• looks eager to jump on a bandwagon
• conjures up the idea that Jack copied and pasted VOTES. (?)
Also just get a general gut vibe. Seems like a new scum player.
Please show me that EBWOP. And the jumping on the bandwagon was you eager to just put a vote down, At least that was my gut read.pwnman wrote:I put an EBWOP that said "answers not votes". I am not eager to jump on any bandwagon I was the second person to vote him with reasons.
that isn't my main problem. My problem now is that he claims to have EBWOPed that he made a typo. but he never did.jasonT1981 wrote:To be honest, I kinda just saw this as a typo considering Jack copying answers was a topic of discussion for a short period around the time of that post.pman5595 wrote: • conjures up the idea that Jack copied and pasted VOTES. (?)
pman5595 wrote:that isn't my main problem. My problem now is that he claims to have EBWOPed that he made a typo. but he never did.jasonT1981 wrote:To be honest, I kinda just saw this as a typo considering Jack copying answers was a topic of discussion for a short period around the time of that post.pman5595 wrote: • conjures up the idea that Jack copied and pasted VOTES. (?)
The biggest part of the case is a gut read.
As Neto just said his general behavior is obstructionist, and that seems to be a real flimsy excuse. Of course, now that you mention it, the case itself is quite flimsy.Yosarian2 wrote:You may or may not like the answer he gave, but I don't get why you keep acting like he never answered your question.Jack wrote: That first post was my version of the conversation starter. The fact that there was no CIA agent in the setup gave me an "out" once the starter had run it's course. Proof that it wasn't a scumslip, basically. That it was just made up.
Wrong. Post 135pman5595 wrote:
jasonT1981 wrote:
pman5595 wrote:
• conjures up the idea that Jack copied and pasted VOTES. (?)
To be honest, I kinda just saw this as a typo considering Jack copying answers was a topic of discussion for a short period around the time of that post.
that isn't my main problem. My problem now is that he claims to have EBWOPed that he made a typo. but he never did.
The biggest part of the case is a gut read.
hmmm, ur right.. i did a quick Iso and nothing EBWOP
Read the role info. It can only be used at night, and there was no night 0, so there is no threat here. It'll only matter for days 2 and 3.Fishythefish wrote:Given the Researcher role, 5 votes could be L-1 for Jack or any other player. Noone should put people on 6 votes unless they are prepared to hammer a wagon.
Yes he did.pman5595 wrote:that isn't my main problem. My problem now is that he claims to have EBWOPed that he made a typo. but he never did.jasonT1981 wrote:To be honest, I kinda just saw this as a typo considering Jack copying answers was a topic of discussion for a short period around the time of that post.pman5595 wrote: • conjures up the idea that Jack copied and pasted VOTES. (?)
The biggest part of the case is a gut read.
I don't see it.pwnman post 135 wrote:lol. That was answers....or it shoulda beenJack wrote:1) I didn't copy and paste votespwnman wrote: Since when is 2 people voting a bandwagon? I was the second person on because Jack copied and pasted votes. Even if he hadn't done that I'd still be on now with his refusal to answer questions
2) I haven't refused to answer questions, only one question.
Vote:pwnman
So you came up with this one just now. You're making the logic fit the conclusion, then. Let's say I started (for some reason) with the conclusion that you were scum. In that light, your starting the game with the questions would be an attempt to make yourself look pro town and to control discussion early. You didn't notice my answers were copy pasted because you were scum faking suspicion on Darox. Now you think I know something about the setup that you don't, and as scum you want to know what it is, so you threaten to lynch me unless I spill the beans.Netopalis wrote:Fishy: Sure,I can producea scummy reason for Jack's actions. First, he is deliberately being confusing. Even if he is town, he would have had no other reason to bring up the matter in the first place. He is attempting to derail the game by his cryptic responses as well. Also, he is, I think, trying to benefit from early suspicion being cleared, which often means that the player will be looked at with less suspicion later in the game. If he establishes an extremely scummy style of play now, in the late game, if he plays in a more pro-town fashion, he will look much less like scum, regardless of his actual alignment. Thus, in a sense, it can be something of a protectionist move.
If you are town surely you can see how far astray starting with a conclusion and then finding a scum motive for someones behavior can take you.
Newbie 897.Jack wrote:Which game was this pwnman?pwwnman's sig wrote:Mafia RULES!!!!
As Mafia- 1-0
I didn't put EBWOP but it was supposed to beI don't see it
Eh, I guess you are right.pwnman wrote:Thanks for the subtance Jack.
Wrong. Post 135pman5595 wrote:
jasonT1981 wrote:
pman5595 wrote:
• conjures up the idea that Jack copied and pasted VOTES. (?)
