Open 713: Jungle Republic [Game Over]

[Thor665]

So, basically, your argument is; he's so wimpy as scum, that when he can't out argue you he ran away and hid like a baby?
And you find that MORE likely than, he was town, was immensely frustrated with a situation he found totally wrong, and walked away rather than waste time being ignored before he was lynched?

Seems thin to me.
Especially since I actually agreed with him more than you in that debate you were having.

[skitter30]

This post feels wishy-washy and contradictory and posture-y and super fake tbh.

You were on the biggest wagon, on someone you emphatically claim you think is scum, so switching to wilky ensures no mislynch how exactly? I dont even get why you think he's scum tbh? Nor do I agree with the claim that laserguy is active lurking. (In fact, I'd argue that your slot is active-lurking significantly more than he is). Nor do I get why you think my readslist is bad enough to compose an entire scumteam around it?

@skitter: Get off Thor. I know Thor's a very good scumster, but I also have played scum!Thor as both his partner and as a member of the counter scum team, and I'm not feeling scum!Thor here at all.

Also you say you'd be willing to lynch "my slot", and I would appreciate it if you explained if you SR >MYI< scummy to you still?

He's misrepped me (which I demonstrated) and is manipulatively perpetuating a useless argument imo. You think town!Thor is doing this because ....? Like I don't really see the town motivation for this and no, I'm not getting off of him unless like my vote is needed at deadline elsewhere to ensure a lynch happens.

Your predecessor was scummy and I don't really think you've done much to change that. IE I don't think you've done much that's AI so by default your slot is scummy because of your predecessor, and it'll stay that way until/unless you give me a reason to change that assessment.

(and like, if he's scum, all he has to do now is name more than one person as being in his lynchpool to get you to townread him forever, you know, like he did in his very next post )

And like what do you think about this?

Aw, blatant misrep.. How cute!

-Pepper

OK, why is this a misrep?

[Thor665]

He's misrepped me (which I demonstrated) and is manipulatively perpetuating a useless argument imo. You think town!Thor is doing this because ....? Like I don't really see the town motivation for this and no, I'm not getting off of him unless like my vote is needed at deadline elsewhere to ensure a lynch happens.

That is certainly one version of reality that is not well backed up if people actually read your posts wherein you answer questions with 'I can't give examples' and then claim you've already explained something.
But I'm misrepping because you disagree with me?
Suuuuure.

[wilky]

So, basically, your argument is; he's so wimpy as scum, that when he can't out argue you he ran away and hid like a baby?
And you find that MORE likely than, he was town, was immensely frustrated with a situation he found totally wrong, and walked away rather than waste time being ignored before he was lynched?

Seems thin to me.
Especially since I actually agreed with him more than you in that debate you were having.

Well, I mean that's just one isolated part of the whole scum read on that slot.
If you agreed with him in the debate what made his vote on NM more substantial and less scummy than espe's one?

[skitter30]

He's misrepped me (which I demonstrated) and is manipulatively perpetuating a useless argument imo. You think town!Thor is doing this because ....? Like I don't really see the town motivation for this and no, I'm not getting off of him unless like my vote is needed at deadline elsewhere to ensure a lynch happens.

That is certainly one version of reality that is not well backed up if people actually read your posts wherein you answer questions with 'I can't give examples' and then claim you've already explained something.
But I'm misrepping because you disagree with me?
Suuuuure.

People who've actually read through the argument have been agreeing with me that you've misrepped me (montosh and dr fanta) so I think you're just making stuff up at this point and I don't know why I'm continuing to respond to you.

You're misrepping me because you said I changed my position mid-argument, and I didn't, and demonstrated that I didn't, and you still haven't back down from this claim but are actually doubling-down on it.

And like the examples thing is you asking me to demonstrate you didn't do something. I explained why it's different and I can't give an example showing that something isn't there better than saying 'look it isn't there!'. Like you're saying I'm scummy and evading the argument because I can't prove a negative ffs.

[Thor665]

People who've actually read through the argument have been agreeing with me that you've misrepped me (montosh and dr fanta) so I think you're just making stuff up at this point and I don't know why I'm continuing to respond to you.

You're continuing to "respond" while pointedly ignoring the questions I'm asking.
I presume you're doing it for smokescreen.

You're misrepping me because you said I changed my position mid-argument, and I didn't, and demonstrated that I didn't, and you still haven't back down from this claim but are actually doubling-down on it.

