He doesn't have anything nor did he say he did - he was just responding to SL's comments that I was wasting the phase (deflection from a teammate).

What I had on you last Night is that you were unfindable. Not that I failed but that you are unfindable. (Ergo the "ghost" bit seeming a fun way to approach that). That struck me as an untrackable Killer for a faction or, maybe, even a connection to the one whom I can warn people about as I've done.

Because the mod was wanting albums, not "money compilations".

Well, you didn't target me. I didn't fail at my action so I wasn't Jked, and there is nothing in my role that says I am untargetable.

"Best Ofs" are still albums.

So what do you have on rokk? Anything or is this just some retaliation vote for SL?

I didn't say "untargetable" I said "unfindable". Two very different things.

There is nothign in my role that says I am unfindable. I don't know why you couldn't find me, but whatever happened, you did not target me. You must have been misdirected or I was busdriven to someone else.

I find the thought of ANYONE being unfindable by our cop....

I have nothing on him. And I love how Rokk just now comes forward with his odd result on MSU.

Explain to me how a cop successfully targets someone's alignment as "Unfindable?" If you couldn't find him, you'd have failed.

remove vote

time to go thread diving....

rokk said he warns people of things in addition to copping. it seems like "unfindable" is just something to describe the person/album.

Fame Monster does not fit with "Unfindable" at all.

How do you know you didn't fail? Did you get a result, or are you just assuming?

As a RBer, Immortal was blocked, I targeted him, hence I believe I didn't fail.

Unless Immortal is lying.

And I didn't get any notification that I had failed in my targeting the last two nights...if I had failed, I would have assumed I would have gotten a notice..

Front page says you won't get a failed notification unless you were supposed to get a result. And I jailkept you last night, which would explain Rokk's result.