In post 2705, Chickadee wrote:AND MASTINA WHY WOULD A PROTECTIVE ROLE CLAIM TO JAVE SAVED SOMEONE WHEN THERE WERE TWO KILLS ALREADY
Because.
Literally answered your own question.
Bulbazak shot Mulch.
There is one unaccounted for kill: Vaxkiller. If we assume that the Vaxkiller kill is the scum's nightkill, then there is a nightkill missing...thus, warranting a claim from them. No such claim has come forward.
I will not assume the presence of a nightkill off of a hypothetical which can be easily proven/disproven with claims. With no missing kill, there would be only one source of kills unaccounted for. Thus. Only one killer. Not a serial killer. Groupscum. Basically, it's a fundamental violation of occam's razor. Lynching SnarkySnowman is lynching a player off of the ASSUMPTION the 3p cop check is correct...and the ASSUMPTION that SnarkySnowman is a serial killer...and the ASSUMPTION that either SnarkySnowman's kill or the mafia's kill failed for whatever reason...off of the ASSUMPTION of something in play preventing the extra deaths. It's a lot of fucking assumptions.
Whereas he's an idea. SnarkySnowman is a 3p with a correct cop check, and not a serial killer. This fits the evidence without requiring large assumptions. SnarkySnowman as a different alignment with the 3p cop check being wrong does require one, but it's not impossible either, yet this is largely irrelevant to the point.
Furthermore. Let's say you do think SnarkySnowman is a serial killer. (In which case lol. You think a sk-Snarky is actually a threat to the town?) Still not fucking groupscum. So still lynching non-town rather than lynching mafia. And lynching mafia is my first and foremost priority. SnarkySnowman is about as conclusively as we can get, proven to not be groupscum. He is therefore the last person we should be fucking lynching.