[NSFM] Not Safe Forum Mafia - Prisoners Win

I got a match on Squid and Reaper

In conjunction with standard protocol, all corpses are disposed of within two hours.

1 Like

You are scum with squid

gg

/Vote Reaper

Arenā€™t your forgetting, you know
The possibility of him being town and we myslinched
Not to say I was the hammer to him, seems like a weird deepy

Vote Count:
Reaper (2) - BlueStorm, Firekitten

actually no

town doesnā€™t open wolf unless your named meme or Margaret

1 Like

It would also mean you guys are totally out of clues

You sure thatā€™s necessary now? I thought the one that did [REDACTED] with dead bodies died, isnā€™t that rule a little redundant?

The openwolf statement wasnt what made me vote for them at all, mark actually had a point but Blue wasted it
ā€œIf Squid is alien we can get resultsā€ ok nice now you put this on me instead of, idk, icer who would be pretty confirmed at this point

Iā€™m glad reaper was scum tbh as their argument was super bad and I would personally have a grudge against them if they were Town and didnā€™t realize the argument flaw

oh
then die anyways

Oh no, this has nothing to do with the coroner. As we mentioned, he still managed to find enough time within that two-hour limit to choke to death. These protocols are meant to ensure the health of all living persons, and to help prevent any aliens from using dead bodies for any purpose.

There were no flaws but I will not discuss it again
I already gave an example where your feedback wasnt needed at all for it to work but whatever is better for your ego

People like Isaac being Town just bother me

THEY PERSONALLY ANNOY ME

Also bet

Reaper goes for the ā€œmaybe Squid was townā€ and not ā€œYouā€™re lying about your resultsā€

We got em

if reaper wasnā€™t scum I would have death tunneled Celeste

Yes? And what makes one argument more belieavable than the one youā€™d rather use? Thats some falacy shit

Hypocrite

Because Squid was blatantly scum

Meaning me lying about my results would have been a much more substantial argument