Open 186; Jungle Republic (Game Over)

hewitt · Post Post #10 (isolation #0) » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:58 pm

Saweet lots of fresh new faces in this game for me.

hewitt · Post Post #13 (isolation #1) » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:45 pm

I really didn't get a good read on you considering it was the only game I've seen you in and I really didn't get a chance to do anything at all before it ended. That and the game was fucking confusing in the first place. So to me this is the first time I've played with you.

hewitt · Post Post #18 (isolation #2) » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:49 am

curiouskarmadog wrote:like hewitt, except scummier....I have not seen you play, but I bet you are trying to already excuse your bad playing?..am I right?

I'd be a little bit more hesitant to judge me based on let's see...one ongoing game? Nice meta kid.

hewitt · Post Post #21 (isolation #3) » Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:30 am

curiouskarmadog wrote:so what meta are you talking about?

Exactly.

curiouskarmadog wrote:and what does that comment have to do with my vote on saber?

Absolutely nothing. I was just commenting on you basically calling me a shit scum player.

curiouskarmadog wrote:like hewitt, except scummier....I have not seen you play, but I bet you are trying to already excuse your bad playing?..am I right?

Your vote on saber means nothing to me.

hewitt · Post Post #24 (isolation #4) » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:48 am

CKD it's not my fault that you suck at wording sentences. I'm completely caught up. This phrase right here...

curiouskarmadog wrote:like hewitt, except scummier....I have not seen you play, but I bet you are trying to already excuse your bad playing?..am I right?

Clearly looks like an indicator that his play is like mine, except scummier. But since you haven't seen him play and you have vaguely seen me play you're assuming he's going to try to his bad play like myself. So I didn't really misread what you said, you just did not properly post your formulated thoughts correctly.

The fact that you don't know that I don't random vote clearly shows that you do not have enough experience with me and have not researched me enough to judge my playstyle.

hewitt · Post Post #26 (isolation #5) » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:05 am

Add the word excuse after try to and you've got the correct sentencing.

hewitt · Post Post #48 (isolation #6) » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:40 pm

I read that game because everybody was making such a hooblah about it and that really was probably the most anti-town move I've ever seen anybody make.

hewitt · Post Post #64 (isolation #7) » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:23 am

This is ridiculous and totally stupid.

hewitt · Post Post #66 (isolation #8) » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 am

saberwolf wrote:nah, the odd time i dont gambit, and sometimes will gambit as scum. My goal is to not have a reliable meta read if possible. I don't expect to be cleared as anything this game, especially as I announced my gambicy, which obv means I won't be gambiting this game....duh.

You realize this doesn't work right? By self-hammering you're playing TO your meta not playing against it. I switch up my attitude, playstyle, and overall persona each game to have an unreliable meta but this is just a ridiculously awful way of doing it saber.

hewitt · Post Post #72 (isolation #9) » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:31 am

In a way though it was L-1 because if one other person voted saber he was planning on self-hammering.

hewitt · Post Post #74 (isolation #10) » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:40 am

That's pretty much irrelevant though. saber stated he has asked permission to self-hammer and if one more player voted for him he was going to do it. That's basically L-1 and that's all that really mattered.

hewitt · Post Post #109 (isolation #11) » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:42 am

dank wrote:Nonetheless, I dont like how you're sitting on the sidelines, not voting anyone, yet throwing out silly accusations like putting someone at L-2 is "basically" putting someone at L-1. Do you think this was scummy? If so, why aren't you voting them? Why aren't you voting anyone?

I don't really care if you think I'm sitting on the sidelines and I've already answered why I'm not voting yet. But I'll restate it since you apparently missed it, I don't vote until I think I've found scum. Very simple.

dank wrote:That said, bigmc's vote was not L-1. However, his assertion that he "missed" MR's vote is a bit suspicious, and could be a good excuse to put saber in a quick lynch position. Nonetheless, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since its early in the game, and most of us aren't being all that careful with our votes either (we're just out of rvs).

What is with your constant defense of saber? Why do you want a player who's going to probably act anti-town in this game anyway?

hewitt · Post Post #112 (isolation #12) » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:54 am

If I wanted to lynch saber I would be voting him. I don't think we should be putting pressure on saber because it's A) annoying B) is going to take up a large part of the day probably and C) means that any player that has a reputation for acting anti-town (zwetschenwasser, Empking, Mastin) should be pressured like this and it's honestly going to do nothing to help or progress the game in a healthy manner.

However, I do understand why people would put pressure on saber, he is acting anti-town. But just because I understand it does not mean I agree with it.

hewitt · Post Post #149 (isolation #13) » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:58 pm

Paradoxombie wrote:Sounds like you're just gonna wait for someone else to make a case/bandwagon for you to hop on. Just like you'd wait for someone else to get us out of RVS.

