nutella wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:34 pm Hmm. Perhaps LC is independent, then? If he didn't realize/his PM didn't indicate his alignment or gave him some sort of indie win condition?
I like trees. I don't want to chop them up. But I'll have to pick one I guess. And the event... yeah public protection doesn't seem like it makes sense, but then again it does ensure that player won't die but it pretty much ensures that someone else will be targeted and likely die (rather than have a chance of protecting the right person, as non-public protections can). The BTSC block might be better though, especially if we already suspect that someone (e.g. LC) may have ulterior anti-town motives in attempts to contact people.
An interesting change of heart, one must admit.nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:33 pm
Just because. They sound legit. I buy LC's story about assuming LMS with a vanilla role. Your assessment of that makes sense as well. He could be an actually LMS role, but that seems much less likely.
And I suppose I've been misguided in reading Dys before, but I'm really only getting genuine town vibes so far. Except I'm pretty baffled by her strong desire to lynch llama (which rico seems to agree with inexplicably). Why lynch llama, what's the reasoning?
A few questions:
1. Why in your initial statement do you say "we" instead of "i"? It sounds to me you're trying to make the LC suspicion seem a little more credible/widespread by insinuating that it is a widely held suspicion. It also smells of disassociation (i.e "We all thought it! I wasn't the only one! if it blew up in your face later).
2. What about LC's defense did you specifically "Believe" from point A to point B? You seem confident enough at least in the beginnings of your LC suspicion to base your D0 vote around the idea (by blocking BTSC, in your own words, with the targeted goal of affecting LC).
3. How did you go from putting such stock into the initial LC suspicion (enough so to push it in that one post on two separate statements, as highlighted) to believing that your own assessment was "much less likely"