Assassins in the Palace II: Game Over

[Flameaxe]

Row!

[Flameaxe]

Vote zombie

ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW

[Flameaxe]

Guys, lets not be less retarded. Lynch the obvious scum.

How about we drop FAKE hints about who the Khalifs are, in an attempt to get the Assassins to slip up? Of course, we would have to masterfully disguise these fake hints, but it is possible.

Row Row Row!

[Flameaxe]

Guys, lets not be less retarded. Lynch the obvious scum.

How about we drop FAKE hints about who the Khalifs are, in an attempt to get the Assassins to slip up? Of course, we would have to masterfully disguise these fake hints, but it is possible.

Row Row Row!

I should also try proofreading. Lets not be retarded* or lets be less retarded*. Take your pick.

[Flameaxe]

You know, I am beginning to think these forums are adverse to logic, or something.

I offered logic the last time, and got lynched for it.

I am offering logic this time, and it appears I shall be lynched for it again.

FlameAxe, instead of just saying "OBVIOUS SCUM", as you did in Pikmin, how about you, oh, I dunno, say WHY it makes me "obvious scum"?

You did not last game, and, well, look what I turned out to be that time around.

A) Ongoing games rule...AGAIN. If you plan on playing mafia on this site, please read the site rules. It isn't that hard and is posted at the top of every subforum.
B) Content finds scum, yes. But in this case, content can also reveal kings. We don't want that for obvious reasons.
C) Your odds make me giggle.
D)

How about we drop FAKE hints about who the Khalifs are, in an attempt to get the Assassins to slip up? Of course, we would have to masterfully disguise these fake hints, but it is possible.

Could you be any stupider? Probably. Only time will tell.
E) I suggest reading the AITP game run by Eldarad for Marathon day to figure out this strategy.
F)

And quicklynching could, just as easily, have lost all three. It is pure chance, and, in the end, makes you let hints loose about who the Khalifs are.

Content does no different.

[Flameaxe]

A) The rule is "do not discuss ongoing games" not "do not influence games with other games". Again, read the rules.
B) What makes you think general scumhunting will help us any more than a quicklynch?
D) It's retarded.
E) Read B.

I'll let JD chime in to call you dim.

[Flameaxe]

Here, I helped you find it.

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread.

[Flameaxe]

A) And was that rule not implemented for the sake of people not influencing on-going games?

B) Because you will end up with a better chance of lynching scum than lynching a guard? And the people you are reluctant to quicklynch will be pinpointed as Khalifs by the Assassins?

D) Confusing the Assassins is retarded?

B) Yes, and you can just as easily give the assassins a better chance of hitting the kings. Why would you want that, scum? Oh wait, I answered myself with my question. Teehee.

D) How you get there.

A) Rules are rules. If you don't follow them, you shouldn't be able to play. Period.

[Flameaxe]

Why the hell are people random voting??? Don't you guys understand how anti-town that is in this kind of game?

It's not random voting. Its quicklynching the scum. Hop on.

[Flameaxe]

You're dim. Mostly you're thinking other games have any bearing on your alignment here. Please die.

I already admitted that I could see you logic in the fact that my role in one game does not effect my role in another.

What I was pointing out is the fact that in any game (And fine, FlameAxe. I shall never mention the Pikmin game again, even though I am already dead in the damn thing.) bandwagoning is no good, because you have far more of a chance of killing a townie than scum. In this game, it also points out who you are reluctant to bandwagon to the Assassins, whom can then presume that those people are the Khalifs.

Except that any Guard who starts a bandwagon would know enough not to start one on a Khalif. One must question why you didn't notice this - the best reason being that you are an assassin. Diescumdie.

Row! Row! Row!

[Flameaxe]

The whole point:

Info finds scum and reveals khalifs. That is quite bad.

[Flameaxe]

You claimed guard..durr...

[Flameaxe]

Other people: Hurry up. This has gone on long enough.

[Flameaxe]

FlameAxe:

I would appreciate it if you at least tried to combat my logic. I notice that you do not do that a lot...

Instead, all you say is: LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON

Your logic is very one-sided. I have attempted to combat it, but you seem to be incapable of looking at it both ways.

[Flameaxe]

Allow me to say "LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON".

And me:

LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON.

[Flameaxe]

It's the same logic. Sorry.


ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW.

[Flameaxe]

FlameAxe:

I would appreciate it if you at least tried to combat my logic. I notice that you do not do that a lot...

Instead, all you say is: LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON

Your logic is very one-sided. I have attempted to combat it, but you seem to be incapable of looking at it both ways.

I have new logic out. Please try to combat that, if you would.

If you do not, all I can say is that you have no argument against it, which means that my logic is infallible, which means that...

Well, I think you get where I am going with this.

Not really. Saying that your logic is infallible because one person can't combat it is like saying that a skyscraper is terrorist-proof because someone set off a cherry bomb in one of the toilets.

Damn...you knew about that? Shit...

[Flameaxe]

FlameAxe:

I would appreciate it if you at least tried to combat my logic. I notice that you do not do that a lot...

Instead, all you say is: LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON

Your logic is very one-sided. I have attempted to combat it, but you seem to be incapable of looking at it both ways.

I have new logic out. Please try to combat that, if you would.

If you do not, all I can say is that you have no argument against it, which means that my logic is infallible, which means that...

Well, I think you get where I am going with this.

Not really. Saying that your logic is infallible because one person can't combat it is like saying that a skyscraper is terrorist-proof because someone set off a cherry bomb in one of the toilets.

Saying my illogical is infallible because nobody can combat it is a different situation.

I invite anyone and everyone to combat my logic. If no one does...

Except you said that if I didn't combat it, it was infallible...You said it, right up there. See?

[Flameaxe]

Oh, by the way, in that case....

Unvote: JDodge Vote: Yosarian2

LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH LYNCH BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON BANDWAGON

JDodge, have I not already said what Quicklynching leads to?

Victory.

[Flameaxe]

You're an idiot. Vote for yourself before you do more irreparable harm to the town.

This is not your game. This is not in any way suitable for you. You are becoming more of a liability by the moment and you need to die right this instant. You are a horrible player for this sort of game; you think logic reigns supreme in every last situation you see.

Thank you for playing, go away.

Lets just hope for that modkill...

[Flameaxe]

I agree with Yosarian2. I have to write an essay anyway...actually two. Probably should get started.

[Flameaxe]

Its late but...



BAH.