Open 473: Jungle Republic GAME OVER

[uctriton00]

Page 2 has scum slips for Aldus and town slips for Thor.

Aldus voting mod that is ridiculous and are trying to do nothing and dismiss it as "having fun". Staying in RVS?
I don't have Whiskers and Prohawk as being aligned. I don't buy them as bussing each other. But Whisker's wagon though is built out of confirmation bias that everyone has for Thor so it looks like a damn reach.
Tajun is also scum slipping. Two "question-prods"? Yeah, no. Scum #2.

Vote: Aldus

[Rob14]

Oops, missed that Thor because I was looking for player names in your answer. So you didn't have any particular player names of people you thought were acting like all three wagons were obvtown when you posted that?

[Whiskers]

Thanks for answering for Thor, Whiskers. Congrats, that's the first actually scummy thing you've done all game. I had brushed off your earlier interactions with Thor as childish admiration, but I'm going to upgrade it to possible scum-buddies.

Still want your answer, Thor.

Ok, sorry. Considering he

had

answered you, I thought you might be asking just for clarification. Miscommunication is really great for scum, and since you weren't interested in changing your question (After you had received an apparently unsuitable answer), and I didn't expect Thor to be any more useful in explaining (he is a bit of an ass, and my suspicions were shown to be true when he quoted his last answer in response to you), so I thought I would hand you the fucking meaning on a silver god damned plate.

Two stubborn townies butting heads doesn't lynch scum. It makes a smoke screen for them.

[preedit]
Rob made his post.

[auspicious]

Alright, sorry for relative inactivity, been busy today.

This has actually been a pretty interesting day so far. I personally don't like the Whiskers lynch (his defense seems like that of a townie - scum generally feel the need to put their accuser at ease while defending), although I don't really scumread Thor either. This, however, caught my eye:

Meh, I think your vote would have been better left as a random vote, unless your theory of Whiskers actually proves to be lurking... I don't think you can say he is currently lurking when the day literally just started. No sheeping from me.

P-EDIT: Whiskers, you can be suspicious of me, but I think your non-comment of Thor's serious vote on you is way more suspect than my random vote. Time to sheep Thor.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Whiskers

[/quote]

So, first you express skepticism of Thor's vote, and then literally minutes later you go on to sheep him for a completely trivial reason? =/ His "non-comment" of Thor's vote means nothing considering that he was still writing up his comment. I really,

really

dislike your logic and your jumpiness here.

Alright, I think Whiskers has sufficiently overreacted to warrant a vote.

VOTE: Whiskers

A bit nervous about Alduskkel as well, the mod vote feels a bit forced, and not all that useful. Alduskkel, any thoughts on the minor wagon here?

If I may ask, what makes you think it's an overreaction? Whiskers said one, maybe two

minorly

scummy things during his textwall (and frankly, being

too

town once a vote's been placed on you is one of the biggest scumtells of all). Everything else was a completely valid point.

Jesus Christ, give me a second.

Ahh, so you're that kinda poster. Thor is one step ahead of you, and you are two steps behind. You should quicken your pace a bit.

I really don't like this post at all. Prohawk feels panicky and forced this game. Does anyone have meta on him; is he usually like this? <.<

Boy do you like to do a nice dance Whiskers. I know how big Thor's ego is, believe me. I don't think its even possible to budge that thing. What I don't get is how you can't wrap your head around a random vote. That's what I don't get. Anyhoo back on track.

But it

isn't

a random vote; Thor explained it. As for your vote, it was a poorly explained sheep vote; not a random vote.

What I saw:

(Which also may be way off the mark) He made the case to get us out of RVS, it was not a completely logical case - I believe intentionally crafted as a trap to see who would jump on and sheep (as he requested), who would defend, and how you would react. I noted his poor logic as you saw in Post #25, but then recognized you didn't even care and instead jumped all over me and HD for some obvious history you have with Thor (of which I also sense a distaste).

This would be a viable reason to vote Whiskers if it had been a few hours, a day, etc. Instead it was maybe an hour at most, and Whiskers' post was fairly long. Now, I don't know this forum's meta yet, but I honestly see no reason to jump the gun on voting him for "not commenting"

Frankly, your immediate random vote for Thor was incredibly forced as well.

I think for now I'd like to

Vote: ProHawk

.

[ProHawk]

Why does everyone here seem so blind? Fine, if you all want a wall of rebuttals I will play your game.

[ProHawk]

So, first you express skepticism of Thor's vote, and then literally minutes later you go on to sheep him for a completely trivial reason? =/ His "non-comment" of Thor's vote means nothing considering that he was still writing up his comment. I really,

really

dislike your logic and your jumpiness here.

My logic is sound. Whiskers expressed suspicion, and failed to vote. This is scum-hesitance, plain and simple. You will notice that my post came well before Whiskers even wrote up his comment. He made one post before I posted. I never knew that follow up post was even in the works. I am not jumpy, I am playing the game. Please elaborate like a lot on why you think I am "jumpy".

Ahh, so you're that kinda poster. Thor is one step ahead of you, and you are two steps behind. You should quicken your pace a bit.

