A: You have given no reason for us to believe that. Vague claims are not proof.
B: But we don't know if there are any less useful roles. This role is also less useful in general because of your play. It could have been very useful in getting us a free night. I do agree, because of a play by the one trying to damn me, I'm no longer very useful. Do you realize what a self-fufulling prophecy is?
C: WIFOM
D: WIFOM
E: See A
F: This is largely your fault. You don't want the rest of us seeking out information. You won't add any information. However, you "freely" gave out your role without it being asked for. Information from you is a mixed bag, at best. Also, we don't know what half the players do. This is an unfounded, but possibly correct, claim.
G: You mean me constantly defending myself, and you constantly lying?
H: See A

You're right. It's not lying if we draw conclusions from a the same data set. However, you're ignoring the data set, not drawing from it. In at least two games the games, townies have fought back. I should know, I was one of them. This is a fact. In one game, we could have not had a cop. This is a fact. Would you like me to go on? Cherry picking isn't looking at the entire data set.

And I'd want to show you as the liar you are, without regard to my alignment. Following a liar is a dangerous path.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------

As an addition, I'm actually somewhat useful. I'm a free night, the equivalent of a roleblocker hitting the correct target. Something a Roleblocker will have a problem with, because What won't share his theories, I might add.