A survivor isn't anti-town. A survivor is neutral. The anti-town part is specifically if it reaches MYLO state, since the survivor will win if the mafia quicklynches.
A survivor though will also win if the town lynches all mafia, and will lose if he's lynched or nightkilled.
Additionally, there are survivors that win with a specific factions, so a town survivor (neutral, who wins with town) isn't considered anti-town, and a mafia survivor would win if mafia endgames town.

Not that it matters much but Pina played exactly the same way (mostly vague, joke posts) few games back as gkaiser does here and he was town.
It doesn't make gkaiser town but in my eyes it doesn't make him scum either. More like new, insecure player regardless of alignment. It's not something I would lynch player for when it's only piece of evidence.

I don't. I thought that if the "you could probably drive this thing by yourself" (interpolated) statement was referred to by another role it would be something like:
-Find the person who threatens your boat-driving skills and kill them. (makes no sense?)
-You win only if the boat is left adrift and helpless on the cruel sea (makes no sense??)
-If you can find the person who can run the boat and steal their papers??? then you get to win. (made sense to me at one time, but now doesn't make any sense)

That sentence stood out to me - it doesn't seem to have anything to do with my role (amok), or I wouldn't have said it. I thought that it had to have some significance but since then I've decided that it doesn't.

Vitek - the thing about saying "congratulations to doctor for preventing the nightkill" is a common scumtell, But what about saying "I recommend the powerroles target this such-a-person"? Is that known to have connotations?

Is it? I don't know.
Anyway, they don't need to target you. Just be town and there will be no reason to do it.
And what's with congratulating to doctor? Did it happen in this game or what?

okay?

My thinking was that he didn't know quite how un-town it would sound. I don't know what his motivation as a non-town would be for making that post, but equally I can't work out a motivation for making such a blatantly non-town post if he is town.
Have another look at it:

How is that in any way town?

They're not neutral, they're pro-self which makes them anti-town (anti-town doesn't automatically mean pro-mafia). They are anti-town town because at no point in the game do they have the same interests as town, they vote to lynch anyone but themselves.

As I said, I didn't want to screw up what I thought Joe's plan was, but wanted to warn so that others didn't either. Looking at Joe's post since, it seems I was wrong anyway so I'll explain. I thought Joe was perhaps trying to draw out a lyncher in some way by making it known that he was a target. Assuming he had a plan in mind I didn't want to detail it. It seems I was wrong.
We can now keep an eye out for people pushing a wagon on him although he doesn't seem to think he's a target any more.

What are you saying here?

Well if he does have a lyncher targeting him, they'll be trying to get him lynched won't they?

Hang on - so you're drawing an inference of a Lyncher plan out of thin air on Joe, even after admitting you think you're wrong about his 'plan', then turning round and saying 'we can keep an eye on who targets him'...

trying to direct the voting much there SPF? Again, how can this post in any way be seen as a pro-town post?? I'm getting rather amazed by all the different stuff going off - there's so many anti-town type posting happening its difficult to see the wood for the trees!

We have less than two days before deadline people - we NEED to come to some sort of agreement here.

I still really really dislike Joe's recent posting, and do think its very anti-town. at moment, happy to keep my vote on him.

Also not happy with SPF - would get behind a lynch of him also if necessary.

I DO agree with SPF about gkaiser though - it looks very much like a slip and he is survivor, which is Definitely not pro-town. I would also consider switching my vote to him.

Yes, I think I'm wrong which is why I decided to explain my logic. However if there is a lyncher it'd be particularly worth doing bandwagon analysis if he gets lynched.

Given your reaction I wonder if the lyncher has just exposed himself. Nah, that's too easy right?

There is no lyncher!!

From the looks of things there's gonna be no lynch.

I'm unconcerned with Joe at this moment.

Ok, then my speculations are pointless.

We'll still nowhere. It's just one more day now, isn't it?

So your post was not some elaborate plan?


And a question to all concerning the game.
Is not having a lynch common and does it actually have any benefits?