Alright first I want to make one thing clear. Don't vote for people "for not contributing". It's a void argument. A vote
is
a contribution.
FOS Farside
And now, this is why hewitt is scum:
hewitt wrote:I agree with farside and I'm going to take the Masons day by day. Right now the stats really mean nothing to me.
Buddying up with farside, buttering her up.
hewitt wrote:DarkLightA wrote:It would seem like the last sentence could be used to dampen the serverity of the vote.
Unvote
Vote: Farside
Not OMGUS:
First you supported me, then suddenly about 2-3 people go against me, and you find a chance to change before everyone goes against you for the support you gave (posts a few posts back show suspicion coming onto you because of this). So you find a chance to vote me first, making it seem like you'd be the starter of it,without really being so. This seems REALLY scummy to me. Don't know about you guys.
This is like the fakest vote I've ever seen on this site.
Chainsaw defense of farside.
hewitt wrote:saberwolf wrote:Konowa has a unique meta when it comes to me.
Konowa as town has always voted for me and finds some excuse to vote for me in the RVS.
He also likes to vote without real reason, one of his town tells. If he was scum, he'd have built up a better case before he attacked me.
Konowa's naturally an easy target for scum from my own experiences playing with him.
hewitt wrote:We all know meta's usually a crapshoot anyways
Contradiction. He says that Konowa's meta is that he's an easy target, and then he says that meta is useless. So why did he talk about his experience of Konowa's play? It doesn't make any sense,
unless
he doesn't give a shit whether meta is useful or not and is just selectively using different elements of mafia when they
suit
him. There are many examples of this.
hewitt wrote:If I'm right about ABR being scum then this is most definitely a prime example of chainsaw defense
You did one yourself of farside, cited earlier. Now I don't know if a chainsaw defense is scummy or not, but when you arbitrarily apply mafia concepts to one player and not yourself when you are both doing the same thing, that is
extremely scummy
. Even without a vote -you said you don't like to vote in the beginning-, you are clearly attacking DLA for attacking farside. Chainsaw defense.
Then there's my original overcompensating argument. Many a post you make is an attempt at courting the town's favor
in full conscience
of the act.
-A huge emphasis on "creating discussion", instead of just discussing
Albert B. Rampage wrote:-The hewitt creature tries too hard to look pro-town by repeating ad nauseum that it wants "discussion".
hewitt wrote:Really because my history of not voting shows that it helps spark conversation and gauge reactions of other players very well. Basically you're saying players who don't random vote are scummy, and that's just silly.
hewitt wrote:Anything, I really don't care honestly as long as it starts discussion SOMEHOW.
hewitt wrote:Basically right now this game sucks and is absolutely going nowhere and I honestly don't even know what else to comment on. Which is...you know...always great...
hewitt wrote:Ugh yeah I know. I was hoping someone would vehemently disagree so we can start conversation somehow but apparently that didn't work.
-Trying to take credit for pro-town things rather than look for scumtells:
hewitt wrote:farside22 wrote:What is saber attack on Hewit laughable? Don't you think it's better to have some discusion to get us off the RVS stage?
For the record though that would be me who got us out of the RVS stage not saber.
-Not wanting to look like he's tunneling:
Shotty to the Body wrote:There's another thing. You said you didn't want to appear as though you were tunneling. The way you present your case is more focused on not being called scummy then actually catching someone, that's what bothers me about it the most.
Now that's not all. Hewitt argues that Yarmond isn't a bad lynch, but that he will probably flip town:
Albert B. Rampage wrote:hewitt wrote:I'm really not all that opposed to a Yarmond lynch considering we've got nothing else going on for us. Lurker lynches just always kind of bother me because we are probably going to hit town and that's just never really a good thing obviously.
hewitt wrote:I just said I'm fine with a Yarmond lynch but at the same time there's that nagging in the back of my head like damn...we're probably not going to hit scum here. And of course that would bother me.
This is the biggest example of overcompensating to me. These two posts
scream
"I want to look town".
He's not opposed to the lynch
, but hewitt warns us that Yarmond will probably flip town. This is exactly what scum would do.
Now soon after, he posts his case against me:
hewitt wrote:I think the best idea for today would be to lynch a player who is here yet hasn't shown any signs of being willing to contribute anything to the game.
Vote: Albert B. Rampage
He's done absolutely nothing so far this game but ask pointless questions to other players and has not provided any original thoughts to the game. He doesn't even respond to the answers of the pointless questions that he's asking. Reading all the players in ISO I think it's pretty clear that ABR has been and most likely will be the most useless player in this game.
If the vote's on Yarmond as a policy lynch for not contributing anything then I'm going to vote for the even worse offender, the player who's here and posting and still not contributing.
Lack of contribution. Got it.
I reply with a case of my own. I have crystal clear reasons for voting him (post 203), but he says that I'm voting him because I think he sucks (OMGUS).
But whereas his case on me consists of "OMGUS", which is actually not, lack of contribution, which actually exists only in his mind), and asking a hypothetical question, which he can't accuse me without condemning himself because he's used hypothetical situations too (eg: post 236).
However, the extent of his scumminess extends far beyond that:
hewitt wrote:I know you're delighted that your OMGUS case has garnered so many bandwagon votes. If I'm lynched scum will definitely win because I've never seen a town stupid enough to follow such a blatantly awful player like yourself.
"If I'm lynched scum will win". Straight from the standard scum playbook.
hewitt wrote:Wrong again and a gross misrepresentation of my case and actions. I don't give a shit about "appearing" pro-town or any of that bullcrap.
And this is just a flat-out lie. At this point hewitt is getting fairly agitated anyway, and just flailing about proclaiming that the town can't win, etc.
---
In conclusion, hewitt has been acting extremely scummy, more than anyone else in the game so far, and there's more than enough evidence to lynch him where he stands.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.
