I wonder why they did not want that
You might have done some other things, but the amount of times you have said the same thing is absolutely inane and I cannot comprehend why you would say it time and time and time again.
If you have the time to consistently post that which does nothing then you have the time to actually do some shit that I might eventually respect you for.
I want to see you shine in this game, not do the same shit different day.
VOTE COUNT BUT ITS REALLY JUST SULIT SCREAMING
| Accused | Voted By | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Marshal | Marshal | 1/7 |
| PKR | Alice | 1/7 |
| Wazza | Insanity | 1/7 |
| Surge | PKR | 1/7 |
| Not voting | Whysper, Wazza, an_gorta_pratai, Surge, Luxy, SirDerpsAlot, Esquiddy, Trochilidae, Appelsiini | 9 |
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
2 Likes
I feel like he just shitposted, I donāt have time to backread him atm but thats probably a good start if someone is free
As I have said before, that was a really terrible stuff to do on my part. And I apologize for that.
And also, I started the wagon on Eli firstā¦so I guess I am suspected for hardbussing my teammate?
First of all, yesterday was a mistake, I really shouldnāt have done that, and it is a terrible judgement on my part.
Second of all, I have suspected Eli pretty much from the start. And no, this is not a distancing attempt as he didnāt even bother interacting me or anything like that.
Third of all, I am not bussing him. Cutting down the number of wolves down to 2 at the start in this kind of game is just bad as heck.
WE ARE BACK WITH ANOTHER VOTE COUNT
| Accused | Voted By | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Whysper | Marshal | 1/7 |
| PKR | Alice | 1/7 |
| Wazza | Insanity | 1/7 |
| Surge | PKR | 1/7 |
| Not voting | Whysper, Wazza, an_gorta_pratai, Surge, Luxy, SirDerpsAlot, Esquiddy, Trochilidae, Appelsiini | 9 |
Stay tuned for more!
I guess it is time to sheep for now.
Baaaaah.
/vote Whysper
Though I am still not sure about the decision on lunching Whysper.
the thread is filled with flocks of sheep
all piled up within a heap
though i think the vote is sound,
and sufficient reasons have been found
iād like to hear from whysper too
(i see you lurking, yes i do)
whysper now, what do you say
to the accusations thrown your way?
Okay, it appears that for me to help with solving, I need to work on convincing everyone that I was put into the PoE for erroneous reasoning. So I am going to work on that by reviewing the 3 main cases set against me. Iām mostly setting aside the meta discussion since most agree that it should only be used as a supplement and self meta-analysis is problematic anyway.
Here are the 3 main cases summarized. I will discuss them in more detail in separate posts so that this one isnāt so long and to make it easier to reply to each specific case.
Case A: Wild West Discussion
I made a statement that Wild West shows the possibility of deep wolves and that we should keep an open mind. Luxy contends that Iām lying about Wild West and that there were no deep wolves, so I must be wolf to make this claim.
Case B: Disputing Alice
Alice made a statement about Esquiddy that he should be town-leaned for questioning why I town-leaned Derps. I commented that I think such a question is NAI.
Case C: Esquiddy Questioning
I was confused about whether Esquiddy was completely new or had some experience, so I pursued a line of questioning. I was especially concerned that he quickly voted for Derps, which seemed odd if he was completely new. Through the line of questioning, it was revealed that Esquiddy knows Derps IRL and had previously played or spectated a couple games.
Case A: Wild West Discussion
In the Wild West discussion, Luxy is focusing on the wrong question. He is looking at the question of whether Wild West did contain deep wolves, and if not, that I must be lying and therefore a wolf. But thatās the wrong question. The question should be whether I was making that statement about Wild West as town or as wolf.
T!Whysper
In the T!Whysper world, it doesnāt matter if it is objectively true that Wild West contained deep wolves. I was making the statement from my POV that I believed there were deep wolves. I was basing this on the fact that Cent and the other wolves all believed Cent was a deep wolf as well as Universal to some extent. Town leaders like Vulgard had placed Cent in their town core most of the game.
So believing that deep wolves were possible, I was trying to make a helpful suggestion to keep an open mind. Now some may contend that this suggestion is bad. I may be willing to agree that it is unwise given that it obviously triggers contempt in some people. I will certainly reconsider this for future games. However, making this bad suggestion does not mean that Iām a wolf. It is just as easily if not more likely that Iām just town making a bad suggestion.
W!Whysper
In the W!Whysper world, Luxy is claiming that itās obvious that Wild West had no deep wolf. He is suggesting that Iām intentionally lying to push a call for a deep wolf hunt. Now does this make sense? If I was a wolf, why would I along with my wolf partners try out this tactic of lying about Wild West to start a deep wolf hunt? Why take this risk of getting called out for lying and completely invalidating my point about deep wolves? Why even bring up something so inherently flawed and draw unwanted attention as it has obviously done?
Conclusion
So which seems more likely? That Iām T!Whysper who believed something even if possibly wrong and made a suggestion? Or that Iām W!Whysper with partners who conceived a plan for me to try using an easily uncovered lie to push an agenda for deep wolves that would only draw attention to myself?