To be honest, I kinda just saw this as a typo considering Jack copying answers was a topic of discussion for a short period around the time of that post.
that isn't my main problem. My problem now is that he claims to have EBWOPed that he made a typo. but he never did.
The biggest part of the case is a gut read.
hmmm, ur right.. i did a quick Iso and nothing EBWOP
Darox wrote:See, this is why you don't procrastinate. You write up some stuff, and then you waste time and people steal your thunder by saying it first. Oh well, I'm still going to post it because damnit I wasted a lot of time putting this off. I should just stick to snarky one liners.
People on the Jackwagon, in order of appearance
Bub Bidderskins, pwnman, Netopalis, jasonT1981, DarkLightA
Bub Bidderskins:
#43+44 First votes Jack because he copypasted his quiz answers from other people.
Nothing wrong here.
#69 Next post from Bubs he calls Jack 'so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum' but keeps his vote on Jack until he responds to SK questions. [Ehhh...]
I just wanted answers
#91 Gives previous experience showing why he thinks Jack is town, keeps vote on to get answers. Says he will support a Jack lynch if it comes down to it, despite twice calling him town. [Don't like this] Attacks pwn & jason for being on the wagon without good reasons, despite pwn giving the same reasons as him. Only FoS's pwn, not jason. [?]
"If it comes down to it" represents if he wasn't willing to answer the questions. Pwn was on the wagon "because you can't just copy and paste answers like that". I was on it for answers. If pwn comes back and says he wants answers, then how come he didn't ask for any?
#108 Demands answers some more (After Jack has already given his answer) and provides this: "While I can see that possibly the secret service agent is the serial killer and thelawyers are the mafia" Never before is the possibility of lawyers being mafia mentioned by anyone. [Where did this come from?]
The lawyers as mafia is pure speculation on my part. Just think about it. It was given to us that there are "vanilla jurors". Since jurors replace townie, it's a decent guess that the jurors are town, but, like I said, nothing but speculation on my part. As far as answering the question, I thought that it was a cheap excuse at the time, but looking back, I can see it being a decent answer. Still, why no one told me that until now (net actually said, in response to me copying his boldified thingot "Not a problem, Bub. Anything to get him to finally answer."
#125 Links fishy as Jacks scumbuddy for defending Jacks actions. Changes his opinion on Jack, saying he has 'gone far and beyond what is "normal" anti-town play.' Gives reasons as Jack refusing to answer questions (Again, after he already has) and him playing poorly. Is 100% behind Jack lynch.
The scumbuddy thing was if Jack was scum. How come people always forget about this?
#148 Defending self against fishy. Gives reasons for suspecting Jack as not giving answers and "good points that Net and others have brought up" [Pretty weak] Finally mentions if Jack is town, there must be scum on the wagon. (After both GC and myself have pointed this out) Points at pwn again, but fingers everyone who may have wagon jumped.
#149 Suggests Researcher may be a lawyer. Again suggests lawyers are scum. Implies Researcher cannot be a scum role and thus the one of the Justices or the agent may be partners with the remaining lawyer. [Seriously, where did you get this idea?]
once again, speculation
#155 Defending self against Jack. Claims Jack never explained copypaste, despite Jack citing post numbers where he explained it fully, and calls Jack very scummy for 'dodging all the questions'. [What?] Again claims Jack hasn't really answered questions about the copypaste issue. [No really, what?] Contradicts his post in #91 by saying he wouldn't have supported a lynch on Jack at that time, does want to lynch Jack now. Explains his reasoning for calling the lawyers scum, assuming all the jurors are town [Bad assumption] and thus the lawyers are mafia and the SSA is the SK.
When I said he dodged all the questions, I meant neto's questions on that quiz he produced. When did I say that I wouldn't have support a lynch? Again, all the juror/lawyer stuff is speculation.
You're really sketchy and jumping all over the place. Can you explain why you think Jack never answered either question?
Because when I asked him to answer after he answered, nobody said anything until much later, thus making me think I was on the right track.
Um, there was a night 0, although no killing roles could be used.darox wrote:Read the role info. It can only be used at night, and there was no night 0, so there is no threat here. It'll only matter for days 2 and 3.
Why would you need someone else to tell you that Jacks answers were acceptable? Weren't you looking at everything he posted? He was after all, your prime focus. What made you finally decide his answers were decent?Bub Bidderskins wrote:As far as answering the question, I thought that it was a cheap excuse at the time, but looking back, I can see it being a decent answer. Still, why no one told me that until now (net actually said, in response to me copying his boldified thingot "Not a problem, Bub. Anything to get him to finally answer."
