Long Game 31: A World Without Vin

[Jondesu]

Don't you love figuring out those conundrums, Drought? I'm leaning towards Aman not being Skaa, but them either planning to use or convert him. His posts have felt genuine enough to me, and I mentioned how he came across in my earlier post, so I would be impressed, though I suppose not too shocked, if he was indeed Skaa already.  Aman, any thoughts on that yourself? Edit: ninja'd by Aman.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Jondesu

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

Okay, I just finished one of my many school projects due this week, and I thought that we still had a full day in the Night cycle. Apparently not.

So now things get interesting, and lively! (or deadly, most likely) Four different kill orders went out last Night, and a Skaa was killed! A Metallurgist and a Kandra were killed, both Noble, and Gold Ferring was killed! It's good that Ecth was killed before the extra lives made things really crazy. The information is great.

With that many kills going out each night, and if we have Kelsier, Ruin, a Coinshot, the Skaa kill, and possibly TLR all using a kill action during the cycle, the numbers of players could drop quite fast. The best way to keep Nobles alive is to lynch a Skaa Coinshot or Kelsier this cycle. 

I believe that Aman is Noble for now, but like many are saying, Kelsier is likely going to attempt to convert him tonight. So we need to find and lynch Kelsier today.

@Elbereth, if a player were to be killed by an action during a night cycle, but another player's action killed the player killing the first player, would the first player still die?*

*highlighted for identification.

[Elbereth]

All kills are simultaneous, so yes. Both players killed would die. 

[Amanuensis]

2 hours ago, Jondesu said:

Don't you love figuring out those conundrums, Drought? I'm leaning towards Aman not being Skaa, but them either planning to use or convert him. His posts have felt genuine enough to me, and I mentioned how he came across in my earlier post, so I would be impressed, though I suppose not too shocked, if he was indeed Skaa already.  Aman, any thoughts on that yourself? Edit: ninja'd by Aman.

I was waiting for that ninja'd edit 

But yeah. Considering Ecth was Skaa, it makes sense that they didn't want to risk attacking me yet, in case I was Preservation, like Ecth suggested. Hence why he posted what he did. The Skaa probably hoped Ruin would try killing me for them, which thankfully he didn't. Which means they might try converting me tonight, or just kill me outright. Either way, I don't expect to survive past N3, unless I get converted. If I do survive that long, I welcome Ruin to kill me.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Amanuensis

[Bartimaeus]

Well Aman (can I call you Aman?) the reason why I haven't been very active lately was because I have a massive project for school and I've been trying to finish it up so I can get on with my life,but also I've been doing wrestling after school so that's more than enough to keep any one busy. But I 'll try to post more often

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Amanuensis]

1 minute ago, Bartimaeus said:

Well Aman (can I call you Aman?) the reason why I haven't been very active lately was because I have a massive project for school and I've been trying to finish it up so I can get on with my life,but also I've been doing wrestling after school so that's more than enough to keep any one busy.

Of course, Bart (can I call you Bart?)  thank you for responding. It's nice to know a little about the player's lives, since otherwise you're just an ominous name viewing the thread occasionally, at which I can only guess the most sinister of motives...  hope to see you get the chance for some free time soon, so I can hear your thoughts on the game and get to know you

[Bartimaeus]

Yes you can call me Bart, and you too

[Elenion]

Ech probably is raging in the dead doc right about now. Killed C1 again?  At least he actually was evil this time.

Okay, so in his short  in-game life Ecth didn't do much.  He voted on Phatt like everyone else, but did so early enough that it wasn't suspicious. Well played.  He called Aman out as a possible Preservation using distancing tactics.  Now what I think happened to Ecth is this: Ruin saw Ecth call Aman out for distancing, but that made it look like Ecth was trying to distance himself from being Preservation, so Ruin killed Ecth.

[Straw]

Sorry, I have to write a paper so I won't be posting much this cycle.

[Darkness Ascendant]

*Yawn

Appears to be upside down hrm. Sorry. *shrugs. I is tired.

[Amanuensis]

Well, after 14 hours I'm finally home from work. I'm going to lie down now and get some rest. When I wake up, I'll figure out the three players I'm most suspicious of and do some thorough analysis on each to determine which one I want to vote for. Until then, I hope more people post. While I don't mind instigating discussion, I much prefer it when it happens without my influence.

Have a good day / afternoon / evening, all.

[Stick.]

It's a pity that Ecth made a grand total of three posts...I suppose there isn't much to decipher in those :[ 

*goes back to rereading C1

[A Joe in the Bush]

@Elbereth are unconverted Half-skaa revealed upon death? 

currently thinking that everyone who didn't start as a Skaa has a 'side' role, either Kandra, metallurgist, or half skaa. Which makes me regret revealing my kandraness in the thread.

14 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

 With that in mind, I would reason that either Joe or Elenion is Kelsier. Disregarding that last consideration, Jondesu is also a possibility, as well as Arinian and Orlok. I have a tentative innocent gut read on Arinian, though, and I still believe that Orlok is a Noble as well, although I still exercise a small amount of paranoia.

I'm not kelsier. Can't speak for Elenion, or the other three.

[Elbereth]

54 minutes ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

@Elbereth are unconverted Half-skaa revealed upon death? 

Yes. 

[Arinian]

15 hours ago, DroughtBringer said:

Well I am going to begin the plan I suggested last turn, and place my vote on Szeth @Szeth Son-Son Mallano as to try and lynch an innactive this cycle, mainly because I want to just get my plan going. Also we seem to have lost Randuir and Magestar who were both really active throughout the last cycle, and contributed a lot. It seems like it's going to be a game where those are fill the forums with posts die first. 

My big problem is this: @Amanuensis You are not dead. You have not said that you were attacked or any other reason as to why you are still alive. Reasons:

1. You are an Elim and thusly wouldn't kill yourself.

2. You are not an Elim and they are keeping you alive as to make us think you are an Elim.

3. You are not an Elim and you are just have some really bad guesses towards who is an Elim and thusly they want to keep you alive as to distract the village.

4. You are not an Elim but the Elims want to try and convert you because you are an amazing player at SE.

Gah I hate these...but there is not enough evidence either way as to check weather or not you are an Elim so...my gut read is that I should trust you right now Aman. So welcome to my trust circle? (of one person)

 

About what plan you talking? Cause looks like I missed it.

But anyway I want to add my thoughts on what you said. First: there can be much more reasons why Aman not dead, I can bring them but don't want to waste my time on that.