Very inaccurate but okay, whatever.

saberwolf wrote:not all of it, but its a small percentage of it, yes.

It isn't so much to deter you, it's more to put you down as scumhunters

There's no point in that because it's all a crapload of WIFOM and anything you say in regards to that really shouldn't be taken into serious consideration by anyone.

saberwolf wrote:thats where you're wrong. I come off as scummy, but it engages a load of discussion and shows sides very quickly.

There's a huge difference between attempting to start conversation and deliberately acting anti-town to make the game revolve around you so you can bask in your scumminess.

saberwolf wrote:anyways, you want more info, talk to hewitt, he just figured it out.

I don't know which game you're talking about! lol.

I have no ill thoughts/wishes about you or anything like I do other players but I really disagree with your playstyle and the bet and everything to do with this whole scenario you and animorpherv have set up. I think it's unfair to the rest of us and should not be condoned. I hope to play with you again once this whole bet thing is over and I can actually play with the real you, perhaps on Mish Mash or whatever that is lol.

Vote: saberwolf

hewitt · Post Post #153 (isolation #14) » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:19 pm

In the past 24 hours I've had a lot of exposure to saberwolf, we're now in at least three games together and I learned the extent of why he plays anti-town and why just within this past hour and it really bothers me.

hewitt · Post Post #161 (isolation #15) » Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:21 am

Scott Brosius wrote:And this is one of the best posts yet. I was not satisfied with hewitt's answer either.

I think given the timing of his vote and the sudden change of heart to put SW at L-1 makes hewitt my top suspect at the moment.

Unvote
Vote: hewitt

I don't imagine that you could understand unless you're in all these games with me and saber. I'm pretty much promoting his lynch in every game I'm in right now, this is one of the few times I'm seriously promoting a policy lynch until this stupid bet thing is over.

hewitt · Post Post #163 (isolation #16) » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:48 am

dank wrote:I hope you realize "you just don't understand!" isn't a very convincing defense. Unless you explain in much more detail why you changed your mind about saber, I see your vote as an opportunistic wagon jump (or perhaps even a bus). You've lurked all day refusing to have input on anything, then finally jump in without any justification to place an L-1 vote. I think saber's top priority for today, but you're not far behind.

I don't really care that you think it's opportunistic, to me my vote on saber is for personal reasons that I have pretty clearly stated and if you're going to ignore them that's not my problem that's yours.

hewitt · Post Post #165 (isolation #17) » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:59 am

hewitt wrote:In the past 24 hours I've had a lot of exposure to saberwolf, we're now in at least three games together and I learned the extent of why he plays anti-town and why just within this past hour and it really bothers me.

And then saber explained the bet.

saberwolf wrote:Budja - I made a bet with animorpherv1. I had to sign up for all games that needed players. I had to play every single one and not flake. If I flaked, Ani got to make my avatar for 2 months. If I successfully play all my games, I make his avatar for two months. One of the loopholes in our deal I've been exploiting. I can't flake if I'm lynched. Luckily for me, I've got a town role in every single game I entered, making it easier to gambit. The hilarious part is I tell every single game about this bet at some point. Every single one of them end the same. You guys are gonna say "Oh, that's fine, but this game is different. He was town in all the other games, but he's def scum in this one". You will then porceed to lynch me, and I will flip town. Then you'll be like "damn, he was telling the truth, just like the last 8 games". But it's fine, because the whole goal was to either draw scum out with my scummy gambits, or die in the process, making it win-win.

hewitt · Post Post #167 (isolation #18) » Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:20 am

Paradoxombie wrote:I wouldn't regret your lynch even if you were a jester.

Well in that case I would. Basically then we would've lost and that would suck.

hewitt · Post Post #181 (isolation #19) » Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:47 pm

Budja wrote:
FoS: hewitt
, that turnaround was a bit dodgy.

saberwolf, considering everything that's going on in all our games, was my turnaround unexpected?

hewitt · Post Post #239 (isolation #20) » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:27 am

curiouskarmadog wrote:lets make something clear...I dont support your play. it is bad as scum or town. I am looking for scum, and I think you are an easy target for them.

