Orlok Tsubodai Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Steeldancer said: Orlok, are you even paying attention? I'm not replacing analysis. I'm trying a new format. I also don't appreciate how you threw my idea under the bus without giving it a chance. Makes me feel like you're trying to shut me down. And yes, i like making PMs. I find PMs increase village activity, and my own. It seems stupid not to utilize them. I fail to see how splitting up information hurts the village- the whole point is to keep the elims from gaining information. Which, unhelpfully, Orlok just distributed. So I am annoyed and suspicious. However, I'm going to refrain from voting until I get back from church. Eliminators begin the game with a significant information advantage. They have multiple players. There's a reasonable chance that they already know about most of your ideas, simply by having multiple PM recipients. As I put in in our PM, your division of information means that we have at most 15 conversations, each on a single strategy, all centred on a single player, rather than up to 15! conversations, on all strategies mentioned. My philosophy in SE is that the village always need to maximise their information and discussion - I see SE as a race between the village achieving parity in information and the eliminators achieving parity in lives. This is particularly critical in this game, given the previously mentioned potential eliminator victory in 5 cycles. Everything I've done this turn has been in the interests of generating public information, and I stand by my view that having 15 conversations around a suspicious lynchpin is not a productive way of doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondesu Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 I’ll just state publicly that I have no intentions of stating publicly what actions I will or will not take. It worries me to see the talk of grabbing the gun so openly, but I think I understand the reasoning there. Anything else should definitely be kept to yourself, and I wouldn’t suggest anyone else discuss whether they will or will not go for the gun now either. Further discussion of that won’t benefit the town. Also, I may switch my vote before the cycle ends, but I kinda like it where it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacThorstenson Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Orlok Tsubodai said: I don't think it unjustifiable D1, although it's not the strongest reasoning I've seen. Almost as interesting is keeping the vote on me after I made clear that I wasn't aware that such an action was a staple of Kynedath. I'd like to know why you still think it worth lynching me. I'd also like your input on the other points I made - on Steeldancer, and on whether we should declare which item we're going to go for, given the potential it hhas to strip kills from the eliminators. The reason that I am keeping my vote on you is two fold, the first being that you and Kynedath have put the most information out, and I side closer to Kynedath on the issue of D1 lynches. As a whole, my opinion of lynching is that without analysis or logic, you shouldn't vote on someone. Maybe it's just my very little experience talking, but in my first game there was very little analysis and it felt like people didn't put a lot of thought into their votes the eliminators one a perfect victory by cycle 4. (However, a large portion of that was due to have the villagers dying from inactivity, my first game was also a QF so that may also be a part of it). So I'm against voting on someone unless you can put a lot of thought into it and have some analysis to back it up. In the beginning of games that belief needs to be balanced with the fact that none of us actually have too much information to go on, but you and Kynedath have put the most information out and I have the least reason to trust you. The second part is that hasty lynches also benefit the eliminators as they carry a greater chance of taking out a villager. I would say that I am against declaring on what you go for. The thing is, I haven't seen any arguments in favor of it that don't rely on everyone going for an Item. Now while going for the item is a smart thing, relying on every one as a basis for your strategy doesn't work. Assuming everyone is telling the truth it does provide away for the eliminators to know who to single out. By that I mean, if they wanted to deprive the village of items, they could just kill Joe after he got the map if he doesn't use it in one turn. Also, depending on whether or not a sneaky player is on the villagers side, this strategy completely destroys their role. It allow the elims to kill so that they can figure out what people want which things. Sneaky players also make the pool of people who could be eliminators bigger. One quick question, Is the way the eliminators usually submit their vote is having one person use their action to submit it after they have discussed it in a doc or PM? I am asking because in that case, they could have a different person submit it each time, and if the supply runs low, more and more people won't go for items further decreasing the benefits of declaring what you took. I would like to apologize if some of this makes no sense, right now I am sick and finding it difficult to focus. If I need to explain it any further, just ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeldancer Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 I'm voting on Orlok . His explanation for why my plan stinks still makes no sense to me. If we share all our information, the elims learn it too! And now I can't check for information leaking, where elims might find out about all my strategies, and might let that slip! No, it's not the best plan, but it was an option that Orlok swept off the table. Also, now I still haven't gotten all my PMs out, and now I'm feeling less inspired to do so. I feel