Honestly, crackrat’s single real post thus far does not leave me brimming with confidence either:
This was three days ago, so again it’s a promise of participation that’s not followed through on. There’s a fair amount of other verbiage in the post, but it doesn’t amount to much.
Heck with it,
vote: CrackRat.
If I find three people who are actually posting and are worth voting for, either CrackRat or DrainBead will probably be dropped, but for now I’ll keep it.
NAF’s role is not much obvious use to the town except in the event that the scum get control of the brig at some point late enough in the game to do some serious damage with it. At that point a town Cracker could come in handy. But that’s a long way off; I can’t think of any immediate incentive for them to kill him now.
I don’t know why NAF bothered to claim. Looking at him next.
That makes sense, thank you.
Off to wake up the wife, shit the dogs, and make dinner - back in a few hours to see where we’re at.
Really, I don’t see how one can make up being a Hacker if they’re not really that role. All I’d have to do to confirm it is change someone (or my own) position, which I could easily do. So now that I’ve claimed, I think the question “Am I really a Hacker?”, anymore, but rather “Am I a loyal or mutinous Hacker?”
Course, I know the answer to that is Loyal, but from an outside POV, that’s probably the question.
NETA: I forgot an “isn’t” in the post above.
“I think the question isn’t ‘Am I really a Hacker?’, anymore…”
Both of you have claimed one-shot powers, so verification isn’t entirely trivial to request. More to point, as you say, it says nothing of your alignment.
To fill out my own votes for now (in order of suspicion):
**
Vote Inner Stickler
Vote Idle Thoughts**
Vote Hal Briston, for random voting and letting them stand so far)
Vote peekercpa, for letting his joke/test votes stand when he made a serious vote for idle.
Bookmarks:
037: Day One 169: vote count 197: vote count 253: vote count
Claims:
214: NAF claims Cracker
257: Idle Thoughts claims Hacker
Rules
Rules clarification: All Night actions could be detected by the engineer; no penalty for strategy at Night (Doctor can post results); Can perform multiple actions at Night (for example scum Commissar could kill twice in the same Night).
Rules clarification: Being killed does not block actions; tied lynch that cannot be resolved by rank is a no lynch (only possible if everyone votes for the tied players I think)
Rules clarification: Whomever Doctor at Dusk gets the result; One action per office per Day; Promote/Brig change ranks immediately; Brig blocks actions and votes, but not incoming actions and kills.
NAF:
Some responses? ><
Previous to this NAF challenged Idle on a minor point and was satisfied; afterwards is only his claim.
I don’t think I’m going to vote for him today. He made what is to my perception a completely lunatic and pointless play for a town player. (Does it have potential scum motivations? Sure, really stinkin’ obvious ones, at that.) Surely NAF is good enough playing scum to know his return from a baffling unprovoked claim was as likely to be a lynch as to have any potential scum-friendly outcome. Lunatic and pointless doesn’t usually come from the mafia. The risk of setting off something uncontrollable is too high.
That said, note the “usually”. I would like to see NAF posting a LOT more than he is so far, because I think he knows quite well that doing so is a bit tough for him as scum, and I’d like to see what he has to say.
Arg, that last rules clarification should read:
Brig blocks actions, votes and incoming kills but not other incoming actions.
So, mind telling me why you’re still suspicious of me in light of my claim, Natlaw? What, you think I’m a disloyal Hacker?
Surely you think a Hacker is a pretty useful role for Town to have, if I’m telling the truth?
<snipped and bleached and bolding mine>
does this help?
and you are right, i am wrong. two of your votes are because you didn’t read the rules not just one. not sure that helps much, however.
hypothetical defendent: your honor i did not kill bob. i killed bob and harry.
I don’t see how your claim effects my suspicion at all? As you said scum can be a Hacker as well.
It might chance my vote later “to save a power role” (especially if you end up tied with IS or someone else who I find more suspicious at that point) but that reasoning is also why a scum would (fake) claim hacker.
Perhaps you can expand on why an unprovoked claim of being Loyal (the implicit claim everyone makes) is more scummy than an unprokoved Loyal Cracker claim. If it is just the timing, how so?
this post and subsequent follow up really twing me.
unvote normal phase, hal briston and drain bead
vote inner stickler
if i am going to vote for someone hopefully it’s based more than just an experiment with fred the dancing bear.
vote hal briston
he made his “joke” vote, popped in for a second and then has promptly disappeared.
maybe there was something freudian about his analysis of one of the officers being scum.
vote peek
placeholder so we can see where we are at the next time a vote count rolls around.
and maybe this is a question more appropriately addressed to our mod but …
what happens if we decide to lynch an officer? would the original doc get the result or would the next in line get the result?
I read the rules. I have already said this.
I’m voting for you for voting for people not in the game and seeming to, for some reason, be sneaky so you don’t have to make a fourth vote. Twice you tried to vote for someone not in the game. That is what I’m voting for you for (the bolded part). Which, on Day One, is as good of a reason as any.
So. 1. You’re the wrong one here.
2. As I’ve already said, I’ve read the rules.
I’m back. I apologize for my lack of participation thus far. I was at a conference for the weekend, and have been recovering from the red-eye flight.
You wanted more participation, here we go. At this point, shouldn’t our top priority be to check the people near the top of the list, rather than the bottom? Taking Naf’s power claim as true, it’s useless until tomorrow, and if he uses it without a REALLY good justification, then we lynch him for major scummy behavior. If he’s not scum, then he’s not likely to undermine the work of both the Captain and the Security officer. If he is scum, then yes, it’d be great to lynch him, but I don’t see how examining him is better choice than checking out the people near the top of the list, both the officers and those likely to rise into the officer ranks after a nightkill of a power.
I’d think the captain and security officer are the probably lowest on the officer list, since they’d have to both be scum to start brigging town intentionally, and even then, that would raise questions pretty fast. I’m betting that will be pretty tricky, even if, as Hal Briston pointed out, one of the officers is already likely to be scum. They’d have to get scum to both XO and engineering, and then kill the captain to do it. And they’re vulnerable to a suspicious hacker who could destroy this delicate balance. Granted, scum will want to be in as many of the officer roles as they can, but these two roles, with their requirement to work in tandem and the fragility of setting it up, are the least prone to abuse.
I think the doctor, engineer, and XO, in that order, would be the priorities to confirm. Of course we can’t completely trust the doctor until he’s been inspected by someone we trust, but I suppose we’ll have to take the info with a grain of salt and rely on scum not wanting to out themselves by claiming that a townie is scum and getting lynched the next day. It seems to me that, at least for now, forcing a mislynch is less useful for scum than remaining hidden.
Therefore I think your suggestion that Naf is “just as good a target as anyone else” is not just wrong, but obviously so.
Vote Inner Stickler
:dubious:
So you’re willing to lynch a (in my personal and possible biased opinion) good Town Power role, because there’s the chance the claim could be a scummy one?
In that case, in the future, whenever someone claims, I’ll look forward to your voting for them, just on the chance they could really be the “scummy” version of it rather than the “Loyal” version.
You came out and said you were Loyal (with it underlined) like it was supposed to mean something to us. You obviously were acting like you didn’t know (or didn’t catch) that the role PM was in the OP. If you did know, why did you post it like you did? If you didn’t know, then who’s not reading the rules now, Natlaw?