Mini Normal 1879 Bringer Mafia II [Game Over]

[Cooperative Sheep]

Not a lot of stuff to sheep yet.

Vote: WhemeStar

Intentionally avoiding Gerry since I think he will likely flail regardless of alignment.
Avoiding LilUzi because he's currently less active.

Sheep the sheep?

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Lowell - why avoid the larger RVS wagon on WhemeStar to pressure Lil Uzi instead?

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Lowell - So you would have been okay with the pressure on WhemeStar if you'd thought of it before me? Is that a habit that will carry through the game? Feels like it would make you hard to cooperate with if town.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I absolutely trust that - you should place a vote so the rest of town can sheep you.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Lowell - So you would have been okay with the pressure on WhemeStar if you'd thought of it before me?

He never said that. OH LOOK I'M ANSWERING FOR HIM

He assuredly implied it via his semi-indirect answer to my original question though.

Is that a habit that will carry through the game?

Why not wait for his answer of your first question instead of jumping to that's what he did and thus, will you do this all game. That's a bit of shade throwing.

If his answer is "I absolutely didn't do that" then my question has no bearing.
If his answer is "yeah, that's about right" then I would like to save some time and get an answer to the immediate and needed followup question.

How do you consider the question to be shade throwing exactly?

Feels like it would make you hard to cooperate with if town.

This is accusatory and gross.

It's definitely accusatory - that's part of the basis of the game.
You're accusing me of things also, that's how Mafia is played. You make accusations and assess responses.
What makes my accusation specifically an issue for you? Because "making an accusation" is assuredly something town can and should do in the game, so if it's your whole case on me you might as well cite that my avatar has the color white in it for all it actually does to suggest scum intent. Can you expand on this thought?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Sheep slipped. He spoke like he wasn't part of town.

You should vote me if I did that.
When and how did I do that?

[Cooperative Sheep]

You should vote me if I did that.

He did.

Why did you snip out the vote?

I did it to shorten the quote.
I said "you should vote me" in a way you're missing via text, allow me to rephrase my response;

"You SHOULD vote me if I did the thing you said I did...can you show that I did that thing (goy who placed a vote I'm aware of but whose comment lacks backing as I don't think I did what you're saying I did)

@Frogger - also would love a response from you as regards my questions to you a few posts back.

[Cooperative Sheep]

It's throwing shade because a) there's no guarantee that "habit" is what he actually did, and b) you are taking an assumption about something he did and implying it's something that *could* be carried through the game by him.

Actually I just asked him if it would, clarifying my stance that I would not consider that good.
Would you consider it good?

Oh, here we go. Scum likes to say, "but you are doing what I did".

I'm also using grammar and the English language.

The accusation is an issue because it's not a guarantee that's something he did, and because you are applying it to his future play and then shading it with "that will make it hard to cooperate with you" type stuff.

My response to this is to refer to my question to your Post 41. Because it's only shade if other people would consider the behavior neutral.
Me saying - someone using a RNG to choose their votes - if it's an all game habit outside of RVS then it's not good is...I suppose throwing shade - it's also stating common sense.

No, he said he didn't want to sheep the sheep.

That's not what he said;

Because I'm not a sheep, sheep.

He said he didn't sheep.

That doesn't mean he would have voted him had you not voted. There was another vote on him before your vote, so maybe he wouldn't have wanted to sheep the other person voting as well.

You are making a leap in logic at best, doing this intentionally to throw shade at worst.

I agree that I asked him to clarify what he meant and did so in a manner that suggested my presented understanding of his answer was an answer I didn't care for.
You're digging really awkwardly now, are you serious in this opinion? Do you really think his answer translates as "I don't want to sheep CooperativeSheep"?

Sheep slipped. He spoke like he wasn't part of town.

You should vote me if I did that.
When and how did I do that?

he also didn't deny to slipping, he just wants to know where he did lmao.

You would have preferred I denied something without even knowing what it was?
I think you're reading something silly into the comment - it makes perfectly fine sense considering you had just claimed to be town, so the rest of town would need your vote to sheep.

Do you agree with my take or Forgger's take in our debate about how I approached Lowell and why do you agree with the person you agree with?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Do you not link early wagons? I think it's getting nice content from Sheep. And generating discussion.

What nice content do you think it's getting from me? Mostly I've just been asking questions back.

VOTE: WhemeStar

Wheme, what are your thoughts on Sheep and the quick L-2 wagon on him?

Why not give your thoughts?

Speaking of - I'd like you to respond to my questions.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p8812488

Where/are you that confident that Sheep is scum??? Don't you think L-2 this early is dangerous? I mean I understand pressure but that was playing with a bit of fire there Uzi.

You opted to play with a fire, and so did Uzi - what makes his fire the bigger and more dangerous one really?

@Fro99, you don't need to defend my honor. But seriously thanks for defending my honor.

VOTE: sheep

Is the slip real? Who knows? Am I going to laugh if the sheep flips scum? You bet!

i actually liked this reaction much much more. Pretty towny imo

I liked that reaction less than Uzi's - it felt like he was hard playing nonchalance while actively building a wagon. If his goal was pressure, he should have owned the vote - he distanced from it.