like Orlok is coming up with a way to shut my new methods of analysis down, because perhaps he finds them threatening? Because my plan has been shot to pieces, I'll share what I plan on doing. I plan on starting day 2 to do 3 methods (there's not much to do day 1, so it'll have to wait). I'll be looking at voting patterns, talking patterns, and analyzing other's analysis. Originally I was going to do it in my notes and just post my conclusions, but there's no benefit now in doing that, unless I'm short on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlok Tsubodai Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, Steeldancer said: I'm voting on Orlok . His explanation for why my plan stinks still makes no sense to me. If we share all our information, the elims learn it too! And now I can't check for information leaking, where elims might find out about all my strategies, and might let that slip! No, it's not the best plan, but it was an option that Orlok swept off the table. Also, now I still haven't gotten all my PMs out, and now I'm feeling less inspired to do so. I feel like Orlok is coming up with a way to shut my new methods of analysis down, because perhaps he finds them threatening? Because my plan has been shot to pieces, I'll share what I plan on doing. I plan on starting day 2 to do 3 methods (there's not much to do day 1, so it'll have to wait). I'll be looking at voting patterns, talking patterns, and analyzing other's analysis. Originally I was going to do it in my notes and just post my conclusions, but there's no benefit now in doing that, unless I'm short on time. @Steeldancer, the eliminators begin the game with a significant information advantage. They likely know the information already. Hiding information of this sort does nothing other than keep it from other villagers. Your strategy of looking for information leaks is doomed to failure anyway. You’re not the only one people have PMs with, and if they discuss you in those PMs, looking for information leaks turns up too many false positives. Ultimately, Steeldancer, my position has been entirely consistent. I have worked for information to be public because I am, and always have been, of the view that the village benefit more from information becoming public than eliminators. I don’t see why this view is something worth voting for me on. You didn’t acknowledge, much less respond to my point about the eliminators having information from multiple sources, which frankly undermines your position. Overall, you seem to be cherry picking points to respond to, and ignoring inconvenient responses, in order to portray an inaccurate picture of my motives. I believe I’ve created significant amounts of discussion this cycle, and contributed useful ideas, and frankly don’t see a lynch on me as useful or justifiable. Glad though I am to see you engaged, your strategies are not novel, and I think you’re scraping the barrel when claiming I’m voting for you due to being threatened. I think there’s a pattern of creating strawmen of my arguments here, and it seems that you’ve decided to lynch me as a first step, and are then looking for reasons. 21 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said: The reason that I am keeping my vote on you is two fold, the first being that you and Kynedath have put the most information out, and I side closer to Kynedath on the issue of D1 lynches. As a whole, my opinion of lynching is that without analysis or logic, you shouldn't vote on someone. Maybe it's just my very little experience talking, but in my first game there was very little analysis and it felt like people didn't put a lot of thought into their votes the eliminators one a perfect victory by cycle 4. (However, a large portion of that was due to have the villagers dying from inactivity, my first game was also a QF so that may also be a part of it). So I'm against voting on someone unless you can put a lot of thought into it and have some analysis to back it up. In the beginning of games that belief needs to be balanced with the fact that none of us actually have too much information to go on, but you and Kynedath have put the most information out and I have the least reason to trust you. The second part is that hasty lynches also benefit the eliminators as they carry a greater chance of taking out a villager. I would say that I am against declaring on what you go for. The thing is, I haven't seen any arguments in favor of it that don't rely on everyone going for an Item. Now while going for the item is a smart thing, relying on every one as a basis for your strategy doesn't work. Assuming everyone is telling the truth it does provide away for the eliminators to know who to single out. By that I mean, if they wanted to deprive the village of items, they could just kill Joe after he got the map if he doesn't use it in one turn. Also, depending on whether or not a sneaky player is on the villagers side, this strategy completely destroys their role. It allow the elims to kill so that they can figure out what people want which things. Sneaky players also make the pool of people who could be eliminators bigger. One quick question, Is the way the eliminators usually submit their vote is having one person use their action to submit it after they have discussed it in a doc or PM? I am asking because in that case, they could have a different person submit it each time, and if the supply runs low, more and more people won't go for items further decreasing the benefits of declaring what you took. I would like to apologize if some of this makes no sense, right now I am sick and finding it difficult to focus. If I need to explain it any further, just ask. @MacThorstenson, I would argue that at this stage my vote is not without logic or analysis. I think that Steeldancer’s position is one that decreases village information, which is absolutely critical for us to acquire in a game likely so short. Given