I mean.
As it stands.
The situation looks like this: Amihan has a guilty on Aristophanes. This means that between {Amihan, Aristophanes}, there is at least one scum. Fire Starter claims a second guilty on Aristophanes. This means that between {Aristophanes, Fire Starter}, there is at least one scum. Simple arithmetic suggests that two guilties on a player mean that the player in question is actually scum, especially given how hard it has been to lynch Aristophanes.
Heat claims that part of Fire Starter's claim cannot be true, but not immediately: with a delay. This still suggests there's at least one scum between {Firestarter, Heat}. Then the flaws in Heat's claim are pointed out. Heat modifies his claim. The flaws are pointed out in his claim again. Heat modifies his claim. Then, when it's pointed out the impossibility of Fire Starter's role is not actually impossible...once more, Heat modifies his claim, to say "actually, yes it is impossible, I swear this is true even though I made no mention of this before".
So the situation is pretty clearly: Aristophanes with a sketchy claim against
two
guilties...with Heat displaying revisionism in his claimed role...against two players whose claims have been consistent and natural. Furthermore, Aristophanes has failed to prove his role. Heat has failed to prove his role. Fire Starter
has
proven his role. He knew Frozen Angel, yes? He knows BlueTrin, yes? So unless the scumteam is {Frozen Angel, BlueTrin, Fire Starter}, his role must be real...yet if that were the scumteam, then there's still Amihan's guilty left unaccounted for. So if the scumteam is instead {Fire Starter, BlueTrin, Amihan}...how did Fire Starter know Frozen Angel's role?
So again: Fire Starter's role is proven. Aristophanes has not proved his. Heat has not proved his. So this looks, very very strongly, to be an Aristophanes-Heat scumteam.
