No, not Kronin's style, I've exchanged a lot of role-based NB's with Kronin, literally dozens, and his answers when modding are either very clear, or very clearly unclear, in fact he typically answered "RAFO" if he couldn't say outright. Along with many, many conversations about how various RB/NK scenarios go down, it happens to be our longest running conversation going on for over two years now, and FT and Fox can testify to that, so could Yuna or Fist if they were around. Kronin won't tell you if you're a sane cop or not, something I can also testify to personally, but he always fills in answers very unambiguously

Seriously, have a third party test that, ask Kronin a hypothetical, "is a guard role subject to RB?"

My bet is he'd say no, that it's passive action and can't be blocked, but he'll answer, and he'd tell you too because it's game based info, like whether or not doccing a princess or the guard would save their lives if the NK came down on one of them. You see, that's vital info right? Does a guard absorb a NK if it's aimed at the princess and she dies, or if the doc's aimed at him and she's NK'd? Potential major game impact, Kronin's very familiar with these lines of reasoning because I bounce them off him regularly so I consider there to be about zero chance he'd not think of them, and that having done so he wouldn't tell you if it was a player or NPC. So I have a lot of difficulty believing this.



Even given that, your guard has little reason not to come forward and confirm your story to the town, thus def-towning you and giving him some creds too, beyond the obvious, that player would have enormous reason to want you to stay alive and not be lynched, the only reason they wouldn't speak up is if they were a scummer, and these kind of 'lovers' or 'siblings' style roles are pretty common to give scum too.



Earlier toDay it was 'bad girls', I think you have some Apophenia in play here, FT makes a decent case on Socrates, but it's not only unrelated to the other two but actually counter-indicated for Plato, and my case on Scott didn't even involve his character, just him.



Can't help but point out that much like it's improbable the philosophers and I can all be scum, since I started the ball on Scott anyway, rana's demanding a RC on Stephen isn't a great sign they are scum or mason kin, especially the latter, and I really doubt rana would casually bus right now since he's acquired a rep for doing it of late so it's not likely to profit him much.



Can you say "False Dichotomy"?

You go on to point out my attacks on DK... which all casually ignore that I asked her only two short questions then unvoted, over a period of about six hours, during the morning of a weekday, when I was RBIRL and typing one handed, one fingered mostly, so six hours is even shorter relatively speaking then normal. Further, you ignore that my initial response to her claim was incredulity, that I signed on to vote with FT but specifically warned no one to hammer until she spoke up, weird way to bandwagon someone that, dontcha think? Oh, and there's my long record of grilling people, I don't normally hand people lemonade when sweating them. Plus, we only got to her RC because you were pushing a hypothesis that was wrong and way less logical than me being initially skeptical on her replacement claim, during which I seem to recall I was the one primarily defending her, pre and post Character claim - unsurprising considering I also have a 'jerk' for a character I suppose - so that's a strange sewries of motives you're ascribing to me when the obvious one is "Was surprised by the claim, and distrustful of replacement claims of doc right after Fox did exactly the same thing last game and we just finished discussing it, and demanded some answers before unvoting." I'd submit that my behavior, again, was both entirely logical and entirely in character.



You miss a piece there, I did not say I do it as a DF, I said I do it a lot, and I do, as town or scum, and outside of game. I use a lot of rhetorical techniques, though more I think I'm just consciously aware I'm doing them and know what they are called. Pick a random post of decent length by any player and I can point out various logical fallacies or other rhetorical techniques they are using.



Which would make more sense if my four post on the matter between her RC and my unvote weren't 1) a short incredulous "Cop???", 2) A support of FT's vote for her backed by a request nobody hammer until she'd spoken up about it [weird to do if I was scum and knew she was telling the truth right?], 3) A flat rejection of her mistake being a mistake because it was such an obvious move [which we'd been discussing in detail right before that and which was done identically last game], and 4) A very obvious folow-up demanding to know who she'd protected, on the grounds they might be able to verify. This seems very logical to me, and I make no apologies for doing it, IMO doing otherwise would be lazy and anti-town. It would also make more sense if I wasn't the one who casually waved aside her character's 'bad behavior' as irrelevant when she CC'd, and opposed your bad girls hypothesis, even though if I were scum and you were both town I should have jumped at the chance... all very much at odds with your idea on this.



Sometimes, but not when modding, he's very serious and sober about it in my experience, and does not dangle things around to be mysterious or get kicks.



It's not a lead, it's probably just a coincidence, it stands out, as I've said, I saw it too, Apohenia in action I suppose, our scum could be "All from Athens" or something like that too, there probably is some pattern to it but there are going to be lots of patterns and most will be meaningless. It's not evidence until there actually something besides "Look, we have three philosophers in the game", I think we have three people who went and saw the oracle of delphi, maybe they're guilty.



Accusation by repetition, you've not explained how me being dubious immediately after a claim change is suspicious, you just keep saying it is



Again, false dichotomy, there's plenty of other options. You've still not explained away satisfactorily your earlier comments about how you thought DK might claim your character, for instance, ? is still suspicious for the very anti-town act of RCing vanilla, Gher's been bizarrely quiet, Hobo hasn't lit any flares but then he never does.



I didn't say you should trust him, but suspecting someone on the grounds that they are good at deception is futile, something's only legitimately suspicious if 1) Is abnormal for the player and 2) is an action which would benefit him/her if they were scum. Nobody's suspicious just for acting like they always do, or even for acting abnormally unless there's a rationale for it, for instance, Rana's been fairly quiet this game, but he's never hesitated when scum to act aggressively and post frequently, so while he may well be scum, in his case that increase in inactivity [condition #1] applies but #2 doesn't. I of all people am certainly not going to start voting for people just because they've shown they've a knack for being scum.