279 new posts? Like hell i'm reading all that. (if only i had the patience of my elders, my spellwork would be stronger)

can someone give me the sparknotes version?

I think he just didn't understand the role. My theory is that the wielder can choose to use his one-shot on a given day, and any lynch occuring on that day will be canceled. Any other explanation would be illogical, besides him lying to being with.

He probably shoudln't have triggered it so soon. Oh, padib, smh.

We want to try something that could give us concrete info on mafia. Are you willing to try it?

Basically I'm going to die.

@Khan

5 votes to lynch RCT
3 votes to lynch Outlaw
3 votes to lynch Cone

8 are needed for a concrete lynch. If not, the user with the majority of votes will be lynched. A tie will result in a no lynch.

@khan
right now the most important thing is this.
padib claims governor, a one shot ability to protect someone from lynch. He says he used it on outlaw.
we want to test this by voting to lynch outlaw.
if padib is telling the truth, then outlaw is alive, and possibly the next person in line, rct is lynched instead.
if padib is lying, outlaw dies, and we confirm that padib is mafia.
the other option is to simply straight out lynch rct, who padib himself has expressed doubts regarding guilt.

Smears. Need input now on whether to test padib or not

2 hours until Night 1 - http://itsalmo.st/#night1

If the vote count is in error, please PM me!

Ah, thank you!

Hmm, if that's the case then we're wasting a lot of digital ink over nothing. If that's the case. That would involve padib still not understanding his power correctly, since he's offering to switch his protection to RCT if someone can change his mind - which he can't, under either his original statement or this new theory. The only way it works is if padib can transfer the protection after firing it off, but that's not how I understood his original declaration at all: do these things come with a trial period or something?

I'm not convinced continued misunderstanding is a viable option: there's just too many opportunities to review the role and make sure it's correctly understood.

I understand that and I am considering everything. This is not an easy descision and I'm not taking it lightly. I have no reason to test the tactic, so far Padib has been the only one that has seemed to be straight with me the whole time. Maybe he is playing me but he hasn't given me much if any reason to think he is lying, if is I'll find out later. I also don't like the idea of voting for outlaw without a concrete reason or the very least a strong case against him. So far the only real reason you guys use to vote for him is the actions of someone else. That just doesn't cut it, it's outlaw's head on the line not padibs. If you want a vote for Padib fine, make that case and I'll consider it. So far all I can do is look at the strongest case available and that is RCT's guilt which despite your previous claims is much more than just inactivity. Right now I am relooking over the cases made for both. I am not going to take Padib's claims into consideration when looking at the claims made of outlaws guilt because they do not and should not have any relavence to it. Outlaws guilt or innocence is the only thing that matters when considering a vote for him and trying to make it about padib when it's not is not a good case and it feels like you don't really care about the vote or for outlaws life. You just care about proving Padib wrong, which is not a good reason to kill someone.