about comparable to mine. i have a pretty unusually crappy scum game, though.In post 340, Antihero wrote:this would be good if khan was... i don't know.. an "intermediate" player (like me)In post 337, Turkish Van wrote:Grey, I'm not sure about Khan right now; I agree that his stances are less than solid, but I'm also seeing some genuine attempts to figure people out in the process. I disagree about jbomber quite a bit though. His reaction to you calling him out on not voting doesn't read scummy. He eventually places a vote but didn't exactly leap to appease you in the process. I'd expect scum to move one way or hte other, especially with the slight town read on you he professed right around the time you called him out. Brown-nosing scum seem more likely to do that along with placing a vote, or get paralyzed and not vote at all.
given his join date, i would think his scum game has advanced beyond that
what i said before about beast and the hard line defense of bob bugs me, but you're saying that you think it's an attempt to figure something out?
you apparently thought it was worth mentioning, so i think it's worth analyzingIn post 363, Kublai Khan wrote:Gosh, the people I listed as "slightly scummy" on Page 10(ish.. whatever it was) have very thin cases on them. How atrociously suspicious of me.
so, because they're "weak" and only on page 10, i can't disagree with them and think you're scummy for them?In post 366, Kublai Khan wrote:Was it? Product was exactly as advertised.In post 364, Antihero wrote:you apparently thought it was worth mentioning, so i think it's worth analyzing
>_>In post 370, Kublai Khan wrote:Deflecting what from what? There is literally nothing to deflect from. You are making no sense and I literally do not understand why you're painting completely benign reads with the brush of nefariousness. I'm not pushing a case against beastcharizard or MonkeyMan576. I don't care about them too much, but I have an eye on them. I can't fathom why anyone would care about a "slight scumread" more than a "scumread".
You don't really care about my scumreads, but want everyone to take notice of my "slight scumreads" by repeating it over and over again. So what is your angle?
bob has done no scumhunting in any shape or form so far this game (calling monkeyman "town for not reading the setup" is the closest he gets)In post 359, Twisted Advice wrote:Hopkirk (3) - beastcharizard, Twisted Advice, MonkeyMan576
Bicephalous Bob (2) – PeregrineV, Antihero
burn (2) – LotU, SSK
Everything else looks to be a one vote wagon. Could we consider lynching scum today, please?
Iago
he used his fingers, and he typed it. or he used that fancy-pantsy voice-to-text software. not really sure.