This is retardulous becauseIn post 1900, gerryoat wrote:I think it's possible that he hard pushed on eager day 1 to bus to seem clear.
Because I didn't think about it, I had you marked as town and was more worried about him being mafia. You still didn't out who you were on. So you protected no one? That makes no sense. If you were on grendel it was potential auto win for town. As you could have killed mafia. So that's a bullshit reasoning.In post 1917, House wrote:Sure did.In post 1916, gerryoat wrote:IF you're BG who were you on yesterday? Did you not TR grendel?
One of us were dying either way, if you wanted to be dumb enough kill him, I let you.
Here's the thing though, the time to question my claim with any credibility would have been yesterDay when Victor was pushing me.
There have been no counterclaims and me fakeclaiming something as bleh as bodyguard would have been suicide as scum.
No shit. Which is why i said potential. It's 50/50. Congrats trying to save your partner
I mean not all implementations.In post 1928, gerryoat wrote:No shit. Which is why i said potential. It's 50/50. Congrats trying to save your partner
Huntress case is basically PoE and it's slightly pissing me off.In post 1881, Manuel87 wrote:I still dont see why Huntress is scum. Her case on House is bad but that doesnt mean she is scum.
I also thought about the possibility of House being scum but it would never make sense for him to save town and get his buddy lynched.
CCCs case is bad there is nothing about why Huntress is scum only why others could possibly maybe not be scum.
Like i said Grendel dying last night over House doesnt clear Gamma as Grendel was most likely vote Gamma today.
malpascp not hammering Huntress right now doesnt clear him for me if she flips green because a second lolhammer is like admitting to be scum.
But so far i start to like his slot more i would appreciate a readlist with some thoughts about everybody from him tomorrow.
I would like to hear the reasosns why people are voting Huntress right now.
In post 382, Grendel wrote:I think that the slot you've inherited is probably town.
In post 421, Square World wrote:to
In post 511, CCC wrote:In all fairness, the last game I played with House, this isIn post 483, eagerSnake wrote:I should note that House is aggressively defensive about his case on CCC.
If CCC flips town and I die he should be looked at with impunity.exactlyhow he acted as Town. Aggressive mislynch wagon and all.
I don't know what his scumgame is like, but this looksexactlylike Town House.
With this many townreads on d1, bussing eager as scum is unnecessary suicide lol.In post 554, Manuel87 wrote:Town:
Grendel: His posts feel honest and he is actively scumhunting. He is pushing his scumread and trys to convince others while not making up things.
House: He explained his scumread on CCC very well and started pushing him. He wasnt scared of changing his read on me when confronted. Also liked how he questioned Gamma.
421In post 421, Square World wrote:don't want to lynch Grendel, House, CCC, eagerSnake and VictorDeAngelo
anyone else just call me and i'll join
You have no idea how bodyguard works.In post 1926, gerryoat wrote:If you were on grendel it was potential auto win for town. As you could have killed mafia
House's PM either says he kills the killer, or it doesn't. Jesus.In post 1930, gerryoat wrote:So you wouldn't take a 50% chance of potential auto win? Thanks for letting us know
BG never kills anyone.
Not here you haven't.In post 1937, malpascp wrote:Pedit: I think I've seen variations where BG does kill the attacker. It's still dumb to assume such a thing.
Not in Normal games.In post 1940, Gamma Emerald wrote:I read the wiki and one incarnation of BG has a 50% chance of killing the attacker.
Makes sense given Percentage modifiers are banned.In post 1941, House wrote:Not in Normal games.In post 1940, Gamma Emerald wrote:I read the wiki and one incarnation of BG has a 50% chance of killing the attacker.
So what would you call a BG that kills both the BG and the attacker?In post 1939, House wrote:Not here you haven't.In post 1937, malpascp wrote:Pedit: I think I've seen variations where BG does kill the attacker. It's still dumb to assume such a thing.
It stops being a bodyguard when it becomes a killing role.
It can be used, but as a non-blacklisted unstandard role.In post 1942, Gamma Emerald wrote:Makes sense given Percentage modifiers are banned.In post 1941, House wrote:Not in Normal games.In post 1940, Gamma Emerald wrote:I read the wiki and one incarnation of BG has a 50% chance of killing the attacker.
FixedIn post 1943, malpascp wrote:Gerry's statement was scum
Well we didnt know how Victor would flip back then.In post 1921, House wrote:Where was that suspicion when I claimed, dude?In post 1918, Manuel87 wrote:Thats actually what i though would be her reason to be suspicious of you.
If she was a PR it would make sense that she doesnt believe your claim.
Pull your head out of your ass and hammer scum!
Nowhere did I say he was scumIn post 1946, malpascp wrote:Claiming an erroneous fact about the role someone else claimed and will 100% be detected is hardly scum.
If you let her get away after I found the scumteam, I'm blacklisting you. Period.In post 1947, Manuel87 wrote:Well we didnt know how Victor would flip back then.In post 1921, House wrote:Where was that suspicion when I claimed, dude?In post 1918, Manuel87 wrote:Thats actually what i though would be her reason to be suspicious of you.
If she was a PR it would make sense that she doesnt believe your claim.
Pull your head out of your ass and hammer scum!
ill reiso Huntress tomorrow and i still think we wait for her claim.
BG doesn't always kill the killer I think.