Mid-range Game 11: Paradise Lost

[TheSilverDragon]

I do have a few possibly incendiary (see what I did there?) thoughts on the codes. Personally, I think a lot of the fun of the code mechanic is sucked out if we do something like a few players have done; make a paragraph with 28 different words. The actual idea behind the mechanic is to inject fun, if you will, so this paragraph to completely obscure the word really takes a large portion of the fun out of the mechanic for me. If everyone did that, nobody would ever guess a code word, and the mechanic would be entirely ruined.

 

With that said, guess who happens have the most at stake, with the possibility of losing Aviar? Eliminators. With that in mind, and considering the commentary you guys have said, I'm voting for theSilverDragon, as the first to try to skip around the code requirement by deliberately confusing his words.

Ok, I see your point. I guess I got a life carried away, but in my defence it was fun.

Anyways, even though you make a good point, trying to "skip around" the code words didn't immediately makes me an eliminator, other people have very good reason to be protictve of their code words.

[Water]

I suppose that means no Eliminator kills?

 

Also, since someone called me on my vote for theSilverDragon...Eliminators are more likely to have it hammered into them that they need to keep their Aviar, in a sense. If the village loses their Aviar, the game will move on, but if the Eliminators lose their Aviar, they're basically shot in the back, because they lose most of their really useful abilities for rigging votes and such. So I think, at the moment, that Eliminators will be more obsessive about keeping their Aviar. On the other hand, I wasn't really suspicious of theSilverDragon. Really, I just wanted to place a vote on someone because everyone said "We need to lynch someone C1."

 

...and as I predicted, we did not lynch an Eliminator.

I do not at present have any Aviar. Curious to know if anyone else does; what the actual number of Aviar in play is.

[Paranoid King]

Both eliminators and villagers are people. Eliminators want to hold onto their aviar so that they can be violent to the village. Villagers want to hold onto their aviar because they don't know who else they can trust. Both of them want to hold onto their aviar, because they like to take actions. I don't see much difference between villagers and eliminators in that respect.

No, we didn't lynch an eliminator, but we can look at the tally and say, "Hey. Phatterner was a villager. That means that there will likely be a higher concentration of eliminators in the people who lynched him. PK, Arraenae, Mailliw, and... not Elbereth. According to my tally, Elbereth was moved to Phatterner." So you look at those three people to see if they do any more eliminator-y stuff. Even though we didn't lynch an eliminator, the info we got from it outweighed the villager death.

edit: thanks, clanky

Edited February 2, 2016 by Paranoid King

[Clanky]

@PK it was Elbereth not Elkanah who was moved. Anyone wanna claim the? 

 

Also PK now has at least one Aviar from that lynch. So he gains more from it than anyone, Shouldn't you be the one most likely to be an eliminator then PK? Do you want to tell us what Aviar you got from Phatt?

 

Still often lynches don't necessarily have an elminator as part of it. I know that you can easily say that "Oh we lynched a good guy, let's take a look at who voted for them since they helped kill a villager". I find that it is just too easy to get caught up in stuff like that and ignore the possibility that no eliminators were involved.

[Arrae]

 

No, we didn't lynch an eliminator, but we can look at the tally and say, "Hey. Phatterner was a villager. That means that there will likely be a higher concentration of eliminators in the people who lynched him. PK, Arraenae, Mailliw, and... not Elkanah. According to my tally, Elkanah was moved to Phatterner." So you look at those three people to see if they do any more eliminator-y stuff. Even though we didn't lynch a villager, the info we got from it outweighed the villager death.

I voted for Phatt because I agreed with your reasoning that D1 lynches are for discussion, not because we actually think that a certain person is an eliminator. Also, it seemed out of character for Phatt from what I've seen of his playstyle.

 

Water, I'm not sure why, but I have some gut suspicion of you. I feel like you know a lot about how the eliminators feel about their Aviar -- is this because you are one?

[Paranoid King]

Also PK now has at least one Aviar from that lynch. So he gains more from it than anyone, Shouldn't you be the one most likely to be an eliminator then PK? Do you want to tell us what Aviar you got from Phatt?

