Mushroom Kingdom Mafia (Game over!)

Riceballtail · Post Post #550 (ISO) » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:39 pm

I am going on vacation tomorrow and will have limited access until the 30th.

Will still try to check in.

Mod edit:
Visible votecount:
Cream147 (3): armlx, Phoebus, Alabaska J
TheSweatpantsNinja (3): sideney, Riceballtail, iamausername
Alabaska J (2): populartajo, farside22
farside22 (1): TheSweatpantsNinja
somestrangeflea (1): Dead Rikimaru
armlx (1): killa seven
Rogue Shenanigans (1): skitzer

No lynch (1): malthusis

Not voting (11): Surye, andersonw, Pepsidude, Cream147, FaerieLord, Celebloki, mr. incrediball, Rogue Shenanigans, Gimbo, DragonsofSummer, somestrangeflea

With 24 alive it takes 13 real votes to lynch.

FaerieLord · Post Post #551 (ISO) » Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:07 pm

We'll be waiting for the reads / rereads

Cream147 · Post Post #552 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:57 am

somestrangeflea wrote:That's absolutely right. And people know that you're always telling the truth now, so all opinions and comments you make are valid.

Bear in mind that "valid" =/= "correct", "accurate", "logical", "sensible", etc.

Hence my choice of the word valid. Like I'd say that what Gimbo says is any of the above. This post was really just to say that I'm back, and I'm in the process of rereading.

armlx · Post Post #553 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:18 am

Phoebus wrote:Let's just lynch Cream instead.

I endorse this product or service.

populartajo · Post Post #554 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:42 am

Why cream huh?

armlx · Post Post #555 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:07 am

populartajo wrote:Why cream huh?

Have you read the past 3 pages, let alone the entire game?

populartajo · Post Post #556 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:15 am

Im feeling really lazy atm.
Care to explain me why are you voting for him?

armlx · Post Post #557 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:26 am

His attacking Gimbo early when it was evident Gimbo was not being scummy within his standard behavior was the start, then him completely dismissing/ignoring said accusation, then responding with the "I'm always scummy" defense, which I know is not true, and trying to dissuade a lynch with a soft claim of power role under the logic that even if he is revived he will be NK'ed ASAP again.

Gimbo · Post Post #558 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:59 pm

Vote:Cream147

Alabaska J · Post Post #559 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:45 pm

armlx wrote:His attacking Gimbo early when it was evident Gimbo was not being scummy within his standard behavior was the start, then him completely dismissing/ignoring said accusation, then responding with the "I'm always scummy" defense, which I know is not true, and trying to dissuade a lynch with a soft claim of power role under the logic that even if he is revived he will be NK'ed ASAP again.

Also, now he is in denial that this case even exists.

armlx · Post Post #560 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:01 pm

then him completely dismissing/ignoring said accusation

I covered that.

Alabaska J · Post Post #561 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:09 pm

armlx wrote:
then him completely dismissing/ignoring said accusation
I covered that.

Ah, but his recent actions are more severe and, I feel, deserve separate mention.

armlx · Post Post #562 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:13 pm

Ah, but his recent actions are more severe and, I feel, deserve separate mention.

Fair enough.

Cream147 · Post Post #563 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:16 pm

armlx wrote:His attacking Gimbo early when it was evident Gimbo was not being scummy within his standard behavior was the start, then him completely dismissing/ignoring said accusation, then responding with the "I'm always scummy" defense, which I know is not true, and trying to dissuade a lynch with a soft claim of power role under the logic that even if he is revived he will be NK'ed ASAP again.

Ok, thanks for actually putting a case forward. I don't know how I soft-claimed power role, there was certainly no intention of that. They will kill me though, because I will be a confirmed innocent, and that's just that. I've already laid forward my argument about how confirmed innocents are often just as powerful as unconfirmed power roles. Have you even read that post, because I think that hints in the other direction myself.

And how do you know I'm not always scummy. The only other games I remember being with you in I replaced into and was out fairly promptly afterwards.

As for the Gimbo thing, I admitted that that was a mistake fairly shortly after, once you'd made the point that it was Gimbo's normal behaviour.

Phoebus · Post Post #564 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:45 pm

SO why not you?

Take one for the town. GO on then...

killa seven · Post Post #565 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:26 pm

Cream147 · Post Post #566 (ISO) » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:18 pm

Phoebus wrote:SO why not you?

Take one for the town. GO on then...

I'd rather lynch scum today than 'take one for the town'.

armlx · Post Post #567 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:20 am

confirmed innocents are often just as powerful as unconfirmed power roles

Not true until much later in the game.

Cream147 · Post Post #568 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:56 am

armlx wrote:
confirmed innocents are often just as powerful as unconfirmed power roles
Not true until much later in the game.

if you think so. I only said that as an opinion, you did take the quote out of context a bit there. I still think you overlooked that post if you thought that I had soft claimed as a power role (which you did) which was the point I was trying to make.

sideney · Post Post #569 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:46 am

Bah, i was interested in a lynch of TSN, but seems that is search for coin owners looks scum only to me.

Unvote TSN

Phoebus · Post Post #570 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:31 am

Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:SO why not you?

Take one for the town. GO on then...
I'd rather lynch scum today than 'take one for the town'.

Towards which end...you seem to be doing very little of substance...

Cream147 · Post Post #571 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:52 am

Phoebus wrote:
Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:SO why not you?

Take one for the town. GO on then...
I'd rather lynch scum today than 'take one for the town'.
Towards which end...you seem to be doing very little of substance...

I could (and am) saying the same thing about you.

Alabaska J · Post Post #572 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:37 am

Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:
Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:SO why not you?

Take one for the town. GO on then...
I'd rather lynch scum today than 'take one for the town'.
Towards which end...you seem to be doing very little of substance...
I could (and am) saying the same thing about you.

Are you saying Phoebus is scum (just to clarify)?

Cream147 · Post Post #573 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:57 am

Alabaska J wrote:
Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:
Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:SO why not you?

Take one for the town. GO on then...
I'd rather lynch scum today than 'take one for the town'.
Towards which end...you seem to be doing very little of substance...
I could (and am) saying the same thing about you.
Are you saying Phoebus is scum (just to clarify)?

No, I'm saying that Phoebus is doing very little of substance.

Alabaska J · Post Post #574 (ISO) » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:28 am

Cream147 wrote:
Alabaska J wrote:
Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:
Cream147 wrote:
Phoebus wrote:SO why not you?

Take one for the town. GO on then...
I'd rather lynch scum today than 'take one for the town'.
Towards which end...you seem to be doing very little of substance...
I could (and am) saying the same thing about you.
Are you saying Phoebus is scum (just to clarify)?
No, I'm saying that Phoebus is doing very little of substance.

Well, seeing as he has a pretty good case already established…