Fro99er - Even though someone declared a slip I never remember them incorporating it into their Sheep push. This says to me that they decided that the information garry and the others was voting for wasn't good enough to be a vote worthy matter and decided to pursue his own route. If they was just trying to get sheep lynched then their would be no reason to exclude something like that, that people may thought of red behaviour. This says to me that they are game solving and not just trying to get rid of people

That's an interesting way to look at it - I don't think I can fully come with you on it as thus far Frogger has also shown a bit of lack of responding to things otherwise. Also, he did literally misrepresent and lie about a comment when attacking me, which is an issue. At the RVS stage you shouldn't have to do that - which means either it's a really bad habit, or he was salivating scum who got overexcited.

I continue to dislike Lowell for the early stuff that he opted to dodge and the notes mentioned here.
Frogger is also looking bad - I stand by the salivating scum comment.
I agree with those who think Gerry bought the slip, I don't think it looks like a slip but I don't need to squint hard to see why he thought it did. I find it a little odd that he's not still pushing on it if he actually thought it was a slip though.
I generally like Naomi's entrance.
I also am okay with Terata.
That said I would tend to expect one scum amongst Terata, Naomi, and Chaos - just due to not having a town read on him and having one on the other two, I'll call it as Chaos.
I agree with people that are not a fan of Uzi's vote, but find it odd that some of these same people aren't citing Lowell.
I think I find Hawk scummier than Uzi, and of about equal scumminess to Lowell.

I'd like to lynch Lowell or Hawk right now, with optional secondaries for Chaos and Frogger.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I generally like Naomi's entrance.
I also am okay with Terata.
That said I would tend to expect one scum amongst Terata, Naomi, and Chaos - just due to not having a town read on him and having one on the other two, I'll call it as Chaos

Why would you say there is red between us three when everything you've said on the matter has me and Terata as green. Isn't that an explicit contradiction.

Since I specifically noted that, due to my town reads on the two of you I suspected Chaos there is clearly no contradiction at all.
The reason the scumread exists is, I'm town, I was being wagoned off weak reasons, white knighting is a valid scum strategy. I tend to expect one scum to have tried it - you are the three slots I would describe as having WK behavior towards my slot.
Does that clarify my stance for you?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Kinda? what did chaos do?

His very first post of the game was an attack on one of my attackers and a question phrased to obligate that person to react to my wagon through the lens that it was fast. That would cause people to pause and consider the wagon and it's speed, and also put an attacker on the defensive.

yeah decided I wasn't happy with that. Why does a null read translate to white knighting?

Your first conversation about me is this;
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p8814127
You straight up defend my commentary as a joke and question the validity of the wagon - that is a white knight in my book and not a null read. The null read came later and has no bearing on my initial take of WKs.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Okay so.. Let me ask you a simple question; Was your post in question a joke or other wise non-serious post that is NAI?

It was a serious question asked in a mocking way, if he hadn't answered it would have been very serious - I leave it to you to classify that in your own joke range.

Btw Sheep, if I for example Whiteknighted you as scum, what would i gain in then instantly swapping you to a scum lean a bit later after i resisted the wagon? doesn't that kinda negate the pocketing the whiteknighting as scum could've possibly gained?

You swapped me after the pressure on me was relieved, which makes sense in a scum concept of hoping the lynch goes through and you look good for being 'right' and shifting me to a lynch option for later also plays to that potential scum play.

No.

I don't play this "answer my questions game." If you think that makes me scum for it IDGAF. I don't sit here and do what people tell me to do. That's not how I play so get off your damn high horse with this "I'd like you to do this" bullcrap.

You've already shown me you'll give absurd logic with that avatar retort. I'm not going to go around in circles with you. It helps nobody.

Could you at least address the point where I called you a misrepper/liar for how you changed up what Lowell said and then attacked me over my reaction to something that wasn't said?

Because I'd love to talk about that.

Vote: Frogger

[Cooperative Sheep]

No, he said he didn't want to sheep the sheep.

That's not what he said;

Because I'm not a sheep, sheep.

He said he didn't sheep.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Yeah, when you dodged a question about your lie and are acting like on Page 7 that my reads are changing too much and that my vote isn't changing enough it does get a reaction from me, I'll agree.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Also, apparently me wanting you to discuss your misrep is scummy after you duck it.
Thereby setting up your right to duck any explanation of your actions.
I'm willing to be policy lynched over that if you're lynched next - deal?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Oh me dodging questions is me being scum. Got it.

No - you misrepping and not backing it up is making you scum.
It's similar, but subtly different.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I never dodge questions as town. Never. (sarcasm for those that don't get it)

Do you misrep as town?

[Cooperative Sheep]

- I call you scum
- you say my upside as scum would be to have been 'right' with your flip

i didn't see the last "slip", but this i could maybe buy lol.