Second I've seen many times people going for inactives and that's never ended well... for village. Even if Szeth is elim it's will say us nothing about other his teammates. That will lead to wasted lynch, you can say that there enough vig kills. But you will be wrong cause vig kill it's decision of one person and we can't get in his head and understand why he done that, and lynching inactive kills discussion. Okay, you can say that we can discuss other people even if lynching inactive player but from what I've seen that's wrong, all discussion will die. 

I can't say much about you cause it's usual for you to be not very active and  there not big diference when you elim or villager. So I can't say if you are elim, but your advices unhelpful.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 hour ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

I'm not kelsier. Can't speak for Elenion, or the other three.

I'm not Kelsier too 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So back to people whom I suspect.

Stick. I not gonna say something new about her. Logic says that she is same as was in other games so I shouldn't suspect her. But my gut screams "Lynch her immideately she is surely elim!!!"

So better  don't listen to my conclusions about her.

Joe.

Mainly I suspect him cause revealing that he is kandra looks for me like not very clever idea for villager. Even if he thought that there enough other kandra that gives even more information for elims, yes it gives information for village too but elims already know more then we so they can use this information better. Also I can be little bit biased, cause I want my vengeance!

Also I suspect Orlok... yes Orlok.

Why? Cause he was one who asked questions, no one even tried to give a doubt to his alignment. It's looks like good strategy for good players when they are elims. Don't let people to ask be the one who asks, part of his questions I see as absolutely not useful, there was no need to ask them. Of course it's good thing to encourage activity, but while you was asking questions I didn't get any read on you, also how you pushing on HH... I want to say he is easy target to focus lynch on him and you doing that. 

Also I think that mixed with bad gut read on Orlok.

Hmm... what to add. Len, I can't say much about Len but his behavior same as when he villager. Just people in this game got too focused on his usual issues.

No vote for now... deciding between Joe and Stick... maybe Drought.

Also I don't like lurkers so don't be amazed if I will vote for someone with low activity(Straw, Bart)(Yes I don't like lurkers and can't do nothing with myself, I'm super paranoid about them).

And also I have some bad gut read on Jon... but that just bad gut read without any reasons.

Aaaand that's all for now!

Edited March 14, 2017 by Arinian

[Elenion]

@Amanuensis Nope.  But if I was, that would have made for a pretty humorous move on Conq's part, making Ecth and I both elims.

 The player whom I've been watching has been Orlok.  He seemed off to me when he accused me so quickly and aggressively, but the more I've scrutinized his posts the more village he seems. Last cycle I had a PM with Rand, and he was reading Orlok as village before Rand was killed, so I think my suspicions were unfounded.

 

[Jondesu]

Apologies for my lower activity, I'm thoroughly exhausted and slept all day, and I'm preparing to go back to bed. I should be on in the morning to weigh in and cast a vote, but @Amanuensis, I'm not Kelsier. If I was, do you think you'd be alive and unconverted? 

[Orlok Tsubodai]

I apologise for the tardiness of this post, for it covering a number of topics, and for its length.

The first thing I’d like to address is the lynching of an inactive this cycle. Before doing so, it is important to cover time pressure this game.
We have very few players. We started with 17, and have 13 alive. By the end of this cycle, we could plausibly have 9 alive, if there is a lynch, a Ruin kill, a skaa kill and a vigilante kill. I don't think that the skaa will have started with more than three players. Starting with four, with a potential D1 conversion, night kill and successful lynch would allow them to have five players of fifteen on D2, and a village of nine facing six other players, including at least two kills, which I think would be incredibly broken.
That tangent allows us to assume 2 current eliminators with what I consider a fair degree of confidence.
Whilst this might sound like a significant lead for the village (10-2-1 at the moment),  with the current rate of deaths, it could be 6-2-1 by next cycle, or even 5-3-1 with a conversion. With Szeth inactive, and unlikely to return,and Bart and Straw both currently busy with real life, there exists a plausible scenario where the skaa are tied in number with the active village by the beginning of D3. Now, this is a worst case scenario, assuming every kill hits a villager, that we mislynch, and that all three players affected by activity are village. It's unlikely that this is the case, but it's certainly more likely that disengaged players are village than eliminators. 
This leads on to today’s lynch, and the proposal that we lynch an inactive. I see SE games as a race between the eliminators and the village. The eliminators start with a significant information and coordination advantage, but at a significant disadvantage in the number of players on their side. The village have an advantage in numbers, and a significant disadvantage in information and coordination. The village need to equal the eliminators’ information before the eliminators can equal the village in numbers. 
In this game, with four deaths a cycle, a conversion, and a low starting number of players, numbers will equal very quickly. As such, the village do not have much time at all to increase their information.
Lynching an inactive gives us no information, or very, very little, when compared to the lynch of an active player. I am firmly of the view that we cannot afford to not have a heated and divisive lynch today. I am suspicious of Aman for agreeing to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus today, despite the number of attacks last night, and despite the fact that we got very little information from the last cycle’s lynch. You've clearly spent hours thinking about the game, and the speed of the game was raised as a concern on D1. Why do you think we can afford to waste today’s lynch?

Next on my list of topics to discuss is last cycle’s lynch on Phattemer. I am, frankly, disappointed. I’ve discussed the time pressure we face, and it was not a valuable use of our time. Instead of challenging multiple players, and watching who stepped in to defend them, we gained but a few things from this lynch. We observed that Stick and myself didn't get involved in the bandwagon. We watched Headshot’s vote, his withdrawal when challenged, and his asking whether he should put the vote back on. We also were able to observe the order in which people voted for Phattemer. I am disappointed in those who voted after Randuir. By my count, there was always at least a 3 point lead on Phattemer after this point. Vote manipulation was not a credible worry. Votes here were either to avoid standing out, or because people didn't want to go to the effort of thinking independently.

More interesting, thought, to me is Aman’s vote. By his own admission, mafia statistics show that the third to fifth voters in a bandwagon are more likely to be eliminators. He also says that were he an eliminator, it would amuse him to have voted then, despite the statistics being raised, in order to “spike” the statistics. At the time of Aman’s vote, he was the third vote on Elenion. Aman plays at a level above nearly all of us. He has a vast amount of experience, a sharp mind, and a lot of time. Knowing him, I think he'd be very amused to call raise the points about his desire to spike statistics whilst actually doing so. It's circumstantial evidence at best, but it's there. 

