HijacK: Or maybe TB was scum cop. You haven't thought about this, have you? Of course you haven't.
Always with the assumptions. Yes, I have thought that TB may have been a scum investigative role, though I did reject the scum cop possibility since I'm not sure there are 2 scum factions, or that we have so many neutrals that it makes sense for scum to have a cop. Could be a role cop though, or another investigative role, but in that case, I'm running out of scum.
TB is scum one that visited Robb, scum 2 is whoever roleblocked Yog (I still doubt a townie would block a claimed cop) and scum 3 is whoever killed Darko. Add the 2 neutrals we had so far, and that gives us 5 non-town, with the recommended 25% being 4,5. Though I'm unsure if the 25% refers specifically to mafia or anti-town roles.
So, while it is possible that TB was scum and targeted Robb, I find it unlikely.
HijacK: Also, let me say this. Statistics of 1 case are not even statistics. Thus, by having only one lynch you have no concrete proof there is for certain no flip, neither statistically nor by the scientific method.
A small logic lesson (again). Statistics for a single case are possible, though their standard deviation is 0, thus any statistical analysis will be laughed at by statisticians. It's similar to the statement "I can fly for 0 meters", which is logically correct, assuming I cannot fly. It does not imply that I can actually fly.
And as for the scientific method, it is actually correct. You do know how the scientific method works, right?
Observe, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, revise the hypothesis.
So a sample of 1 is more than enough for the start of the scientific method, until evidence make you revise it. So far, we still didn't get a flip on lynch.
HijacK: What if I answer yes and say because lack of communication added with confusion inducing arguments doesn't help town?
I'll point you to Ix's lynch and ask you how that lynch helped town. Feel free to analyze his wagon and make a hypothesis.
HijacK: Here's the thing that makes you extremely suspicious. Unlike Mrk, who sugar coats the hell out of an argument and can sell you a wreck for the price of a limo, you twist a direction only in your desired path. Nothing wrong with that, but our views conflict here and so we will have to clash.
Yes, because I do not try to convince anyone that I'm the only one who knows the truth. I present facts, then make a statement, then ask you to evaluate said statement. If my statement is inherently wrong, I expect you to point out the flaws, so I can revise it and we can come to a correct statement. You know, the way education works (or should work). By making the student come to the conclusion, not by spoon feeding them results.
HijacK: I made it clear in a way past post that I no longer see it mandatory for me to claim. Don't believe it? Go and check yourself. I said it twice. Not gonna bother a third time.
Ok. Going to track down said post in a bit.
HijacK: Oh, but please. Provide links to where I said I posses information I did not share. You kept talking about this, yet you always failed to point me to one post.
Oh, I know that one. Hell, I know two such cases.
1) You said that you knew who the other scum is, then failed (for quite a while) to provide either of those cases. You did reveal it after so much time, it may have become irrelevant.
2) You said you'd claim to explain your reasoning, then no longer saw the need to do so. Again, information promised and withheld.