You also called me town - and that was the call I was discussing in my answer to you wherein I outlined why scum would do that.
Make sense now?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I don't understand your reply there, here's the timeline - you arrive in the game and say this;

I havent played with sheep b4 obv, but he strikes me as a person that would defend himself awkardly as either alignment, so while i think towns could be pinged by his weird wordings, i dont rly think its scummy.

You then attack Uzi (one of my attackers) at this stage, you are effectively WKing me.

Later on, the wagon on me dissolves - at that point you shift your read to a "might be scum" sort of read.

I say that the theory scum plan was to WK (which you did) and then, later, when you realize the wagon won't bull rush through it's viable to have me as a lynch option by seeing how maybe I'm scum (which you also did). That is a coherent comment which is as much of a slip as my last comment called a slip. If something looks weird it's because we're not talking cleanly to each other - not because it's a slip.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I never dodge questions as town. Never. (sarcasm for those that don't get it)

Do you misrep as town?

No, but I can misunderstand as town. I didn't even read that part of your wall because I am sick of your walls and your demands that I answer you.

Either way, your original logic around Lowell doesn't make sense. If he didn't want to sheep, it does not necessarily imply he would have been ok with voting there had there been zero votes there.

You made a leap in logic to throw shade.

So you admit you might be misunderstanding me - but your case on me is based on your understanding of my actions, and you don't wish to read my posts nor discuss anything with me?

Here's some shade - if this is how you play as town, it's not good. The very concept of the game is about communication and correctly understanding people to get reads on them. Why are you a proponent of your method instead?

[Cooperative Sheep]

i think you should adapt Frogg's approach in this case, Sheep. Show us you can focus on something else than the one you're tunneling with shit thats boring to read. That will help both you and us more than reading whatever you're doing now, which is being salty at Frogg's annoying (to you) playstyle. Something scum and town could do, so we dont get any info.

I'm sorry I'm boring - I'm not trying to be, and it's how I communicate.
It's page 7 and I've focused on quite a few people - who do you think I need to focus on that I haven't?
I agree that scum could do what Frogger is doing.. I also agree that town could, and it would be bad. Beyond the idea that town might not care to understand someone they're calling scum for bad logic - why is that, in your opinion, *my* issue and not *his and my* issue?

[Cooperative Sheep]

i get all this. What i don't get is how i would get cred as scum after me pushing you and you flipping town, just because i was 'right' for a small amount of time in the very start of the day. Get me?

I get that - my answer is, as stated, that you changed tact when my lynch no longer looked speedily imminent.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Frogger - The idea that he would never sheep does support A and B cleanly and without effort.
You attacking me off making up my attack on him is just an attempt to make me look bad - and at least I didn't make up anything he said to draw my conclusion.

@Terata - okay, I was only answering because you challenged the logic.

[Cooperative Sheep]

make a quick reads list on the people you have reads on with a sentence or 2 explaining each read, would help. I don't remember much of your reads except for Frogg and the WK stuff

Basically it's still this, but Frogger looks worse for...well, how he's reacting and being hypocritical, and is actually pressing a scum case of 'Sheep attacked someone and asked them to support their stance...then asked me to answer a question, which is something some other player who was scum did in some other game" which looks pretty scummy to me.

I continue to dislike Lowell for the early stuff that he opted to dodge and the notes mentioned here.
Frogger is also looking bad - I stand by the salivating scum comment.
I agree with those who think Gerry bought the slip, I don't think it looks like a slip but I don't need to squint hard to see why he thought it did. I find it a little odd that he's not still pushing on it if he actually thought it was a slip though.
I generally like Naomi's entrance.
I also am okay with Terata.
That said I would tend to expect one scum amongst Terata, Naomi, and Chaos - just due to not having a town read on him and having one on the other two, I'll call it as Chaos.
I agree with people that are not a fan of Uzi's vote, but find it odd that some of these same people aren't citing Lowell.
I think I find Hawk scummier than Uzi, and of about equal scumminess to Lowell.

I'd like to lynch Lowell or Hawk right now, with optional secondaries for Chaos and Frogger.

[Cooperative Sheep]

If you need an expansion on any of those reads, let me know.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Axel accusing me of not answering/reading his posts (as scum)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p6763646
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p6766728

Me saying I don't give a fuck about reading his annoying walls (as town)
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p6767112

You made one post against me, I responded, you declared that to me being too argumentative to talk to. Eh...okay, I guess?
I don't buy it, but I get what you're selling.

Spoiler: Read Explanations/Embiggenings

ok, i get what you meant now. Even if i don't think the pressure on the is all that relieved even now? but i get it.

and to the list answer. i dont see the "generally like" and "ok with" and "i find Hawk scummier" as explanations. Thats stale reads that i don't see the thought process for and cant evaluate

Well, it is a bunch of reads made off a few posts, i supoose I could say "I like Naomi's entrance because she showed up, made a few reasoned reads I could understand, and applied some pressure out in multiple ways that reads to me like real scumhunting" but I honestly think that's just as empty as saying "I like her entrance" and just as informative.

