Yet you have not paraphrased that role message to us, so we've no way of seeing whatver might be afoot here, if Kronin sent you back you role message letter perfect I would take as a given that the answer, or the reason for a lack thereof, is spelled out in black and white, or at least that he considers it such.



It's a fine tactic for skimming through data, and a good way to search for clues, it is not in of itself legitimate grounds for an accusation, not when we are already guaranteed to have an answer when the day ends. If Scott dies town, then it's a no, if he dies scum then we can revisit the issue tomorrow with more evidence.



Then the evidence on me is simply your gut instinct that my post was out of character, regardless of the fact that the most obvious way it is out of character is that it was by necessity very short, and therefore a really bad gauge of intent. Particularly since virtually every game features one or more players having gut suspicion or trust of me and never seeming to remember when they were wrong, which is 'usually'.



And a pretty big chunk of the time we've not lynched someone over low post count or an unsolicited claim they've turned out to be scum, we did that three games in a row with Cor Amon. I am always happy to follow clear and blatant evidence of scum or lying, like, ya know, someone claiming to be the cop when someone else already did and they'd outright disavowed the role, but barring stuff like that I am content to at least ensure that the casualty is as likely to be scum as anyone else and less likely to be a benefit to the town if town then most others, it's a form of triage we've little choice but to practice most early game periods, as the alternative is a no lynch, which is usually a bad idea in of itself but which with this group is tantamount to suicide even to suggest. I'm not burning with a desire to lynch ? but I'll take one definite anti-town action performed by someone who at best has no role power over your vibe on me or even FT's case on Stephen, which is at least totally based on logic and fact... but I'm not sure anyone other than Ft and I are interested in the proof on him anyway because I'm not seeing a lot of people doing as I asked and reviewing the Trial of Socrates for their take on the subject, which is our only logical next step, to review whether or not the case FT has presented is sound and proceed accordingly.





As I said, I'm looking at ? and Gher now, and the most obvious scenario, that ? and Gher as Achilles and Patroclus might be masoned or something, seems impossible and that they wouldn't be connected seems a tad unlikely, and waiting for other people to give me their take on Socrates, if they decide the trial represents a good reason to classify Socrates as against the gods then I will assume I have a pro-Socrates bias pre-dating the game as I said I may have and back FT. Right now the only 2 facts we actually have that are indisputably 'anti-town is 1) ? RC'd, and 2) Gher's been posting less then his norm, neither proves scumminess, but they are at a minimum anti-town, and they do have interlocked characters, so ye sI think they are worth looking at.