Are those posts supposed to make sense?Are we confident in fort's claim as accurate and that fort/lightwolf aren't a scum team?
I'm trying to figure out why he would continue to assume the pubinspect isn't that or why he's assuming my joat claim is a lie all evidence to the contrary and can't seem to come up with a positive reasoning
I'm not assuming that the pubinspect is false. I know it's false because I got a "successful action" result on my omniguard targeting lightwolf. Both nights.
My reasoning is that I'm claiming omniguard and targeted lightwolf, which would make the pubinspect bull because it couldn't have targeted lightwolf.
From that, we can see that the announcer is trying to get lightwolf lynched. Town should not be faking an inspect to get their claims across, so it's reasonable to assume that the announcer is scum. Because they're scum, you're likely to be scum after having been "cleared" by the announcement.
I don't even understand that. So you think I'm lying and that lightwolf is night immune town? Why would I ever stick my neck out for him if I hadn't been telling the truth...?If that were the case lightwolf probably is night immune and the omniguard claim would be a lie and we would want to take out lightwolf now
On the other hand I don't think I even believe he's scum, everything he's done deviates so far from me I have to imagine scum!fort makes some effort to pocket or buddy me rather than setting us diametrically opposed.
Honestly pls clarify this post.
So what I'm getting is that your reasoning is as follows:I had assumed you were at the very least safeguard and prob omniguard last cycle and thought most people knew it too so I still think mafia should've considered hitting you
1) You thought I was a protective role -> 2) Therefore, lots of people should have thought the same thing -> 3) Scum should have made the same deduction -> 4) Scum should have considered killing me -> 5) My survival is suspicious.
1) Ok I have no problems with that. You can make the deductions you wish to make.
2) Are you sure lots of people thought the same way? That's both hard to prove and hard to disprove.
3) That makes sense if and only if you presume that 2 is correct, which I don't. But hey maybe I'm wrong here
4) If your presume 2 and 3 to be correct, ok.
5) Here's the bullshit deduction. Maybe what I said could be seen as a doc softclaim, but that same "softclaim" could've been luring a kill. Additionally, I'm on the "scumreads" list of quite a few people. I've been agreeing with Lightwolf on nigh-everything, so the "lightwolf = scum" announcement would also implicate me. So how is it that I'm not supposed to have survived?
Most importantly, you yourself said that they should have considered killing me. But just on the first point of potentially luring a kill, I'm not an indisputable kill target (making it a consideration instead of an obvious "oh let's kill fort the doc"), so how is my survival a scumtell?
Correct me if I got your logical thought process wrong.
I think he means (sarcastically) that your results were super useful. No offense, but martin and walrein were both clear before your claim ;_;How do I provide "evidence" ???
Unless you mean describe what I did? I inspected Walrein n1 and then I did Martin and he showed as village.
~~~~~~~
unvote + lynch MoodyCloud