Prequel to World War III Mafia: Night 5 (Send Yerr PMs!)

[Hockey5djh]

2 minutes ago, rackcs said:

6 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said:

Eh. His exact wording was "I know another civ protector". I'm not buying that as a soft claim but I can see how you would think that.

My point is that it doesn't matter either way. No matter if its him or someone else, hes claiming theres another protector.

...but why is Gopher more credible than Counselor if we're putting them against each other. Counselor came out unprovoked with is more often a civ move. Gopher didn't counterclaim him, he either soft claimed or stated there was another protector.

[rackcs]

1 minute ago, Hockey5djh said:

...but why is Gopher more credible than Counselor if we're putting them against each other. Counselor came out unprovoked with is more often a civ move. Gopher didn't counterclaim him, he either soft claimed or stated there was another protector.

So have you just not been reading or what?

[TedLavie]

With two scum down and one already known, do we think scum would take the chance to actually fake claim or fake counter claim though?

I think squire is laying low in this hot mess

[Scoundrel]

I think it’s funny Rackcs. I’m not lying to you. Lynch me then. Coward

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, TedLavie said:

With two scum down and one already known, do we think scum would take the chance to actually fake claim or fake counter claim though?

I think squire is laying low in this hot mess

I think you and I hit the same point on the subject simultaneously. 
 

squire 

[theuntouchable]

Just now, Counselor said:

I think it’s funny Rackcs. I’m not lying to you. Lynch me then. Coward

If you are civ, stuff like this isn’t gonna help you 

[Scoundrel]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

If you are civ, stuff like this isn’t gonna help you 

I don’t really care. I should just quit mafia for good. I don’t know why I don’t. I always say I will but I don’t 

[Hockey5djh]

9 minutes ago, The Orca said:

Came off as Gopher CCing though imo

a CC goes like this:

Counselor: "Guys I'm the protector"
Gopher: " No you're not, I'm the protector"

Then we ask them to tell us who they investigated and debate the merits of the counter claim vs the details around the original claim.

Gopher didn't do that, He saw Counselor came out and said "I think he's lying" followed 12+ hours later by a "I know of another civ protector"

[rackcs]

3 minutes ago, Counselor said:

I think it’s funny Rackcs. I’m not lying to you. Lynch me then. Coward

I'm already voting for you

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, Counselor said:

I don’t really care. I should just quit mafia for good. I don’t know why I don’t. I always say I will but I don’t 

Because you won’t. Now suck it up buttercup. 

[Forge]

Just now, theuntouchable said:

Because you won’t. Now suck it up buttercup. 

[rackcs]

Just now, Hockey5djh said:

a CC goes like this:

Counselor: "Guys I'm the protector"
Gopher: " No you're not, I'm the protector"

Then we ask them to tell us who they investigated and debate the merits of the counter claim vs the details around the original claim.

Gopher didn't do that, He saw Counselor came out and said "I think he's lying" followed 12+ hours later by a "I know of another civ protector"

It was pretty clear he was trying to cc without totally outing himself as protector to everyone. You can argue the merits of it or if that's the reality of it but that's how I read it at the time. You've shifted the goalposts on this whole thing. First it was gopher didn't cc and then when that was proven wrong it's now he didn't cc correctly. 

[Hockey5djh]

6 minutes ago, rackcs said:

7 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said:

...but why is Gopher more credible than Counselor if we're putting them against each other. Counselor came out unprovoked with is more often a civ move. Gopher didn't counterclaim him, he either soft claimed or stated there was another protector.

So have you just not been reading or what?

I've literally read every single post in this game, a good portion of them more than once. What are you trying to imply?

I'd rather question Gopher than lynch a claimed protector. ESPECIALLY since we need the protector tonight and gopher never actually claimed protector.

[rackcs]

Just now, Hockey5djh said:

I've literally read every single post in this game, a good portion of them more than once. What are you trying to imply?

I'd rather question Gopher than lynch a claimed protector. ESPECIALLY since we need the protector tonight and gopher never actually claimed protector.

Because I've stated multiple times why I think Counselor is the scum protector rather than gopher so your question was pointless

[Hockey5djh]

1 minute ago, rackcs said:

It was pretty clear he was trying to cc without totally outing himself as protector to everyone. You can argue the merits of it or if that's the reality of it but that's how I read it at the time. You've shifted the goalposts on this whole thing. First it was gopher didn't cc and then when that was proven wrong it's now he didn't cc correctly. 

I haven't shifted the goal posts. the fact of the matter is Gopher didn't CC. He just discredited Counselor's claim. If you want to read that as a soft claim than so be it, again, i'd rather question a soft claim than lynch a hard claim.