But, okay, I also like Tetara's entrance, he assessed the game day and didn't immediately align his reads to the crowd which suggests to me the possibility of independant thought (aka I am okay with him) I find Hawk scummy for the reasons implied in the questions I asked at the time;

Do you not link early wagons? I think it's getting nice content from Sheep. And generating discussion.

What nice content do you think it's getting from me? Mostly I've just been asking questions back.

Where/are you that confident that Sheep is scum??? Don't you think L-2 this early is dangerous? I mean I understand pressure but that was playing with a bit of fire there Uzi.

You opted to play with a fire, and so did Uzi - what makes his fire the bigger and more dangerous one really?

Basically I felt he was applying double standards (when X does it, it's scummy, when I do it, it's fine) and also that he was making empty commentary about why he did something without actually having gotten anything out of it - which strikes me as a hallmark of fake scumhunting.

Do my reads make sense now?

@Frogger - The idea that he would never sheep does support A and B cleanly and without effort.

Why not though? If someone will never sheep, which means they never follow anyone elses' thoughts, they aren't cooperating ever.
Sure, reads might align - but they are openly stating zero cooperation unless I'm missing something.

[Cooperative Sheep]

So you admit you might be misunderstanding me - but your case on me is based on your understanding of my actions, and you don't wish to read my posts nor discuss anything with me?

Here's some shade - if this is how you play as town, it's not good. The very concept of the game is about communication and correctly understanding people to get reads on them. Why are you a proponent of your method instead?

I actually didn't say it made you scum - I did explain why I thought it was bad play.
Am I writing in a way that is confusing somehow? You keep misunderstanding/misrepping me. It's not a good feeling on my end, and seems prone to create argumentative walls, which you suggest you dislike.

[Cooperative Sheep]

The leap in logic was about lack of cooperation - I explained why it makes sense to me. It has nothing to do about whether he may or may not have eventually been okay voting there - AND I NEVER SAID IT DID.

[Cooperative Sheep]

You used dodging as a reason for moving me from secondary to primary.

So yes, you used it as a reason to scum read me.

I also cited your lie - want to discuss it now?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Aw man, probably some player called you a liar once when they were scum - I'm screwed now.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Probably scum for not even attempting to understand my play. Just shouting MISREP and YOU DIDNT READ

So you agree it's scummy not to try to understand someone?

[Cooperative Sheep]

You continue to push the misrep and lie angle, when I pointed out I simply misread. Misreading is different from intentionally misrepping or lying.

You need to make a case on me that doesn't involve me not reading, thinking I misrepped, or thinking I lied.

So you agree that you misrepped/misunderstood me?
But your case doesn't change?
Okay.

Vote: Hawk

Would also do Lowell, but I'll sheep AJ for the moment.
I actually think Frogger's defense is bad enough I'm reading it as town - the point being if he doesn't see the hypocrisy, it's not scum hypocrisy whether it exists or not.

Okay, my current scumreads don't exactly include you but this jump at the end is fucking atrocious. You go from 'let's talk' to voting frogger, who you claim to want to have a discussion with. You're so incredibly nitpicky especially in latter pages about what frogger said and not about what frogger's DONE. Because you attacking doesn't really solve anything Frogger had pushed for the last couple of pages.

The points you claim I'm being nitpicky about are the same thing's Frogger's done.
Note in his last post - he isn't admitting to lying or misrepping - but he is admitting to misunderstanding, which is the same thing just depending on whether he is town or scum.
That's the point, and I needed to figure out the hypocrisy to get a read through it, when the slot I'm presented with is resorting to ignoring, rage, and yelling to present their case - I don't know another way to sort through it. If you have suggestions for future games I'd love to hear them..

[Cooperative Sheep]

I can see why he'd think if I intentionally misrepped why I'd be scum.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Aw man, that's good stuff.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I want to make sure the people citing me for being nitpicky understand that you and I both agree you said some things that may (by accident) have not been the truth and which may have caused me to have some issues with you. I do not get the feeling anyone besides me and you have noticed this.

[Cooperative Sheep]

How can I discredit you if I'm agreeing with what you said happened?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Sheep is flailing and using buzzwords to death maybe because they're new? (white Knight, misrep, etc.)

Like a lot of the recent attacks on me (it's basically now universal town concsensus to claim I have no logic at all - all without actually explaining the hole(s?) in my logic) this attack isn't really containing anything.

Let's say I hadn't used the "buzzwords" but instead had described out the tells that the buzzwords mean - how does that affect my townishness or scumminess. All a "buzzword" does is serve as shorthand to explain a complicated concept quickly. You're actually saying nothing about me in this comment.

The difference between placing someone at L-4 and L-2 is huge... you realize that yes? It'd also a naked vote. I at least voted under the premise of believing the slip (which I don't really disregard it's more an after thought at this point)

I consider blind sheeping of a vote (presuming others agree with my use of this buzzword) to be no better than a naked vote - and it's not like you exactly unvoted after it if you had an issue with L-2.

In fact you waited about 24 hours, for the wagon to lose momentum, before you realized you had an issue with his vote. That looks suspect to me.