I really don't like this post at all. Prohawk feels panicky and forced this game. Does anyone have meta on him; is he usually like this? <.<

I have played 15+ games on-site. Quit being lazy and do the meta-analysis yourself if you really care.

What exactly don't you like about this post? How in the world do you see panicky and forced in that post? It was a sarcastic and witty post. Not one person had officially attacked me so your point about me being "panicky" is moronic at best. What exactly do you think is panicky? Forced? Well, I don't see it, but that is up for interpretation. I will say this: nothing I do is forced.

Boy do you like to do a nice dance Whiskers. I know how big Thor's ego is, believe me. I don't think its even possible to budge that thing. What I don't get is how you can't wrap your head around a random vote. That's what I don't get. Anyhoo back on track.

But it

isn't

a random vote; Thor explained it. As for your vote, it was a poorly explained sheep vote; not a random vote.

Way off-base again. Whiskers didn't understand

my

initial random vote, which she tried to pin on me as some sort of holy-reverence I had with Thor. My comment about fearing the "God of Thunder" was clearly laced with sarcasm and not real fear. Hence, you trying to make it seem like I was talking about Thor's vote, or even my second vote is either poor-comprehension/poor-communication, or scummy.

A sheep vote? Oh wait, do you mean my other sarcastic remark about sheeping Thor, where I actually provided evidence before I said "lets sheep Thor"?

What I saw:

(Which also may be way off the mark) He made the case to get us out of RVS, it was not a completely logical case - I believe intentionally crafted as a trap to see who would jump on and sheep (as he requested), who would defend, and how you would react. I noted his poor logic as you saw in Post #25, but then recognized you didn't even care and instead jumped all over me and HD for some obvious history you have with Thor (of which I also sense a distaste).

This would be a viable reason to vote Whiskers if it had been a few hours, a day, etc. Instead it was maybe an hour at most, and Whiskers' post was fairly long. Now, I don't know this forum's meta yet, but I honestly see no reason to jump the gun on voting him for "not commenting"

Frankly, your immediate random vote for Thor was incredibly forced as well.

I think for now I'd like to

Vote: ProHawk

.

Nope. Wrong again. I don't care if you dislike my reason for voting Whiskers, how does it make me scum? My immediate random vote was forced? It was a random vote, how do you force a random vote? Let me spell it out for you, since you obviously have no clue about RVS:

1) Make up a cute-idea/reason/or not.
2) Place a vote. Doesn't matter who its on, doesn't matter what your reason is cause its random.

So, how about you answer something for me. What do you have with Whiskers that you are set on defending him so heavily?

[ProHawk]

Now that that boring post is over I can get back to hunting.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Alduskkel

I have already expressed my suspicions in Post #40.
Aldus, you also failed to respond to my questions.

Why not vote Thor who instigated this case you "don't like in general?"

Also, care to elaborate why you don't like this case in general?

[Thor665]

Oops, missed that Thor because I was looking for player names in your answer. So you didn't have any particular player names of people you thought were acting like all three wagons were obvtown when you posted that?

Who ever knows why I say what I do?

[auspicious]

My logic is sound. Whiskers expressed suspicion, and failed to vote. This is scum-hesitance, plain and simple. You will notice that my post came well before Whiskers even wrote up his comment. He made one post before I posted. I never knew that follow up post was even in the works. I am not jumpy, I am playing the game. Please elaborate like a lot on why you think I am "jumpy".

Your post came 18 minutes before his. I wouldn't call that "well before".

I think you were too quick to vote after having just said that you didn't want to sheep Thor. Sure, I can understand that maybe you didn't know a follow-up post was in the works, but that's still no reason to vote for him the way you did. That's why I said you're being jumpy - you're too quick to switch, etc.

What exactly don't you like about this post? How in the world do you see panicky and forced in that post? It was a sarcastic and witty post. Not one person had officially attacked me so your point about me being "panicky" is moronic at best. What exactly do you think is panicky? Forced? Well, I don't see it, but that is up for interpretation. I will say this: nothing I do is forced.

I may have phrased that a bit unskillfully - what I meant is that you seemed panicky in your quick switch to Whiskers. The forced part came from that last "sarcastic and witty" post. Honestly, in my experience, I've found that scum seem to feel obligated to say something useful, thus many of their posts feel forced.

Nope. Wrong again. I don't care if you dislike my reason for voting Whiskers, how does it make me scum? My immediate random vote was forced? It was a random vote, how do you force a random vote? Let me spell it out for you, since you obviously have no clue about RVS:

1) Make up a cute-idea/reason/or not.
2) Place a vote. Doesn't matter who its on, doesn't matter what your reason is cause its random.

It's not just your reason, it's what I interpreted as wishy-washiness when it came to your read on him.

Although you're right that I didn't know what RVS meant as I'm new to the site. Honestly, other than reactions (which aren't even that useful considering that town's just as likely to panic in that situation as scum), I don't see what benefits it'd have. w/e

So, how about you answer something for me. What do you have with Whiskers that you are set on defending him so heavily?

