Two-Headed Mafia 2 - GAME OVER!

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

unvote me fiends

I am an innocent man.

[Thesp]

I haven't gotten around to rereading this thread. At all.

I blame Santa.

Quoted for truthery.

[Courk]

Expect me to set a deadline soon.

[klebian]

Yo, can we have a votecount, please?

[Adele]

Votecount:

Pooky/Adele: lots (nasty folk)
Other people: various (various)

not voting: putzes

[Thok]

The Twoopolis New Year's celebration features a decending double ball.

Vote Count

Adele/Pooky (4) (klebian/spectrumvoid, tsq/Fritzler, Glork/MOS, ambic/Rangerofthenorth)

TSS/Nightson (1) (PJ/MBL)
Glork/MOS (1) (TSS/Nightson)
Thesp/TMH (1) (CES/MGM)

11 alive means 6 to lynch

[spectrumvoid]

I'm around. I don't buy the defense, and my vote stays.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

what do you buy about the case against us?(or the lack thereof?)

[petroleumjelly]

I don't think there is a "case". I conversely don't think there was ever a "defense". For lack of movement as well as general interest in the game, however, I will:

Unvote: TSS/Nightson

, and

Vote: Pooky/Adele

. You are now at Lynch -1. I suggest a claim at this point.

[Adele]

What? You don't think there was a legitimate attack on us, yet think our failure to adequately answer the attack is worth mentioning? What exactly, then, did you think we should be defending?

Now you vote for us because nothing's going on to your satisfaction, and think we should claim when there's no case against us? I'll leave it up to Pooky whether we claim or not, but whichever he picks, your last post looks scummy as Hell. You don't care about a good lynch; you just wanna attack whoever's weak.

Vote: PJ/MBL

[Thestatusquo]

I think, at lynch -1, your ability to be defiantly outraged is sufficiently diminished to the point where a pretty blatant OMGUS attack seems fairly, well, for lack of a better word, stupid. I would have expected you to at least decline to claim in that post, but you didn't even mention it. I don't know exactly what that means, but I certainly noted it. Your reaction is a very interesting one.

[Adele]

I would have expected you to at least decline to claim in that post, but you didn't even mention it.

I'll leave it up to Pooky whether we claim or not

I certainly find it interesting when people criticise me for not doing something I have done. So what's your objection to the post exactly? If someone's at lynch-1 they only exist in a capacity to whine and plead as they're led to the gallows or, in desperation, claim. God forbid that even in these desperate times, I criticise someone for doing something scummy out of boredom (at best; that's the excuse he gave).
Alternatively, do you expect me to defend myself? Against what?? As PJ noted, there's been no case presented; how can I rebut arguments that people are keeping secret (or simply do not have)?

Guys, come on. This is looking so very like an inertia lynch. Take a look at the lack of case against pooky and me ("They've been lurking" / "Sorry, we'll stop now" / "meh, we'll lynch you anyways").

[Glork]

Adele, at this point, I think an inertia lynch is all we're getting. The game is stagnant, and if we get deadlined, everybody knows that Lynch > No Lynch under most circumstances (this instance included). I think that we can get some leads from this lynch. Stalled near-lynches usually tell the best tales. An almost-lynch on a scumbag usually says that scum tried to avoid the wagon. In turn, an almost-lynch on a player can tell us about which players (read: scumbags) started or pushed the wagons.

At this point, if you want to

not

be lynched, I would suggest that you contribute something substantial towards finding scum. I agree that there's not much you can do to "adequately" defend yourself. But instead of whining about being lynched because the game is slow, you can try to find some scumbags. Who knows... if you show up pro-town, some of us may even look at your re-reads/analyses and see what you came up with.

[petroleumjelly]

Agree with above. The combined posts of Pooky/Adele are pretty much "sorry I'm lurking" and "don't lynch me". This game has been running in place for what feels like the last month, and since every time I reread this game I pretty much just see spammage, I figured I would

make

something happen, especially as the mod has recently threatened a deadline.

Now you vote for us because nothing's going on to your satisfaction, and think we should claim when there's no case against us? I'll leave it up to Pooky whether we claim or not, but whichever he picks, your last post looks scummy as Hell. You don't care about a good lynch; you just wanna attack whoever's weak.

I do care about a good lynch: I've been searching for one since the beginning of the game. I'm surprised to see this coming from you, seeing as you have declined to vote for the first two days (read: not caring about a good lynch), and your first vote of the game (on Day Three) was "randomly" on the person to start the wagon on you, and now your first "real" vote simply looks like OMGUS.

[Thesp]

I actually like the votes on Adele/Pooky. Glork is probably scum with them. Claim or die.

[Nightson]

Back, will reread and post.

[MrBuddyLee]

Adele and Pooky, quite possibly scum, TSQ... yeah.

[Thestatusquo]

MBL, has there ever been a game we were in together where you haven't thought I was scum?

[Sherlock]

Just for the sake of getting things moving and the disturbing lack of anything remotely close to a

good

defense,

vote: pooky/adele

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

FoS: Sherlock

for stealing my hammer.

Certainty vote: Adele

[ambic]

Vote Pooky/Adele

I think it's already lynch, but just in case it's not...

[ambic]

Hmmm I thought I unvoted earlier, but obviously I didn't.

[Thestatusquo]

FOS: Ambic

[Thok]

Final Vote Count

Adele/Pooky (6) (klebian/spectrumvoid, tsq/Fritzler, Glork/MOS, ambic/Rangerofthenorth, PJ/MBL, Thesp/Sherlock)

Glork/MOS (1) (TSS/Nightson)
Thesp/TMH (1) (CES/MGM)
PJ/MBL (1) (Adele/Pooky)

Courk has been informed of the lynch. I will let her do the lynch scene.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

*more righteous indignation here*