Two-Headed Mafia 2 - GAME OVER!

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

hmmm

We need matching starter jackets.

[spectrumvoid]

Sorry Eon.

Nope, I didn't suspect anyone before you.

As to why, I read your posts over and I find that I don't really think you're scummy anymore. It's mainly a combination of confusing posts and bad English that made me think you're scummy. But I won't unvote since we're at deadline. I'll go have another read and see if I find something new.

[armlx]

IMO the most suspicious people are re2 and thestatusquo. Just day one thoughts, I really don't have evidence to back this up. I also don't feel strongly enough about a lynch on either to move my vote ATM.

[Mastermind of Sin]

...So you're more suspicious of re2 and tsq than the person you're voting, but you'd rather keep your vote on that person than the people you suspect the most?

FoS: armlx

[Eon]

Sorry Eon.

Nope, I didn't suspect anyone before you.

As to why, I read your posts over and I find that I don't really think you're scummy anymore. It's mainly a combination of confusing posts and bad English that made me think you're scummy. But I won't unvote since we're at deadline. I'll go have another read and see if I find something new.

You dont suspect me, yet you vote against me. Thats something new =]

[spectrumvoid]

We're at deadline. No lynch is always bad. And if I don't vote for you, I have to vote for me.

[Coron]

FoS: Spectrumvoid

[Eon]

Sorry but i really dont understand this ideology you have.
I would never vote against person i wouldn't suspect, you still hold your vote, and in these 5 days, there was chance to find another suspect. You decided not to use that and decided to keep vote on me even When you told "I dont think he is scum" sorry spectrumvoid but thats a bit low. WELL at least you began to understand my english =]

Vote: spectrumvoid

[Adele]

There's not enough time to start a wagon on a third person? Pff. PBPA coming tomorrow.

[Courk]

*slight addition made to first post*

Note: notices will be sent via mafiascum PM only, unless I'm made aware of any special circumstances.

[Mgm]

Finally, I did a (hopefully) thourough skim of the thread.

My top suspects:

ShadowLurker

- His vote on da Tizzle starts out as random (post #225) <Yes, SL you are allowed to random vote, but you've been pushing that random vote beyond the point of it being random.>, but he continues to agressively push it without providing a reasoning despite being asked for one (#181) only citing overdefensiveness (167).

I don't know about you, but if I'm bandwagoned for no apparent reason I'd get defensive too. Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions. ShadowLurker was goating theman/da Tizzle in becoming overdefensive to get a reason by his repeated accussations (223, 235, 251)

This is the main reason I unvoted way back. I didn't agree with this baseless wagoning, but I had to check. Now I have some excellent info on who joined and who saw SL's scumminess.

sprontalic

Claimed to be clueless then posted a vote for a supposed lurker who made a post 2 above his, while in fact sprontalic himself was lurking big time.

Vote:ShadowLurker; FOS: Sprontalic

.

[ShadowLurker]

Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions.

Since when?

[ShadowLurker]

Finally, I did a (hopefully) thourough skim of the thread.

My top suspects:

ShadowLurker

- His vote on da Tizzle starts out as random (post #225) <Yes, SL you are allowed to random vote, but you've been pushing that random vote beyond the point of it being random.>, but he continues to agressively push it without providing a reasoning despite being asked for one (#181) only citing overdefensiveness (167).

I don't know about you, but if I'm bandwagoned for no apparent reason I'd get defensive too. Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions. ShadowLurker was goating theman/da Tizzle in becoming overdefensive to get a reason by his repeated accussations (223, 235, 251)

Your post numbres are backwards by the way. Following yours, I provided a reason before it was asked for one yet I called it random afterwards it was asked for one.

Also, you're saying my early vote on H2 da tizzle was baseless yet you don't explain how that makes me scum.

[lordy]

Sorry, I cant get a read on anything at all, I feel like crap, especially after the headache of those random votes at the start. I dont really have anything to go on thats not new, and IMO, scummy enough, so right now, please explain why are you voting for us, and we will try to explain to the best we can. Either that, or that I feel today should end in a no-lynch, partly because of the lack of info, plus the very rushed deadline.

[Glork]

Re-Read coming tomorrow (Tuesday) sometime.

[spectrumvoid]

To Eon: I honestly can't get a read on anyone else. It's because I keep getting messed up with the twin heads thing, but I'll work harder at it. Here's hoping Adele's PBPA will help

[Adele]

Ew, did I really volunteer to do a PBPA? Why why why did I do that? Sleep deprivation helps us make poor choices.

Well, I won't putz out, but I won't do it right this minute either. Later this evening. 'Course, I dunno if we'll have time to act on it today... here's hoping, anyhow.

[Mgm]

Finally, I did a (hopefully) thourough skim of the thread.

My top suspects:

ShadowLurker

- His vote on da Tizzle starts out as random (post #225) <Yes, SL you are allowed to random vote, but you've been pushing that random vote beyond the point of it being random.>, but he continues to agressively push it without providing a reasoning despite being asked for one (#181) only citing overdefensiveness (167).