 

Still often lynches don't necessarily have an elminator as part of it. I know that you can easily say that "Oh we lynched a good guy, let's take a look at who voted for them since they helped kill a villager". I find that it is just too easy to get caught up in stuff like that and ignore the possibility that no eliminators were involved.

What do people think? Is it a good idea for me to reveal the avian I got from phatterner? If so, I can use it to confirm with others that I got that one.

 

True. You'll notice that I said that the villager lynched is more likely to have an eliminator in their numbers. I have a different suspicion, but I'll probably wait till later in the cycle to see what they do first.

 

edit: I suppose that's as good a reason as any, Arraenae. Phatterner was acting incredibly suspicious. I was mostly explaining the C1 lynch to water as a general example, not as this cycle in particular.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Paranoid King

[Hellscythe]

What do people think? Is it a good idea for me to reveal the avian I got from phatterner? If so, I can use it to confirm with others that I got that one.

 

True. You'll notice that I said that the villager lynched is more likely to have an eliminator in their numbers. I have a different suspicion, but I'll probably wait till later in the cycle to see what they do first.

 

edit: I suppose that's as good a reason as any, Arraenae. Phatterner was acting incredibly suspicious. I was mostly explaining the C1 lynch to water as a general example, not as this cycle in particular.

 

PK I've noticed you put PhatteRNer all three times you've mentioned his name, including the vote. I just want you to know that his name is Phattemer with an M.

 

insert obligatory ostentatious white text

Also, since someone called me on my vote for theSilverDragon...Eliminators are more likely to have it hammered into them that they need to keep their Aviar, in a sense. If the village loses their Aviar, the game will move on, but if the Eliminators lose their Aviar, they're basically shot in the back, because they lose most of their really useful abilities for rigging votes and such. So I think, at the moment, that Eliminators will be more obsessive about keeping their Aviar. 

I agree with Arraenae's read on Water specifically because of the parts that I bolded in Water's post.

 

 On the other hand, I wasn't really suspicious of theSilverDragon. Really, I just wanted to place a vote on someone because everyone said "We need to lynch someone C1."

This adds the final touch to give me enough suspicion to vote for Water. It's contradictory and voting for someone when you don't actually suspect them just because everyone said so sounds like what an indecisive eliminator would do. Just go with the flow. Like Water.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Hellscythe

[Mailliw73]

Whichever of you stole my Aviar, thanks!!

[Amanuensis]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that literally no one but Water has mentioned the fact that there was not an eliminator kill in this cycle's write up? In my opinion that seems like it should be discussed rather than danced around. I don't know if I should count him mentioning it as a point in his favor or as a strike against him quite yet - as I too have taken note of his behavior but due to this being his first game my first reaction was to give him the benefit of a doubt - but either way I think we need to discuss why that might not have happened.

 

Reason One: No eliminators active to make the kill (or forgot). Conclusion: Unlikely.

 

After a quick scan of the previous cycle, I noticed that every single player posted apart from polkinghornbd, so I doubt activity was an issue here. It's possible that existential circumstances prevented every member of their team from being able to get online and enter an order, but probability dictates at least one would have been active enough to realize that they could not count on their teammates that cycle and therefore take the initiative in selecting a target to kill. Generally, players keep signing up for these games because they want the opportunity to be an eliminator, so I doubt that each player selected would not care enough to let killing slip their mind. Not ruling this possibility out entirely, I just doubt this is what happened.

 

Reason Two: Eliminators attacked a player who was protected by Death Sight or Hidden. Conclusion: Possible?

 

I ask possible because I'm not entirely sure how these two protections work. @Twei / Eol: If a player is attacked while protected by Death Sight or Hidden, is it mentioned in the write up? Also do they receive a PM from the GM informing them that there was an attempt on their life? I'm guessing that since the Death Sight ability is precognitive in nature (similar to Voidbringer in LG15) that it would not be included, and that the same would be true for the Hidden role since it's essentially like the Explorer in MR10 where because of you actively using your ability you cannot be found by your pursuer and thus there is no conflict to speak of.