Aman raises the point that Stick has a tendency to avoid getting involved in main lynches when she’s evil. I don't believe Stick to be a skaa, but I think she may well be Ruin. Not only does this fit with Aman’s analysis, it justifies that analysis if Aman is evil, which I do suspect, and most interestingly to me, ties in with a PM I spied on last night, from Joe to Stick. In this PM, Joe indicated that he was suspicious of her. After a response, he said he was much less suspicious that she were skaa, and then asked if she was Ruin. After a two hour delay, which I take to indicate that there was a response, he concluded the PM chain by saying “Don’t worry, I won't tell”. I think that this, along with her behaviour, which as Aman said is consistent with her not being village, implies a reasonable chance that Stick is Ruin.

On my own abstention from the bandwagon, I think those players who know me are aware of my vehement dislike of bandwagoning, and my frequent arguments against them. I spent the cycle trying first to create discussion on the contribution crusade, and then on trying to create conversation by challenging players on assertions they'd made, in an attempt to make up for the lack of discussion generated by the bandwagon.

I have already addressed Headshot’s actions, and will do so again in my analysis of his actions as a player, but the summary here is that I think he’s far too worried about how he’s perceived, and I think that his withdrawing his vote after being challenged (along with his post immediately after N1 began) serves as strong evidence of this.

At this point, I think it worth discussing  my thoughts on Ruin. I suspect my view on this matter will be controversial, but I will offer it nevertheless. Ruin cannot win with the village, and the village cannot win with Ruin. Ruin is not incentivised to just target the skaa, for doing so may allow the village to win before it can find Preservation. Ruin will be whittling down the village numbers. Any indication that they will go after inactives seems like wishful thinking to me. They will want to target players who could plausibly be Preservation, and I don't think any of us think that Preservation is really likely to be an inactive player. 
As set out above, I believe Ruin to be Stick. However, if Ruin has claimed to anyone, and I’m wrong, I'd strongly advocate that they tell the thread of Ruin’s real identity, and that we remove Ruin, either through vigilante kill or the lynch. Doing so removes a significant element of danger to the village in the late game, and a source of an unaccountable kill, slowing the rate of decline of village numbers.

Another topic I'd like to address is to briefly answer Arinian’s thoughts on me. He's quite right - asking questions would be an excellent place for an eliminator to hide without committing. However, and my reason for doing so, it also drives discussion, and gets people to put views out in the open. I have been taking notes on players, and you’ll find my thoughts on players below, but last cycle I felt the bandwagon necessitated challenging, and so tried to draw explanations for players on why they were voting in it, as well as making players explain or defend ideas of theirs.

The last point I'd like to make before moving into analyses of players is to discuss the half-skaa briefly. I do not think there will be many of them. As I've noted before, this is a small game. With too many half skaa, the potential for the eliminator team to grow becomes destabilising very quickly. The payoff from a successful conversion is immense - I would expect it to require a significant amount of dedication for Kelsier to succeed. 
I also don't think that Aman is likely to be a half skaa. Firstly, I think that he may well be full blooded skaa, but let's ignore that for now.
If Aman is half skaa, the game has the potential to swing monumentally. He is, by some significant margin, the most active player of all those who signed up. He's got a reputation for being incredibly effective as a player, and for being exceptionally difficult to catch as an eliminator. He is indisputably the best target for a conversion, and if he's a player capable of being converted, then the village would lose their best player, after having had a couple of cycles with which to he has gained trust, making it even more difficult to catch him. From a balance perspective, I don't think half-skaa!Aman makes any sense.

I will move on, now, to analysis of players. 

Once again, I’ll start with Headshot. I firmly believe Headshot is evil. I've explained that his vote on Phattemer was entirely hypocritical, which to me means that he can't really have believed his reasons in voting for the lynch. I called him out on his call for a clear lynch decision to be made eight hours before the cycle ended, on day one. His response was that his concern was ridiculous. This marks the second time he brushed off an accusation made at him, without engaging in it - the first being his original acknowledgement that he had no defence of his hypocrisy.

Other than the vote and retraction, I would point out something particularly interesting in his response to my N1 post. 
He justified your initial agreement with Mage without elaborating by saying that he’d “forgotten the pacing of a Long Game is much slower. I was ready for things to progress, get information etc”. He hasn’t played anything other than Long Games. He’s played AG3 and LG30. To me, this tells me that he was advised by someone else in the creation of his response to my post, or that someone else wrote it for him.

I can't see there being a defence to this argument - one doesn't simply forget that they haven't played anything but Long Games.

The second player I'm suspicious of, which I've already made clear, is Aman.

My suspicion of Aman comes from a number of sources.
I've already set out above that I think he’s aware of the damage the lynch of an inactive would do today, and yet he announced support for lynching Szeth. I discussed the circumstantial evidence arising from his ironic mention of the bandwagon statistics.
Randuir and I, in C1, pointed out that he used a narrative device to cast suspicion on Joe without engaging in an outright attack on him. Aman denied doing so, but I think it’s worth bearing in mind, and taking Aman’s words with a pinch of salt. 
I would also point to Aman’s U-turn on Headshot. In C1, when Headshot was under relatively little suspicion, Aman said he was suspicious of Headshot, due to his backing out of the vote. After I made a post attacking Headshot, and Elenion supported this suspicion, Aman became a staunch defender of his, casting suspicion on Elenion in a recent post for being suspicious of Headshot himself.
Aman focused the discussion on D1 on the lynch of a relatively inactive player, limiting the information we could get from a lynch. After I expressed concern as to the bandwagon, he encouraged it to form further, calling for every other player to give their views on Phattemer, setting the parameters of the conversation very tightly.
Finally, Aman had been online shortly after rollover, without posting, in a timeframe that fits with advising Headshot’s rebuttal of my post (see the comments on Headshot referring to Long Games as different without having played anything else himself). 

I apologise for the length of this post. I hope I've dealt with the salient issues of the game, and that the remaining players will engage in discussion on the points I've raised, and particularly on Headshot and Aman, rather than allow the lynch to be wasted on an inactive.

I will set out my thoughts on the rest of the players tomorrow, I think, unless I muster the energy to continue tonight. I've been working on analysis of this game for 8 hours, today, so may just get some sleep.

Edited March 15, 2017 by OrlokTsubodai

[Elenion]

 Orlok put in the grunt work, so let's make sure this gets followed through.

