Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)
-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
-
-
caf19 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 919
- Joined: February 1, 2008
-
-
Wall-E Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: July 15, 2008
-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
So you're suspicious of me for being suspicious of you after we had close to mod-confirmation that you were scum. Wow, I'm not unvoting.Spolium wrote:Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Thanks for clearing that up, charter.
My suspicion of Empking is officially strengthened for pushing a retarded case.
Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
No, I'm suspicious of:
- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
I find it odd that you failed to recognise the last one at least, considering that the scenario I suggested - which, according to you, made "no sense" - turned out to be the actual explanation. Perhaps I should be suspicious of your glib misinterpretation of my suspicion as well?
Oh, and please do address my question from the end of #523.
Timmyyyyy! Blaaaa. HmmfinjiggahDRAAAAjh. FzzzrnnnGGGGG TIMMEH.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.Spolium wrote:No, I'm suspicious of:
- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
I don't remember you suggesting the mod lied to us.I find it odd that you failed to recognise the last one at least, considering that the scenario I suggested - which, according to you, made "no sense" - turned out to be the actual explanation.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
caf19 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 919
- Joined: February 1, 2008
charter's mod policy seems breakable in that any town can force someone to intentionally break their PR in order to get a modwarning and confirm it. Further than that, it's pretty much ModWifom in this case, because charter did confirm it and that could signify either alignment. Emp, is your case on Spolium now based on anything other than the fact that he suspects you for suspecting him? That doesn't seem like a very strong case on its own.caf
http://thenailbiter.wordpress.com-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
This is a false dichotomy, and ignores the third option which I suggested.Empking wrote:
It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.Spolium wrote:the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:Empking wrote:
There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
It's right there, emboldened and underlined; the elusive third option. You even acknowledged it's existence in claiming it made no sense.Empking (517) wrote:
The latter makes no sense.Spolium wrote:Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever?What is more likely to be the case is thatan in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't, so there's some conflict there.
I was thinking of something more like "Mod; Here are two statements which appear to be contradictory - please clarify".Empking wrote:
How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
That's what I did, and apparently at least one other person did as well. Charter responded. Not hard.
It is of some concern to me that you evidently did not pay attention to a post which was directly related to your case/vote.Suspicion++-
-
mykonian Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Frisian Shoulder-Demon
- Posts: 11963
- Joined: August 27, 2008
I have not really read everything, but there are a few things I got from the recent posts that I didn't know yet, and that worry me:
a: I am suspected.
b: spolium is under attack
esspecially b is weird, as spolium has been one of the most protown players. I have some kind of meta on Empking-scum, that he will go for the most protown player. So, I would watch Empking. Also earlier, some of his posts only had as purpose to make things uncertain, to place doubt.
these are all not concrete things, and I don't think you can already expect that. I'm on page 11 now.Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
There's also the fourth option which is that there's an evil Charter clone that's confirming people's PRs instead of the real Charter.Spolium wrote:
This is a false dichotomy, and ignores the third option which I suggested.Empking wrote:
It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.Spolium wrote:the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:Empking wrote:
There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
It's right there, emboldened and underlined; the elusive third option. You even acknowledged it's existence in claiming it made no sense.Empking (517) wrote:
The latter makes no sense.Spolium wrote:Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever?What is more likely to be the case is thatan in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't, so there's some conflict there.
I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)
That wasn't clarifying that was getting Charter to change his mind.
I was thinking of something more like "Mod; Here are two statements which appear to be contradictory - please clarify".Empking wrote:
How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
That's what I did, and apparently at least one other person did as well. Charter responded. Not hard.
I did pay attention to it, he didn't clarify he merely changed his policy.It is of some concern to me that you evidently did not pay attention to a post which was directly related to your case/vote.Suspicion++-
-
Wall-E Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: July 15, 2008
ZazieR I'm still interested in. She seems to get away with playing the airhead card, and I really don't like that.
Empking's hard for me to read, so I usually just play along with him to see what comes of his perverse methodology.
Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?[url=http://s45creations.wordpress.com]I own a design studio[/url] :)-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
Tiimargghhh! Raah Timmy! Tim, Tim,Hrrrmg.
What are you talking about? The third option is whatEmpking wrote:I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)actually happened:
3rd Option:an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy,but explicitly confirming a PR isn't
charter:If I warn someone of breaking it, then they obviously have one.I'm not clarifying anything further than issuing warnings to people.
Barring the idea that charter is willing to backtrack AND lie about his voting policy for the benefit of scum, I don't see how anyone could dispute this. Since this IS what you're suggesting, however, I suggest you take it up with charter since we're not going to get anywhere by arguing over your questionable interpretation of his posts/intent.
_____________________
Right now I would lynch Empking, because:Wall-E wrote:Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?
- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.
Therefore,unvote; vote: Empking
Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
@Everyone:Tell me what you think of Empking, and give your opinion on our recent exchange. First chance you get.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmy!-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Stan: I don't care! We're going!
Towelie: Don't forget to bring a towel.
The Boys: Aaagh!
Cartman: Oh no, not Towelie.
Towelie: When goin' someplace new, you should always bring a towel.
Stan: Okay, thanks, Towelie.
Towelie: Do you wanna get high?
Cartman: No, we don't wanna get high!!
Towelie: You mean, you don't want Towelie around?
Cartman: That's right!
Towelie: So am I to understand that there's been a ...Towelie ban?...
Vote Count
ZazieR - 1 (Debonair Danny DiPietro)
Empking - 1 (Spolium)
Spolium - 1 (Empking)
Not Voting (4)
Wall-E
ZazieR
mykonian
caf19
With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch!
Deadline is May 4th at midnight EST.-
-
Wall-E Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3725
- Joined: July 15, 2008
Spolium wrote:
Right now I would lynch Empking, because:Wall-E wrote:Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?
- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmedEmpking, in 345, wrote:
The mod would not confirm a town post restriction.EsoMonty wrote:
I am honestly not sure I am following your logic on that one. Could you explain more?And with this post my Town Read on Spoilum has gone bye bye. Mod confirming a PR is a scum power role not a town power role.Why we should lynch Empking wrote:- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)Empking, in post 529, wrote:
So you're suspicious of me for being suspicious of you after we had close to mod-confirmation that you were scum. Wow, I'm not unvoting.Spolium wrote:Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Thanks for clearing that up, charter.
My suspicion of Empking is officially strengthened for pushing a retarded case.
Hibbijoorah! TimmahuuurrrrrWhy we should lynch Empking wrote:- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)Empking wrote:
It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.Spolium wrote:No, I'm suspicious of:
- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
I don't remember you suggesting the mod lied to us.
I find it odd that you failed to recognise the last one at least, considering that the scenario I suggested - which, according to you, made "no sense" - turned out to be the actual explanation.Why we should lynch Empking wrote:- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)Empking, in 536, wrote:
There's also the fourth option which is that there's an evil Charter clone that's confirming people's PRs instead of the real Charter.Spolium wrote:
This is a false dichotomy, and ignores the third option which I suggested.Empking wrote:
It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.Spolium wrote:the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:Empking wrote:
There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
It's right there, emboldened and underlined; the elusive third option. You even acknowledged it's existence in claiming it made no sense.Empking (517) wrote:
The latter makes no sense.Spolium wrote:Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever?What is more likely to be the case is thatan in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't, so there's some conflict there.
I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)
That wasn't clarifying that was getting Charter to change his mind.
I was thinking of something more like "Mod; Here are two statements which appear to be contradictory - please clarify".Empking wrote:
How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
That's what I did, and apparently at least one other person did as well. Charter responded. Not hard.
I did pay attention to it, he didn't clarify he merely changed his policy.It is of some concern to me that you evidently did not pay attention to a post which was directly related to your case/vote.Suspicion++
Can you provide evidentiary support for this claim?Why we should lynch Empking wrote:- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
In fairness, that could be coincidence, and your case has a hint of OMGUS. You had to know that PRs cause a LOT of interest in mafia games.Spolium wrote:- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
I have a note to say here, but I want to wait for Empking to post first.Spolium wrote:In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.
What does Empking have to say about this?Spolium wrote:Therefore,unvote; vote: Empking[url=http://s45creations.wordpress.com]I own a design studio[/url] :)-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
Tiihehehmmmmy
My evidence for this is circumstantial. To put it another way, which of the following would you expect from someone who intends to discuss that sort of allegation with the mod?Wall-E wrote:
Can you provide evidentiary support for this claim?Why we should lynch Empking wrote:- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
(a) put the case on hold and seek further clarification from the mod
(b) carry on pushing the case and claim that the mod is being dishonest, while seeking further clarification from the mod
I think I've been quite patient with Empking but he has crossed the line from overcautious townie to persistant scum in his blunt refusal to accept charter's position - it's not a difficult one to grasp, so it is my opinion that Emp is willfully denying it.Wall-E wrote:
In fairness, that could be coincidence, and your case has a hint of OMGUS.Spolium wrote:- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
I've also been quite specific about why I think he's scum. Yes, you could say my case has a hint of OMGUS because part of the reason I find Empking scummy is his persistence in pushing his case on me, but this is an unavoidable consequence of finding his case scummy.
