results?
results from what?
tracks?
on night 2 I tracked wisp, wisp visited starv.
gtacc claims that on night 3 he tracked key, who died.
he also claimed that screen visited key night 1
Okay wait a second⊠thinking⊠Why would scum screen doctor key night 1 when mafia actually killed dusk night 1? If mafia only had 1 faith healer, they would always doc the person they are trying to night kill.
does this confirm right away that the other doc is scum or that gtacc is lying? (or maybe even both)
UNVOTE
not sure why gtacc lies about that in an open setup, but his whole circumstance is kinda iffy rn.
Not necessarily. They would not risk using the Faith Healer on the NK unless they had some certainty that the (assuming) Town Doc was also going to land there. Otherwise, theyâre just blocking their own NK.
If they have both Faith Healers, then they might use them as a distraction, but never on the player targeted for the NK.
(No point on risking getting tracked to the NK)
Just cause ds asked for it directly doesnât mean dan isnât asking for it as well. 
sorry ive been busy, can someone point to why you two are voting hannah?
Rule 1. If Gtacc is town, then doctor HAS to be town. [This is because mafia didnât kill gtac night 3 after he outted himself as tracker day 3. The only reason they wouldnât kill town gtacc is fear of town doctor.]
Rule 2. If doctor is scum, gtacc HAS to be scum. [This is because if the doctor is scum, there was no reason that a scum kill on town gtacc would be blocked, meaning gtac is scum.
Rule 3. Both gtacc and the doctor cannot be town. [This is because gtacc claimed first doctor screen visited key night 1. However, duskfall died night 1. If mafia had only 1 doctor, they would always doctor the person they are killing to block the townâs doctor. Therefore screen SHOULD have docâd dusk. This means either scum didnât have to worry about the town doctor because they had both doctors, or that gtacc lied about his result because heâs scum. In one case, the second doctor is town but gtacc is scum, in the other case the second doctor is scum but gtacc is town. Or the third case, they are both scum. But they cannot be both town.]
Transitives and other notes between the rules: still mapping this out, checking my logic. But Rule 1 and Rule 3 are sort of conflicting with each other. Not like one rule is right and the other is wrong. Both rules are correct rules. Itâs just that⊠If both gtacc and doctor wisp canât be town because of rule three, then the scenario from rule 1 canât be true obviously.
Like does this mean both are confirmed scum? idk, need more time to map this out, sorry, give me a moment but Iâm excited and posting this much now.
1 Like
Okay, so before all of the rules there were these possibilities:
1.Gtac is town, doctor is town.
2. Gtac is scum, doctor is scum.
3. Gtac is scum, doctor is town.
4. Gtac is town, doctor is scum.
Rule 3 invalidates the first option. Rule 1 invalidates the 4th option. This leaves us with options 2 and 3. Both of these options satisfy all of rules 1, 2, and 3.
However, youâll notice that gtacc is confirmed scum on both options. And my plan (already explained/laid out in detail earlier) will see in the doctor is scum; If I die, the doctor didnât save me and is scum.
But yeah uh gtacc is confirmed scum. Letâs lynch him. @Andresvmb @StarV @ErikaFurudo @Hannahh
VOTE: Gtacc
I donât agree with all the assumptions you have laid out.
They are fairly irrefutable based on conflicting stuff in gtaccâs claims unless mafia purposely made bad plays.
Like this. I think Scum might be more interesting in targeting both players that they deem to be a threat above what potential role they might have, though Iâm sure role is a consideration. I donât know that GTacc putting himself out there as tracker necessarily outweighs the other considerations, in that Key for instance was clearly a threat to Scum.
1 Like
I also strongly disagree with this and already explained why.
Like these assumptions are clearly faulty. Youâre trying to lead to a certainty with flimsy assumptions that cannot be relied on. So no, Iâm not going to simply ignore my strong read on Hannahh over this.