[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 6580637 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null NY 180 Neighborhood - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #424 (isolation #0) » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:40 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Soooo.
Awkward.
What should I know?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #427 (isolation #1) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:01 am
Postby Green Crayons »
I didn't realize we had daytalk until I got mod confirmation about that.
So I claimed on your behalf because I don't want to see you lynched, plus if town gets their heads out of their asses, I should survive today with a SK lynch + be the focus of scum NK since I'm "confirmed" town. That will get the heat off of you to do your thing.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #429 (isolation #2) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:41 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Do you have daytalk with your scum team?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #430 (isolation #3) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:43 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Buttface. Answer me.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #432 (isolation #4) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:44 am
Postby Green Crayons »
I'm traitor, fool.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #433 (isolation #5) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:44 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Let 'em know.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #434 (isolation #6) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:44 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Let me know who they are.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #436 (isolation #7) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:45 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Spill.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #437 (isolation #8) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:46 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Take a leap of faith.
<3
Do it for SW.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #439 (isolation #9) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:47 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Alright so you didn't just loud me out in the thread, so you're not BSing about being scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #440 (isolation #10) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:48 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Kitz, Dragon, Shinobi
Dammit I thought Shin was scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #441 (isolation #11) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:48 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Other scum know TSO is actually SK?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #442 (isolation #12) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:49 am
Postby Green Crayons »
I guess so if you know and aren't rolecop. Hrm, Hrm, HRM. Don't know what to do.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #445 (isolation #13) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:51 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Well poop. I had hoped that you were actually town or SK, not a scumbag. Hence the forcing you to claim.
Well, hopefully your role actually has neighbor in it.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #446 (isolation #14) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:51 am
Postby Green Crayons »
No, your kills fail on me per my traitor mechanic. I just won't be recruited.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #447 (isolation #15) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:52 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Though that doesn't mean dragon
isn't
a PR of some sort.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #450 (isolation #16) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:54 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Just Cheet?
Dang it he's going to get strung up.
Nope. Just Traitor/Neighbor. If Cheet dies, and I'm all that's left, I get the power to kill.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #451 (isolation #17) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:55 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Enjoy your blaze my friend.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #454 (isolation #18) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:58 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Nah. I think it might be better that Cheet doesn't know who the traitor is.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #455 (isolation #19) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:59 am
Postby Green Crayons »
But you might want to actually let the town know that you guys have a rolecop and TSO is actually the SK.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #456 (isolation #20) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:59 am
Postby Green Crayons »
"I'd rather town win than 3rd party." or whatever
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #457 (isolation #21) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:59 am
Postby Green Crayons »
OR maybe if you'd prefer 3rd party to win, then don't.
(SHRUG)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #459 (isolation #22) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:00 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Hoping me playing a part in your death, and you being an actual neighbor, will help me through to the end.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #460 (isolation #23) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:01 am
Postby Green Crayons »
>.> Damn SK kill though...
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #462 (isolation #24) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:08 am
Postby Green Crayons »
lol, maybe
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #464 (isolation #25) » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:00 am
Postby Green Crayons »
It won't hurt I guess?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #465 (isolation #26) » Wed May 06, 2015 1:05 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Making the traitor part of a neighborhood with scum is a pretty much 95% confirmed town if you can get to this part of the game.
Just sitting back and watching the town implode.
I would be more active, but I wasn't lying to Cheet when I said that replacing into a game with over 200 pages is redic.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).