Nobody has forgotten it. When someone says scumbuddy, it's automatically implied it's if the person they are linked to is scum. Otherwise, they couldn't be a scumbuddy, could they?Bub Bidderskins wrote:The scumbuddy thing was if Jack was scum. How come people always forget about this?
Why is not properly answering the quiz a scummy act? Is this the reason you have been willing to lynch Jack?Bub Bidderskins wrote:When I said he dodged all the questions, I meant neto's questions on that quiz he produced.
Here.Bub Bidderskins wrote:When did I say that I wouldn't have support a lynch?
Which contradicted what you said in post 91Bub Bidderskins #155 wrote:I just wanted answers, and I didn't intend on carrying that forward to a lynch at that time. [Referring to post #91]
Bub Bidderskins #91 wrote:However, if it comes down to it I'll lynch him
Why were you more concerned with looking out for people dissenting with your argument rather than reading the posts of the person you are wagoning?Bub Bidderskins wrote:Because when I asked him to answer after he answered, nobody said anything until much later, thus making me think I was on the right track.
I know why you voted for him, the way you did it just looks really opportunistic.pwnman wrote:Since when is 2 people voting a bandwagon? I was the second person on because Jack copied and pasted votes. Even if he hadn't done that I'd still be on now with his refusal to answer questionsDry-fit wrote:I have no idea what to think of Jack.
Also, I really don't like the way Pwnman and jason jumped on the Jack wagon. Pwnman moreso.vote: pwnman
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Pwnman's vote didn't look natural or like he was really suspicious of Jack's play. I don't need an opinion of the player being voted to see something fishy about the way a vote is placed.Green Crayons wrote:If you don't know what you think of Jack, how do you have an opinion of someone who voted for something you have no opinion about? This looks like posturing to make a "good" vote.Dry-fit wrote:I have no idea what to think of Jack.
Also, I really don't like the way Pwnman and jason jumped on the Jack wagon. Pwnman moreso. vote: pwnman
Is there anything particularly scummy about this? His vote for Yos was a random vote.Bub Bidderskins wrote:I think the one person off the wagon who is most likey scum is Darox. He isn't active much at all, and I didn't quite catch why he's voting for yos.
Darox wrote:Oh, you're right, there was a night 0. My bad.
Why would you need someone else to tell you that Jacks answers were acceptable?Bub Bidderskins wrote:As far as answering the question, I thought that it was a cheap excuse at the time, but looking back, I can see it being a decent answer. Still, why no one told me that until now (net actually said, in response to me copying his boldified thingot "Not a problem, Bub. Anything to get him to finally answer."
I shouldn't and that was my mistake. However, when others said nothing, I assumed I was on the right track.
Weren't you looking at everything he posted? He was after all, your prime focus. What made you finally decide his answers were decent?
When I looked back at him in iso.
Nobody has forgotten it. When someone says scumbuddy, it's automatically implied it's if the person they are linked to is scum. Otherwise, they couldn't be a scumbuddy, could they?Bub Bidderskins wrote:The scumbuddy thing was if Jack was scum. How come people always forget about this?
Don't you understand what I'm trying to say? I was not implying that fishy was currently scum, or would be scum. I was saying thatJack was lynched and turned out to be scum, then fishy would be a likey scum-bud because of his defense of Jack.IF
Why is not properly answering the quiz a scummy act? Is this the reason you have been willing to lynch Jack?Bub Bidderskins wrote:When I said he dodged all the questions, I meant neto's questions on that quiz he produced.
It's part of the reason I had been willing to lynch him, and deliberatly not answering questions is scummy.Here.Bub Bidderskins wrote:When did I say that I wouldn't have support a lynch?Which contradicted what you said in post 91Bub Bidderskins #155 wrote:I just wanted answers, and I didn't intend on carrying that forward to a lynch at that time. [Referring to post #91]Bub Bidderskins #91 wrote:However, if it comes down to it I'll lynch himIn 91 I was saying that if Jack continued to fail to answer questions, then I'd be willing to lynch him, not that I was willing to lynch him at that time. Of course, this isn't new to you, seeing as I said the exact same thing in my previous post.
Why were you more concerned with looking out for people dissenting with your argument rather than reading the posts of the person you are wagoning?Bub Bidderskins wrote:Because when I asked him to answer after he answered, nobody said anything until much later, thus making me think I was on the right track.
I was reading his post, but a big, underlined "answer the question" is pretty hard to miss.
You responded to every post summary, even the ones with no questions/comments, except for #148. Why?Because it's America and I can do whatever I wantBecause there was nothing really for me to say. You basically outlined what I said in the post.