I've only been in one game with a PR'd player before this one, and there was little real interest in his PR (in retrospect there were other circumstances surrounding that player which generated a great deal more interest, so that might be why). My experience in this thread has been similar, for the most part - the PR was more or less taken for granted, with only a few players voicing concern with the times I didn't do it. Empking aside, it doesn't seem to have been a turning point in anyone's suspicions of me.Wall-E wrote:You had to know that PRs cause a LOT of interest in mafia games.
Therefore, in my experience, PRs don't necessarily draw a lot of attention. If I hadn't forgotten to do mine a few times, it might not even have been mentioned.
@Wall-E - Please comply with the @Everyone request in my last post. Just because I think you're town doesn't make your exempt.
Timmeh! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR RI-! TIMMEH-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.Spolium wrote:Tiimargghhh! Raah Timmy! Tim, Tim,Hrrrmg.
What are you talking about? The third option is whatEmpking wrote:I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)actually happened:
3rd Option:an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy,but explicitly confirming a PR isn't
Its completely impossible.
If its the only explaination then its probably right.Barring the idea that charter is willing to backtrack AND lie about his voting policy for the benefit of scum, I don't see how anyone could dispute this. Since this IS what you're suggesting, however, I suggest you take it up with charter since we're not going to get anywhere by arguing over your questionable interpretation of his posts/intent.
_____________________
Right now I would lynch Empking, because:Wall-E wrote:Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?
- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.
[/quote]
Are you able to provide another possible explaination?
OMGUSTherefore,unvote; vote: Empking
-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
Stop being obtuse. Explicit confirmation would be "Spolium has a PR". Charter's warning about my PR breach isEmpking wrote:
Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.Spolium wrote:3rd Option:an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy,but explicitly confirming a PR isn'timplicit. There's nothing impossible about it, and at worst it makes the game breakable in a way that doesn't matter at this stage.
If I thought another explanation was likely enough to warrant serious consideration then I'd have mentioned it already.Empking wrote:
Are you able to provide another possible explaination?Right now I would lynch Empking, because:
- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.
Here's a thought - why don'tyousuggest another possible explanation?
Yes, because I'm not voting you for any reason other than your vote for me.Empking wrote:
OMGUSTherefore, unvote; vote: Empking-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.Spolium wrote:
Stop being obtuse. Explicit confirmation would be "Spolium has a PR". Charter's warning about my PR breach isEmpking wrote:
Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.Spolium wrote:3rd Option:an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy,but explicitly confirming a PR isn'timplicit. There's nothing impossible about it, and at worst it makes the game breakable in a way that doesn't matter at this stage.
I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
If I thought another explanation was likely enough to warrant serious consideration then I'd have mentioned it already.Empking wrote:
Are you able to provide another possible explaination?Right now I would lynch Empking, because:
- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.
I'm town following the only possible explanation.Here's a thought - why don'tyousuggest another possible explanation?
If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.
Yes, because I'm not voting you for any reason other than your vote for me.Empking wrote:
OMGUSTherefore, unvote; vote: Empking-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
Explicit is an absolute. There is no such thing as explicitEmpking wrote:Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.enough.
Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.Empking wrote:I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
Liar.Empking wrote:If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Then how would you phrase it?Spolium wrote:
Explicit is an absolute. There is no such thing as explicitEmpking wrote:Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.enough.
Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.Empking wrote:I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.
Liar.Empking wrote:If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.-
-
Spolium Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 857
- Joined: November 5, 2008
Tirah hah hah TIMMYYY
The question is fundamentally flawed, so I don't think it can be rephrased in a meaningful way. Please explain what you are getting at.Empking wrote:
Then how would you phrase it?
Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.Empking wrote:I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
I refer you to #543, where you quoted a list of reasons for which I think you're scum.Empking wrote:
If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.
Liar.If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.
Prove thatallof these reasons equate to "I am suspicious of Empking because Empking is suspicious of me", and I will retract my contention that you are a lying little weasel.
TIMMMAH. TImskdnujshdybsf Timm TIm jenfj fdkosf TIMMY-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
How can you explain the mod changing his policy?Spolium wrote:Tirah hah hah TIMMYYY
The question is fundamentally flawed, so I don't think it can be rephrased in a meaningful way. Please explain what you are getting at.Empking wrote:
Then how would you phrase it?
Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.Empking wrote:I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
In this game you can't prove things if the other player doesn't have an open mind and you don't.
I refer you to #543, where you quoted a list of reasons for which I think you're scum.Empking wrote:
If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.
Liar.If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.
Prove thatallof these reasons equate to "I am suspicious of Empking because Empking is suspicious of me", and I will retract my contention that you are a lying little weasel.
TIMMMAH. TImskdnujshdybsf Timm TIm jenfj fdkosf TIMMY
Oh yeah, I'm suspicious of you so you attack an insult me in order to decrease my credibility, wow.
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.