we have had alignment indicative discussion now, holding off a vote based on previous D1 lynches not being alignment indicative makes little sense. Further, is there a reason that you simultaneously claim that you’re against voting for people unless you can put a lot of thought and logic into it, and then voting for me because you disagree with me about D1 lynches being fair? This seems to be doubly inconsistent. You haven’t justified why I’m suspicious, and are contributing to a D1 lynch despite claiming to be opposed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacThorstenson Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Orlok Tsubodai said: @MacThorstenson, I would argue that at this stage my vote is not without logic or analysis. I think that Steeldancer’s position is one that decreases village information, which is absolutely critical for us to acquire in a game likely so short. Given we have had alignment indicative discussion now, holding off a vote based on previous D1 lynches not being alignment indicative makes little sense. Further, is there a reason that you simultaneously claim that you’re against voting for people unless you can put a lot of thought and logic into it, and then voting for me because you disagree with me about D1 lynches being fair? This seems to be doubly inconsistent. You haven’t justified why I’m suspicious, and are contributing to a D1 lynch despite claiming to be opposed. I do not disagree with your vote on steeldancer, and your vote on him is not without logic or reason behind it. As to your second point, I believe that my words were that I sided closer to Kynedath on the issue of D1 lynches. What I intended by that was that I am opposed to them on the basis of people usually not having enough information to make a well educated vote, but not opposed enough to not participate in them otherwise how would we get the information to make informed votes the next day. I will participate in them gladly if it appears that some people have given away hints that may be alignment indicative. But usually we don't have enough information to make a well educated vote. In those cases I am a reluctant participant. You are correct, that I am voting slightly inconsistent with what I preach. As I said above, on D1 my desire for well supported votes has to be tempered with the fact that we don't know much about anyone, so on D1 I have to factor in whatever I can, this includes my gut feelings and impressions. I am voting against you because you, kynedath, and steeldancer have provided the most information, though admittedly not a lot, and you three are the only people that I feel I could make a somewhat confident decision to lynch. Steeldancer I don't think I could make a confident decision on without more information. Kynedath I have no reservation with as of right now, but I disagree slightly with how you think the game should be played. Usually I try to refrain from going with impressions and gut feelings, but as this is D1, in order to decide who to lynch I will factor in my gut. And my gut says you're acting suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlok Tsubodai Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 1 minute ago, MacThorstenson said: I do not disagree with your vote on steeldancer, and your vote on him is not without logic or reason behind it. As to your second point, I believe that my words were that I sided closer to Kynedath on the issue of D1 lynches. What I intended by that was that I am opposed to them on the basis of people usually not having enough information to make a well educated vote, but not opposed enough to not participate in them otherwise how would we get the information to make informed votes the next day. I will participate in them gladly if it appears that some people have given away hints that may be alignment indicative. But usually we don't have enough information to make a well educated vote. In those cases I am a reluctant participant. You are correct, that I am voting slightly inconsistent with what I preach. As I said above, on D1 my desire for well supported votes has to be tempered with the fact that we don't know much about anyone, so on D1 I have to factor in whatever I can, this includes my gut feelings and impressions. I am voting against you because you, kynedath, and steeldancer have provided the most information, though admittedly not a lot, and you three are the only people that I feel I could make a somewhat confident decision to lynch. Steeldancer I don't think I could make a confident decision on without more information. Kynedath I have no reservation with as of right now, but I disagree slightly with how you think the game should be played. Usually I try to refrain from going with impressions and gut feelings, but as this is D1, in order to decide who to lynch I will factor in my gut. And my gut says you're acting suspicious. Thank you for writing this out - it’s good to have something to respond to, at least. I still have a couple of questions. You say you’re voting on me because you disagree with how to play, but then act in a way that would express agreement - voting despite limited information. This seems inconsistent. Given your previous answers, it seems like you’re rationalising a vote on me, rather than voting on me for preexisting reasons. If you don’t disagree with my logic against Steeldancer, and you’re only voting on me because of gut, why not switch to Steeldancer? Steeldancer has provided a string of alignment indicative posts, and not lynching without more information than he’s provided encourages lurking as a playstyle, as people won’t stick their heads above the parapet to create discussion. If he hasn’t provided enough, I’m curious as to how you’ll justify votes on future cycles, given most players haven’t done anything alignment indicative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 Hey everybody! I need to go