True that. I just don't necessarily want another mis-lynch, even if it's a weaker PR. We know we have an infestor and a sniper scum at least. So one can infest me the other kill zfr for example. I haven't yet seen anything from @korotan. Or have I missed it? The new ones are hard to read because they give out too little

Because scum Joe knew trent's claim won't hold up to scrutiny (which it didn't as seen by all the votes he's taking) so he wanted to be the first one on the wagon.

Reminds me of the game with Carradice few games ago: scumCarradice claimed Cop on D1 and was saved from lynch. On D2 he claimed he has no result. Eventually (in no small part thanks to the author of this post) the claim was found bogus on D2 and he was lynched. Who was the first person to get on his wagon D2 (even before the author of this post?) Why, it was his scumbuddy trent.

It surprised me Joe so quickly voted. Not expressed doubt or suspicion - just voted.

Ah, that's a good counterpoint... kinda weakens my theory about them both but I can now see this being a possibility.

Either way I think lynching trent is going to tell us more about the game at this point than anyone else.

So maybe we should lynch joe?

Bit premature isn't it? Why don't you wait till trent's flip before you start cashing in your town points.

Would scum!joe NK Vitek? Vitek was the only one voting Joe.

Yes. If only because it'd be funny after Vitek NKed him N1 last game.

So what did vitek do since this post for you to lose your faith in him? :

:0

I was stating the fact that people basically ignored my hunch but now have come around, how is that premature? If anything I'd say it's postmature if that's the right word, or did you mean to say immature?

Nice catch too. I'm more and more confident that we got a good lynch in trent.

well people tend to say 'called it' when they've been proven correct about something. What is the 'it' that you were calling?

bump

About him being excited to use his ability on people which caused his outburst in his claim post. "it" being the"outburst" part then since it seemed fake to me. Since he didn't use his ability or at least claimed not to, the non-underlined part is false which by association makes underlined part false which was something I doubted then.

lol, why?