Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over
-
-
Sotty7 That Damn Good
-
-
Sotty7 That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- Posts: 6744
- Joined: October 7, 2005
- Location: Minnesota
Why would scum fake claim mason at this point? They will just be shot down and outed in a heartbeat like you said. I don't see this as a likely thing for the scum to try. Way too many holes that would lead to their hot death.clammy wrote:We want to be able to confirm those masons early, but only on D2, if any scum wants to fake-claim mason they can go for it as they'll quickly be shot down by 2-3 Masons confirming each other.
The player in me reallyhatesthe idea of trying to break the set up. Time was put into the game for us to play, not to figure away to break it in half. That said, none of these plans really do that and right now and I'm trying to figure out what would be the best way to approach this.
For the record, I'm against a mass day one claim.-
-
Sotty7 That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- Posts: 6744
- Joined: October 7, 2005
- Location: Minnesota
roflcopter wrote:did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?
You think it's irrelevant that you suggested such a bad plan? To me, that's actually pretty damn relevant.clammy wrote:Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.
FOS: Clammy
I'd also like to second Dattebayo's call to Netlava, asking if the vote on RTB was serious or not.-
-
Sotty7 That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- Posts: 6744
- Joined: October 7, 2005
- Location: Minnesota
You said post and not vote here. If it's true and you find his vote irrelevant you should have been clearer with that point.clammy wrote:I see i've got some misnomers to dispell.
You've changed what i've said. Not that roflcoptor's opinion is irrelevant, nor that the impact of my stated plan here is irrelevant, but that roflcoptor's vote is irrelevant when he demands i respond to him in a particular way when i have no intention to take him seriously.Sotty7 wrote:roflcopter wrote:did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?
You think it's irrelevant that you suggested such a bad plan? To me, that's actually pretty damn relevant.clammy wrote:Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.
FOS: Clammy-
-
Sotty7 That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- That Damn Good
- Posts: 6744
- Joined: October 7, 2005
- Location: Minnesota
Vote: Clammy
His back pleading and refusal to talk to the town about his plan is just way too scummy for me. Any plan that advocates a mass claim day one or even day two is just something I can't see being good for the town at all. Also Raider is right, the lynch is our only weapon against the scum, no lynching really isn't an option
This vote puts Clammy at lynch minus one. I know Dattebayo asked no one to hammer Clammy until everyone has weighed in on the SL plan. I'm putting this out there so that who ever hammers can't claim it was by “accident”
If I am a doctor, I will be targeting springlullaby tonight
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.