 

Reason Three: Eliminators intentionally did not attack anyone. Conclusion: Also Possible.

 

It's also possible the Traders decided to not attack anyone to confuse us. Once my above questions are clarified, then we can also consider that they may have just held back from attacking so that they could have one of their players claim to be attacked with the Hidden role or a Death Sight Aviar to gain the village's trust. Essentially a WGG, only without the write up to verify it, making it a bit more dangerous because then they could imply having a protective role if they actually don't.

 

 

If anyone else has any other ideas or sees any connections I might have missed, please speak up, because honestly I think figuring this out would tell us a lot more information than grasping at straws to accuse one another.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Adavantos

[Paranoid King]

No reason to wait to explain my suspicions, I guess. I imagine the eliminators didn't make their kill because someone was inactive. Polking didn't post at all last cycle, and was last on 17thshard on January 28. He seems like a sure candidate for an eliminator.

Nothing here

Water is doing suspicious things, but I'll give him a bit of leniency because it's his first game.

 

edit: ninja'd by Adavantos.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Paranoid King

[luckat]

So I guess I’ll go through what happened in the writeup. There’s two main things: the lynch and the kill (or lack thereof).

Vote tally at end of cycle
Phatt (3): PK, Arraenae, Maill
Ada (1): Stink
Maill (2): Luckat, Lopen
Shallan (2): Clanky, Elkanah
SilverDragon (2): Shallan, Water
Kynedath (2): Elbereth, Ada

Vote tally in writeup
Phattemer (4): Paranoid King, Arraenae, Mailliw73, Elbereth
Adavantos (1): IrulelikeSTINK
Mailliw73 (2): luckat, TheMightyLopen
Shallan (2): Elkanah, Clanky
TheSilverDragon (2): Shallan, Water

So, Elbereth’s vote was changed from Kynedath to Phatt, and Ada’s vote on Kynedath was removed.

I believe the only way for a vote to be changed is with the Influential role. It is interesting that someone would choose to use one of their limited uses on this vote. That implies to me that whoever had that role was in danger or the Traders thought it was worth it to either confuse us or protect one of their own.

Ada’s vote could have been removed either by him using the Hidden role, or someone else targeting him with a Mind Force Aviar. Ada could tell us whether he was Hidden or not. It is interesting that he chose to vote if he did use the Hidden power.


And Ada got to mentioning the lack of a kill while I was typing this, so I’ll try to be brief.

There is actually a fourth possibility: The target of the attack or the attacker was targeted by Mind Force.

I’ve kind of been thinking it is likely Death Sight would be in the writeup since it is typical protection. It’s precognitive, but it sounds more like they are forewarned of the attack and can counter it/escape quickly than that they avoid it in the first place since it says they can survive one attack. I could be wrong about that though. On the other hand, I suspect Mind Force (and Hidden) wouldn’t be in the writeup (with the exception of vanished votes) because the actions themselves are prevented. Clarification on how these show up in the writeups from Twei/Eol would be much appreciated.

I think the simplest explanation for the lack of the kill is that Ada was the target or attacker and the attack was stopped with Hidden or Mind Force. However, if the attack was stopped by Hidden or Mind Force it could be anyone who didn’t vote that was the target or attacker (Kynedath, SilverDragon, HS, Polking, or Ripple). It is reasonable to suspect the Traders tried to kill Ada (or it was a WGG) since it seems he is often the target of early attacks. However, the other possibilities should still be discussed, especially if there is evidence for any of them.

[Amanuensis]

No reason to wait to explain my suspicions, I guess. I imagine the eliminators didn't make their kill because someone was inactive. Polking didn't post at all last cycle, and was last on 17thshard on January 28. He seems like a sure candidate for an eliminator.

Nothing here

Water is doing suspicious things, but I'll give him a bit of leniency because it's his first game.

 

edit: ninja'd by Adavantos.

 

Paranoid King.

