Antihero wrote:Sorry I've been neglecting this game. Let me rectify that.
Hacker: What exactly is misrepresented in my Kat case? And why didn't we hear about what was misrepresented from you yesterday?
For being second on your scum list, the case on Phaen is pretty weak.
Hacker wrote:Katsuki - Lots of noise, makes a pretty basic case on Nopoint that gets Antihero all riled up for some reason.
That's not the only thing that got me "riled up." Besides the crappy case on nopoint, he also called me scum when questioned.
I'm not seeing the case on Scott; I'm sensing people are just piling on simply because of number of posts (Hacker). Can someone actually show me something he wrote that's scummy?
Kat and Hacker look the scummiest to me; Scott looks townish
VOTE: Hackerhuck
See what follows for the misrep. In my initial read, I noted your case on Katsuki as being incorrect. When I looked at the five suspects today, I dug in a little deeper. I would suggest you do the same.
Yes, my case on Phaen is not very strong, but in comparison with the five other doctors, that's where she sits. Same with Scott, since I've got town reads on Katsuki and Jesse. If Scott hasn't posted very much, why do you think he looks townish?
Misrep looking specifically at
post 191.
Antihero wrote:
Scott voted Katsuki for his push on Muthaa, to which Katsuki responded:
@Scott: Oh are you protecting muthaa's lack of wanting to place a vote? Jesse at least explained why they didn't, muthaa has yet to.
This is hypocritical. Jesse had not explained
why
he wasn't voting at the time, so it could be argued that you are protecting Jesse's actions.
I don't see how it's hypocritical. In fact, Katsuki is calling out Scott for being hypocritical because he considers Jesse's lack of voting scummy, but Muthaa's wasn't.
Jesse
had
explained why he wasn't voting and it was quite clear.
JesseSheffield in post 37 wrote:Oh, yeah, I don't random vote. You'll learn that.
Your words sum up the misrep nicely.
Antihero wrote:...he actually gave reasoning with it (if you want to dispute the reason, that's a different issue).
Antihero wrote:On page 5 is the nopoint vote. Here's the post for that:
After looking at some things...
Vote: Nopoint
Mostly fluff posts, and easy voting Jesse. As someone who does not vote, Jesse seems like a too easy target.
I don't see how nopoint's vote was an "easy vote" when he actually gave reasoning with it (if you want to dispute the reason, that's a different issue). Also, I didn't see Jesse's not voting as a reason in nopoint's vote post.
I asked you to summarize the nopoint wagon on page 6.
Oh, and by the way, and we have yet to hear why the JS wagon is opportunistic.
I'm not sure why you would even say these things. He says right in the quote why he thinks Jesse is the easy vote. Giving a reason for a vote doesn't mean it isn't on an easy target. He also mentions why it's opportunistic in the same post he says it (if you want to dispute the reason, that's a different issue).
Katsuki in post 152 wrote:Wagoning someone over their playstyle is, well, bad, and makes for a pretty easy opportunistic vote too.
You should also note that in the original quote, he's referencing all of the people voting Jesse, not just nopoint.
I disagree that getting the opinions from the vigilantes is important. Ultimately they will likely make the final decision on who to lynch, but if they totally lead the discussion, it will be harder for them to get good reads on us doctors. The vigs should be probing, but most of the content should be coming from the claimed doctors.