I thought it was but after a reread I don't trust Gerry and his recent posts make me think he's scum. Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean you think they're town. I know people won't follow me on to him because Sheep is basically telling himself but that's fine. We can get Gerry tomorrow or even now to put me at ease if the rest of you are town reading him.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Sheep

How can Gerry and I both be scum? Is your theory he just decided to bus me off a slip early to distance or something?
Later people will explain how I lack logic.

In post 119, Naomi-Tan wrote:
Okay so.. Let me ask you a simple question; Was your post in question a joke or other wise non-serious post that is NAI?

It was a serious question asked in a mocking way

, if he hadn't answered it would have been very serious - I leave it to you to classify that in your own joke range.

OMFG just answer the damn question >_< flipping sheep! jesus your grinding my gears. 'Im not gonna answer any question put to me properly' is really irritating attitude. I asked a simple question and you straight up didn't give an answer. It was a Yes no question not a thing to be all coy with GAfraagasj gbisav >_<

I'm bolding where I answered the question.
If mocking = joke to you then, yes, it was a joke. If mocking = not a joke, then no, it wasn't a joke.
Mocking is my answer - you decide if that's a joke or not. I don't consider mocking a joke, because a joke has a punchline - but I do consider mocking to be humor, so it all depends on what you meant, not what I decide you meant. You have a clear answer.

The world doesn't revolve around you

And if your green that means red might be pushing you

And people may be looking for those opportunist pushes

I agree.
It also means scum might be WKing - and as the only large wagon at the time to analyze (and not needing a flip) it's a good wagon for me to analyze.

The leap in logic was about lack of cooperation - I explained why it makes sense to me. It has nothing to do about whether he may or may not have eventually been okay voting there - AND I NEVER SAID IT DID.

Cooperation =/= Sheeping.

Sheeping can equal cooperation though.
Also his answer was vague, and by stating what *I thought he meant* and then asking him *do you mean that?* I allow him to expand on his thought.
It's like if I say "Naomi is scum!" just because I make an assumption that may or may not be correct does not preclude you from being able to offer your thoughts on the situation to clarify it.

Or you can just keep calling an opinion you disagree with insane logic - because that's awfully pleasant.

[Cooperative Sheep]

sheeping isn't cooperation tho. the "COOP"-part implies there's TWO parties COOPERATING back and forth. 1 sheeping another isn't cooperation if you're not adding anything (i guess you're technically adding to the situation that you agree with what was said initally, but that isn't an effective way of cooperating anyway).

Tip to sheep: When you've written up a post, take out all the quotes you can, and shorten it down to like 1 paragraph of Summary for others to read. Will help a lot

Voting with someone is adding something to that person. We're debating semantics now.

I find leaving in quotes adds context, and also prevents me from claiming someone said something that they didn't - or at least if I do, it's easy to tell.

Whemestar's raised complaints feel townish to me. EC has a general point about lack of clarity, but I don't think that specifically speaks to scum intent rather than the drowning Wheme describes. We should lynch Hawk.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Lowell - considering their relative wagon sizes and that you don't seem to like either player's play - why did you choose to hop on the Chaos wagon as opposed to the more vibrant Hawk wagon?

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Lowell - Do you not use votes for pressure and analysis? Seems like even if someone is your secondary/tertiary read if you are in a better position to pressure them it would still be worth your time, no? (I mean, I'll agree with Frogger's vote this is becoming more intellectual as a question than practical but still)

[Cooperative Sheep]

She kind of did the same thing to me, when I did my WK tell - even though I ruled her as town and said the tell didn't apply to her she seemed to get a little aggro about it.
Then again, I recall Tetara kinda doing the same thing, so seems like a thin scumtell, yeah?

Having a hard time parsing a lot of the other cases - they mostly seemed to be based on hypocrisy (which I feel has been a cornerstone of every case so far) and I also think a lot of people are mxing up hypocrisy with 'logic I don't understand/don't agree with and don't care to try to' which seems really different to me.

My scum reads remain about the same, I'll remind people that I've had issues with Chaos for some time now, just in case anyone wants to have a complaint about me hopping on that wagon if it catches much more steam But I'm happy with it and Hawk as frontrunners.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I'm not calling out cases for being hypocritical, I'm calling them out for being about hypocrisy.

Your case, to my mind, is based around an opinion of a given question being scummy vibing and a similar one not being - I think you're playing on the same hypocrisy basketball court they are, but you're claiming you're playing volleyball. I think it's a squint to call it not about the same foundation, and even if it is, it's about the 'feels' you get - and that's not a feel I'm getting.

I'm still fine calling Chaos scum though, I just got there on the WK road.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I did read - what do you think is the core element of your case if not the points I've made?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Oh, sorry, forgot the pro-town answer is to say I didn't read, and for you to f off

But seriously, what do you consider the core?