 First, Headshot. I called him out right after Orlok did N1, but Aman countered and I stood down on that issue.  After all, I was going primarily based on gut and circumstantial evidence.  But now Orlok brings something up that's more concrete: Headshot lied. Blatantly, to get himself out of trouble. As Orlok said, this strongly supports the idea that someone else wrote that post.  Someone who would not have known that Headshot had only ever played an LG and an AG.  And since casual PM contacts just aren't likely to write a post for someone else, I think that is more than adequate justification for a vote on Headshot.

 And now Aman, where the stakes are higher. Lynch an elim Aman and there's probably only one more elim. The game would be practically in the bag.  Lynch a village Aman and we've wasted a lynch, killed our best analyst, and will probably lose more to the shooting gallery tonight. Up until this point I had considered Aman practically cleared, but Orlok brings up some valid points.  What I'd suggest is this: we lynch Headshot today because there's definite evidence of subterfuge.  We let Aman respond to Orlok's concerns.  If Headshot turns out evil, which he probably will, that is more evidence against Aman.  If Headshot turns out to be a villager who just lied, that's a point in Aman's favor. If Aman is evil, we need him gone, fast, but if he's village and we lynch him that would be a total blunder.

I want to hear everyone else's views on Aman, and I mean everyone else's. Would someone who's not on mobile tag everyone?  My tablet is glitching and not making the tags.

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

Well, Orlok, the point made about Long Games was because my mind and the game were at two different paces. The game is not affected by RL, but my mind is. I have been quite busy this week and last. So pardon that slip.

Listen here: because of Kelsier's ability to convert part-Skaa to their cause, who would they target? The most valuable and most active players we have. I can think of two individuals that could be placed in this category: Orlok and Aman. Both put extensive analysis into each cycle and remained fairly active, Aman especially active. Aman expressed that he had not been converted yet, but it would be very likely soon. This may or may not be trustworthy. Orlok, however, is a different story. He has mentioned nothing about whether he was Noble or Skaa, but was much more outgoing. He has maintained this behavior. So I suspect that either Orlok has been a Skaa since the beginning of the game or was converted last Night. Either way, Orlok is Skaa.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

@Hemalurgic_Headshot, I'm afraid I'm not going to excuse the slip. I see no way that real life could cause you, or "your mind" as you put it, to forget that you'd only played Long Games. Once again, you seek to brush off accusations as immaterial.

On the second point you make, your argument is essentially that the skaa would seek to convert either Aman or myself, because we've been the most active, and Aman has already said he's not a skaa, therefore I must be. 

1) I believe that there is a strong chance that Aman is skaa at the moment, and regardless, predicating your argument on our trusting Aman's claim hardly sets it up with a firm foundation.

2) More saliently, we saw four attack attempts last night. I am very hopeful that one of them was Kelsier, because if not this game will be over by the end of the week. Assuming it was Kelsier, the skaa have not yet been able to make a conversion.

3) I'm not sure how my being "outgoing (do you mean active?) means I'm likely to have been a skaa since the beginning. I've sought throughout to generate discussion, which is exactly the opposite of what I'd want to do if I sought to deny the village information.

Headshot, your post screams of desperation to me, and your logic is not sound. I think it serves as useful corroboration, however, of my analysis. 

Your association with Aman in the above post is also interesting, and I hope that the rest of the village takes more of it. 

[A Joe in the Bush]

1 hour ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

Aman raises the point that Stick has a tendency to avoid getting involved in main lynches when she’s evil. I don't believe Stick to be a skaa, but I think she may well be Ruin. Not only does this fit with Aman’s analysis, it justifies that analysis if Aman is evil, which I do suspect, and most interestingly to me, ties in with a PM I spied on last night, from Joe to Stick. In this PM, Joe indicated that he was suspicious of her. After a response, he said he was much less suspicious that she were skaa, and then asked if she was Ruin. After a two hour delay, which I take to indicate that there was a response, he concluded the PM chain by saying “Don’t worry, I won't tell”. I think that this, along with her behaviour, which as Aman said is consistent with her not being village, implies a reasonable chance that Stick is Ruin.

 It's always me that gets spied on. Always. Blegh. As I said in my PM to stick, I won't tell. That means I'm not going to tell implicitly, or explicitly. Nothing i say should be taken to confirm or deny any possibility of _stick_ having any possible or impossible role.

The whole situation with Aman calming he's likely to be converted reminds me of all the dead man's switches I've pulled in conversion games. In the Death note game, i offered myself up to be lynched because i was the most likely convert, and after i was converted, i continued to advocate that i would be converted soon. (Until i killed Conquestor =P) in the last shardic game, i was Converted by Alv, and publicly offered to kill myself to prevent my own conversion. To me, after reading Orlok's post, it reads as him trying to get us to believe he's likely to be converted, and therefore trustworthy now. Either that or he's playing IKYK with Kelsier, and is seeking to prevent his conversion.

[Elenion]

I would say that Headshot has a point in that Orlok and Aman would make the best conversion targets, but he forgets that only some players can be converted. Let's say that there's a 1 in 4 chance that a given player is a half-skaa, which I think is even on the generous side.

 Some high-school-level probability:

Spoiler

P(A) is the probability of Orlok being half-Skaa, 0.25

P(B)  is the probability of Aman being half-Skaa, 0.25

P(A or B ) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B ).

= 0.25 + 0.25 - (0.25 * 0.25)

= 7/16 

 So even if Kelsier could have attempted to convert both Orlok and Aman last night, which he couldn't have, chances are that he didn't even get one of them.  So while I can't guarantee that one of them was not converted, the math actually supports both of them being unconvertable, and at this point the worst case scenario is only that one of them has been converted.  Most likely case is that Kelsier used his Steel last night, and so couldn't have made a conversion.

 So really, I don't think HH's conversion argument holds water.  There is a chance that Orlok has been Skaa the entire time, but I don't buy into that.  I've been scrutinizing his posts since D1 when I got suspicious of him, and haven't come up with anything that I haven't already said. So right now I'm fairly sure that Orlok isn't Skaa, by origin or by conversion.

[Amanuensis]

Disclaimer. Before reading, please note that while I was frustrated when I wrote this, I don't mean to sound rude or condescending. I can see it definitely appearing that way, but I will note that my reaction should be read more as someone hearing something ridiculous and refuting it with sensible facts, like if someone told me in 2011 that Trump was going to be president some day, and I went on to explain all the reasons why that's a horrible idea and how America could never let that happen.

Granted, that's not the best example I could have used, given Trump turned out to be President, but I stand by it because it's a relateable feeling. In this case with Orlok accusing me, he's just wrong.