I don't know about you, but if I'm bandwagoned for no apparent reason I'd get defensive too. Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions. ShadowLurker was goating theman/da Tizzle in becoming overdefensive to get a reason by his repeated accussations (223, 235, 251)

Your post numbres are backwards by the way. Following yours, I provided a reason before it was asked for one yet I called it random afterwards it was asked for one.

Also, you're saying my early vote on H2 da tizzle was baseless yet you don't explain how that makes me scum.

I don't consider overdefensiveness a good reason to vote someone when you are the one causing it in the first place, besides it only came after you repeatedly pressed for their lynch without having any sort of reason besides random.

If I have to explain why using bad reasoning to get someone lynched makes someone scum... I'm afraid I can't help you much. Bad reasoning leading to lynches is what scum do. Ergo someone who does it is scummy.

Also, Eon appears to be getting some heat, and it looks like I missed most of it during my reread. Can someone summarize the reasoning for their suspicions on him?

[pablito]

Hurry up with your voting all, I want to hear a claim from someone/anyone. The sooner we get a wagon up there, the quicker we can react before deadline.

[ShadowLurker]

Finally, I did a (hopefully) thourough skim of the thread.

My top suspects:

ShadowLurker

- His vote on da Tizzle starts out as random (post #225) <Yes, SL you are allowed to random vote, but you've been pushing that random vote beyond the point of it being random.>, but he continues to agressively push it without providing a reasoning despite being asked for one (#181) only citing overdefensiveness (167).

I don't know about you, but if I'm bandwagoned for no apparent reason I'd get defensive too. Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions. ShadowLurker was goating theman/da Tizzle in becoming overdefensive to get a reason by his repeated accussations (223, 235, 251)

Your post numbres are backwards by the way. Following yours, I provided a reason before it was asked for one yet I called it random afterwards it was asked for one.

Also, you're saying my early vote on H2 da tizzle was baseless yet you don't explain how that makes me scum.

I don't consider overdefensiveness a good reason to vote someone when you are the one causing it in the first place, besides it only came after you repeatedly pressed for their lynch without having any sort of reason besides random.

If I have to explain why using bad reasoning to get someone lynched makes someone scum... I'm afraid I can't help you much. Bad reasoning leading to lynches is what scum do. Ergo someone who does it is scummy.

Also, Eon appears to be getting some heat, and it looks like I missed most of it during my reread. Can someone summarize the reasoning for their suspicions on him?

Overdefensiveness is a good reason. One vote shouldn't cause overdefensiveness.

[Thestatusquo]

Can we get a vote count?

[Save The Dragons]

Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions.

Since when?

*smack*

Ew, did I really volunteer to do a PBPA?

Heh...I volunteer PBPAs and never do them all the time.

Overdefensiveness is a good reason. One vote shouldn't cause overdefensiveness.

X

I can't vouch for H2 da Tizzle's experience cuz I don't know it, but I think he's a n00b. Most n00bs are overdefensive because they haven't learned yet.

If you voted for MeMe and she was like, "WHAT! OMG SCUM!!!!!!" and voted you, then I'd see your point.

[ibaesha]

Overdefensiveness is a good reason. One vote shouldn't cause overdefensiveness.

Not really. And I still don't see where he was overdefensive. Plus some people are just that way, experienced or not. I also found your push to be suspicious. However, when I looked at H2/theman's posts I thought that theman's behavior towards sprontalic to be odd.

This is a huge bleep on my scumdar! It starts out as stupid, moves into craplogic, and has a big finale of overdefensiveness. It's a 3 act scum post.

vote:sprontalic

This seems a bit like weak overdefensiveness. Obv scumtactic, but maybe not worth a vote.

FoS:Sprontalic

Wow. I'd vote my other head for this. Please don't. Sprontalic seems to have dropped the overdefensive vibe, so for now

unvote

A strange series of posts when taken into context. I think the 'overdefensiveness' is bad reasoning to base a vote and especially to push a wagon, but there's weird behavior going on here. You never noted any of this though and continued on the 'overdefensive' line and are still attached to it.

It's also noted that your other head made a rather convenient jump to the eon/re2fan wagon.

[Yosarian2]

Overdefensiveness is a good reason. One vote shouldn't cause overdefensiveness.

'"overdefensivness" is a crappy scum tell, that leads to circular arguments. Think politics...

"Why did you do it?" "I didn't do it." "Ah, you're denying it! That means you're covering it up! You must have done it, or you wouldn't be covering it up!" "There is no cover up!" "Why are you covering up the cover up?"

Seriously, anyone who's attacked will and should always defend themselves to the best of their abilities.

[ShadowLurker]

Besides, it's backwards, you need a reason to vote and not use the response to justify your actions.

Since when?

*smack*

That was a random vote at the start so it did not reasoning.

I can't vouch for H2 da Tizzle's experience cuz I don't know it, but I think he's a n00b. Most n00bs are overdefensive because they haven't learned yet.

If you voted for MeMe and she was like, "WHAT! OMG SCUM!!!!!!" and voted you, then I'd see your point.

I hate it when somebody plays the noob card. But playing the noob card for OTHER PEOPLE?!?!