somewhere in about 5 minutes ago. In the meantime, I've pretty much caught up on the thread, and. If Orlok's disclosure about Steeldancer is accurate... That means Steeldancer has been a little untruthful. He told me he was sharing a different idea with everyone in all of his PMs, but that is the same idea he shared with me, so... It's a fairly harmless lie, and it might even be some kind of attempted gambit to catch elims, but... I can't see an obvious explanation for untruth. I'm still not totally happy with this, but deception is better grounds to lynch somebody than I usually get on D1. Steeldancer. I will be back at some point before the end of the cycle. Until then, ~Drake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondesu Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 @Drake Marshall, if that’s true, that is concerning, though knowing Steeldancer it’s very possibly part of a plan. It’s more than we usually get D1 (though in an IRL game I played last night, a Mafia member answered truthfully when I asked “Are you mafia?”, and we successfully lynched him first cycle). Sart (until next time) Steeldancer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacThorstenson Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 39 minutes ago, Orlok Tsubodai said: Thank you for writing this out - it’s good to have something to respond to, at least. I still have a couple of questions. You say you’re voting on me because you disagree with how to play, but then act in a way that would express agreement - voting despite limited information. This seems inconsistent. Given your previous answers, it seems like you’re rationalising a vote on me, rather than voting on me for preexisting reasons. If you don’t disagree with my logic against Steeldancer, and you’re only voting on me because of gut, why not switch to Steeldancer? Steeldancer has provided a string of alignment indicative posts, and not lynching without more information than he’s provided encourages lurking as a playstyle, as people won’t stick their heads above the parapet to create discussion. If he hasn’t provided enough, I’m curious as to how you’ll justify votes on future cycles, given most players haven’t done anything alignment indicative. I say I disagree with how you play based on our motivations on a D1 lynch. You accept it as a natural part of the game and from what I can tell, don't have reservations about voting on D1. I do have reservations about voting on D1 and reluctantly vote with my limited information. At this point, Drake Marshall's recent post has convinced me to to remove my vote from you, Orlok Tsubodai, and place it on steeldancer. The reason I didn't do this is twofold, the first being that I wasen't sure whether or not I could trust my reads of steel dancer after I failed in the last game I played with him, the second being that he had a point and I couldn't find fault with his strategy if he was a villager. I haven't at this moment received a PM from him, so I had no Idea what you were talking about. Drake Marshall's recent post has provided enough evidence for me to support lynching him. I don't see a reason for someone in his situation to lie in PM's that he was sending out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvron Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 7 hours ago, Orlok Tsubodai said: My philosophy in SE is that the village always need to maximise their information and discussion - I see SE as a race between the village achieving parity in information and the eliminators achieving parity in lives. This is particularly critical in this game, given the previously mentioned potential eliminator victory in 5 cycles. Everything I've done this turn has been in the interests of generating public information, and I stand by my view that having 15 conversations around a suspicious lynchpin is not a productive way of doing that. Personally, I disagree with this fairly strongly. I routinely hold back information when I'm a villager as to not give the elims more information than they already have. (Of course I also hold back information when evil but that's to be expected.) Steel's idea has/had merit. If someone he approached with an idea came back with something that another player told him or one of his own ideas then that can be a good indication of two players talking about Steel and his ideas in secret. Fairly good chance of elimness there. I don't believe Steel is an Elim. MacThorstenson on the other hand has been giving me evil vibes. His posts are far more detailed than in the QF. That could be down to having more time to think about his suspicions, him being evil and knowing everyones alignment or simply that he's found his stride in the games. Which is it? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacThorstenson Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Alvron said: Personally, I disagree with this fairly strongly. I routinely hold back information when I'm a villager as to not give the elims more information than they already have. (Of course I also hold back information when evil but that's to be expected.) Steel's idea has/had merit. If someone he approached with an idea came back with something that another player told him or one of his own ideas then that can be a good indication of two players talking about Steel and his ideas in secret. Fairly good chance of elimness there. I don't believe Steel is an Elim. MacThorstenson on the other hand has been giving me evil vibes. His posts are far more detailed than in the QF. That could be down to having more time to think about his suspicions, him being evil and knowing everyones alignment or simply that he's found his stride in the games. Which is it? I don't know. Honestly, the reason that my posts are much more detailed is that I have way more time to think on them. I have been sick and stuck in my bed the entire weekend and have had nothing to do except to