---

Yes Orlok. You caught me. I'm a Skaa, and my Skaa ally accused me of being Preservation to keep people from lynching me when I was in no danger, without fearing Ruin seeing it and deciding to kill me. That's the only explanation that makes sense. If we were enemies, why would a Skaa want people to think I'm a confirmed Noble role? To get Ruin to kill me? Now that's just ridiculous. The simplest explanation is most likely right. Occam's razor, mate.

...

Sarcasm aside, you're wrong. Are your mistakes deliberate or unintentional? I'm not sure. But I have a feeling that I'm going to be able to answer that question after I finish analyzing you. Before I do that, though, I guess I'll muster a defense. Shouldn't be hard considering nearly everything you've accused me is blatantly wrong. So, let's start from the top.

6 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

Lynching an inactive gives us no information, or very, very little, when compared to the lynch of an active player. I am firmly of the view that we cannot afford to not have a heated and divisive lynch today. I am suspicious of Aman for agreeing to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus today, despite the number of attacks last night, and despite the fact that we got very little information from the last cycle’s lynch. You've clearly spent hours thinking about the game, and the speed of the game was raised as a concern on D1. Why do you think we can afford to waste today’s lynch?

Underline mine.

When did I agree to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus today? Let's see. I mentioned Bart in my first post this turn, let's see what that says...

On 3/13/2017 at 8:10 PM, Amanuensis said:

@Hemalurgic_Headshot, I think we have enough information to work with that we don't need to resort to your vote-for-an-inactive plan just yet, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Anything stand out to you, knowing what you do, now? @Bartimaeus, I tagged you last turn saying that I would suggest voting for you, since you're the least active of all the players, discounting @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, who hasn't logged into the website in almost a week. Please tell me what I can do to help get you active in this game. Likewise, @Straw and @Silverblade5. A lot has happened. Do you have more to say?

Well, huh. That's strange. Not only do I tell HH "I think we have enough information to work with that we don't need to resort to your vote-for-an-inactive plan just yet" but I also didn't vote on Bartimaeus. Yes, I mentioned the fact that last turn I would suggest voting for him, but that was only because I have no way of knowing if Bart even saw that, and therefore I needed to make sure he was aware details. I also wanted to apply a little pressure on the guy with hopes that it would encourage him to post without the need of me voting, which I didn't plan to do anyway.

Hm. Maybe I said something in my second post about lynching Bart? Let's check.

 

On 3/13/2017 at 9:02 PM, Amanuensis said:

Fair enough. I might join you, but I'll hold off for now. I want to see who other players want to lynch first, since I don't want to affect how other players think too much, like I did with the previous lynch. And yeah. Sadly, that's how these games tend to work. Not a lot of elim teams are willing to let the big talkers survive for long, in the interest of victory, which is why it's important that everyone maintains a decent level of activity and independence.

Let's see. I said I might join HH's vote on Szeth. That fits the argument you're trying to make better, but still not exactly, since that's no different than me saying I'm considering the situation. In conclusion, still nothing about me "agreeing to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus today." But maybe the answer is in my fourth post (skipping my third because it mentions nothing about Bart or lynching) in which I responded directly to Bart after he answered my mention.

On 3/13/2017 at 9:24 PM, Amanuensis said:

Of course, Bart (can I call you Bart?)  thank you for responding. It's nice to know a little about the player's lives, since otherwise you're just an ominous name viewing the thread occasionally, at which I can only guess the most sinister of motives...  hope to see you get the chance for some free time soon, so I can hear your thoughts on the game and get to know you

Said the name Bart twice, both in black, so those aren't votes. Not even a vague threat on his life, only a thanks and me declaring that I want to hear his thoughts on the game. That leaves one post left. My last post I made before I went to sleep, and the one I'm writing now.

16 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

Well, after 14 hours I'm finally home from work. I'm going to lie down now and get some rest. When I wake up, I'll figure out the three players I'm most suspicious of and do some thorough analysis on each to determine which one I want to vote for. Until then, I hope more people post. While I don't mind instigating discussion, I much prefer it when it happens without my influence.

Have a good day / afternoon / evening, all.

Emphasis mine.

I made a direct promise here to do the direct opposite of what you've accused me of. A promise that I'll note you're forcing me to break by distracting me with your accusations. It most likely is a coincidence that happened, but I'm going to entertain the whispering in my head saying that you're a Skaa and that doing so somehow fits your agenda.

That being said, let's revisit that quote of yours again.

6 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

Lynching an inactive gives us no information, or very, very little, when compared to the lynch of an active player. I am firmly of the view that we cannot afford to not have a heated and divisive lynch today. I am suspicious of Aman for agreeing to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus today, despite the number of attacks last night, and despite the fact that we got very little information from the last cycle’s lynch. You've clearly spent hours thinking about the game, and the speed of the game was raised as a concern on D1. Why do you think we can afford to waste today’s lynch?

"I am suspicious of Aman for agreeing to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus today,"

Well, I didn't agree to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus this turn, so maybe I just read this statement wrong. Are you referring to my response to HH yesterday when he first proposed the plan? Let's see what I said.

Quote

As for your plan. I need to consider it more, but at first glance, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. The only tough part would be getting enough players on board. I've tried to organize villages in the past to execute similar things, like for example, having everyone not participating in the lynch to vote on random players with no votes so we can get an accurate guess to how many Soothers are in the games. But every time I've tried it's never worked out, so now I'm trying to just ask specific players question and mention the quiet ones as often as possible. That said, I would be willing to experiment tomorrow, starting with @Bartimaeus, since he's been the least active of all players so far.

The most notable parts are "I need to consider it more" and "I would be willing to experiment tomorrow, starting with Bartimaeus." So what does this say? That I'm thinking hard about this (and a ton of other things) and that I am open to other player's ideas. Could the "would be willing to experiment tomorrow" be interpreted as agreement? Sure. But the funny thing is, the very fact that I posted this before the results of the turn contradict the rest of your accusation. Specifically, "despite the number of attacks last night." I don't know about you, Orlok, but I'm not psychic. As much as I wish I could, I can't see into the future. I can make predictions, but I did not anticipate four kill attempts, let alone did I try.

