You think it's fine that a one-shot cop didn't bother RC-coding and for some reason proposed a Hypocop table that would leave confusion and chaos in its wake if he did die unclaimed? If people are going to insist that the HC made sense for him to propose why on Earth do you stick to that when the presumed advantage could only have resulted in trouble. Let's say he didn't claim today and died, and we look at his HC and his alleged role, we wouldn't know what to do, and he didn't do the sort of clever 'oops' that would have helped us afterward to be sure he'd copped rather than something else, like 'I copped Isaac guilty' as a slight but unnoteworthy break of formula that tomorrow on death we'd be all like 'ah-ha!, he was clearly trying to make it obvious that he used his cop ability on night 1, not a different one!' You gonna give him a pass on that one too? He thought enough about the idea of transmitting information in death but not very obvious problem of us not knowing if he copped or vig'd or tracked or what? In a game by FT, who is notoriously slim on posthumous messages? Heck, Yuna's very recent PM doesn't even say her abilities, just that she was an assassin, no 'once per night' or 'immune to this' [and you can bet she was immune to zerg-ing] or even by default 'was a serial killer' so it's not like FT's habit of going lite on role details on death was a distant memory.

Come on beet, I'm not holding up a Platonic Ideal, he's got every scummer hedge and/or anti-town mistake on the list up there. Are you seriously telling me you'd have made that many errors in his place? I don't mind be lynched and losing, it happens, true or false, but when this is over I don't want to hear anyone being all like 'Oh, well it made sense for us to do it, it was an excellent frame.' because its not. The accusation leaks like a canoe someone just unloaded a magazine into. You're projecting all the bizarreness of this situation on to me, but how could I have even caused any of it?

Seriously? Where could I have gotten my fingers in to make this one happen. This should be a straightforward accusation, "I am a one-shot trick bag, here's my coded RC verifying that, I copped Isaac as a Zerg last night'. And my only defense then would be 'well, he could have been just that and got converted last night.' which ain't bad but won't float. I didn't 'trick' Stephen into doing something incredibly scummy like not coding his RC. I outright prodded people yesterday to do that. Stephen's a very experienced player, what's really easier to believe? That he made a series of mistakes when he had truth and time on his side to get it right and would have been worried about verifying himself, or that he made various errors, some unavoidable, in the process of a plot? You know people acting outside our normal procedures tend to over-think stuff while overlooking glaring mistakes, alternatively we have practically made a science of how townies should behave on penalty of lynch. Being suspicious, we say, is anti-town, take every reasonable step to minimize that so we don't mislynch, when we lynch you wrongly, it was your mistake not ours. That's how we operate and Stephen's been here for all of that all the way back to game 1... and I can't think of a time he's done that before.

If this situation is murky, and I can't have made it so, then someone did unless you want to chalk it up to chance or pure mistakes. Ar eoyu honestly telling me this smells right to you?