Mets at L-2, I'll hammer if needed but GEQ is still my #1 scum dog.Gilligan wrote:I want to get things rolling.
vote Metsfanmax
Moderator: Community Team
Mets at L-2, I'll hammer if needed but GEQ is still my #1 scum dog.Gilligan wrote:I want to get things rolling.
vote Metsfanmax

Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
In general, yes, if a role is counter-claimed (like cop) then it's typical to immediately lynch the first to claim (because most of the time, no actual mafia would risk such an obvious exposure). However, there are two reasons why this is not normal. The first is that he counter-claimed character and role. The mod said that the mafia have good fakeclaims. This means, presumably, that they are not claims of characters already in the game. If I am indeed scum, and GEQ is indeed Amy Wong, then there's no rational reason for me to have picked that character to fakeclaim, since I would have had a better one that wouldn't have gotten me counter-claimed on.strike wolf wrote:Well this is stalling. Personally I still like Mets if for no other reason I believe that it's slightly more likely for the one being counter-claimed to be scum than the one counter-claiming (the exception would be when it puts mafia in an end game situation...I do not believe this to be an end game situation). I've also been a bit confused by his behavior for a while. I didn't really find it scummy per se but even looking back through his posts I get virtually no read one way or the other on him.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.

This is weak logic at best. The fact is that your only argument is that I'm voluntarily choosing not to use my fakeclaim and instead risking my choice on one that's not guaranteed to be vacant. The fact that things didn't pan out for freezie is of no regard -- the most logical decision for mafia at the present time is for them to use their surefire fakeclaims, not grasp for possibly hazardous ones.strike wolf wrote:And freezie's "strong" fake claim was dismissed. It is fairly likely that a mafia buddy saw that one of these "strong" fake claims wasn't believed and took a shot at a slightly more major character. Let's not forget with one other person unclaimed you could have assumed they were Hermes Conrad whom was just as major maybe even a bit moreso than Amy Wong. It was better than a 50/50 proposition that Amy wasn't in the game if you consider that neither might have been included and/or you view Hermes as a slightly more major character (he did have a more significant role in the planet express company). I could add more wifom to the fire but I think I've suceeded in replying to wifom with wifom so I'll settle there.
My only argument? I didn't know you were a stand up comedian. I listed more of my case in the part of my argument that you've omited. You argued a wifom argument and I countered it with wifom. All of your wifom is a double edged sword by the way as the same logic could be applied to GEQ. Why would he risk counter claiming you if he already had a fake claim and the benefit is trading one townie for a mafia (traditional logic would be that sacrificing one mafia is not worth lynching a single townie)? Is my logic overall fool proof? No but neither is yours.Metsfanmax wrote:This is weak logic at best. The fact is that your only argument is that I'm voluntarily choosing not to use my fakeclaim and instead risking my choice on one that's not guaranteed to be vacant. The fact that things didn't pan out for freezie is of no regard -- the most logical decision for mafia at the present time is for them to use their surefire fakeclaims, not grasp for possibly hazardous ones.strike wolf wrote:And freezie's "strong" fake claim was dismissed. It is fairly likely that a mafia buddy saw that one of these "strong" fake claims wasn't believed and took a shot at a slightly more major character. Let's not forget with one other person unclaimed you could have assumed they were Hermes Conrad whom was just as major maybe even a bit moreso than Amy Wong. It was better than a 50/50 proposition that Amy wasn't in the game if you consider that neither might have been included and/or you view Hermes as a slightly more major character (he did have a more significant role in the planet express company). I could add more wifom to the fire but I think I've suceeded in replying to wifom with wifom so I'll settle there.
I've had my eye on you for a while; past suspicions, with how you're treating me now, make you a likely scum candidate in my mind. I would vote for you if I didn't instead have to
Vote GEQ
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
so are you saying GEQ, Strike and me are the mafia? since i said strike is innocent?Metsfanmax wrote: I've had my eye on you for a while; past suspicions, with how you're treating me now, make you a likely scum candidate in my mind. I would vote for you if I didn't instead have to
Vote GEQ
The only other related thing you've said isstrike wolf wrote: My only argument? I didn't know you were a stand up comedian. I listed more of my case in the part of my argument that you've omited.
