Devotary of Spontaneity

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

264 Misting


About Devotary of Spontaneity

  • Rank
    Devotary, Devourer of Sheep

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,531 profile views
  1. It technically is possible for there to be a WGG, though that would be the only reason for the elims to have a soldier. Even though the odds of Elkanah going against precedent and not starting the elims in contact with each other is not high, even the possibility of a village priest can help track down those temporarily above suspicion. I've already voted for one person who urged caution in determining whether the elims knew each other though, and I don't know if I want another lynch on the same issue.
  2. Noting my vote on Joe.
  3. How would we figure out whether the lynch trains can be analysed? It seems like that would take at least two dead elims, one as a test case and then another who defended the first to 'prove' connectedness, while disconnectedness gets proven by an elim dying to the sacrifice or lynching someone who caused an elim's death and having them turn up evil. In the first iteration of this game, we had the GM say "Were any players (other than the eliminators) in PM contact with each other in the first two days?", which I'm interpreting as implying that the elims were PMing each other within the first two cycle despite not having a priest. In most games elims won't choose to kill each other, but it's usually technically possible.
  4. The elims did not have a doc the last two times this game was run, but I believe they knew who each other were. Their sacrifice votes, in QF11 at least, seemed too coordinated to be random and they defended each other early on. I think they can communicate in PMs almost as well as a doc until/unless PMs go down. We'll find out who people actually voted for, which should prevent elim hammers. I'm sure there are reasons to have a fake vote; it seems like an easy way for a player to hammer without actually needing to be around at rollover. In most cases keeping with the public vote should be fine.
  5. I'll sign up as Jehen, whose distaste for the cold is overcome only by an irrational hatred of fire.
  6. Well I officially don't know what's going on. Something is happening with Striker for sure, but apparently it's not going to be public knowledge. I guess I'll vote for Rath? Three cycles of failed kills should give enough of a buffer that it's fine to lynch me.
  7. Elkanah is definitely lying about having duplicated lenses three times as Aydee, since Windstormer's lenses and Disguiser's lenses require an action to activate. That doesn't have to mean he's evil though, as false role claims don't necessarily mean guilt. I don't know what it means to claim that the five people on his trusted list all have known roles since that's clearly not true either, unless roles means alignment or lens possession. I have not spent enough time on this game and I'm not entirely sure what's going on outside of the thread. Is there something important to know about Striker saying he scanned Tess? If this happened before she died, why didn't it come up when she was up for the lynch? If it took place cycle 3, why?
  8. Kynedath(1): DeTess Elkanah(1): FeruSky Striker(1): Elkanah DeTess(1): Striker Venture being a villager makes Elkanah less likely to be evil. Chances are reasonable that if Venture claimed Bastille to anyone, he would have let someone(probably CadCom) know that he had done so. Shaper and perhaps tracker could have found out the role, but the odds of targeting Venture C1 aren't terribly high. Striker was a possible Elkanah teammate, but even though one vote is hardly fatal, it happening twice makes that seem seem less likely. Striker could be evil independent of Elkanah. Wanting to remove votes from Venture was not a plan to save a teammate, but I'm not sure a 4-way tied lynch would have actually been helpful as making and breaking ties is not alignment indicative. Kynedath is more of a possibility than last cycle with Venture dead and Elkanah more likely village; a lot of the markings being not indications of evil. I haven't taken the time to look though DeTess's posts pretty much at all, but will hopefully do so before rollover.
  9. Venture (5): DeTess, the god king, Feruchemical Skybreaker, Rath, Devotary Kynedath (3): CadCom, Elkanah, Striker Elkanah (3): Venture, Kynedath, Zillah I don't want to vote for Elkanah, as he's probably only evil with Venture, with Striker as a lesser possibility. I see village!Kynedath does have a precedent of using exclamation points to express gratitude for fortuitous outcomes, so I'm not seeing that as a sign of potential evil anymore. For some reason, an alignment scan that requires everyone to claim feels more coercive than something like asking smokers not to use their abilities to give seekers free reign, but bringing it up as a possibility seems more village. Venture claiming villager in a post that might ring as false regardless of alignment would be a risky move for an elim to make, one that would be more successful if there were other prime targets for a Truthfinder's lens. Not voting for Elkanah at this stage. I think I'll vote for Venture at this point to see what happens.
  10. I, and likely Elandera, would consider this to be a lie, as you're making a claim that you know is not true.
  11. Bastille shouldn't be a Smedry, so the protection wouldn't redirect to her. There would be no reason for CadCom to introduce an elim teammate to the lynch so late in the cycle, so he's cleared. I've seen Elkanah break a tie D1 to lynch an elim teammate. Doing so this game would require either Venture and Striker to be evil and for Elkanah to decide a guaranteed death was better than a 2/3 chance of losing a teammate, so it's not likely. Venture's claim of being a villager could be analysed by a Truthfinder, but it's entirely possible that "He always flies under the radar, like me." or "But he's looking good for a lynch, better than anyone else really. " could show up as lies regardless of alignment. CadCom is blatantly lying in the post where he made his alignment claim, so there would be no point checking that, but I don't see a reason to do so anyway. The Truthfinder's lens should be useful on people who offered opinions on Kidpen. The_God_King's post here seems like it would be true for a villager and a definite lie for an elim. Elkanah hoping Kidpen wasn't a Smedry or Bastille could possibly be investigated, but could be contaminated by his claim that we won't have any evidence until we lynch someone. Other than those I don't have too much. Nobody else tried to save Kidpen, especially in the time in between CadCom and Elkanah's votes. Being overly enthusiastic about someone surviving a kill is always off, but that's not enough to say Kynedath is evil.
  12. @Elandera, do disguiser's lenses still make the user appear as their target for purposes of shaper's lens scans? The current rules don't mention that, so it's likely no longer the case. Shaper's lenses used to be able to identify players with named roles like Alcatraz and Dark Oculator, but again this may have changed. Assuming this is still true, shaper's lenses are definitely a high priority target for Aydee should she exist. Bastille can only redirect to save the Smedries, but it's still worthwhile for her to self-protect, at least for the first few cycles or until she loses her warrior lenses.
  13. I'll sign up as Dr. Sader the Inoculator, a medical professional who is terrified of lenses.
  14. Well, with my last act I will vote for CadCom just for fun. Lieutenant Mauve suffers a timeline-rending death.
  15. There's one, at most two elims who would be around to defend an elim, and there are certainly that many people hesitating on the lynch. I'm not entirely sure who I'm going to vote for. My best lead is if it turns out that stealing doesn't prevent knife roleblocks, which would mean CadCom straight up lied about his C2 action. Other than that, I don't see why Striker expressing support of Sart in PMs before voting on Coda makes it less suspicious.