863 posts in this topic

Ok if people want a shorter night, the turn will end at 7, and I’ll get the night up as soon as I can. Just understand this means that the turn starting on Saturday will be late as well. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bort said:

Edit: Actually, before I do that... Are PMs night only?

Once created, using PMs at any time is your right. There's no need to wait until night.

So the day is apparently ending at the normal time after all, and our votes are scattered all over the place. With a mere two items used(though my vote will ensure that more are needed), we could lose up to five players to today's lynch. As interesting as it might be to have lots of people die, it seems like it would be easy for the elims to minimize their risk by using daggers and rum to move or remove votes. I'd rather avoid a massacre of villagers, so I'll vote Sart for now, based on the possibility that Sart's last hour attempt to get Roadwalker lynched in combination with the vote switched by Roadwalker with a dagger was an elim plot to kill Max, with the night kill being placed when Roadwalker survived the day. @Sart was around for rollover day 1, so hopefully he can be around again today. If we get more votes in the next 40 minutes, I might change my vote, but right now my priority is making sure elim vote manipulators can't wreak havoc.

Vote Tally
Eternum(1): Elbereth
HH(1): Elenion
Sart(3): Snipexe, Straw, Devotary
Fifth(1) Rathmaskal
Elenion(2) Eternum, Cadmium
Straw(1): Sart
Devotary(1): Randuir
Elephant(1): Fifth

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Lynch: There is a two vote minimum for lynching. If people are tied for Lynch, an iocaine powder situation occurs. Submissions for iocaine powder mechanic are required. In the GM pm, you simply indicated which cup you would poison, and which cup you would drink (ex. I would poison my cup, and would take the other person’s cup). The Poisoner/chooser will be determined by order of signing up, with the poisoner coming first. You may also change your choices at any time. When more than 2 people are tied, if the number is even, they will be randomly divided into sets of 2, where who survives will be determined by the iocaine rules. If it is an odd number, one person will die, and the rest will be determined by the iocaine rules.

I don't think multiple people would die...

 

Edit: Or, I guess only half the people would die?

Edited by Rathmaskal
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rathmaskal said:

I don't think multiple people would die...

I saw this as meaning if more than two people were tied, they would be divided into sets, with one person in each set dying to iocane. So if ten people were tied with one vote, there would be five sets of poisoned cups and five deaths. @Steeldancer, could you clarify this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for tonight I'm going to put my vote on Doc12. I'm still quite suspicious of most of the people that sealed Araris' death - I just think it's possible that one is an eliminator using day one randomness to push someone they know is innocent into the lynch. And out of the last three votes on him, HH has mostly explained himself, Fifth, I've got a relatively village vibe from him, and @Doc12 hasn't been on at all. I don't expect he'll die from this, but will hopefully join in a bit more.

I do have a few other suspicions. Nothing major, only little things, but I'm too tired to go into them tonight.

Good night :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Edited...I think you're correct.

I guess just clarification as to whether the 2-vote minimum is with regards to number of total people voting?  Or number of people voting on an individual?  (Unless that's supposed to be obvious)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the inactivity for most of D2. A lot has been said, and I’ll get to most of it eventually. For the moment, here’s my thoughts on the earlier posts. I want to explore CadCom’s discussion with Fifth, but I really want to get this done before D2 ends. I want to get to everything, but I might not have the time.

 

(Discussion about Len)

On 6/6/2018 at 3:36 AM, Elbereth said:

1. Why do you say that Araris wasn't worth the lynch? Clearly his role is unfortunate, but with only the evidence from Cycle 1, why was his lynch not worth it? 

2. First flip flop! You imply Len was illogical because Bugsy wasn't suspicious (which I disagree with, because Len clearly found him suspicious at that point even if you didn't), then give Len's point for him and end up saying Len's vote 'does seem to be based on some logic'. 

3. As has been noted, Len is always aggressive. I will agree that last cycle has me reading very slightly village on him, though. 

4. This isn't exactly a flip flop, but it's close. It feels like you're casting suspicion on Len without appearing to - you implicate him in something, and then go 'but that couldn't possibly be true'. Why bring it up in the first place, then? It doesn't help your point, and it makes me think you're looking for reasons Len could be suspicious rather listing out the reasons you have. 