start reading the wheel of time, and watch this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livinglegend Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 First and foremost 16 hours ago, MonsterMetroid said: Oh my goodness you guys just reminded me I haven't taken a picture of it yet. Let me rectify that right now! Not the best picture I couldn't get him to look at the camera haha poor guy is really tired from his day today. Sorry about the distractions though I will read through the thread right now and post responses. Awwwwwww! Well, i was going to vote on steeldancer, but I have to say this is concerning. That lynch flipped very quickly. I believe Orlock is village, so I won't be voting on him either. I have more to say, but a lot of what I'm thinking will either be obsolete, false or irrelevant in a half hour. That being said, Steel's playstyle has definitely changed from the last two games when we were both elims. I'm more suspicious of MacThorstenson for his sporadic votes. I haven't found his reasons very reasonable and the only pattern I can see in his posts is to vote for the person most likely to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Alvron said: Steel's idea has/had merit. If someone he approached with an idea came back with something that another player told him or one of his own ideas then that can be a good indication of two players talking about Steel and his ideas in secret. Fairly good chance of elimness there. That is a good idea. See if you can get somebody to slip about an idea you never shared with them... And voila you have evidence of behind the scenes communication. What kind of confuses this is that from what I can tell Steeldancer has apparently told everyone the same strategy? Unless somebody can confirm that they received a different one? @Steeldancer it might undermine your plan but I still recommend you come up with an explanation and address this confusion, if you are village. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesura Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 I guess I need to vote then. Honestly, I was considering just throwing my vote - I don't feel I know enough about the game or any of the players to pass adequate judgement, so I want to sit back and watch how this plays out a bit longer. Alvron and livinglegend make good points though, so MacThorstenson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacThorstenson Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, livinglegend said: First and foremost Awwwwwww! Well, i was going to vote on steeldancer, but I have to say this is concerning. That lynch flipped very quickly. I believe Orlock is village, so I won't be voting on him either. I have more to say, but a lot of what I'm thinking will either be obsolete, false or irrelevant in a half hour. That being said, Steel's playstyle has definitely changed from the last two games when we were both elims. I'm more suspicious of MacThorstenson for his sporadic votes. I haven't found his reasons very reasonable and the only pattern I can see in his posts is to vote for the person most likely to die. Personally, I am a bit confused, how is staying on orlok voting for the person most likely to die? No one else was voting for him. How is voting for a person who lied in PM's without reason sporadic? Why would he specifically tell someone he was telling everyone a different thing? Alvron said, 23 minutes ago, Alvron said: If someone he approached with an idea came back with something that another player told him or one of his own ideas then that can be a good indication of two players talking about Steel and his ideas in secret. Fairly good chance of elimness there. But if people were collaborating behind his back people would realize that he was lying. If he wanted to use this as a method for determining who was collaborating behind his back, he wouldn't claim he was giving every one different information. Edited February 4, 2018 by MacThorstenson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvron Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 22 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said: Honestly, the reason that my posts are much more detailed is that I have way more time to think on them. I have been sick and stuck in my bed the entire weekend and have had nothing to do except to start reading the wheel of time, and watch this game. Hope you feel better soon. It sucks being sick over a weekend but at least you got some good books to keep you company. 2 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said: But if people were collaborating behind his back people would realize that he was lying. If he wanted to use this as a method for determining who was collaborating behind his back, he wouldn't claim he was giving every one different information. And if someone called him out on it, that would also be evidence of backroom talking. It has its advantages and its disadvantages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrightnessRadiant Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 Sorry I missed the rest of cycle everyone! I've been kind of busy irl! I will try and catch up as soon as I can for next cycle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacThorstenson Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Alvron said: And if someone called him out on it, that would also be evidence of backroom talking. It has its advantages and its disadvantages. The thing is, if he was called out, that reveals the fact that he was doing this whole thing. Why not decrease the chances of being called out and not lie to everyone in the PM's? Edited February 4, 2018 by MacThorstenson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlok Tsubodai Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 22 minutes ago, Alvron said: Personally, I disagree with this fairly strongly. I routinely hold back information when I'm a