Because, frankly, I townread him. Why shouldn't I defend a townread?

[Whiskers]

This is scum-hesitance, plain and simple.

What makes it scum hesitance? Do I have to throw my vote around at every player I find scummy? Wouldn't that make me look bad?

you're too quick to switch, etc.

<<Case in point?

Looks like ProHawk

does

think he has to switch his vote to the flavour of the month, which would explain why he put the second vote on Thor, then the second vote on me, and now is switching to the new favourite wagon, Aldsukkel.

However, I do have to point out that ProHawk gave his own reason for voting me, so can't be considered to be "sheeping". The mark of experienced scum-- or maybe just good scum.

[Alduskkel]

Now that that boring post is over I can get back to hunting.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Alduskkel

I have already expressed my suspicions in Post #40.
Aldus, you also failed to respond to my questions.

Why not vote Thor who instigated this case you "don't like in general?"

Also, care to elaborate why you don't like this case in general?

I answered them in post 41, THE POST RIGHT AFTER YOURS

The way you switch your vote around makes me think you are just looking for an easy target, and TBH I am not very good at defending myself

Vote: ProHawk

[ProHawk]

Too quick to vote? So scum throw down the gauntlet on a whimmy now?

My "jumpiness" as you say was a result of finding something scummy. If I see something scummy, and I don't have a real vote down, it earns my vote. This is how I scum-hunt. I am not worried about what people think about it. I don't force things, least-of-all as scum, go read my scum-game here if you don't believe me.

It all depends on how confident you are in your reads. I find it interesting because I don't see Whiskers as all that townie. You gave one reason why you think he is town, something about not putting the accuser at ease... you don't think scum can be aggressive-defenders?

Whiskers

- Two words for you. Random Vote. Random.

I read your play as scum-hesitance, its just what I read it as. Its my read. Yes, a vote is not static, but is an indication of you being serious about what you see and not fence-sitting. Why would placing a vote on scum make you look bad?

Do you think Aldus is town?

[Alduskkel]

ProHawk, I didn't say that. auspicious did

[ProHawk]

... yeah, I was ninja'd that first part was for Auspicious, the second was for Whiskers, your post is coming in just a second.

[Whiskers]

We play very differently then, ProHawk.

You never force things.
I never lie.

Do you think Aldus is town?

Do you think he is scum?

(Also, nice self-meta, both of you.)

[Whiskers]

ahaha, i just realized i did it too in that last post. I'm a big hypocrite, fact established.

[ProHawk]

So, looking back I guess it just wasn't written very clear, I missed that part about you saying you didn't find Thor-Scummy. Got it, but still you never addressed why you didn't like the case, unless I am really blind, or stupid.... it could be both.

You can call me switching my vote around "looking-for-an-easy-target" if you want. But I have only switched my vote twice, both times for people I feel are scummy. It's called hunting.

You never lie as scum Whiskers? So if I were to ask you if you were scum (and you were) your response would be??

[ProHawk]

The jury is still out on Aldus being scum, but he is on the top of my list ATM.

[Whiskers]

What changed? You argued with someone about me and defended your view of me being scum... and then changed your vote.

[ProHawk]

Your comment about town v town creating a smoke-screen. I needed to get out of the smoke to get a clearer picture.

[Thor665]

I'm not sure whether to buy that as a lesson learned or lynch you as obv. scum now...

[ProHawk]

Who me? You're more than welcome to hop on my wagon, but it may be to your detriment.

[Sky]

ProHawk, do you think Whiskers is scum yea or nay?

[auspicious]

This is scum-hesitance, plain and simple.

What makes it scum hesitance? Do I have to throw my vote around at every player I find scummy? Wouldn't that make me look bad?

Why do you care about how you look? Town doesn't need to look good, they need to lynch scum.

The way you switch your vote around makes me think you are just looking for an easy target, and TBH I am not very good at defending myself

Vote: ProHawk

This is actually exactly what I was thinking. Aldus could very well be lynched today (actually, I think he probably will be, tbh), so I think it's possible that Pro was trying to deflect the attention from himself by voting the next favorite for the lynch.

Still, I kind of understand his read. In fact, if ProHawk starts dropping more towntells, I'd be inclined to vote for you.

Too quick to vote? So scum throw down the gauntlet on a whimmy now?

My "jumpiness" as you say was a result of finding something scummy. If I see something scummy, and I don't have a real vote down, it earns my vote. This is how I scum-hunt. I am not worried about what people think about it. I don't force things, least-of-all as scum, go read my scum-game here if you don't believe me.

I'm between things atm and don't have time to read a whole game, but I'll check it out when I get a free minute.

For now, I'm starting to feel like Pro's towntelling under pressure, so I'll

Unvote: ProHawk

It all depends on how confident you are in your reads. I find it interesting because I don't see Whiskers as all that townie.

When I have a read, I act on it until that read is refuted. I believe that that's the optimal way to play.

[ProHawk]

His actions at the beginning of the day were scummy. However I am not

completely

sold on the idea yet, so I am working a different angle until I can get a better read. At this time I put him as null in my reads.