Conquer Club

because i had agreed to the suggestion that lynching submariners might be a way to encourage talk....i will follow through by voting to

kill the weird one

as i dont think hes said anything at all.

got tonkaed wrote:

Huckleberryhound wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Huckleberryhound wrote:Kill Anarkistdream


Role claimed up the yazoo....why has nobody jumped on that yet ?

well when you vote the most celebrated claim member of one side....you kinda throw out the idea that you just might not be on his side.

So, you want to keep the union alive....why ? I thought townies were supposed to weed out the Mafia

well i guess youd only consider them scum if you were in fact a confederate....

So, should we be weeding out confederates, union, or combatants ????

If those not on the two sides are neutral....what's the point of giving a shit who wins ?

got tonkaed wrote:

Neutrino wrote:Hmmm, someone has daykilling powers. Of course, this begs the question as to why they didn't kill yesterday. Maybe a 1 use power. Of course, this begs the question as to why they'd waste it on someone as inconsequential as Fircoal.

My theory is that it was one of those pushing for a witch-hunt for Independants.

yeah like there isnt a single person who ever goes after fircoal in these games....

there isn't.

one would assume it would matter quite a bit if you were on one of the sides....

got tonkaed wrote:one would assume it would matter quite a bit if you were on one of the sides....

Can you see the circular reasoning you are using ?

Unless there's a 50-50 split (which i'm guessing that there's not), then why do the neutrals give a crap who wins ?

well one can certainly assume there are ways for a number of sides to pick off both of the wounded armies if it gets to that point...or to join the side that they think will win to serve their own aims.

i dont think its entirely impossible that multiple groups or players could be winners depending on how the game played out.

got tonkaed wrote:because i had agreed to the suggestion that lynching submariners might be a way to encourage talk....i will follow through by voting to

kill the weird one

as i dont think hes said anything at all.

good find.

KIll TWO

got tonkaed wrote:well one can certainly assume there are ways for a number of sides to pick off both of the wounded armies if it gets to that point...or to join the side that they think will win to serve their own aims.

i dont think its entirely impossible that multiple groups or players could be winners depending on how the game played out.

Ok, now my head is getting sore.

Do i just type "la la la la " until one side wins, or do i pick a side ?

to be fair... i find it hard to reconcile how you voted, with the fact that you are trying to claim some kind of independcy at this point in the game....but if im incorrect then i suppose you should probably try to manipulate either side to your advantage...

but im not your strategist...its your game to play sir.

This post by GT makes me think there's some kind of collusion between him and Huck. FOS GT for now.

ga7 wrote:This post by GT makes me think there's some kind of collusion between him and Huck. FOS GT for now.

are you claiming union then?

No, I'm claiming both of you sound like third party right now.

Now i'm confused.

well ga essentially said that you and i were working together... and since you voted for anark you would more likely than not be on the opposite side...since you were confused about scum/townie at the time of post...therefore you would be confed, and under ga's assertion i must therefore be confed, and if he chooses to fos me under that assertion he therefore must be union....

ga7 wrote:This post by GT makes me think there's some kind of collusion between him and Huck. FOS GT for now.

I wouldn't say that. To me it sounds much more like GT trying to help a confused newbie. If anything, Huckleberryhound is the one who comes across as Independant.

Well, maybe I'm reading too much into things right now, but I feel it's worth putting them on the grill. Essentially, I'm just fishing, because what both GT and Huck said strikes me as 3rd party right now.

understandable...i just figured i would try and give him a rundown instead of someone with a little less patience beating his brains in about not understanding murky game dynamics.

ga7 wrote:Well, maybe I'm reading too much into things right now, but I feel it's worth putting them on the grill. Essentially, I'm just fishing, because what both GT and Huck said strikes me as 3rd party right now.

Ok then, let's use your logic.

What are you, and why don't you want me to vote ?

Huckleberryhound wrote:

ga7 wrote:Well, maybe I'm reading too much into things right now, but I feel it's worth putting them on the grill. Essentially, I'm just fishing, because what both GT and Huck said strikes me as 3rd party right now.

Ok then, let's use your logic.

What are you, and why don't you want me to vote ?

huck can you really expect him to give you a roleclaim, in a game where roleclaiming is pretty much all that matters?

Huck, either you're not used to unusual games, either you're a noob. I don't think you're a noob, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you hadn't skimmed through my posts right now, you'd understand I didn't give any alignment right now.
On the topic of your vote, well I still have to check on the vote records, but voting right away for someone inactive doesn't seem a so smart move to me, considering he just fitted in as replacement (for whome I don't even know, since the first page isn't updated. Could you do it LSU? I'm pretty confused as to who replaced who at this point =/)

ga7 wrote:
Huck, either you're not used to unusual games, either you're a noob. I don't think you're a noob, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you hadn't skimmed through my posts right now, you'd understand I didn't give any alignment right now.
On the topic of your vote, well I still have to check on the vote records, but voting right away for someone inactive doesn't seem a so smart move to me, considering he just fitted in as replacement (for whome I don't even know, since the first page isn't updated. Could you do it LSU? I'm pretty confused as to who replaced who at this point =/)

Dude....I'm the replacement. Anarkist roleclaimed pretty much on page 3 (give or take)....Sound's like you made a lil mistake there.


Ok, now i see where this is going...i'm going to stop posting until someone tells me what the point of the game is. My first guess was that both sides were mafia, but that obviously isn't the case.

Dude, I know you're a replacement, I was talking about TWO being a replacement himself. So, are you claiming 3rd party?

Alive
1. Jake 2.0/Xen Cobra.
2. Serbia *
3. AnarkistsDream *
4. Got Tonka *
5. The1Exile *
6. Kwanton *
7. Russianfire8371/Dwight
8. Pancakemix *
10. Talapus *
11. Nagerous *
12. Koesen *
13. Hitman079 *
14. Dustn/Duday53 *
16. Firth4eva *
17. Mandy 2.0/Aries
18. The Weird One *
19. Skoffin *
20. Neutrino *
21. Spurgistan *
22. GimpyThewonder * No internet til Tuesday
23. SheepofDumb *
24. JND/Vudure *
25. MisterMan10 *
26. Syzygy *
28. Minister Masket *
29. GA7 *
30. Willis *
32. dominationnation *
33. Huck Hound/cena-rules *

1st page is up to date. Names on the left are the current players past the "/" are who they replaced

TWO was not a replacement

LSU Tiger Josh wrote:TWO was not a replacement

seriously guys...im never wrong about anything, the sooner we all accept this, the fewer squabbles there will be.