 

We have a total of 18 players this game. Eliminator teams tend to include between a fifth of the game's total population (3.6) or a fourth (4.5). For that I reason there are four Traders. While it's certainly possible that one of them is the one inactive player among us, that still leaves three active players who had the opportunity to put in a kill order. I would be more inclined to believe that if no kill attempt was made it was either because the other three Traders could not access the forums when it mattered the most (within the last 12-24 hours of the cycle) or because they purposely wanted to make inactive / less active players look bad to mislead us when in actuality they are among the most active of us all.

 

If you're going to argue that polking should be lynched for inactivity, that's one thing. The Contribution Crusade does have some merit, even if I do not support it. However the reasoning you just provided literally makes no sense when it comes to probability and statistics. We both know that you like to use math to determine a scenario's likelihood. Why are you disregarding mathematics now?

 

Polkinghornbd is not a sure candidate for being a Trader when the last time he was on the forums was before the game had even started and PMs were sent out. If anything, I would find it more suspicious if he had shown up to the forums after and still said nothing, as last time he was evil (MR10) he didn't post once until the very last cycle, despite being active enough to read the thread and send in orders.

 

Also, how does one get ninja'd with an 11 minute difference when you only typed four sentences? o.O

 

EDIT: Ninja'd by luckat

 

EDIT2: I understand the Mind Force explanation now. I had skimmed over it, assuming it was just a Soother role. I should know better than to neglect the rules =\. Also, new quick links in signature incoming.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Adavantos

[STINK]

I think that Paranoid King is just, ya know, being paranoid. 

 

It is interesting to see Ada jump on him so hard though.

[Arrae]

I think the simplest explanation for the lack of the kill is that Ada was the target or attacker and the attack was stopped with Hidden or Mind Force. However, if the attack was stopped by Hidden or Mind Force it could be anyone who didn’t vote that was the target or attacker (Kynedath, SilverDragon, HS, Polking, or Ripple). It is reasonable to suspect the Traders tried to kill Ada (or it was a WGG) since it seems he is often the target of early attacks. However, the other possibilities should still be discussed, especially if there is evidence for any of them.

Why do you think Ada was the target or attacker?

[Amanuensis]

I think that Paranoid King is just, ya know, being paranoid. 

 

It is interesting to see Ada jump on him so hard though.

 

Paranoid about a player who hasn't been online since the start of the game? Personally I'm paranoid about the players who are actively participating as they have the potential to do the most damage. Not only was PK the one who initiated the lynch on phatt, but now he's acting out of character and jumping on the smallest threat - if polking even is one at all - with no reasonable evidence.

 

Also I "jumped" on PK in a similar fashion in MR10, and even went so far to attack Orlok C1 in QF11 for the exact same thing that PK is doing now. Acting out of character and misleading the village. Granted I was an eliminator in that first example and a Serial Killer in the second, but still. I tend to do things like this early on, when all I have is my gut, inconsistencies and a few facts to work with

 

Also, what about my responce to him was hard? Like with Kynedath in C1, he said something I didn't agree with / understand so I voted for him to instigate a response. Though I was unable to get on until late last cycle for my previous vote to impact the discussion, sadly.

 

Why do you think Ada was the target or attacker?

 

I think because I tend to be attacked by eliminators early, because my vote was removed which means I either hid myself or was Mind Forced, and because there was no eliminator attack in the write up. @Twei/Eol: If someone is targeted by Mind Force, are they informed in their GM PM?

Edited February 1, 2016 by Adavantos

[Paranoid King]

We have a total of 18 players this game. Eliminator teams tend to include between a fifth of the game's total population (3.6) or a fourth (4.5). For that I reason there are four Traders. While it's certainly possible that one of them is the one inactive player among us, that still leaves three active players who had the opportunity to put in a kill order. I would be more inclined to believe that if no kill attempt was made it was either because the other three Traders could not access the forums when it mattered the most (within the last 12-24 hours of the cycle) or because they purposely wanted to make inactive / less active players look bad to mislead us when in actuality they are among the most active of us all.

The two most likely possibilities are that the eliminators didn't think about it or that they were roleblocked. I can't forsee any reason whatsoever the eliminators would not attack someone.

