I see your vote on CG as a OMGUS vote, he pushed you and you reacted to it, I know how much you hate lurkers but you dont seem to be going after them this game:scratchchin:
Gods of Ancient Greece. Forum mafia game.
- Thread starter ThunderCat
- Start date
I see your vote on CG as a OMGUS vote, he pushed you and you reacted to it, I know how much you hate lurkers but you dont seem to be going after them this game:scratchchin:
GET THE ROPE, LYNCH HIM:evil2:That was my secondary point, and something others seem to be focusing on more. My main reason for voting you (which I forgot to do in that post) is that it doesn't seem like you're trying.
ofc, I'm willing to change to someone else and will be around Day-end for a switch if need be for a lynch.
Vote: Laarz
ofc, I'm willing to change to someone else and will be around Day-end for a switch if need be for a lynch.
Vote: Laarz
I go after lurkers if there is no other clear suspect. I don't think I have ever advocated to lynch a lurker when I had a not lurker I suspected.
Now it's under 3 hours before nightfall and still no lynch coming up. So it looks like no lynchday. So why not lynch me instead of no lynch. It'll show that I can't be lynched. It gives more information than a no lynch. I'd rather see a oynch on somebody else, but prefer my lynch before a no lynch.
Now it's under 3 hours before nightfall and still no lynch coming up. So it looks like no lynchday. So why not lynch me instead of no lynch. It'll show that I can't be lynched. It gives more information than a no lynch. I'd rather see a oynch on somebody else, but prefer my lynch before a no lynch.
Maybe I missed it, but someone asked you earlier if you need to claim outright "I am treestump" or whatever. Is this true? Did this happen? From what I've heard about the role in the past that's how it works, so I'm confused why some people consider it a NK block if you would have to claim it in advance.
My PM does not mention that I have to claim it. I think TC would for sure mention it if I had to claim it.
Yes.
I wouldn't say Pyro or kegs "caught the reference" specifically because of the underlined sentence. I was curious how you knew they knew about Joxer since neither appeared to know this in the thread.
Had I any Gory-treats to give you'd have mine.
And a lynch of you would prove what? just that you were unlynchable, I dont see it proving anything else.
Nor did I say it would prove anything else.
Kestegs
Active member
This seems like you're trying to deflect a current lynch. I do somewhat agree that a lynch on you would be better than none, but I still find it suspicious.
I don't know how the hell she keeps thinking I got her reference back then, but I didn't, as I clearly stated in at least one or two posts.
Boy, you're aggresive this game. Being opposed to someone getting lynched because they're absent doesn't give them a free pass.
That's why I was curious.
Had to google translate the name to verify but it was familiar, the rest i knew sadly... it's a vault of generally useless junk up in this head :/
Honestly, there is so much **** in this thread for now that it's hard to really have any convictions about much of anything.
Moar is on the backburner until we can prove her claim. I was a bit concerned about CG and how aggressive he was about my wild claim, but that may be just annoyance at having to respond to him in the way I did. I don't like Leo's trust claim but it's hard to separate all the OT in this thread to get a feel if that was just a simple innocuous comment or if it was a clue.
Still reading up...
I am now comfortable to vote for you too. Why am I on the backburner until you can prove my claim if you could prove my claim today? Both your other sentences had "..., but..." in them. That means to me that you say something and moderate it right away and are actually not saying a thing.
ThunderCat
Active member
That's an interesting nickname you have there. Since when are we using it?
Once CG dies, I'll mail you his finger. Happy?
Uh uh, I do, I do!
Pick me! Pick me!
I think we're letting Moar off too easily with her claim. She mentioned she would have liked to claim later on, but decided to so today because 'she was under fire', which was a massive overstatement. If we don't lynch her now odds are we never will and I'm not too comfortable giving her a free pass for the entire game. (see what I did there franklin?)
A treestump doesn't need a reason for claiming on day one, yet she grabs a flimy one to make it feel justified. She may well be a stump and in that case having a nailed on townie alive for the entire game outweighs a random lynch at this moment.
Unvote: Jcakes
Vote: Moar
A treestump doesn't need a reason for claiming on day one, yet she grabs a flimy one to make it feel justified. She may well be a stump and in that case having a nailed on townie alive for the entire game outweighs a random lynch at this moment.
Unvote: Jcakes
Vote: Moar
Well, I don't know... we don't know if Gwaihir was a god or not and if he was, which one he was. That could easily have disproved that sentiment though of course not prove it. Just like regular people some gods are overwhelmingly evil and Tartarus is one of them.
Interestingly Hephaestus could be an god that is not clearly good/bad. Zeus generally commands him to do his bidding and is capable of making great weapons (the bolt that Zeus has was created by Hephaestus for example) but also is responsible for many other things (under some interpretations he was responsible for creating the first female from clay if memory serves). So, what if Moar is truely NK/Lynch proof and as a balance for her inability to vote, she has the ability to create items to give to people. This would fit the role better. There is no proof she is being truthful or lying (by omission) about her role.
I don't know, I'm probably just smoking something...