You're setting yourself up very nicely here so if saber is lynched and flips scum you come out looking just oh so pro-town out of it. Feels very...fake.

hewitt · Post Post #242 (isolation #21) » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:50 am

Oh haha I meant if he is lynched and flips town.

hewitt · Post Post #245 (isolation #22) » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:08 pm

Budja

I actually have a problem with YOU hammering saber because you've spent this whole game having nothing but multi-personality disorder in regards to saber and have spending a lot of time chastising and calling players who are voting saber scummy. You've been playing both sides this whole time and I think it's absolutely crap. But go ahead, flip-flop one more time, whatever.

hewitt · Post Post #250 (isolation #23) » Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:49 am

You're voting for a player who's replacing? That's a pretty bullshit move.

hewitt · Post Post #274 (isolation #24) » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:52 pm

saberwolf wrote:ok, so I'm back. I apologize for the rant, it was out of line. I have to remember that this is just a game, and to treat it as such. Feel free to lynch me still, and I'll simply remove the game and move on...then I only have 2 games left that I'm forced to complete or get lynched in. Have fun guys.

That's most certainly not a pro-town attitude. If you really don't care about being in this game then quit.

hewitt · Post Post #276 (isolation #25) » Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:06 pm

saberwolf wrote:I can't quit, or I lose my bet. You already know that hewitt.

Fuck you make everything so complicated.

hewitt · Post Post #345 (isolation #26) » Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:59 am

Okay I am really sorry for my absence. But imagine my surprise when I return 11 days after not posting and find only...2 pages to catch up on.

danakillsu wrote:Man, I would hate to lynch a replacement right off the bat, but I think saberwolf was really scummy. Anyone got advice for me?

This is questionable to me.

Paradoxombie raised a very good point about Lowell's flip-flopiness and I can't wait to hear Lowell's defense of that.

Jazzmyn in a game where we lynch one player a day how about you narrow down your scum list instead of leaving so much room for you to flip-flop around.

Unvote: Flava Flave

Right now I'm not willing to lynch a player who I feel like is making active contributions. This game has been quickly dying and we're definitely going to need players who are going to actively contribute in this game.

That being said I'm kind of jumping right on a wagon due to another players scumhunting (which I rarely ever do) but I feel that Paradoxombie made a really good case on Lowell and to me Lowell went kind of 100% unnoticed in this game. He's pretty much numero uno on my most unforgettable list.

Vote: Lowell

hewitt · Post Post #350 (isolation #27) » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:08 pm

Jazzmyn wrote:Hewitt: suspicious for his early over-defensiveness, for his silly posts supporting CKD's erroneous claim that saber was at L-1 when he was actually at L-2, for his odd interaction with saber around the 149 mark, and then his abrupt turnaround to put saber at L-1 himself, and his subsequent wishy washy interaction with saber after that. Possible scum slip in his post 239 when he says "if saber flips scum" instead of "if saber flips town". Then there is the fact that after putting saber at L-1, which implicitly means that you want someone to hammer the player that you've put at L-1, hewitt expressly says that he doesn't want Budja to hammer saber when Budja indicated a willingness to do so. If hewitt was town and genuinely believed in his L-1 vote, why would he object to Budja hammering? Makes no sense to me. Then he starts waffling on saber again after that. Too much wishy-washiness for my liking.

Just going to quickly clear up some misreps in here.

1. Since saber had expressed the possibility of self-hammering as he had in the past I was saying that putting him at L-2 was almost as good as putting him at L-1 considering he might just self-hammer. That was completely valid.
2. Considering we can't talk about ongoing games I don't know how much I can divulge in the "abrupt turnaround" but I will say if you go read my games that I was in with saber you will understand.
3. I said I had an issue with BUDJA hammering not with a hammering in general. And I think I clearly stated my reasonings as to why.

hewitt · Post Post #354 (isolation #28) » Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:47 am

Lowell wrote:344 is more or less exactly my sentiments towards bigmc. He seems to bring up the idea of scummy things in others, but doesn't back them up until someone pipes up to support him.

Are you just going to completely ignore the case on you?

hewitt · Post Post #356 (isolation #29) » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:02 am

Paradoxombie wrote:but anyway,
unvote, vote:Lowell
His flipflopping on saber looks damn suspicious to me.

Originally:

Lowell wrote:Anyone unvoting saber after his behavior is crazy.

He's asking for it, and deserves it. More to the point, no one has explained to me why him threatening to self-hammer makes him town.

unvote, vote saber
then:

Lowell wrote:
unvote saber, vote bigmc

115 and 117 are good. I have the same vague dissatisfaction from 114 that saber does.

Lowell wrote:I'm turned around on saber. For whatever reason I'm convinced he's town.

Lowell wrote:dank and saber both look town to me, despite their lover's spats.
suddenly:

Lowell wrote:I think saber's recent behavior deserves a lynch.

I'll give dan a chance to chime in, however.

Lowell wrote:@ckd- saber has been an absolute disaster since the few pages when he was actually helpful. I'll hear out the replacement, but in general I'm not a huge fan of abandoning good wagons just to be nice to replacement.
I want him to be more specific about what behvior by saber merits this most recent change.