Twel, if a kill is roleblocked, will we be notified about that?

Now that that question has been asked, as you said, the entire eliminator team would have to be inactive or distracted to not make a kill, making it much more likely that the kill was roleblocked. If it was roleblocked, then we have no leads. In the unlikely chance that they forgot/were inactive, we do have a lead. I chose to follow up on that lead.

 

If you're going to argue that polking should be lynched for inactivity, that's one thing. The Contribution Crusade does have some merit, even if I do not support it. However the reasoning you just provided literally makes no sense when it comes to probability and statistics. We both know that you like to use math to determine a scenario's likelihood. Why are you disregarding mathematics now?

I'm not going after him because of inactivity, I'm making my suspicions known. If he doesn't get back on the shard to post his code, he'll be killed anyways. Also, you want some math? Here:

If blocked: no lead. 0/17 suspicions.

If inactive: we have a lead. 1/17 suspicions

1 is greater than 0. I'll follow up the 1 lead I have, rather than voting randomly.

 

Polkinghornbd is not a sure candidate for being a Trader when the last time he was on the forums was before the game had even started and PMs were sent out. If anything, I would find it more suspicious if he had shown up to the forums after and still said nothing, as last time he was evil (MR10) he didn't post once until the very last cycle, despite being active enough to read the thread and send in orders.

No, of course he's not a sure candidate. Nobody's a sure candidate in SE. That's why you make educated guesses.

You would find someone a more likely candidate for an inactive eliminator team if they are active? Where did you go to logic school?

Also, how does one get ninja'd with an 11 minute difference when you only typed four sentences? o.O

I had gone to another page while typing, and when I came back, I didn't check if anyone else had posted.

 

TL,DR: I voting on polking to make my suspicions known, not to lynch him, the eliminator team may be forgetful or inactive, Adavantos' logic is full of holes.

 

Edit: Ninja Adavantos has more evidence.

If you're going to argue that polking should be lynched for inactivity, that's one thing. The Contribution Crusade does have some merit, even if I do not support it.

Personally I'm paranoid about the players who are actively participating as they have the potential to do the most damage. Not only was PK the one who initiated the lynch on phatt, but now he's acting out of character and jumping on the smallest threat - if polking even is one at all - with no reasonable evidence.

People should be lynched for inactivity, but only active people should be lynched? Whatever you say, as long as it incriminates me, huh?

There is no eliminator kill and I vote on an inactive person. Yup, that's illogical, alright.

 

Also I "jumped" on PK in a similar fashion in MR10, and even went so far to attack Orlok C1 in QF11 for the exact same thing that PK is doing now. Acting out of character and misleading the village. Granted I was an eliminator in that first example and a Serial Killer in the second, but still. I tend to do things like this early on, when all I have is my gut, inconsistencies and a few facts to work with

So the only examples you have of reacting strongly are when you're anti-village? Noted.

 

Also, what about my respond to him was hard? Like with Kynedath in C1, he said something I didn't agree with / understand so I voted for him to instigate a response.

This actually looks more like an assertion of Phatterner's innocence than a clarifying question. I wouldn't expect a villager to react this strongly to a vote on someone.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Paranoid King

[Amanuensis]

The two most likely possibilities are that the eliminators didn't think about it or that they were roleblocked. I can't forsee any reason whatsoever the eliminators would not attack someone.

 

Beautiful Aviar only role block other Aviar. We've already gone over the possibility of Mind Force, which if used cancels all actions that player makes and any action used against them. It is possible that someone Mind Forced someone they suspected would make the kill. Still waiting for confirmation from the GMs if this would appear in the write up or not.

 

No, of course he's not a sure candidate. Nobody's a sure candidate in SE. That's why you make educated guesses.

 

No reason to wait to explain my suspicions, I guess. I imagine the eliminators didn't make their kill because someone was inactive. Polking didn't post at all last cycle, and was last on 17thshard on January 28. He seems like a sure candidate for an eliminator.

