*reads thread*
*thinks*
OK, it seems to me the following way:
1. PT wants to know what this is all about (reason for the whole thing), and starts questioning Jd- in public.
2. Jd- either misunderstands her or deliberately avoids to give a clear answer, so PT keeps questioning him.
3. Jd- still doesn't give the answer PT wishes, so PT assumes there simply isn't any real answer and therefore accuses Jd- of basically misusing his power.
4. Jd- then start to question PT's intelligence (according to c-square's theory, it might be due to him having made it obvious that he can't give an answer publicly), which infuriates PT even more.
5. C-square intervenes, pointing out the "good points" both made and clarifies PT's point. He also suggests various ways for them to solve their dilemma, and states his theory that there is more to the lottery than it seems, and we should simply trust Jd-.
6. Jd- agrees without any explanation, yet implies that c-square is right, and emphasises c-square's key points as "especially relevant".
7. PT seems to recognize that she worded her request badly (it was, but Jd- might have understood it anyway), and continues to repeat her question.
8. After another intervention from c-square, they resort to PMs, and Jd- puts c-square into place, telling him that he doesn't have the right to threaten him (an possibly PT?) with closing the topic.
According to this, I'd consider c-square's theory very likely. While I watched the whole lottery thing with mistrust and bewilderment before, I think I can now agree with c-square here that trusting Jd- is probably the best option. Which is why I'll go with that
P.S.:
I do not want to restart the old discussion in here, so I'd ask both Jd- and PT to not reply to my post here (though I'd still like for c-sqaure to confirm that I indeed understood him correctly

). Thanks in advance