which is redundant, in the sense that you cannot extract it from the entire argument about counter-claiming roles in a game with legit fakeclaims. The grouping of players is not an argument about whether I'm town, just a way to make it neater in your head.Ge counter claimed you which I believe I've already made my point on believing the counter claimer over the counterclaimed
It is not WIFOM. You're abusing that description of arguments. There is a distinct disadvantage for mafia to claim something other than the granted fakeclaim, because of the possibility of accidentally stumbling onto an existing town role. There is no advantage, because there's no particular reason to believe that the fakeclaim made up is any better or more convincing than the one given. You can't argue that I would have any rational reason to ignore my fakeclaim.The rest of your "argument" You argued a wifom argument and I countered it with wifom.
Three possibilities:All of your wifom is a double edged sword by the way as the same logic could be applied to GEQ. Why would he risk counter claiming you if he already had a fake claim and the benefit is trading one townie for a mafia (traditional logic would be that sacrificing one mafia is not worth lynching a single townie)?
I am saying that GEQ is probable mafia (or jester, see above) and I do not know how to deal with your claim about strike. It's possible that you have similar "info" to what an insane cop would have, if you are not mafia. You'd have to be more specific.drake_259 wrote:so are you saying GEQ, Strike and me are the mafia? since i said strike is innocent?
Well i have never seen an insane inventorMetsfanmax wrote: I am saying that GEQ is probable mafia (or jester, see above) and I do not know how to deal with your claim about strike. It's possible that you have similar "info" to what an insane cop would have, if you are not mafia. You'd have to be more specific.
I guess not. As scummy as I think strike has acted, if no one counter-claimed Farnsworth then I guess you and strike are both fully cleared, unless he has switched alignments since you investigated him. I guess that leaves jonty and GEQ.drake_259 wrote:Well i have never seen an insane inventorMetsfanmax wrote: I am saying that GEQ is probable mafia (or jester, see above) and I do not know how to deal with your claim about strike. It's possible that you have similar "info" to what an insane cop would have, if you are not mafia. You'd have to be more specific.so is that what your saying i am?
Oh, good point. Even though you are not a cop the rules for investigations still should be the same.drake_259 wrote:Well now the only way he would is if he is godfather
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
I think it is too easy.... Aren't these games supposed to have twists? I think saf. did this on purpose... All I know is my role, and, sorry I don't check so much, it is a little boring when you're only a VTpancakemix wrote:Like I said, I blocked him. No dice. He'd have to be a goon or something else.
Here's a thought: why are these same questions being posed to Mets not being posed to GEQ? MEts at least has decent answers, but GEQ has been completely silent and hasn't even pushed for Mets' lynch.
Would you care to quote me on these cases because I've only voted twice today - you and I said I would shift my vote if needed to Mets and I have.God Emperor Q wrote:I think it is too easy.... Aren't these games supposed to have twists? I think saf. did this on purpose... All I know is my role, and, sorry I don't check so much, it is a little boring when you're only a VTpancakemix wrote:Like I said, I blocked him. No dice. He'd have to be a goon or something else.
Here's a thought: why are these same questions being posed to Mets not being posed to GEQ? MEts at least has decent answers, but GEQ has been completely silent and hasn't even pushed for Mets' lynch.![]()
However I am a tad suspicious of jonty jumping back and forth from vote to vote... Seems to be a bit of bandwagoning to me.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.

Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
Unvote Vote Jontyjonty125 wrote:Would you care to quote me on these cases because I've only voted twice today - you and I said I would shift my vote if needed to Mets and I have.God Emperor Q wrote:I think it is too easy.... Aren't these games supposed to have twists? I think saf. did this on purpose... All I know is my role, and, sorry I don't check so much, it is a little boring when you're only a VTpancakemix wrote:Like I said, I blocked him. No dice. He'd have to be a goon or something else.
Here's a thought: why are these same questions being posed to Mets not being posed to GEQ? MEts at least has decent answers, but GEQ has been completely silent and hasn't even pushed for Mets' lynch.![]()
However I am a tad suspicious of jonty jumping back and forth from vote to vote... Seems to be a bit of bandwagoning to me.


