Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Cyberbob]

lolhai

bit tipsy atm, but I'd like to say that I don't really see the case against Cass; certainly not when such a superior one is against Netlava.

[StrangerCoug]

The case on Korts isn't going anywhere anymore, so I will

unvote Korts

if I haven't yet

vote Netlava

for the same reasons as previously. I don't see the case on Cass.

[Cephrir]

Okay, Netlava, I get it I think; you just phrased it in a sorta exaggerated way that doesn't make any sense.

I'll probably review and vote Netlava or Cass soon seeing as they both seem to be pretty tight cases to me.

[Citizen Karne]

I quite dislike Skruffs vote on armlx. I know at whom I will look tomorrow.

[MafiaMann]

Skruffs seems jumpy to me ever since him and strangcoug thing was mentioned

[Skruffs]

Right strangcoug followed me around which suggests either we are scum together or he is scum buddying up to me. You trying to push attention on me, rather than the aspect of the scenario that is scum in either situation, strikes me as someone trying to 'semiclear' their partner (sc) by getting who they agree with (me) lynched as town.

The total ignoring of my suspicion of armlx, or raher, the dismissing of it as me being 'jumpy', also strikes me as someone having an ulterior motive.

[skitzer]

Vote Count Nine of Day Two

(8) Netlava: hasdgfas, Cyberbob, nhat, armlx, Sineish, BlakAdder, raider8169, StrangerCoug
(2) Cass: Netlava, Lowell
(2) armlx: Battle Mage, Skruffs
(1) BlakAdder: Cass
(1) Skruffs: Korts

(10) Not Voting: Slicey, Cephrir, markfg, Untitled, Cream147, Citizen Karne, MafiaMann, PimHel, Surye, ace1217

With 24 alive, it takes 13 votes to lynch!

Last Post Count Nine of Day Two

Key:
Green - posted in last 24 hours
Blue - posted in last 48 hours
Olive - Posted in last 72 hours
Red - Posted more than 72 hours ago, prodded
Dark Red - Requiring Replacement
Dark Blue - Vacation/Limited Access

Skruffs

armlx

Netlava

Cass

Korts

Cyberbob

StrangerCoug

Cephrir

Citizen Karne

MafiaMann

raider8169

Lowell

hasdgfas

Battle Mage

Sineish

Cream147

BlakAdder

Untitled

nhat

Slicey

PimHel

Surye

ace1217

markfg

Slicey, PimHel, nhat, and ace1217 have requested replacement.
markfg and Surye may be replaced because of inactivity.
Prodding BlakAdder and Untitled.

[Korts]

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum. So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC. It may not be all that relevant to scumhunting, but the fact that you failed to do so or even mention it when I asked you multiple times makes me think I may be onto something here.

[raider8169]

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum. So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC. It may not be all that relevant to scumhunting, but the fact that you failed to do so or even mention it when I asked you multiple times makes me think I may be onto something here.

You think SC is more likely to be scum then Netlava?

[Korts]

As I've said multiple times,

I'm not feeling the Netlava case as much as you guys claim to be.

[BlakAdder]

I'm here. Not much to say at this point, but I do like Korts's thoughts on the SC-Skruffs connection. However, my vote on Netlava will stand at this point.

[Battle Mage]

Not much seems to have changed in my absence. Netlava is still a bad wagon, and Armlx should be put under more pressure.

BM

[Skruffs]

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum. So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC. It may not be all that relevant to scumhunting, but the fact that you failed to do so or even mention it when I asked you multiple times makes me think I may be onto something here.

First of all, you do not need me to address your points so that you can 'get on' with voting SC. The only reason someone would say that is if they are currently voting me, and are hoping to milk the time they are voting me in an attempt to get more votes, before having to switch to someone else.

Really. You just said, "Yes, he is more likely to be scum, but I think I'd rather just keep voting you anyways, for now."

I did not see your analogy, but I will isolate your posts, find it, and respond to it POST-HASTE. BUT FIRST: Showa.

[Korts]

Thing is, Skruffs, I didn't make an analogy. You did. I had some points against it, which were discussed

at length

between me and SC. I'm voting you because I wanted an answer from you, something which I didn't get yet. I raised the subject multiple times, yet you hadn't replied until now. Did you really expect me not to jump to conclusions?

[StrangerCoug]

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum. So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC.

Wait just a minute. You're asking someone to defend your case on him so you can vote me? I'm sorry, but you are not using Skruffs to make me into a scapegoat.

Unvote: Netlava
Vote: Korts

[Korts]

Laughable. If Skruffs can defend himself adequately, I obviously won't be so suspicious of him; you buddying up to/following Skruffs implicates

you

regardless of Skruffs' alignment. You want to address the fact that you were either buddying up to Skruffs, or basically defending him? Otherwise, feel free to continue the self-righteous OMGUSing.

[StrangerCoug]

Korts, I like Skruffs's analogy, as you know quite well by now. You got suspicious of me for defending it as common sense, and I explained why I think so more than once. If your thoughts that we are either both masons (which we said we're not, at least with each other) or scum (neither of us are confirmed) are based solely on the analogy and my agreeing with it, I'm sorry, but I'm not sold here.

I know what I am, and Skruffs knows what he is, but two people agreeing with each other ≠ those two people having related roles. For example, at least seven people agree that Netlava is scum. Are all of them town? We hope so, but the truth is we don't know yet. It is possible for scum to be either trying to mislynch or bussing Netlava right now. In addition, chances are not everybody voting for Netlava as of this post is scum.

[Korts]

So what's your reason to vote me?

[StrangerCoug]

I said already for this time around. Using Skruffs to scapegoat me.

[Korts]

You following Skruffs' opinion is a valid reason to vote.

[hasdgfas]

I said already for this time around. Using Skruffs to scapegoat me.

I really don't see that, SC. Unless you can explain it better, this looks like plain OMGUS to me.

[Netlava]

Okay, Netlava, I get it I think; you just phrased it in a sorta exaggerated way that doesn't make any sense.

Please explain.

[BlakAdder]

I'm with Korts and Hascow here. However, I don't quite feel comfortable voting either of them just off of this.

[StrangerCoug]

I said already for this time around. Using Skruffs to scapegoat me.

I really don't see that, SC. Unless you can explain it better, this looks like plain OMGUS to me.

Then tell me how this isn't scummy, especially the part I've bolded:

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum.

So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC.

[Korts]

I'm with Korts and Hascow here. However, I don't quite feel comfortable voting either of them just off of this.

What? You agree with us, therefore you're considering voting us? How does that make sense?