5. I don't think Len was taking a side just because he preferred Araris - I'm fairly sure that Bugsy was in fact his biggest suspicion. It being Day 1, 'biggest suspicion' is still pretty small, but it got discussion going, and that's what matters. 
5a. By the way, lamenting the loss of a good player overmuch is actually one of the traditional elim tells. :P 
5b. Also, yesterday wasn't heated at all, in my opinion - it was a few people debating, all of whom enjoy debate (speaking of which, @Bugsy, I could really hear the MUN in your voice). I was never worried about it escalating further. 

Overall, I'm not sure I see a single place where you actually lay out the reasoning for your claim that Len is the most suspicious of the active players. Your first and second paragraph mildly defend him, the third outright says you can't see elim!Len being so careless, the fourth paragraph doesn't really give much opinion either way, and the fifth provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for him switching back to being "regular" (though, as I mentioned above, that's just a pretty normal thing). Why is he actually suspicioius? 

1. Yes, I think that his lynch was bad because it lost us two powerful roles.

2. Yeah, fair point. Elenion seems more logical because he provided a lot more background to his thoughts than Araris did, the primary example being talking about Bugsy’s opportunism. But since you raise that point, it’s hard to tell, because an Elim would provide more background to a thought than just idly throwing votes out there.

As contradictory as it is, Elenion seemed more genuine because he justified himself more than Araris did, but as I just said above, seeming genuine is exactly what Elims do, and as I said about Eternum in the post you’re quoting, I believe that a Village tell would be to act sporadically and more casually. Either Len was justifying himself because he genuinely believed what he was saying and was informing us of his opinion, or he was trying to make it appear like this evidence was his reason for voting the way he did.

At the time, I believed it to be the former. Now, I’m not so sure. That’s why he’s top for suspicion, but that has been changing since my last post. Len had arguments, and so I respected the fact that he had some logic, even if I didn’t necessarily agree with it. But looking at it now, I may have been quick to believe an argument that backed itself up over one that did not. This is probably related to the issue where I preferred Len to Araris partially because Len was contributing.

On 6/5/2018 at 5:46 PM, Elenion said:

Mr. Doctor: Third vote on Araris. This and HH's vote are in the positions that I'm most used to seeing elims in: 3rd and 4th. He clearly chooses a side on the issue (supporting Bugsy because he didn't see anything wrong with Bugsy's post). He justified voting on Araris over me because I was contributing more (for which I am grateful). I don't use contribution to tiebreak votes unless everything else is mostly the same, but that's a matter of priorities.

In that case it wasn’t a tiebreaker, but it was a factor. In analysing my own biases, I think that I am more likely to favour a good argument on merit of it being a good argument, and I am less likely to consider the bigger picture. This is probably because observing a couple of posts is easy, but matching that to a game-wide persona is a lot harder.

3. Fair point. I’ll concede to your experience of working with/against him before.

5. Yes, that’s true, he stated that it was indeed both reads which informed his vote.

On 6/5/2018 at 5:46 PM, Elenion said:

I am not Wesley/Dread Pirate Roberts and I've had no PM contact with Araris. I defended him because had a good read on him and a bad read on Bugsy, so I followed through with that. It looks like my read on Araris was right--I'm not really sure about the one on Bugsy. I'm getting a villagey vibe from his reaction to the news about Araris.

However, I’m curious to see whether his read of Araris was actually more important to him than his read of Bugsy. The reason I disliked his play in D1 was because a bad read on Bugsy seemed less believable to me than a good read on Araris, but as you say, the difference is probably not especially noteworthy.

5a. I wouldn’t put it past him to be aware of that. Oh look, another IKYK!

5b. It felt heated because of how quickly it turned into factions and vote-slinging. I was expecting something slower-paced, and as is probably all too clear now, I feel like it all escalated from pretty much nothing. It got the discussion going, certainly, so I suppose that Araris’s death was not in vain (as you mention elsewhere in your post).

Now that I’ve had some time to digest what I’ve gathered on Elenion…I don’t know whether I actually think that he’s suspicious. I have a lot of information on both sides.

I don’t agree with him that Bugsy was acting suspicious, and I find that the rest of his posts aren’t especially relevant to the discussion. Not to mention that here he never actually states why he thinks that Araris is Village. He just says that he is, in accordance with the idea of him voting because of Bugsy, which we seem to agree on.

Additionally, Len mentions a few times how 3rd and 4th votes are typical of Elims. Whether or not that’s true, it shows that Elenion believes that. And he wants us to know that he believes that. Wouldn’t a vote in 2nd, then a reminder that specific votes that aren’t in 2nd are correlative with Eliminator behaviour, imply something about what he’s wanting us to think? That’s not any sort of tell, but it’s another thing to consider.