[Cooperative Sheep]

I note that you do mention tone - which I mentioned also. I consider the manipulation to fall within that same vein, if you disagree, fine, but it's where I'm putting it (and I did talk about both)
I didn't perceive meta as a core element of your case, I'll agree - I didn't think you particularly supported that in an 'oh wow, he nailed it' vein - and at least I talked about 2/3rds of your main point.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I don't even get the point either of you are having right now - I agree Chaos is scum, I don't like either of your cases overmuch...so where's the fire. I could say I think Chaos is scum because the trees told me and that your cases are made out of pixie dust and marshmallows - you both clearly like to mock me as having no logic, so I don't know why you're annoyed that I don't love your logic, even if we're at the same destination (and in Frogger's case, ignoring what I've said).

[Cooperative Sheep]

I consider the manipulation to fall within that same vein,

manipulation is the same thing as hypocrisy?

Bullshit. You just don't want to admit you're wrong.

You would know what that looks like

Okay, sure, I refuse to admit I'm wrong...and?
I've sorted you- I don't care to interact with you unless this is helping you sort me. So make it quick please, you're unpleasant.

[Cooperative Sheep]

also feels like everyone ignored my case dismissing it as OMGUS when it pointed out obvious missreping and multiple times they contradicted themselves within their own post.

contradiction isn't inherently wolfy. meh

True but lying to make people look worse than they are is.

Then is Frogger scum? Or is admitting it a free pass out? I think what you're calling factual lies from Chaos strike me as more opinion disagreements.

[Cooperative Sheep]

look a the 2 statements i bolded and be amazed

I find that to be a misrep of his position - if you look at the first bold he goes on to say, basically, Gerry is too scummy to be scum - which is in line with his other statement.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I'm not calling out cases for being hypocritical, I'm calling them out for being about hypocrisy.

Your case, to my mind, is based around an opinion of a given question being scummy vibing and a similar one not being - I think you're playing on the same hypocrisy basketball court they are, but you're claiming you're playing volleyball. I think it's a squint to call it not about the same foundation, and even if it is, it's about the 'feels' you get - and that's not a feel I'm getting.

I'm still fine calling Chaos scum though, I just got there on the WK road.

This reads like you don't want to try to understand why people are reading your behavior as scum motivated.

How does it do that? We're not even discussing anyone's scum read on me, we're discussing a scumread on Chaos.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Re: Hawk's wall on me.

Complains that I don't sound at all times like I'm considering Frogger might be town.
Complains that, when i call Frogger town, I express distaste and issues with Frogger applying a case on me based off something that didn't happen.
Hangs a hat on how he's attacking me for attacking him.
Complains that I'm not on Chaos, even though I specifically said I was on the Hawk wagon because it was bigger.

tl:dr - I don't find his arguments town indicative.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Chaos - you called him out for a read change with about 100 posts inbetween. I haven't gone back and looked, but I'm pretty sure Frog and I wall war-ed it up during those 100 posts in some level. I would also note that at some point in the game Frog claimed I lacked logic and about 2 players sheeped him off that call (even though later Frog admitted he'd "misunderstood" me in his case). While we're at it, people are still acting like his original case had merit, without comment on how even Frog shifted his case.

So, to be short, I think there was a silly amount of negativity and noise about the case, and I think multiple players (town and scum) kind of hopped on it/weren't reading and just going for the possible mislynch/some combination thereof. So a read change hardly seems shocking to me at that stage.

What are your thoughts on Hawk's wall on me? He says a lot of words, but they all strike me as rather silly, do they make a lot of sense to you? I think he looks like scum for reasons stated above.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Hawk's wall on you, combined with his post on Wheme, looks like an attempt to derail the Wheme lynch and drag attention back to you. The case reads as recycled material and having an agenda. He's my top scumread not named WhemeStar.

I don't agree with your take of his motivations, but could see them within a world where Wheme is being a scum read.
He just feels a lot like newb-bait to me, and I get why you're buying the claim sans alignment, but I just have a hard time otherwise taking it as a fake claim considering the newb vibe. So he has to be an odd-night rolestopper, and I don't see that alone as a reason to overlook the newb vibe. It's not like he's looking predicated, he's looking directionless - town newb more likely, yeah?

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Chaos - I'm very conflicted.

My initial response is - he's clearly misunderstanding your question, because no one is trying to justify a read change around Post #400 with evidence from Posts in the low 100s.
On further consideration I realize it is also a valid argument to suggest he's scum just kind of flailing a bit *because* the answer makes so little sense.

You've successfully abused my read on him, you have not come close to making him feel as scummy as Hawk to me though.
I think I'm still mostly reading it as newb flail over scum flail if you demand a clear opinion.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Re: Hawk's wall on me.

Complains that I don't sound at all times like I'm considering Frogger might be town.
Complains that, when i call Frogger town, I express distaste and issues with Frogger applying a case on me based off something that didn't happen.
Hangs a hat on how he's attacking me for attacking him.
Complains that I'm not on Chaos, even though I specifically said I was on the Hawk wagon because it was bigger.

tl:dr - I don't find his arguments town indicative.

I don't see the issue here. Bad arguments doesn't make someone scum.

Are you trying to say that his arguments are so bad and contrived that they couldn't possibly be coming from town?