 

Direct contradiction >.> this is what I was responding to.

 

Adavantos' logic is full of holes.

 

Where are these holes in my logic, exactly? Because I don't see them.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Adavantos

[STINK]

Arraenae

[Amanuensis]

People should be lynched for inactivity, but only active people should be lynched? Whatever you say, as long as it incriminates me, huh?

There is no eliminator kill and I vote on an inactive person. Yup, that's illogical, alright.

 

Where did I say people should be lynched for inactivity? I said the Contribution Crusade has some merit, due to the long game implications of letting inactives live. I also said in the same breath that I don't support it. My point is I understand why people would want to lynch an inactive for being inactive, barring better suspicions. I just don't understand you suddenly jumping on polking, especially when, as you put it, he's going to die in a couple cycles if he doesn't post anyway.

 

So the only examples you have of reacting strongly are when you're anti-village? Noted.

 

It's the two most recent examples I have, and if the fact that I openly admitted the shady circumstances of those both doesn't say that I have nothing to hide, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, see LG16 where I tell people I purposely do things twice from both sides so that people can't predict how I'm going to act when I'm evil.

 

This actually looks more like an assertion of Phatterner's innocence than a clarifying question. I wouldn't expect a villager to react this strongly to a vote on someone.

 

What does phattemer's innocence have anything to do with my vote on Kynedath?

[Paranoid King]

Bah. You keep on posting while I respond to your posts, so I can't incorporate your posts into my posts.

Beautiful Aviar only role block other Aviar. We've already gone over the possibility of Mind Force, which if used cancels all actions that player makes and any action used against them. It is possible that someone Mind Forced someone they suspected would make the kill. Still waiting for confirmation from the GMs if this would appear in the write up or not.

So you're saying that the most likely possibilities are that the eliminator team forgot, were inactive, or were actionblocked?

"Of course he's not a sure candidate" - me

"He's a sure candidate" - me

 

Direct contradiction >.> this is what I was responding to.

Oh, okay. I see the confusion. I meant that he's the most likely candidate if the eliminator team is inactive, but at the same time, he's not a definite eliminator.

Where are these holes in my logic, exactly? Because I don't see them.

"Assuming an less active eliminator team, Polking is a bad candidate for an eliminator because he is completely inactive. In a different game, as an eliminator, he viewed the thread, but was still inactive"

 

I'm willing to accept that you were either attacked by eliminators or made the attack for them. You're a pretty major player, so I would understand being attacked by eliminators. I'm just surprised that you reacted so strongly to my vote on Phattemer.

[twelfthrootoftwo]

 

@Twei / Eol: If a player is attacked while protected by Death Sight or Hidden, is it mentioned in the write up? Also do they receive a PM from the GM informing them that there was an attempt on their life?

 

I’ve kind of been thinking it is likely Death Sight would be in the writeup since it is typical protection. It’s precognitive, but it sounds more like they are forewarned of the attack and can counter it/escape quickly than that they avoid it in the first place since it says they can survive one attack. I could be wrong about that though. On the other hand, I suspect Mind Force (and Hidden) wouldn’t be in the writeup (with the exception of vanished votes) because the actions themselves are prevented. Clarification on how these show up in the writeups from Twei/Eol would be much appreciated.

Hidden and Mind Force only inform the attacker that their action failed. Death Sight and Skilled are both revealed in the writeup, along with the name of the player who was attacked.

 

 

@Twei/Eol: If someone is targeted by Mind Force, are they informed in their GM PM?

Yes, if they took an action and/or voted. As with all roleblocks, if they did not do anything that would be blocked, they would not be informed. It's not specifically identified as Mind Force, though.

 

Twel, if a kill is roleblocked, will we be notified about that?

No. Only the attacker knows.

[Water]

I voted for Phatt because I agreed with your reasoning that D1 lynches are for discussion, not because we actually think that a certain person is an eliminator. Also, it seemed out of character for Phatt from what I've seen of his playstyle.

 

Water, I'm not sure why, but I have some gut suspicion of you. I feel like you know a lot about how the eliminators feel about their Aviar -- is this because you are one?