Gut feelings and a few arguments are on his side, though. I agree with him that Bugsy’s reaction was Village. And you’ve already discussed that my first post of D2 was mostly in support of him. I think that he was in a position to continue his attack on Bugsy, given the way that the first lynch turned out, and he didn’t. I know, this isn’t especially solid or decisive. My opinions definitely have potential to change because of that.

Given the fact that he was centre-stage during the Araris affair, and now has some unpleasant light shining on him, I would expect an Elim to attempt to deflect blame and distance themselves from the issue. However, he hasn’t. He’s remaining on the side that he chose, and is now analysing the bandwagon for suspicious behaviour. That’s risky for an Elim, and you can’t exactly justify it under “aggressive Villager” like he has for the previous actions. It’s not aggressive at all, it’s rational for someone who believes in their argument.

So, I don’t know what to think. As you can see, Elenion is the one I have the most thoughts on, and so naturally my profile of him is the most conflicted.

 

(This is the discussion about Bugsy)

On 6/6/2018 at 3:36 AM, Elbereth said:

1. I think this unlikely - it doesn't feel like bait at all, and isn't something I would normally comment on. It honestly felt exactly normal for anyone D1, regardless of alignment, to me. 

2. As you note, this is highly unlikely. I'm confused about the negative light bit, though - why does the spiralling out of control imply he's evil, in any way? He wasn't the one spiralling it, and I don't think it benefits elim!Bugsy in any way for that spiralling to occur. 

3. I'm confused again. Maybe you're assuming the elims knew Araris' role and were specifically trying to drag him down? Because without that assumption, they have no particular reason to want him dead over anyone else, nor to escalate.

2. I think that Bugsy had ample opportunity to defuse the situation and didn’t, which is something that I thought was noteworthy. He explained himself, yes, but focused more on the fact that Araris was going after him than the original issue.

3. No, I meant that our hypothetical elim!Bugsy organised a trap by trying to bait one of the aggressive Villagers, and Araris happened to step into it. They wouldn’t have known whom to coordinate against until someone sprung the trap.

 

(Discussion of Rand)

On 6/6/2018 at 3:36 AM, Elbereth said:

1. No, not in general. Rand provided a fine explanation for why he didn't get too involved last cycle, but generally there's no point in sitting back during the first cycle - we need to generate discussion, and just letting a lynch happen because it has to is exactly the opposite of what generates discussion. 
1a. And we did get a lot out of arguing it, I'll note. People are already starting to use that information this cycle. It's unfortunate that Buttercup was the one to die, sure, but we actually created discussion and that's a very good thing. 

2. This is a good point! I meant to bring this up regardless, because it's important to remember: just because Rand (or any other player, but particularly Rand) is very good, that does not mean everything he says is automatically NAI, nor should he be assumed village. Both of those are potentially wrong and definitely dangerous assumptions. I caught myself reading him as village, as well, and have forced it back to a firm neutral because I don't think anything he's said merits the village read I had.

1a. Yes, very true. It’s becoming quite evident that with two kills every cycle, we don’t actually have that much time, and I don’t feel like I know anything concrete out of it. A positive that this last cycle has had for me is the realisation that this game is a lot like complicated resource-management: we spend players to gain information. It’s a heartless economy, yes, but I suppose that economies are heartless by nature :lol:.

 

On 6/6/2018 at 3:36 AM, Elbereth said:

(this is the response to my vote on Eternum, for context)

1. I disagree - if an active player tried to cast suspicion on all three of the main players last cycle, I'd be just as suspicious as of Eternum doing it, and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. 

2. Fifth already said this succinctly, but I strongly disagree here. Progression of thought is one of the more difficult things for elims to fake because it's something they don't have. Villagers will reevaluate (hopefully) and move on to different suspicions because they don't know who's evil. Eliminators do, and so don't care so much who they cast suspicion on, so don't have reason to change. Someone is far more likely to be changing their opinion than 'calculatedly revealing pieces of a plan over time' - people who try to do things like that tend to end up overcomplicating things and dying, in my experience. If you're consciously thinking 'time to manipulate someone to follow my master plan', balance of probability is that you will not succeed. 

3. Ooh, another flip flop! You say progression of thought condemns him more and then immediately say you don't think he's evil. Because he would back away after wavering like that, you say - could you provide evidence that he hasn't done so? I don't really understand why you think he's not evil given what you've said. 