Pretty much exactly that - I'm well aware that bad arguments don't prove scum, but there is a difference between bad arguments I think the person believes and bad arguments that I don't.

His rebuttal is a bunch of empty blah, and despite a giant wall of this blah that he seems to want people to believe he buys, he doesn't care that I pooh-pooh it, he is softly shopping around for options elsewhere, and he isn't even engaging me anymore. He doesn't believe what he's saying - if he did he'd be at least slightly piffed that I'm mocking it so much (check out Frogger who I actually caught misunderstanding/misrepping me - he was annoyed and quadrupled down on his beliefs - that's actual conviction and proves that no matter what I thought about the case, he believed the case.

Hawk can't be arsed.
He's scum.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Re: Hawk's wall on me.

Complains that I don't sound at all times like I'm considering Frogger might be town.
Complains that, when i call Frogger town, I express distaste and issues with Frogger applying a case on me based off something that didn't happen.
Hangs a hat on how he's attacking me for attacking him.
Complains that I'm not on Chaos, even though I specifically said I was on the Hawk wagon because it was bigger.

tl:dr - I don't find his arguments town indicative.

I don't see the issue here. Bad arguments doesn't make someone scum.

Are you trying to say that his arguments are so bad and contrived that they couldn't possibly be coming from town?

Pretty much exactly that - I'm well aware that bad arguments don't prove scum, but there is a difference between bad arguments I think the person believes and bad arguments that I don't.

His rebuttal is a bunch of empty blah, and despite a giant wall of this blah that he seems to want people to believe he buys, he doesn't care that I pooh-pooh it, he is softly shopping around for options elsewhere, and he isn't even engaging me anymore. He doesn't believe what he's saying - if he did he'd be at least slightly piffed that I'm mocking it so much (check out Frogger who I actually caught misunderstanding/misrepping me - he was annoyed and quadrupled down on his beliefs - that's actual conviction and proves that no matter what I thought about the case, he believed the case.

Hawk can't be arsed.
He's scum.

If you actually read my walls you'd realize most of my case against you not including what Fro99er put out is because your playstyle is bad and you make ridiculous amounts of assumptions and even if Fro99er misunderstood you I didn't. You made a statement assuming that Lowell would never sheep a vote and many other assumptions. I even admit in my giant wall of text that You are either scum or really bad town. Like your logic is bad. Could you be town sure. Do I think so? naaahhh not really.

Also when I flip green your adament opinion that I'm scum isn't going to look too good

I will agree that your "case" against me is easily read as one giant vague playstyle attack that doesn't show scum intent.
You say 'assumption' I say 'stating an opinion' - either way neither is scummy and it's silly to treat it as such.

If you flip red though, I'll look so amazing it will be wonderful. Let's gamble.

[Cooperative Sheep]

You have a valid point that he is a lurker.
I find his defense of the hypocrisy angle leveled against him to make sense (you actually used that as a scumtell when I pointed out a 'you're doing what I'm doing' type defense earlier, so I'm curious why this one sells you so much).
That's about it, right? I was letting it simmer - there's not much to chew there yet as it's functionally one lurker attacking another lurker, and then being attacked for being a lurker himself - the case is a lurker case either way you slice it, so you're either going to wagon on that for more info if ou don't have better reads, or you're going to be annoyed that it's distracting from a wagon you like better, or you're going to let it go and see what happens.

I'm the second two.

[Cooperative Sheep]

It can be indicative of scum Sheep just like you think me consistently attacking you because I don't like your logic and your assumptions about players is scummy -_-;;

At least Frog acted like he believed I didn't make logical sense.
Your attack is "oooh, an *assumption*" as though that's remotely something town don't do - then you claim I lack logic, with something like that being your evidence...which, y'know, shows no lack of logic on my end, and even if it *did* is still a playstyle complaint, unless you're claiming I'm normally very logical, but am intentionally being illogical because I'm scum.

Meanwhile, you remain scum, pushing an empty case emptily, and trying to sell around for another now that you're being left alone to push this one.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Frogg - replace "lurk" with "shallow reads" and my response will still hold true for the semantics you're attempting to bring up here. It is still the same thing - lurkers never offer deep reads.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Hawk - what about your assumption that I'm actually;

1. Believing in only two options.
2. Applying that as a scum/town read to Lowell.

Because neither is supported by evidence, and, if you think believing an absolute like "either Sheep has logic, or is using this stilted fallacy" is a fallacy - then aren't you doing the same thing?
But I'm actually able to understand that you need to present a reaction to cause a reaction - but you're pretending that you don't.

[Cooperative Sheep]

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Frogger - I might as well ask why you're giving Hawk a pass - I specifically commented on Penguin, you disliked how I indicated him and Gerry both seem lurky, and were pissed that I didn't use the words you felt were more appropriate, even when i indicated those words were confluent for me - you then went into your usual blind rage derp and decided somehow a difference of word definition equates to, somehow, scum intent.