Also, I really don't like that you keep saying "we got very little information from the last cycles lynch." First off, I disagree. I got plenty of information from the lynch, which I highlighted in my giant post last turn, and now that today has revealed the alignment of three players who were involved, we can only stand to gain more by looking at it again. Second of all, how much information do you expect out of a D1 lynch? Unless an eliminator with an important role messes up really bad and his teammates try anything they can to save him, I don't see how it could have gone much better. The turn ended with 12 players of 17 voting for someone, which isn't bad at all, considering one of the players has not been online since before the game began, meaning 75% of players were involved. Just because most of the votes on the same person doesn't mean we didn't learn anything. The alternatives were Mage (who we now know is a villager), who Stick voted for, and Len, who you voted for, and have now seemed to have forgotten.

My conclusion? You're exaggerating us wasting the lynch to push an agenda. And considering I'm one of your targets, a player you've remarked as "terrifying" and others have referred to as "our best analyst," it's hard not to assume that you have ill intent towards me and the village from the start. Especially considering that your first point against me was blatantly wrong, and that it's not the only one.

How about we take a look at the next one?

6 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

More interesting, thought, to me is Aman’s vote. By his own admission, mafia statistics show that the third to fifth voters in a bandwagon are more likely to be eliminators. He also says that were he an eliminator, it would amuse him to have voted then, despite the statistics being raised, in order to “spike” the statistics. At the time of Aman’s vote, he was the third vote on Elenion. Aman plays at a level above nearly all of us. He has a vast amount of experience, a sharp mind, and a lot of time. Knowing him, I think he'd be very amused to call raise the points about his desire to spike statistics whilst actually doing so. It's circumstantial evidence at best, but it's there. 

 

Emphasis mine.

I was the second vote on phattemer, not the third. That is unless you're counting Len's poke vote on Phatt, which he retracted before Ecth voted for him, who I consider the first because unlike Len's, it had an actual reason, and because the two votes were never simultaneous (which is what matters).

Unfortunately I can't argue that I play "at a level above" others, even if I think it's a poor way to word it. I wouldn't say my experience is "vast" or that my mind is sharp, but I can agree with that I invest a lot of time and effort into these games because of how much I enjoy them. This, like exaggerating us wasting the lynch, just makes me think you're pushing an agenda. In this case, that I'm frighteningly good and people shouldn't trust me. Is it generally good advice? Sure, even if I hate that it is. But you're pushing it a bit too hard and I can't help but feel like you're trying to make me look like something I'm not. Really, it's the same strategy Ecth had, in accusing me of being Preservation, only a lot less subtle.

The rest of this statement, about me being amused to raise the points about desiring to spike the statistics while doing it... what? For one, your use of the word desire and amusement doesn't match the tone of two posts regarding the statistics at all. Instead of wasting other player's time, I'll go back and quote exactly what I said on the matter.

I first mentioned it in the analysis of Drought's vote on Phatt:

Quote

That leaves only Drought, who, looking back, wasn't really active at all. Four posts, all with minimal content. First was just an "I'm here," second was him neither supporting or opposing the Contribution Crusade. Really, he was just neutral about the whole thing, saying "we should still lynch inactives" but "shouldn't focus on just the inactives." He then proceeds to basically be inactive, not posting until the last two hours of the game, immediately after Phatt votes for himself, just to vote on Phatt because he "doesn't enjoy when players vote on themselves." Overall, nothing very alignment indicative, except that it wasn't until things were already set in stone that he got involved, and that he literally voted on Phatt moments after Phatt said "I suggest looking to the 3rd-5th votes." I would think that an eliminator would be less likely to vote on a villager in this circumstance. I would probably do what Drought did if I was evil, if only to spite the statistics. As for Drought, I don't think he'd act the revolutionary, so this was more likely a spontaneus decision. Regardless, I won't let him off the hook, because he hasn't been much more active than Phatt was, or other players like them. So, @DroughtBringer, consider this me formally requesting you to be more involved in the game from this point forward. I know you're capable of it, I've seen you do it. If you're a villager, I hope I can appeal to you by saying we need you. If you're not... well, what's the fun in winning if you just play the role of spectator?

Emphasis mine.

So here, I said that an eliminator would be less likely to vote for Phatt in that scenario, and that if I was a Skaa, I might consider it just to spite the statistics. But I wasn't even in that scenario, and I was the first player to seriously vote for Phatt, unless you count Ecth, who I don't. So really, I don't understand where you're getting this idea that I was messing with the statistics and openly declaring by saying "If I was, I would."

Maybe it was my second post, then, where I clarified what I meant for Drought?

Quote

There's statistics floating around that on forum mafia, eliminators tend to be the somewhere between the 3rd and 6th vote on a player during a bandwagon. It's been mentioned by a few players in the past, and as a result, a lot of players are wary of fitting that criteria when they're evil, so they'll either avoid bandwagons outright, or get involved later on (assuming they weren't the ones to start it off, which is rare, but also a possibility). So, when I said that I would consider messing with the statistics, that's what I meant. I'd find a way to twist that knowledge to my advantage, to prepare an argument against an unknowing villager or as a way to corroborate my own innocence. As you've proven by asking this question, you don't know about those statistics and therefore wouldn't have had a plan like that in mind when you voted there at the end. Hence why I think it was a spontaneous decision on your part, which makes me think you're more likely innocent than not: players tend to be more careful when they're evil.

So, I openly say here that I'd strategize around the statistics. Is that what you're accusing me of then? Strategizing around the statistics, and then telling the thread what I did? I guess you really don't know me as well as you think. I wouldn't even consider it, let alone be amused by the idea. Albeit indirectly, you've pointed out how serious I take these games. There's a few people out there who interpret that as me being over competitive. The fact is, I see it as my responsibility to do my best not because I want to win, but because I have allies relying on me. If I were a Skaa, I can just about guarantee I'd be too busy plotting our path to victory and worrying about exposing myself and consequently letting my team down to poke fun like that. Have I done similar things before? Yes, but only when I've been a revealed eliminator, because then my alignment is already exposed and I can openly say things to distract and confuse the village.

You end this point against me saying the evidence is circumstantial at best. I might be wrong, but doesn't circumstantial mean something indirectly points to guilt without proving it? I don't see how a single piece of your "evidence" fits that, even if your fact about me being the third vote in the bandwagon wasn't false, or if you didn't misinterpret my short discussion with Drought on statistics. Like Ecth making a larger deal about my request for Ruin to clear our inactives than what it actually was, I'm getting the exact same impression that you're reaching here, too.

Lord Ruler, I've written so much already, and I'm barely halfway through your accusations. Did you know you said my name 21 times? Now you got me eager to see how many times I've been mentioned in the Skaa doc.