4. Disagreed. I probably would have taken as solid a stance as any of the others on D1 had I been around. That doesn't mean I'd have actually been certain, but it's a lot less useful to put on an uncertain vote that you drop as soon as the other says anything, which an elim won't feel any pressure about. Being certain gets a lot more reactions. (See: Meta, in earlier games. He would do this a lot, and was very good at aggressively pushing on someone for the smallest thing, just to see what people would do.)

5. I have problems with that on two points. First, you say that galvanising discussion with votes didn't do us much good last time, with which I strongly disagree. We got discussion, which we're already analysing. You may not have seen other games with bad D1s, but some games have a D1 that was like ours was before that discussion got started - a few random poke votes, none with any intent to kill behind them, and nothing really... happens. And then someone dies, basically at random. That's not what we got here, and that's worth an awful lot. So galvanising discussion definitely turned out well, in my opinion. 

Secondly, as I mentioned above, voting puts pressure on people. If you politely discuss who you'll vote for for most of the cycle without actually voting, elims won't feel in any danger of being lynched, and we'll get less information out of them. It's also a lot easier for them to hide if everyone is only voicing soft suspicions and not actually putting down votes to back them up. Waiting on voting creates less discussion and just makes things easier for the elims (and were this not your first game I might vote on you for that suggestion). 

1. I stand by my assertion. If a player gave us a good read on their thoughts, then I would be less likely to suspect them due to their vote, on average. They’ve shown that they’re not afraid that we see what they think, and they also have to act accordingly or be called up for being inconsistent. Eternum didn’t do this, he hasn’t really given us much to go on. As I said, that looks like shy Elim behaviour trying to get things done, but also wanting to escape an early lynch.

2. Alright, this makes a lot of sense. An alternative theory is then that Elims can reveal information over a period of time in order to simulate progression of thought, but I guess that it’s probably very hard to fake. Yeah, you make a very good point.

3. It was mostly that he hasn’t covered for himself or justified anything. He’s just…ignored a lot of this. At the time of writing that original post I believed that this was indicative of Village, because an Elim would try to defend themselves against analysis. But now that it’s been around 24 hours and he’s had a chance to provide new content, I’m starting to wonder if my beliefs here were really all that well-founded.

When faced by a lot of analysis, I would expect an Elim to attempt to cover for themselves with some kind of response justifying their actions and arguments. But Eternum hadn’t done that, and so I thought that it was a Village read.

But given your clarifications, I don’t agree with that so strongly. Would it be logical for an Elim to, when faced with biting analysis, avoid posting so that they gave less to analyse? There are a lot of experienced players here, and Eternum might not be confident in his ability to argue well enough to counter the analysis. The counter, then, is to give them nothing to attack. I find myself coming around to your side a bit more, but I’ll get to that later.

4. Fair enough. That does make sense, and I’m starting to agree that voting is definitely a good way to get discussion going.

5. Yeah, that’s actually a really good point. But from a certain perspective, someone did die mostly at random. Or, at least, the discussion that led to their death was at random. Araris initiated with what seemed like a random vote, and then doubled-down when he thought that Bugsy acted suspiciously. While we found justification eventually, things did begin randomly. But I can’t really see things kicking off in any other way, so your point makes sense.

 

(Discussing votes and mislynches)

On 6/6/2018 at 3:36 AM, Elbereth said:

I mostly covered this earlier, but will reiterate a bit: Yes, we're going to have more mislynches. That's an unfortunate fact of SE. But the price of being willing to vote to kill is worth it, because that what really helps. I fully intend to lynch Eternum this cycle, unless he convinces me he's village or I find someone more suspicious. Without him having a reason to care about my suspicion - a vote with intent to kill - I won't get nearly as much information from him or anyone else. 

On 6/6/2018 at 3:36 AM, Elbereth said:

One more thing on this, and then moving on. There's now actual evidence - yes, exactly. And people are using it. If there's actual evidence, why do you think we shouldn't be voting anymore?

I think that I’ve been convinced that voting is good, because we’ve got a lot of information out of the first lynch.

 

On 6/6/2018 at 3:36 AM, Elbereth said:

The only time I would lie is if a) I was evil, b. my team was already in contact with Max who had agreed not to claim, and c) I was a better player than I currently am. It's the sort of gambit I might have tried under those specific circumstances a couple years ago, but not now, and I'm not sure even then it'd be worth it. (I guess I could also claim as a villager to cover for the reasl Max if I were in contact with them, which I won't confirm or deny.)

