Intentionally avoiding Gerry since I think he will likely flail regardless of alignment.
Avoiding LilUzi because he's currently less active.
Sheep the sheep?
He assuredly implied it via his semi-indirect answer to my original question though.In post 23, Fro99er wrote:He never said that. OH LOOK I'M ANSWERING FOR HIMIn post 18, Cooperative Sheep wrote:@Lowell - So you would have been okay with the pressure on WhemeStar if you'd thought of it before me?
If his answer is "I absolutely didn't do that" then my question has no bearing.In post 23, Fro99er wrote: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.Is that a habit that will carry through the game?
It's definitely accusatory - that's part of the basis of the game.In post 23, Fro99er wrote:This is accusatory and gross.Feels like it would make you hard to cooperate with if town.
You should vote me if I did that.In post 28, gerryoat wrote:Sheep slipped. He spoke like he wasn't part of town.
I did it to shorten the quote.In post 37, Fro99er wrote:He did.In post 35, Cooperative Sheep wrote:You should vote me if I did that.
Why did you snip out the vote?
Actually I just asked him if it would, clarifying my stance that I would not consider that good.In post 41, Fro99er wrote: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.
I'm also using grammar and the English language.In post 42, Fro99er wrote:Oh, here we go. Scum likes to say, "but you are doing what I did".
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.In post 42, Fro99er wrote: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.
That's not what he said;In post 43, Fro99er wrote:No, he said he didn't want to sheep the sheep.
He said he didn't sheep.In post 16, Lowell wrote:Because I'm not a sheep, sheep.
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.In post 43, Fro99er wrote: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.
You would have preferred I denied something without even knowing what it was?In post 48, gerryoat wrote:he also didn't deny to slipping, he just wants to know where he did lmao.In post 35, Cooperative Sheep wrote:You should vote me if I did that.In post 28, gerryoat wrote:Sheep slipped. He spoke like he wasn't part of town.
When and how did I do that?
What nice content do you think it's getting from me? Mostly I've just been asking questions back.In post 65, Hawk wrote:Do you not link early wagons? I think it's getting nice content from Sheep. And generating discussion.
Speaking of - I'd like you to respond to my questions.In post 55, Fro99er wrote:Why not give your thoughts?In post 54, ChaosOmega wrote:VOTE: WhemeStar
Wheme, what are your thoughts on Sheep and the quick L-2 wagon on him?
You opted to play with a fire, and so did Uzi - what makes his fire the bigger and more dangerous one really?In post 75, Hawk wrote: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.
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.In post 82, Terata wrote:i actually liked this reaction much much more. Pretty towny imoIn post 51, Lowell wrote:@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!
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.In post 101, Naomi-Tan wrote: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
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.In post 108, Naomi-Tan wrote: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.In post 107, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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
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.In post 111, Naomi-Tan wrote:Kinda? what did chaos do?
Your first conversation about me is this;In post 112, Naomi-Tan wrote:yeah decided I wasn't happy with that. Why does a null read translate to white knighting?
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.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?
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.In post 121, Terata wrote: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?
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?In post 122, Fro99er wrote: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.
In post 53, Cooperative Sheep wrote:That's not what he said;In post 43, Fro99er wrote:No, he said he didn't want to sheep the sheep.He said he didn't sheep.In post 16, Lowell wrote:Because I'm not a sheep, sheep.
No - you misrepping and not backing it up is making you scum.In post 162, Fro99er wrote:Oh me dodging questions is me being scum. Got it.
Do you misrep as town?In post 164, Fro99er wrote:I never dodge questions as town. Never. (sarcasm for those that don't get it)
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.In post 167, Terata wrote:- 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 then attack Uzi (one of my attackers) at this stage, you are effectively WKing me.In post 61, Terata wrote: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.
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?In post 170, Fro99er wrote: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.In post 166, Cooperative Sheep wrote:Do you misrep as town?In post 164, Fro99er wrote:I never dodge questions as town. Never. (sarcasm for those that don't get it)
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.
I'm sorry I'm boring - I'm not trying to be, and it's how I communicate.In post 172, Terata wrote: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 get that - my answer is, as stated, that you changed tact when my lynch no longer looked speedily imminent.In post 174, Terata wrote: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?
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.In post 181, Terata wrote: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
In post 107, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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.
You made one post against me, I responded, you declared that to me being too argumentative to talk to. Eh...okay, I guess?In post 184, Fro99er wrote: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
Why not though? If someone will never sheep, which means they never follow anyone elses' thoughts, they aren't cooperating ever.In post 187, Fro99er wrote:In post 180, Cooperative Sheep wrote:@Frogger - The idea that he would never sheep does support A and B cleanly and without effort.
I actually didn't say it made you scum - I did explain why I thought it was bad play.In post 173, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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 also cited your lie - want to discuss it now?In post 192, Fro99er wrote: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.
So you agree it's scummy not to try to understand someone?In post 196, Fro99er wrote:Probably scum for not even attempting to understand my play. Just shouting MISREP and YOU DIDNT READ
So you agree that you misrepped/misunderstood me?In post 212, Fro99er wrote: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.
The points you claim I'm being nitpicky about are the same thing's Frogger's done.In post 213, Aj The Epic wrote: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.
In post 222, Fro99er wrote:I can see why he'd think if I intentionally misrepped why I'd be scum.
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.In post 239, Hawk wrote:Sheep is flailing and using buzzwords to death maybe because they're new? (white Knight, misrep, etc.)
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 post 242, Hawk wrote: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)
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?In post 247, Lil Uzi Vert wrote: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
I'm bolding where I answered the question.In post 260, Naomi-Tan wrote: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 >_<In post 158, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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.
I agree.In post 262, Naomi-Tan wrote: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
Sheeping can equal cooperation though.In post 265, Naomi-Tan wrote:Cooperation =/= Sheeping.In post 193, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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.
Voting with someone is adding something to that person. We're debating semantics now.In post 323, Terata wrote: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
You would know what that looks likeIn post 448, Fro99er wrote:manipulation is the same thing as hypocrisy?In post 445, Cooperative Sheep wrote:I consider the manipulation to fall within that same vein,
Bullshit. You just don't want to admit you're wrong.
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.In post 454, Naomi-Tan wrote:True but lying to make people look worse than they are is.In post 450, Terata wrote:contradiction isn't inherently wolfy. mehIn post 446, Naomi-Tan wrote: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.
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.In post 469, Terata wrote:look a the 2 statements i bolded and be amazed
How does it do that? We're not even discussing anyone's scum read on me, we're discussing a scumread on Chaos.In post 525, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:This reads like you don't want to try to understand why people are reading your behavior as scum motivated.In post 439, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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.
I don't agree with your take of his motivations, but could see them within a world where Wheme is being a scum read.In post 593, ChaosOmega wrote: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.
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.In post 674, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:I don't see the issue here. Bad arguments doesn't make someone scum.In post 591, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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.
Are you trying to say that his arguments are so bad and contrived that they couldn't possibly be coming from town?
I will agree that your "case" against me is easily read as one giant vague playstyle attack that doesn't show scum intent.In post 682, Hawk wrote: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.In post 680, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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.In post 674, Lil Uzi Vert wrote:I don't see the issue here. Bad arguments doesn't make someone scum.In post 591, Cooperative Sheep wrote: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.
Are you trying to say that his arguments are so bad and contrived that they couldn't possibly be coming from town?
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.
Also when I flip green your adament opinion that I'm scum isn't going to look too good
At least Frog acted like he believed I didn't make logical sense.In post 694, Hawk wrote: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 -_-;;