Again, as you haven't answered, how are you defining misrep here?
Because even if you want to go 'Thor was wrong' and 'Thor was proven wrong' or even 'Thor is a dunce who didn't get me'
The same argument could be made on my side when you were taking forever and a day to explain your read, and also ducked explaining the 'forced' part after your clarification.

And like the examples thing is you asking me to demonstrate you didn't do something. I explained why it's different and I can't give an example showing that something isn't there better than saying 'look it isn't there!'. Like you're saying I'm scummy and evading the argument because I can't prove a negative ffs.

I'm still asking what the difference is.
Can you quote you describing the difference?
I'll do my best attempt for you;

I think that there's a difference between agressively asking questions and framing conflicts as a direct 1v1. Like look at the two posts you linked me. You didn't do the latter there.

That's it.
And I'm asking *what* is that difference? And why don't you quote me asking these other questions where I "didn't do it" and then quote me doing it here and show the difference? Since youought to at least be able to show me doing something here and then show I didn't do it there, right? Because that isn't impossible.

But you're twisting really hard to not do that - because you need to keep it vague, because you're lying.

[Thor665]

Well, I mean that's just one isolated part of the whole scum read on that slot.
If you agreed with him in the debate what made his vote on NM more substantial and less scummy than espe's one?

You talking about the 'whole case' still fails to describe how

I actually was not overly impressed by either his nor Espe's votes, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim either looked particularly townish or scummish. That said, I can understand the basic concept of someone voting 'X' to disagree with someone elses' reasons for voting 'X' and them not needing to be connected to their own reason for their own vote - that makes perfect conceptual sense and I fail to grasp why you're acting like it doesn't.

[Thor665]

describe how the replace out isn't townish*

[Thor665]

That's weak if you can't describe it in one sentence you're wasting everyone's time.

Why did Robb lean town to you exactly?

Here I am, as town, asking...what kind of looks like a confrontational question, yeah?
But that's *different* then what I did here, right?
How?

How about this?

If it was strong enough to not want to vote him, why would someone else voting him no longer make it strong enough to not want to vote him?
I don't feel like this is a strange idea from my end, I'm weirded out that you're acting like it's normal to do what you did.

That one is almost *exactly* what you're calling me out here for, but clearly I'm wrong, because you know that's my town game, so explain the difference?

Your Skitter read is out of nowhere and I strongly disagree. After watching your weak case on Misere I am almost scared to ask but...what was in Skitter's posts that looked town to you?

Here's townThor pushing scumSkitter - tell me how this is totlly different than my antagonistic 1v1 setup here Skitter?

[Thor665]

It's almost as though my entire gameplay is based around aggressively pushing myself into confrontations with people.
Strange that Skitter didn't notice that during our game, yeah?

More Skitter votes please.

[Espeonage]

Hello kidlets I am back from my Holiday. I will be catching up all my games so hang tight.

[Espeonage]

Ok I should have read this earlier. Skitter post 25 in reference to thor post 13 is wrong. It's not a boolean situation and Thor has basically gone sarcastically "you're wrong" in the form of a common witticism which has blown out. I'll keep reading, but at this point skitter is just wrong and not scummy for it.

[Espeonage]

From my experience, a policy vote on someone, plus saying that they could be scum on top of that, inferring that you meant that there was a 5/12 chance of them being scum so the policy wagon is somewhat justified, seems scummy to me. It seems like an outright scumtell.

Why do you have this experience? Can you show me scum doing it in your games?
I can *assuredly* show you town doing it many times - would that adjust your opinion or no?

Bolded: Or he's really new. Like his reasoning doesn't make much sense to me but it appears to make sense to *him*. By presenting

only

those two options, you kinda transformed this discussion into a you-vs-him type of situation.

If he's really new and he believes his reasoning (your argument for a third category) I would suggest that what you're saying is 'he's really new and doesn't know better'. If you take that to a logical end it's - 'he's honestly wrong' if you compare that to 'you're full of hoo-hah' I submit you will find they are one and the same.

How do you think my setup unfairly cast the situation into a false setup (since I would suggest my setup was 'either Thor is wrong or Paradox is wrong')
Because the only other options are 'we're both right (difficult) or we're both wrong (also difficult).
So...?

VOTE: Beefster

It's a good policy lynch, and, hey, maybe a wolf or scum to boot.

What was the purpose of this post? Was it a joke post, or somewhat serious, or were you actually proposing a policy lynch on Beefster with the justification that there was a 5/12 chance of him being scum on top of that?

The purpose of the post was to;
1. Vote Beefster.
2. Explain why I voted Beefster.