Since we’ve already had one fake roleclaim, it really makes no sense to fake-claim again. Unless you’re Village and are trying to cover for the real Max because of the threat that Max poses to both sides, and you think that a living Max is better for the Village than a dead one. That would be a pretty big self-sacrifice and act of trust in your fellow Villagers, and given that fact and that you haven’t been “good” for a while, I don’t believe that this is the case. At this stage, when Pills are being made and distribution is expected, everyone is going to be looking at Max for revives, and that level of scrutiny would be awkward for any player if they don’t deliver on promises. So a fake-claim at best gains you a small aegis from both sides (I think that I’ve mentioned this in an earlier post), but that lasts about as long as you can avoid handing out Pills. And if you aren’t agreeing to help either side, they’re going to decide that you’re probably helping the other side, and off you for itf.

I did say that it felt very convenient, but after considering the stage of the game, the risk of fake-claiming Max is far too high for either Village or Elim.

 

Eternum

I said that I’d give some more thought to Eternum, so here we go. Elbereth’s arguments have made me rethink mine, so let’s do this. He hasn’t posted much, either in terms of post or word count. I’ll show how my opinion is changing, so let’s discuss the thoughts that I originally had regarding him and where I stand now on them.

1.      He appeared to be reading the field before stepping in.

Now that he’s had two full Days and a Night to provide some sort of significant analysis and has come up with very little, I think that this is no longer valid. His inactivity may then be something else. I stated above that he might be simply trying to avoid the fire of the analysts by not giving them a target to shoot at. Elbereth has proven herself to be very good at pulling posts apart (as I can see firsthand), and so Eternum, who is already in her line of fire, would not want to give her anything. But I think that this is telling in and of itself.

2.      His progression of thought implies that he has some greater plan, and therefore more information than he’s letting on.

I no longer believe this. Looking at it now, I’m surprised that I even thought that in the first place. I agree that it’s a very risky strategy, and I imagine that it would be ridiculously difficult to pull off simulating progression of thought. This is now infeasible.

3.      He would have backed away from the issue if he was an Elim.

He…sort of did. At the time of writing that, I had given him a grace period to reply because he hadn’t been all that active initially. I hoped that he would come forward and clear up some things, but the Day is almost over, and he hasn’t. That doesn’t reflect well on him.

4.      Suspecting the three core members is not suspicious.

I stand by this. Sorry Elbereth, but if you’d taken a solid position like they had, I would suspect you as well. Even though I was on Bugsy's side during that affair, I suspect him now. I agree that you wouldn’t have to be certain, but acting aggressively just gives people more to analyse, and therefore more potential ground to form conclusions about your alignment. At that stage in the game, those initially active players are the ones we have the best information on, and so naturally at least one of them is going to be suspicious, especially if they stand on opposing sides.

Only one of my arguments still stands, and it’s not an especially strong one. I don’t consider stating suspicion to be any sort of tell either way, because suspicion is what this game is about.

I now believe that Eternum’s lack of response says more than anything else. He hasn’t offered much analysis, hasn’t really responded to Elbereth’s point, and isn’t giving us anything to go on. If he was Village, I would at least expect something to defend himself, unless he’s trying to avoid analysis now that a spotlight is on him. I’ve already discussed this, though, and this is going to be a long post so I’ll refrain from repeating myself for the sake of everyone’s attention spans.

 

On 6/6/2018 at 5:16 AM, Cadmium Compounder said:

Fifth is also right, @Mr Doctor If you don't stop, you will be stuck like us. When you try to stop later, you will experience withdrawal symptoms and be drawn back in. It's a death trap.

A gilded cage, I say. This is a lot of fun. I’ve been looking for a cool community to join for a while, and I really hope that this is the one.

 

7 hours ago, Cadmium Compounder said:

I will now perform analysis of Len
Not because I personally suspect them
But because he was listed in a PM
This is actually my second time doing this analysis
because I accidentaly refreshed, and it didn't save:unsure:
Originally that was a poem above, but I cant remember how exactly it went
So now there is no rhyme.
The first part of my analysis will be repeated
so out of laziness, the content is somewhat depleted
One good rhyme is enough for today
So here's the analysis now...Yay!?

I’ve refreshed my posts, too. Twice now. I now write up my posts in Word because I don’t trust myself to not be an idiot.