All you did was make me feel worse about Wheme for sheeping it, and you, for forcing me to interact with your baby behavior. You're very unpleasent to me - go ahead and push through the lynch, I won't miss this game.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Hawk - really, you're going to use the faux 'at least try' response on me? Okay, here's a challenge - please explain the aspect of the case against me that I haven't addressed. Yeah... Don't spit on me and tell me it's raining. I'm just sick of arguing against derp and smoke.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Sheep.

Olive branch.

Who would you prefer that lynch between Lowell, Penguin, and chaos.

Hawk isn't happening and Wheme isn't happening without a CC

I would do Lowell, Chaos, and Penguin in that order of preference.
Still ten pages back - welcome to all my games

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Frogger - I don't get how you think CO is exactly sorting Wheme. I'd rather lynch CO of that combo if we want a sort, and there doesn't appear to be a sort, and considering the Wheme headache I'm not getting why you're tossing it aside to another scum read of yours. Clarify?

I'd be fine lynching Hawk or Lowell today.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Sheep has been gone for so long that I haven't even said something to them once. Given they've been under some heat all day I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if they were lurking scum.

I've been generally posting multiple times a day every day of the game, are you mixing me up with someone else?

People are ignoring how bad Hawk is until just now.
I'm actually having a hard time figuring out if there's more theory soft support for Lowell or Hawk.
I'mma do this to see if it's Lowell.

Vote: Lowell

Sheep the sheep everyone! There is mint julep tea at the end of this rainbow.
I will be back later if people manage to bum rush onto Hawk, the guy who talks out of both sides of his mouth all day.
I still oppose the Wheme lynch.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Oh hai sheep

Hello - I guess me being gone from the thread for 20 hours was just heartrending to everyone.
Not that people are reacting to what I said last, nor to what I just did.
Except for fitz. I'll choose to like fitz.
Be like fitz, frogg.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I think I see CO's point there though, sounds like no matter what he answers you oppose a Lowell lynch and support an Alisae lynch, yeah?

[Cooperative Sheep]

With the theory odd/even hijink though, that's really just kind of like getting 2.5 PRs though - that doesn't seem like an unreasonable number of PRs. Maybe they're all just town.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Which makes Hawk more suspect than Chaos - because there's a difference between being cagey and changing your song completely when asked to clarify.

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Unknown - 10 posts in 5 days is an average of 2 per game day - that certainly qualifies to me as a reasonable amount of posting. If that makes em a lurker to your eyes, I feel safe in the knowledge you'll have a lot of people to lynch before I'm the worst lurker

[Cooperative Sheep]

@Unknown - I have more posts than Lowell, Chaos, and Hawk, I'm totally good with you deciding my amount of posts is scummy as long as we lynch those three first

[Cooperative Sheep]

I like the motion of this ocean.
Except for Hawk, he can die next.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I like the motion of this ocean.
Except for Hawk, he can die next.

Do you even care if I'm town? -_-;

I do, I just don't think you are.
And thus ends the extent of your rebuttal.
Every vote you've made for the past few days has basically just been on the biggest wagon - I don't think you have opinions and I don't think you're scumhunting, and I've said this before, not sure why it's still a surprise today.

[Cooperative Sheep]

But since he hasn't said he will, then use your ability on whoever you feel it's best to protect.

If Lowell flips scum, pick me or AJ.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I choose not to read Hawk based off Alisae's meta.

Are you saying town Hawk has no opinions and just sheeps the biggest wagons?

[Cooperative Sheep]

But since he hasn't said he will, then use your ability on whoever you feel it's best to protect.

If Lowell flips scum, pick me or AJ.

Don't get into this wifom

we are NOT directing night kills and night protects unless it's to confirm a slot.

[Cooperative Sheep]

I choose not to read Hawk based off Alisae's meta.

Are you saying town Hawk has no opinions and just sheeps the biggest wagons?

So do you know if this is Hawks meta then?

Or are you just assuming following the largest wagon around is a scumtell for him?

I am personally unaware of Hawk's playstyle as either town or scum - in that vacuum I apply my own standard value calls on what constitutes pro-town or pro-scum play. If you do a different method and consider it better, feel free to clue me in on this process.

[Cooperative Sheep]

And apparently people townread Lowell - yeah...

[Cooperative Sheep]

I'm happy that worked out, nice clutch play Lowell, the distance from Day 1 did you well.

[Cooperative Sheep]

In Lowell We Trust!

I still think that was rough you tossing him into the deep end like that on a whim.

[Cooperative Sheep]

Also Sheep you should use the daytalk more, just saying.

How so? I posted multiple times on any day when I was alive and on site and another player posted.
I don't think there was a question asked or a conversation started that I didn't weigh in on besides your night kill planning prior to night happening, and maybe I could/should have commented on that, but I'm not much for future NK planning as a conversation, so I'll admit I ducked that one. But otherwise I don't really see lack of usage. Did I seem too quiet in any particular way?

[Cooperative Sheep]

Lowell shoulda been the day 2 lynch

I think a Day 2 lynch on a scum counterwagon is an objectively poor play for town regardless of it being the absolute correct play in this example.