Orlok Tsubodai

From a sense check point of view, I’d note that it doesn’t make a great deal of sense for Devotary, myself, and Steel all to be village (unless there’s a hiding Pinch Hitter) and Devotary and myself were both elim kills.

Doesn’t it imply e!Steel, given we know I was trolled by Aman? Edit: missed your own edit

@Amanuensis, @Araris Valerian, the scan came back that Steel was an SE player.

Can also confirm this.

Going to go with Steel. I haven’t had time to look through the dependencies of others, but know at least that confirming Steel makes his tie guy scan materially more useful. Still asking for a pinch hitter for myself, too, but not holding out hope

To clarify, I wasn’t getting Steel and Striker confused - the bit I missed was Bookwyrm’s scan of Striker, so had thought that we were reliant on Steel having copied Striker’s role as verification that lynchbait worked as Striker suggested. For now, then, JNV

Honestly, I hadn’t even registered that e!Bookwyrm was necessary for e!you. I’m trying to play this whilst still in the middle of work, eleven hours into my working day, with no end in sight. What I actually wanted to do was scan you, because I had thought your alignment was less confirmed in an e!Steel world. I have Bookwyrm’s role this cycle. I will happily move my vote elsewhere if a scan on someone else would unpick a greater number of dependencies. My other thought had been to scan Steel, so as to tell us whether or not his tie guy result can be trusted.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that one of the dependencies on Amanuensis’s own alignment is Steel’s verification of the lynchbait role? I remain somewhat perturbed by Aman immediately withdrawing himself from the tie after I first announced I held the tie guy role for the cycle.

@Amanuensis, from a skim of the thread, I presume I’m good to vote Ashbringer

To clarify, you’re suggesting we add our votes to the trains on the basis that it won’t pollute the results?

@Amanuensis, glad to hear it. For the record, and to set expectations, the second pinch hitter request is from me. Work has become much more intense than expected, and I’m regularly doing 12 hour days and weekends, so just can’t devote meaningful time to the thread with any reliability.

How does this account for worlds where the two new voters (yourself and Steel(?)) are not confirmed villagers? Ideally, we need our voting set to be a subset of those who voted last time, or a superset with the addition of one or two players. Swapping players in risks e.g. losing one eliminator vote from TJ not voting, but bringing one in because you are now voting, and giving us no ability to distinguish between you being an eliminator or the eliminator being one of the the rest of the group.

Can completely relate to Steeldancer. We had a brief period of a more manageable thread, but nearly 20 pages in 48 hours is simply not manageable. I haven’t played in a while, and don’t know whether this is a phenomenon new to this game, or a trend, but do think it’ll split the community if unaddressed. On a happier note, the result I got was that of the eight players involved in the tie, two were Eliminators and six SE players.

My understanding is I get a count of the number of eliminators voting on the players tied in the lead. I think we shouldn’t dilute that pool too heavily. Finding out that there are 2 eliminators voting amidst 12 players isn’t terribly useful. A smaller pool is much more helpful, although possibly not so helpful as reactions to the possibility of being in that pool.

What are we expecting to change that would prevent a tie at rollover? Dannex had a role that gave them the net alignment of all voters involved in a tie, which I now have this cycle.