Oh, but please. I already explained my reasoning. I even linked you the post. Short memory?
On the contrary. I replied to that in the post you called Gibberish. Maybe you should try reading instead of dismissing, to see the holes in your reasoning?
Now, to remind ourselves again.
In post 1320
you said you knew what TB was doing in the outskirts of town, and who one of the other scum is, and that your findings will get as (sic) a scum lynched.
In post 1322
you said you had 0 flavor (even though you consider flavor oh so important), but you knew who TB visited.
In post 1323
you said you'd be ready for a full claim and analysis in 24 hours, due to your finals.
In post 1392
you say that TB visited Robb, and the alignment of Robb is open for debate. Plus you mention flavor that you got (Good Decision), even though you said you had 0 flavor before.
In post 1392
you apologized for the double post, and gave a theory that both cops may be genuine.
In post 1420
you said that any flavor for the night actions will be basic, and it may explain Robb's lack of info.
In post 1422
, among other things, you say that you won't claim, since it will be a waste. Interesting how you don't give a reason, other than "As pointed out before by someone, I don't remember who, it would be a waste to reveal now." And along with your info on various mafia organizations, you give your thoughts on potential scum roles, say you think the flips are more complicated than affiliation, and chastise adalia for wishing we kept RW alive.
In post 1425
you say that you have theories which you evaluate (and haven't shared so far), you weren't expecting a PGO but due to Flub's hint you assumed TB visited scum (why? how does that make sense? Do you know that TB had a weak modifier?) and that you didn't investigate during N0, though logic dictates that this is an investigator claim.
In post 1462
you gave notice of inactivity, and said that you came to the conclusion that there must be a reason TB decided to visit Robb (well, duh), and if we can take a look to their posts.
In post 1474
you drop even more hints about your role, then say you don't want to give scum a clear idea of it (where did you say it exactly btw?), call Robb's statement about lack of info on his role BS, then say you've already explained why you thought Robb was scum (again, really really weak explanation, unless you had extra info you don't want to share).
, you give the posts where flavor importance was discussed and where you gave your explanation as to why Robb may be scum.
In post 1535
you joke about lack of percentages, then say this isn't a normal game and that you can exemplify later if needed, though you never did.
Then come your posts from the last 24 hours. Want me to analyze those as well?
So please, do not say you've already explained your reasoning. Do not link to your reasoning. Reason again, without omissions, and include the other possibilities you discarded, along with why you did so. After all, you do claim to know how logic works, don't you?
P.S. Thank you adaliabooks for your lovely script