In post 499, sorgster wrote:sheeping for the 4th time hiplop.
Nevermind that he has a good reason to vote Soda?
In post 499, sorgster wrote:sheeping for the 4th time hiplop.
In post 499, sorgster wrote:sheeping for the 4th time hiplop.
In post 499, sorgster wrote:sheeping for the 4th time hiplop.
In post 500, Voidedmafia wrote:In post 499, sorgster wrote:sheeping for the 4th time hiplop.
Nevermind that he has a good reason to vote Soda?
Vote: Soda
sorgster wrote:@Magua, I'll give you my investigation during bargain phase under the condition that you investage person y, will say who y is later in pm during bargain phase and that you must post your investigation results here as soon as Day 3 starts.
In post 509, Voidedmafia wrote:'tis why you ask for a votecount, and THEN vote, Soda.
In post 510, GreyICE wrote:In post 509, Voidedmafia wrote:'tis why you ask for a votecount, and THEN vote, Soda.
Sooooooooo is he scum or dumb?
In post 515, SodaSpirit17 wrote:lol it was an attempt?
i wouldn't say so..
since sorgster isn't being lynvched today
VOTE: DeathRowKitty
In post 356, GreyICE wrote:In post 353, sorgster wrote:In post 349, Magua wrote:That's all I wanted to know.
sorgster is mafia then. He was roleblocked last Night.
1. There are more than one scum. More than any one of them could have done the killing action.
2. Scum may need to be able to buy the powerups to use the actions.
3.Scum could have targeted empking as well.
4.Scum could have attacked whoever bought bulletproof.
5.Who was protected by the protect action? They could have been a target.
1) -_-
2) Unlikely given setup
3) No
4) No
5) Emphatically not
Scumclaim, lynch.
In post 520, GreyICE wrote:Isn't this a completely different reason than the first reason you voted for me?
In post 521, sorgster wrote:Someone could have more than one reason for voting someone.