villager as to not give the elims more information than they already have. (Of course I also hold back information when evil but that's to be expected.) Steel's idea has/had merit. If someone he approached with an idea came back with something that another player told him or one of his own ideas then that can be a good indication of two players talking about Steel and his ideas in secret. Fairly good chance of elimness there. I don't believe Steel is an Elim. MacThorstenson on the other hand has been giving me evil vibes. His posts are far more detailed than in the QF. That could be down to having more time to think about his suspicions, him being evil and knowing everyones alignment or simply that he's found his stride in the games. Which is it? I don't know. I think this view ignores the fact that villagers also communicate through PMs, particularly when discussing suspicious behaviour, which, in my mind, includes limiting information. All that said, I’ve just had an interesting PM from Kynedath discussing Steeldancer, suggesting that I should look at his arguments from a more emotional level, and consider that he might be attached to an idea, and then reacting to it being attacked. Steeldancer, I apologise if I’ve come across as heavy handed. I mean no personal slight. I’ll look back over the thread tomorrow, and will try to discuss your views in a more open minded manner. For now, Steeldancer. MacThorstenson, based on the aforementioned lack of consistency in his statements and his actions, and my perception that he was looking for reasons to vote on me, rather than having reasons to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sart Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 That's time. Give me a second to figure out what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sart Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) The camp quickly sprang into action, snapping up as many pieces of chalk as they could. Accusations began flying across the camp, causing more and more confusion. Eventually, two suspects, Steelchalk and Thorstein were brought up for treason. There was much debate about who should be executed. The final straw came when it was revealed that Thorstein had bribed a creepy clown not to vote on him. Surely, an innocent person wouldn't bribe someone so selfishly, the camp thought. Sadly, the immigrant couldn't make his case well, speaking in a foreign accent, and was summarily executed. They didn't find any indication of treason, but hoped his nationality counted. Elsewhere, humble Joel looked at the remaining supplies in horror. He realized that they needed more supplies, and fast. They needed to move to a different location, and there was a convenient map to get there. He announced his intention to lead the troop to their new destination, and everyone seemed okay with it. It was only until that evening that he realized he had forgotten to actually grab the map. Doubling back to the pile of goods, he was shocked to notice someone running off with the scrap of paper. He was about to protest, when a rock to the head suddenly shut him up. The town was directionless. Vote Count: MacThorstenson (3): Caesura, Living Legend, Orlok Tsubodai Steeldancer (3): MacThorenston, Jondesu, Drake Marshall Orlok Tsubodai (1): Steeldancer MacThorstenson was lynched. He was a Prepared Soldier. A Joe in the Bush was killed. He was a Soldier. Items Taken: Spoiler Kynedath took a Piece of Chalk. Devotary of Spontaneity took a Piece of Chalk. Elenion took a Piece of Chalk. Jondesu took a Bucket of Acid. Caesura took a Spring Powered Crab. Steeldancer took a Spring Powered Crab. Living Legend took a Spring Powered Crab. Manukos took a Spring Powered Crab. Drake Marshall took a Spring Powered Crab. Someone took the map. Camp Supply: Spoiler 3 Buckets of Acid 5 Bribes 1 Gun Player List: Hide contents Kynedath: Myka MacThorstenson: Thorstein Prepared Soldier Jondesu: Kadal Caesura: Lara Steeldancer: Steelchalk Devotary of Spontaneity: Cacooo Moreau livinglegend: Lenny MonsterMetroid: Nb'nub Orlok Tsubodai: Orlok A Joe in the Bush: Joel Soldier manukos: General Manukos the IV BrightnessRadiant: Mya Eternum: Aiden Drake Marshall: Drake Elenion: Mr. Klenien Alvron: Ronald A Budgie: Rose-Mary Soup The cycle ends on Tuesday, February 6, at 7PM Eastern Time. Edited February 5, 2018 by Sart Added in player list 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Hm. So the map went to a sneaky person. That's disconcerting. Also @livinglegend you ended up taking a crab? I was under the impression that you were planning on going for the gun. Unless that was just meant as a deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeldancer Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Dang it, i wasn't back in time for rollover. I apologize, i had dinner with grandparents and the terrifying realization that I have a piano competition in a week that I am not fully prepared for. I never did get out all the PMs I intended to, I'll get around to finishing up those tonight and tomorrow. And... I almost died. I'll also have analysis out later tomorrow. Interesting that no one took any bribes... I would have thought the thief would get on board that. For the record, i am still suspicious of Orlok, but I am going to wait to see what my analysis of day one turns up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livinglegend Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said: Hm. So the map went to a sneaky person. That's disconcerting. Also @livinglegend you ended up taking a crab? I was under the impression that you were planning on going for the gun. Unless that was just meant as a deterrent. Yeah, sorry. That was the plan the whole time. It was my best idea for stopping the gun... I'm definitely going for it today though Also, mr. Sneaky guy, please use the map. Lenny likes things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts