StubbsKVM has been prodded.
I'll skip the vote count for now, as there's one only 4 posts above.. Mario is obviously at 5 now.
In post 192, Boonskiies wrote:@Impolsion - you won't see more of him. He posts once and leaves. He doesn't read the thread thoroughly.
In post 202, Boonskiies wrote:we posted it at the exact same time. Like literally...check the time stamps. I see the PEdit thing, but I really didn't care enough to change anything.
Also, as I've posted, he won't even really read the thread. It really doesn't matter. He's super frustrating to be scum with, as you can check the private thread of the game we were scum together with.
In post 203, dragonspawn wrote:I'm not liking pisskops unvote either. It has me wondering.
One thing in having issues with on the Mario push is no one other than Mario is really pushing back. That always concerns me.
In post 203, dragonspawn wrote:I'm not liking pisskops unvote either. It has me wondering.
One thing in having issues with on the Mario push is no one other than Mario is really pushing back. That always concerns me.
In post 203, dragonspawn wrote:One thing in having issues with on the Mario push is no one other than Mario is really pushing back. That always concerns me.
In post 202, Boonskiies wrote:we posted it at the exact same time. Like literally...check the time stamps. I see the PEdit thing, but I really didn't care enough to change anything.
Also, as I've posted, he won't even really read the thread. It really doesn't matter. He's super frustrating to be scum with, as you can check the private thread of the game we were scum together with.
In post 73, Necessary Evil wrote:WoodyWoodpecker wrote:In post 70, Necessary Evil wrote:This idea that we need multiple suspects is awfully strange.
Hi, have you played mafia before?
Yes. Something the timing seems strange, especially since he is still voting for Implosion.
In post 60, MarioManiac4 wrote:In post 51, dragonspawn wrote:In post 49, implosion wrote:Unvote
VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.
Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.
VOTE: implosion
I don't paticularly like this vote from Dragonspawn. It seems rather oppurtunistic with a wagon on Implosion starting.
you specifically suggested seemed suspicious to me soI am investigating you.
In post 86, Necessary Evil wrote:MarioManiac4: You didn't answer my question.Why are you voting Implosion and not dragonspawn when dragonspawn was your first real suspicion and you believe there should be fewer votes on Implosion?
In post 171, Bulbazoor wrote:VOTE: mario
I think you should stop blabbering abour rvs. Mario seems a bit iffy. He defends people for basically pointless reasons.
In post 172, Boonskiies wrote:Mario is playing exactly the same as my scum game with him last game. He doesn't respond to like anything. Comes in, posts one thing, completely changes direction of game and expects people to just believe him.
VOTE: Mario
In post 212, GrayFoxxxx wrote:In post 172, Boonskiies wrote:Mario is playing exactly the same as my scum game with him last game. He doesn't respond to like anything. Comes in, posts one thing, completely changes direction of game and expects people to just believe him.
VOTE: Mario
That's saying alot for just seeing 9 posts. Your whole case on him is kind of an over generalization.
In post 197, Shazam wrote:In post 152, MarioManiac4 wrote:In post 81, Shazam wrote:In post 79, MarioManiac4 wrote:
If everyone agrees on one person, that's a bad sign,as that means mafia are content with the lynch.
We are better off with everyone grilling their scumread, like you are doing with me right now.
So you're admitting that town gains information if we all agree on one person.
LOL what?^^^
Everyone can go check that in post 79 the context of what you were dealing with was not in fact an actual lynch of a player. The person you were quoting in post 79 was talking about SUSPECTS, who you yourself said we did not have to lynch. They made the point that it's better to have one suspect for increased pressure on that person, and then you said that we shouldn't agree on one person because mafia would be content with the lynch. Now you are waffling and saying that mafia can bus, so mafia being content with a particular suspect DOESN'T mean that suspect is town. In addition you are diverting attention away from your mistake by claiming that the context was about actually carrying through with a lynch, which it was not.
This is scummy not because you have a certain opinion about what everyone should and shouldn't do, but because when that opinion was challenged for being anti-town, you both waffled and deflected. You are far too defensive to be town imo. VOTE: MarioManiac4
In post 199, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 197, Shazam wrote:In post 152, MarioManiac4 wrote:In post 81, Shazam wrote:In post 79, MarioManiac4 wrote:
If everyone agrees on one person, that's a bad sign, as that means mafia are content with the lynch.
We are better off with everyone grilling their scumread, like you are doing with me right now.
So you're admitting that town gains information if we all agree on one person. But you also don't want us to do it.
No, because in pure statements, mafia can bus.
I meant if the player was actually being lynched and everyone online was jumping aboard, because that would indicate scum were content with the lynch.
It is always best to have more than one suspect and it's the way it's always done.
Everyone can go check that in post 79 the context of what you were dealing with was not in fact an actual lynch of a player. The person you were quoting in post 79 was talking about SUSPECTS, who you yourself said we did not have to lynch. They made the point that it's better to have one suspect for increased pressure on that person, and then you said that we shouldn't agree on one person because mafia would be content with the lynch. Now you are waffling and saying that mafia can bus, so mafia being content with a particular suspect DOESN'T mean that suspect is town. In addition you are diverting attention away from your mistake by claiming that the context was about actually carrying through with a lynch, which it was not.
This is scummy not because you have a certain opinion about what everyone should and shouldn't do, but because when that opinion was challenged for being anti-town, you both waffled and deflected. You are far too defensive to be town imo. VOTE: MarioManiac4
This is, at this point, the best reasoning out there.
I also don't like diverting the scum hunting conversation almost in its totality to a conversation about the ideal number of wagons town should have - a point in strategy that is nonsensical at best without the context of a specific situation.
VOTE: mario
In post 172, Boonskiies wrote:Mario is playing exactly the same as my scum game with him last game
VOTE: Mario
In post 214, Boonskiies wrote:It's Day fucking 1?