Jokes aside, I'm actually confused by your next paragraph, involving stick.

6 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

Aman raises the point that Stick has a tendency to avoid getting involved in main lynches when she’s evil. I don't believe Stick to be a skaa, but I think she may well be Ruin. Not only does this fit with Aman’s analysis, it justifies that analysis if Aman is evil, which I do suspect, and most interestingly to me, ties in with a PM I spied on last night, from Joe to Stick. In this PM, Joe indicated that he was suspicious of her. After a response, he said he was much less suspicious that she were skaa, and then asked if she was Ruin. After a two hour delay, which I take to indicate that there was a response, he concluded the PM chain by saying “Don’t worry, I won't tell”. I think that this, along with her behaviour, which as Aman said is consistent with her not being village, implies a reasonable chance that Stick is Ruin.

Two questions for you, Orlok. Why don't you believe Stick to be a Skaa, and just how exactly does that justify me being evil? The answer I suspect to the first question is that you know Stick isn't a Skaa because you are. As for the second, I have no idea how Stick being Ruin would correlate to me being a Skaa. Seriously, explain that one to me, please.

As for the situation itself... you're admitting to spying on Joe and Stick's PM last night, in which he asks if Stick is Ruin and ends the PM with "Don't worry, I won't tell." Joe has ninja'd me while writing this to confirm what you said is true, and that he won't say anything about Stick's role, so at the very least you're not lying. Well, considering that I got a PM from Stick this cycle and it has kandra in the title, I severely doubt she's Ruin. Besides, if I had spied on that PM, I would immediately question why Joe was asking that question to begin with, and why he would make the promise not to tell. Isn't the whole point of village spy roles trying to catch eliminators in the act of gathering information and manipulating players? The fact that Joe asked her if she was Ruin instead of offering a role claim suggests to me a specific purpose. @A Joe in the Bush, since Orlok's not going to ask you, can you tell me what that specific purpose is?

 

6 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

The last point I'd like to make before moving into analyses of players is to discuss the half-skaa briefly. I do not think there will be many of them. As I've noted before, this is a small game. With too many half skaa, the potential for the eliminator team to grow becomes destabilising very quickly. The payoff from a successful conversion is immense - I would expect it to require a significant amount of dedication for Kelsier to succeed. 

I also don't think that Aman is likely to be a half skaa. Firstly, I think that he may well be full blooded skaa, but let's ignore that for now.

If Aman is half skaa, the game has the potential to swing monumentally. He is, by some significant margin, the most active player of all those who signed up. He's got a reputation for being incredibly effective as a player, and for being exceptionally difficult to catch as an eliminator. He is indisputably the best target for a conversion, and if he's a player capable of being converted, then the village would lose their best player, after having had a couple of cycles with which to he has gained trust, making it even more difficult to catch him. From a balance perspective, I don't think half-skaa!Aman makes any sense.

Considering that El is helping GM this game, I would think she'd have had a similar mindset when balancing it, although it does depend on how much say she had in that, over Conq and DA. Knowing her, I would guess a lot. However, one thing you've got to consider is the situation with half-Skaa is extremely similar to her Nalthis LG, in which Meta was a Returned and luckat was a Potential Returned. Luckat in that game was arguably "the village's best player" and El still gave her the potential to be evil on top of Meta. The problem you present with me being a half-Skaa is that on the flipside, it could easily be balanced by making sure the Skaa consisted of newer players and players who are not as active. Ecth fits the second of those criteria, and yet I don't see you bringing that up.

You know what's funny to me? Before today, Orlok, you were never confrontational towards me. Both in D1 and N1, you responded to a few things I said and even asked me some questions, but you never stated being suspicious of me. Now, all of a sudden, I'm right up there on your list next to HH and you're trying to focus the discussion on me, given how many times you've said my name. I started to think about this, and remembered something I had completely forgotten, because when I reread the rules after the game began, I didn't bother scrolling down to see the questions people asked. Do you know what one of those questions was?

Quote

"Does Kelsier use misting powers once per game, or once per cycle?" Once per game.

"1. Is there a restriction on the number of actions you can perform in a cycle? If there are multiple actions, can you perform the same action multiple times?

2. How does Feruchemical Storing work? Can you Store and Tap a metal on the same turn?

3. Just to confirm: Copper does not protect from Atium?"

1. 2. No.

2.You can tap or store, but not both.

3.Correct, copper does not protect from Atium

We have very good reason to believe that Kelsier used his Steel last night. I had assumed people could only use one before, but Conq's answer above confirms that players can use two actions a cycle. To make sure this hasn't changed, @Elbereth, can you confirm it's possible that Kelsier could attack a player and convert another in a single night?

If what Conq said is to be any indication, then the answer is yes, which gives me a theory. I wasn't attacked last night because Ecth, Orlok and their third ally wanted to try converting me first. It failed, and now Orlok no longer has a reason to step around me. This theory would also explain why they didn't attack me on D1. If I was Preservation, they could kill me with Kelsier's Steelshot (since Pres is only immune to the lynch and the Skaa kill). If I was protected by a Lurcher, they could kill me with the Skaa kill (Lurcher's only protect from Steel Mistings), so unless I was both of those things, they could have easily taken me out of the equation with a double tap. The rest of the protects would either take turns to store power first, or could just as easily be circumvented with a double tap. Unless the Skaa were being ridiculously cautious for fear of me having multiple instances of protection, the only logical explanation is that they intended to convert me last night, which sadly means it's essential that I die for entirely different reasons than Orlok is highlighting.

I'll get to the details on that when I'm finished with this post.

6 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

My suspicion of Aman comes from a number of sources.

• I've already set out above that I think he’s aware of the damage the lynch of an inactive would do today, and yet he announced support for lynching Szeth. I discussed the circumstantial evidence arising from his ironic mention of the bandwagon statistics.
• Randuir and I, in C1, pointed out that he used a narrative device to cast suspicion on Joe without engaging in an outright attack on him. Aman denied doing so, but I think it’s worth bearing in mind, and taking Aman’s words with a pinch of salt. 
• I would also point to Aman’s U-turn on Headshot. In C1, when Headshot was under relatively little suspicion, Aman said he was suspicious of Headshot, due to his backing out of the vote. After I made a post attacking Headshot, and Elenion supported this suspicion, Aman became a staunch defender of his, casting suspicion on Elenion in a recent post for being suspicious of Headshot himself.
• Aman focused the discussion on D1 on the lynch of a relatively inactive player, limiting the information we could get from a lynch. After I expressed concern as to the bandwagon, he encouraged it to form further, calling for every other player to give their views on Phattemer, setting the parameters of the conversation very tightly.
• Finally, Aman had been online shortly after rollover, without posting, in a timeframe that fits with advising Headshot’s rebuttal of my post (see the comments on Headshot referring to Long Games as different without having played anything else himself). 