There is a joke in there.
There is a policy lynch statement in there.
There is (with only the mildest of squints) an argument that I'm saying 'hey 5/12 let's roll dem bones' to the point I'm willing to agree I was saying that also.

I stand by all of the above and you absolutely caught me doing each and every one.
What of it?

UNVOTE: Thor665
This is 90% town. I like your response and it feels genuine.

This is a really weak back down. Like when you know you can't psh it through so you back down from a fabricated read.

[Not_Mafia]

VOTE: Thor

[Espeonage]

Also, random thought - Wilky is buddying me.

nah, feels like commentary on an important argument.

[Espeonage]

korina's posts on page 2 and 3 are ridiculous and hypocritical. Very clear bandwaoning.

[Espeonage]

Ew, metareading. I don't like metareading tbh, because, I can manipulate my meta quite easily.
I'm just gonna point this out. Ok, going back to lurking.

This comment is very weird to me, I'm not sure how to place it. Why did you feel it was so important to point this out?

(Aside: If you can help it, would you mind not quoting a giant post just to put a one line question at the end? It makes the thread easier to read and it's easier to see what you're actually referring to in the post if you only quote the part that is relevant)

It seems actually quite scummy to me you'd do that.
VOTE: Thor

Do you think this is what Thor was actually doing?

Why couldn't I be scum and also honestly consider you a valid policy lynch?

Can you explain why you think Beefster is worth a policy lynch? I've never played with him before, but I'm getting Town vibes from him at the moment.

He becomes a blind unreadable sheep.
Go ahead and ISO a few of his recent games and get back to me if you love his play.

I'll have a look later if I think it is pertinent. I was more interested in your reasoning for wanting to policy lynch him since you were apparently serious about it.

These are really great questions from the scumhunting for dummies book, issue is that they are the wrong things to be asking and give no indication of your stances.

[Espeonage]

As for "being forced to choose": whenever two people go at it in a mafia game and accuse each other it naturally puts the other players in a situation where they have to decide whether it is SvT or TvS or TvT or SvS. I decided it was T (you) v S (paradox). Players can't really ignore a fight because a fight is an elephant in the room. It needs to be resolved in some way. Either the two sides reach some sort of conclusion and it stops or one of them gets lynched or attention turns away to somebody else and the fight is suspended to deal with the new issue.

What's interesting about this is that Thor was not framing this as "Paradox is wrong and therefore scum". That leap was made by you in 33, with skitter drawing the opposite implication in 46. I don't actually think that the rightness or wrongness of the initial argument is particularly alignment indicative for either player, nor do I think it is a particularly important argument in the grand scheme of things, so it's interesting to me that people who are not Paradox/Thor are the ones trying to raise the stakes here.

nevermind this is a great post.

[Espeonage]

Also, I'm going to do this;

VOTE: skitter

Until he can describe how he isn't calling me scum for scumhunting.

You're voting someone for tunelling on a false premise.

Being wrong is a town trait more than a scum one.

[Espeonage]

As at end of page 6 of reread.

BuJ is still scum on reread. Korina is probs scum. Beef is not an asset but playing exactly to what Thor said he would. Laser is posting greatstuffs.

Thor is more likely to be scum than skitter, but I don't really see it, more likely town v town. Wilky is eh, as is Montosh, maybe towns bc they haven't pinged, but I kinda glaze over Montosh, however was scum last time I didn't really read their post properly, I think that says more about me though.

Who else is in this game...

NM might be mafia, silly votes that avoid conflict feels like steering the preconceptions about his play from the limelight, but woefully small sample size.

No read on Dr Fanta.

[Espeonage]

This game is fucking dense.

[Espeonage]

174 looks like a slip. skitter is right in regards to that in 181.

[Espeonage]

If this hasn't been answered in the in between pages, who else is scum Thor? Like pretend that skitter gets dayvigged and you need a new lynch for the day, who is it?

The reason I would err on the side of you being scum if there is a scum in you v skitter is because of interactions outside of the argument. I would not expect this much coasting from you, especially in the event that you are correct, get shot and leave the game without reads out in the open. That feels like something that town thor doesn't want.

[Espeonage]

Ok Fanta may be scum, but that read is purely relational so backburner, is only scum relationally to BuJ, so if I am somehow wrong on BuJ i'm probs wrong here.

[Espeonage]

Hey Korina, can you maybe take some sort of stance? Not having reads is ver indicative of scum not wanting to rock the boat, which is very likley here, happy to lynch here.