Arraenae, unless you flesh out that baseless logic. Is it against the usual policy here to make assumptions about what Eliminators would be like? Because it seems to me that we should be forming suspicions of people based on how we think Eliminators are likely to act. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't think that Eliminators are more likely to have a greater sense of the necessity of keeping their Aviar?  

I agree with Arraenae's read on Water specifically because of the parts that I bolded in Water's post.

 This adds the final touch to give me enough suspicion to vote for Water. It's contradictory and voting for someone when you don't actually suspect them just because everyone said so sounds like what an indecisive eliminator would do. Just go with the flow. Like Water.

It's ridiculous and foolhardy to vote someone just so you can make a pun involving their username. I'll put the same question to you as I put to Arraenae regarding my comments on Aviar, but you have a valid point about the votes. Let's see, I made some comments about Aviar protection, said that Eliminators are probably more likely to want to protect them, and then voted for the first person who fit that model. Did I pointedly suspect theSilverDragon of being an Eliminator? No. But it's better than a one-liner vote that I try to pass off a joke.

Additionally (and don't say I'm playing the "noob card"), there's much about the meta of these games that I have yet to learn. Until I play some games and get used to it, if you think I'm misunderstanding something, tell me. If not, don't treat me like a noob. I don't want to be "that guy" who always plays the noob card, but I do want to understand typical things that everyone here already knows and takes for granted. /rant

[Mailliw73]

PK. I don't think it's wise to take on Ada in the thread. Remember what we did to Hellscythe in MR10? And Kynedath and me in LG16. The more you tunnel, the more you ruin your chances of not getting lynched.

Water, I also think you're kinda suspicious, but I'm more set on PK.

[Paranoid King]

This is white text

Where did I say people should be lynched for inactivity? I said the Contribution Crusade has some merit, due to the long game implications of letting inactives live. I also said in the same breath that I don't support it. My point is I understand why people would want to lynch an inactive for being inactive, barring better suspicions. I just don't understand you suddenly jumping on polking, especially when, as you put it, he's going to die in a couple cycles if he doesn't post anyway.

Oh. I read it as, "Phatterner is inactive, and if you were voting on him because of that, I'd accept it. But if you're not, we should be focusing on active players, not wild suspicions."

It's the two most recent examples I have, and if the fact that I openly admitted the shady circumstances of those both doesn't say that I have nothing to hide, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, see LG16 where I tell people I purposely do things twice from both sides so that people can't predict how I'm going to act when I'm evil.

Okay. I just feel like you can't say, "in general, I do this or that, whether villager or eliminator", and then only list eliminator examples.

 

What does phattemer's innocence have anything to do with my vote on Kynedath?

You make it sound as though Kynedath did something you didn't understand, so you voted on him to get him to clarify. I felt like when you voted on me, you didn't question my methods, you questioned Phatterner's guilt.

I...also missed luckat's mind block explanation post, and considered an inactive eliminator team to be one of the most likely possibilities, having missed that your vote was removed.

I'm now much less certain of your guilt, Adavantos. I guess I'll look somewhere else for a suspicion.

 

edit: I think my "new posts" notifier is broken.

 

PK. I don't think it's wise to take on Ada in the thread. Remember what we did to Hellscythe in MR10? And Kynedath and me in LG16. The more you tunnel, the more you ruin your chances of not getting lynched.

Water, I also think you're kinda suspicious, but I'm more set on PK.

So I tunnel on Adavantos because he did some suspicious things and I misunderstood him. As you say, that's a really bad survival strategy. How does being bad at surviving make me a more likely candidate to be an eliminator?

Edited February 1, 2016 by Paranoid King

[STINK]

Ah screw it, I'll officially come out. 

 

I got the role where you get to know a mentor AKA an inno. That person was PK. 

 

So yeah, I don't mind if people want to lynch me to check, that would easily give us the first confirmed person at the least, and a win is a win, even if I'm dead. 

 

Arraenae.

 

STINK.

Edited February 1, 2016 by IrulelikeSTINK