Bullets were added to make answering easier.

• Already responded to this, but I'll reiterate it. I did NOT announce support for lynching Szeth. The last post I made before this one said I was going to analyze the three players I was suspicious of the most and vote for them. Also, how can you use the phrase "ironic mention" when the only way it could be an ironic mention is if it were true? It wasn't, which means you're either trying to sell overconfidence (AKA, you're evil) or you're tunneling hard (you're a Noble)
• "Randuir and I" is a prettttty blatant use of "This player is confirmed good, look at him agree with something I said. I must be good too" if I've ever seen it. As you've pointed out, I've denied it because the thought never even crossed my mind. Say what you want about me being "a level above the rest," but when has my power ever been subtle? My strength as a player is analyzing what people say and composing logical arguments and appealing to emotion to sway votes. My initial statement about Joe that you latched on to in the beginning never even suggested suspicion. Want me to quote it? Here:
  • "I would end this post with me publicly declaring my read on Joe like I did with Jon, but I'm going to keep that in my pocket for now, since there's a bit more to process, and I want to see more players react to the lynch on Phatt, first." Which part of that is me casting suspicion on him? I just said he posted a larger response that I needed to process, and I wanted to see more opinions on Phatt.
• Rather than quote, I'm just going to link you all to my posts regarding HH. The first time I talked about him, it was after he retracted his vote. I included HH in a "more likely" list because along with Joe and Rand, he fit the 3-6 vote margins. You'll notice there that I said it was interesting, not suspicious, and that this was before he retracted it. The next time I mention HH is in my megapost last night. I acknowledge that the circumstances of his vote is suspect, but I explain that if he were an eliminator I doubt he would have second guessed himself like that. In my third post where I mention him, I only ask how the results affect his plan to lynch inactives, which is soon followed by me pointing out how weird it is that HH didn't mention the possibility of the Skaa thinking I have protection. At no point do I see a "U-turn". Can you please point out where I became a staynch defender of HH? Or when I cast suspicion on Len? Because I just looked through all my interactions with Len, and that never happened. How many false statements does this make now? Three? Four?
• Once again, I've already responded to this, but I don't mind summarizing it. Sure, you can say that I focused the discussion on a relatively inactive player, but I did not limit the information we got from the lynch, as much as you want to say it. If I didn't do what I did, I would not have figured out that Ecth was a Skaa when I did, and although it barely matters because someone killed Ecth before I could, I would have attempted to lynch him today. Furthermore, you're doing that thing where you're either lying very badly or mixing your facts up, again. I asked every player to give their views on Phattemer ten hours after I presented my case on him, before which only two players (Jon and Joe) reacted to it. It wasn't until five hours later that you mentioned anything about bandwagoning, and if you click this link and reread the posts that come after, you'll see I never once encouraged it to form further, nor did I set any parameters on the conversation.
• Are you talking about N1? Okay, great. Now I can use math to prove you wrong. Turn over were posted at 7pm my time, at which time I was asleep and not online. You posted on the thread 57 minutes later, at which point I was still asleep. HH replied to your rebuttal an hour later, which I'm sure you could guess, means I was still asleep. The next time you posted was 10 hours later, at which point you mentioned me because you saw me viewing the thread. I responded twelve minutes later, saying that I would get right to it after I eat breakfast, because at that time you noticed me I had finally gotten out of bed to sit at my desk and began reading what I missed. So, if you're trying to use timing here to accuse me here of being busy coaching HH as he wrote his response to you, anyone can see the math doesn't add up. Granted that means you have to assume I was asleep when I'm saying I was, but that's not the sort of thing I would lie about.

ANDDD THAT'S ALL HE WROTE, FOLKS.

So, Orlok. Either you're a Noble who's tunneling so hard that they're mixing up the facts and seeing ghosts where there are none, or you're a Skaa who's blatantly lying out of desperation to turn the village on me. A part of me wants to believe it's the former, but if you are, I'm going to be frustrated. that you you just made me waste almost six hours responding to you and making myself suspicious of your intent when I could have been analyzing our real enemies. If that's the case, then I can already see us facepalming in the dead doc together, because at this point I see no way for this to end without both of us dying. Whether I get lynched and you get killed because you were wrong about a village Aman, or people take my side, see that you're a villager too, and have to kill me anyway for fear of me having been converted by the Skaa, which I'm about to advocate, it's inevitable.

I'm going to take a chance on it being the latter scenario, however, and place my vote on you. Orlok. Too many things you've said about me are either misinterpretations of my intent or just plain wrong, as anyone can see above. You talk about me subtly casting suspicion on Joe with three sentences, then go ahead and try to undermine everything I've said and done, and since I personally would rather believe you're saying and doing these things as an eliminator rather than a villager, I'm inherently susceptible to confirmation bias.

---

I just read through this again, and realized that I forgot to clarify the business with me advocating my own death. Admittedly I would rather not die at the village's hands, but I don't see many scenarios where I survive until the fourth cycle.

I'm now confident that Kelsier attempted to convert me last night and failed, but with that revelation I see now that no villager has a good reason to believe I haven't been turned. Unless Orlok is Kelsier himself and we lynch him today, everyone is going to have their doubt in their minds. So this is what I ask.

Lynch Orlok today. If he is not a Skaa at all, I need to die. I would prefer not immediately, but if the Coinshot who attacked Mage or Ruin feels like it, they can come to my home tonight and share a drink with me before ending my life. Whether it's written or drawn, I think that would make for a fun scene, especially if it's Ruin after all the implications I've been making about me (Reen) being Spiked and whispering to him.

Otherwise, the Coinshot/Ruin can leave me alive for one more day turn so that we can see who wants to get rid of me while I take advantage of another day turn to encourage discussion and apply pressure the Skaa. If I don't manage to find another one of them between now and then, I won't bother arguing for me to live any longer.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Amanuensis

[A Joe in the Bush]

My purpose was to find ruin and use them against the skaa. Not responding to the rest of that mega post because I'll need to read it at least three more times before I actually grasp it.