The Manor: Chzo Mafia (Game Over!)

ZazieR · Post Post #3375 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:57 am

ZazieR wrote:
dramonic wrote:minimally I'd like Amished to give it away/say he is even if he doesnt have it, just to be clear, since I have very high suspicions he had it last night.
Why?

Dramonic

, this^^

And if you are gonna state who you want to have seen investigated, add some WIFOM to it. (This is for everybody)

dramonic · Post Post #3376 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:18 am

dramonic wrote:
dramonic wrote:It doesn't make sense that Amished has the doll unless he's scum. If he didn't protect last night the scum should also have gotten a kill.

I said it in my last post which you answered to <<

Why do you mean, add WIFOM to who I want investigated?

ZazieR · Post Post #3377 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:23 am

But the quote mentions Amished, and you are talking about Lamont

See Post 3373 with what I mean with add some WIFOM. If everybody says towards Stepho to investigate Zaz, then the scum will also know who is likely going to be investigated. So you add some other players to the mix with reasons, to let the scum work with some circular logic during the night.

populartajo · Post Post #3378 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:46 am

I want to be investigated. /wifom. (like this Zazie?)

In all seriousness, am I the only one that thinks that Lammont has the doll?

Lammont, why did you assume the doll worked like the matches and not like the shell?

dramonic · Post Post #3379 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:24 am

@Zaz
they are two unrelated thoughts XS

Well, I don't mind anyone from my scum list really. You or PT or Pyro, preferably one of the first. Or Zwet, that way I won't have to explode my brains trying to get a read on him >_<

zwetschenwasser · Post Post #3380 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:36 am

zaz has no good reasoning for calling me scum. btw, my computer is having issues.

ZazieR · Post Post #3381 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:42 am

zwetschenwasser wrote:zaz has no good reasoning for calling me scum. btw, my computer is having issues.

I don't

How do you know?

ZazieR · Post Post #3382 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:42 am

And yeah Tajo, like that

Pyromaniac · Post Post #3383 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:49 am

populartajo wrote:I want to be investigated. /wifom. (like this Zazie?)

In all seriousness, am I the only one that thinks that Lammont has the doll?

Lammont, why did you assume the doll worked like the matches and not like the shell?

No. I think lamont has the doll.

zwetschenwasser · Post Post #3384 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:06 am

ZazieR wrote:
zwetschenwasser wrote:zaz has no good reasoning for calling me scum. btw, my computer is having issues.
I don't How do you know?

because you're calling me scum for claiming vanilla townie, which I don't find particularly damning.

ZazieR · Post Post #3385 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:07 am

zwetschenwasser wrote:
ZazieR wrote:
zwetschenwasser wrote:zaz has no good reasoning for calling me scum. btw, my computer is having issues.
I don't How do you know?
because you're calling me scum for claiming vanilla townie, which I don't find particularly damning.

Why do you think that?

ZazieR · Post Post #3386 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:07 am

ZazieR wrote:
ZazieR wrote:
zwetschenwasser wrote:I reclaimed. I'm pretty sure I claimed vanilla before the question.
Thanks for only answering the question why you answered Pyro''s question. Also, you didn''t claim before.
Will you now respond to the other question asked and the requested explanation here?

Zwet
, this^^

Hi, Zwet

zwetschenwasser · Post Post #3387 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:09 am

It was a random observation. Is there something wrong with not wanting a no lynch?

ZazieR · Post Post #3388 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:15 am

With zero mafia members caught and a possible SK, yes, there is.
It seemed you were soft pushing the idea. But this doesn't match with the reason given.

Pyromaniac · Post Post #3389 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:22 am

ZazieR · Post Post #3390 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:25 am

what?

zwetschenwasser · Post Post #3391 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:50 am

You make no sense.

ZazieR · Post Post #3392 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:06 am

Because?

dramonic · Post Post #3393 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:10 am

He said he didn't want a no lynch and you are saying he was softpushing the idea of no lynching.

That's what makes no sense

ZazieR · Post Post #3394 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:13 am

No. He asked if we couldn't have one. And added 'just saying'. That's pointing something out to see what others will say. And by the question, it seems he was suggesting it softly. That was the soft pushing.
And now, he wants to retract it.

That's the impression I get.

Pyromaniac · Post Post #3395 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:31 am

crap logic. zwet always wants a lynch.

ZazieR · Post Post #3396 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:35 am

Then why is he the one who asked if we can't do another no-lynch?

Pyromaniac · Post Post #3397 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:29 am

He didn't.

dramonic · Post Post #3398 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:34 am

zwetschenwasser wrote:Can we not have another no lynch today? Just saying.

Don't lie Zaz

ZazieR · Post Post #3399 (ISO) » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:39 am

'Can't we have another no-lynch?'
In other words: Isn't it possible for us to have another no-lynch?
And I want to know why he pointed this out as I see this as soft-pushing.

It's also nice to see how Dramonic points out that I 'lied', while he didn't do so when Zwet stated that I think he's scum for claiming Vanilla.