 

3 hours ago, Cadmium Compounder said:

So that made me start thinking that Mr. Doctor could possible be Elim trying to just find out the reasoning behind the shot. maybe behind the death of a teammate. But Mr. Doctor, even though it's his first game seems smarter than making a move like that.

Fair suspicion. If we were in each other’s shoes, I would probably come to the same thought. It did feel really strange (not Elim-strange, just regular strange) that no one had mentioned it, and yet it was someone who I would really not consider to be kill-worthy based on their actions.

Given Val’s explanation, though, I understand better now.

 

Alright, I’ve blabbered for a couple thousand words, and I don’t feel like I’m all that close to finding a decent vote. Eternum is suspicious from his inactivity and Len’s on my list, but I don’t think that I have enough on either of them to make any sort of solid decisions. I honestly hadn’t suspected Eternum all that much before Elbereth pointed it out, and so I’m not sure if I have the grounds to vote on him just yet. That might change, but I’m really not sure at this point. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like defending myself, since I'm usually bad at it, but it's a necessary evil. Straw is off the hook for now while I vote on Elenion. He's been active and tried defending Araris, which seems like a villager thing to do. However, I know that I'm a villager, and he's the only one I can vote on to tie up the vote. In regards to the Day 1 vote on Roadwalker, it was mostly for meta-game reasoning. A role that negated a kill each cycle seemed not that fun, and would delay the game more than I would like. I would note that no one voted for Roadwalker besides me. I know this is getting into mind games, but why would I do that if I were Evil? It nearly killed me Day 1. I could have instead joined on one of the lynch trains to select my choice of victim, or I could have kept my mouth shut and blended into the shadows.

The Night 1 kill is more interesting. There are two scenarios I could see happening. In one case, the Elims learn that Roadwalker is not Miracle Max, possibly by his own words. Claiming that role could have meant that Roadwalker was hiding a village role. In that case, they had every reason to kill Roadwalker. Even if he didn't, Roadwalker would still gather lots of information for the village, which is something they wouldn't want. In the other case, the Elims think Roadwalker is Miracle Max. To be honest, I think Max is more helpful to the Elims than the villagers, but that's my opinion. If they felt threatened, they could only kill Max that night, so it was a shot worth taking. In either case, I didn't need to vote on Roadwalker. I did vote on him though, and I stand by that vote. Judge for yourselves, and if another bandwagon happens, I'll probably jump on it. Like I said, I don't suspect Elenion that much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sart said:

I would note that no one voted for Roadwalker besides me.

True...  But someone used a dagger to change Araris' vote over to Roadwalker...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rathmaskal said:

True...  But someone used a dagger to change Araris' vote over to Roadwalker...

That's a good point. It wasn't my item. It could have been Bugsy defending himself, by moving Araris's vote to someone with a vote. Or it could have been an eliminator seeking to capitalize on my vote. That one seems like a waste, as the votes were clearly going towards Araris at the end.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rathmaskal said:

I guess just clarification as to whether the 2-vote minimum is with regards to number of total people voting?  Or number of people voting on an individual?  (Unless that's supposed to be obvious)

Two vote minimum does mean two votes on an individual, so lots of people won't die after all. That's good to know. Without my vote, a dagger would only be able to render two players mostly dead, while rum could only be used to protect someone. With my vote, it would be difficult for anyone other than Sart or Elenion to be lynched . I still think my vote might be worthwhile, but I'm far less sure. Sart has historically (LG43) been against resurrection roles, so I can see him voting for Roadwalker as a villager. I've run out of time to decide, so I suppose the iocaine will make the decision.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The turn is over! I’ll get the night up in an hour or two (I’m telling you, this recital thing is so agonizingly long. At least I’ll have time to plan a write up)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Night 2: Alv’s Rhymin’ Time

"The Count and the rest of the Prince's men walked into the kitchen.
They discovered a dead Buttercup and Kidpen.
'Well that solves one problem' said the Prince.
The Count ordered 'Take those bodies and take them to mince.'

"That was an awful rhyme, Grandpa.
You should think more like a Panda.
Even a word as feared as an Orange
Rhymes with another thing like a door hinge."

Grandpa Steel raised an eyebrow at Alvron, who smiled at him. Steel let out a short guffah. "That was good. But seriously, back to the story."

"Many pirates were arguing. Some were just arguing for the sake of arguing, but it seemed that there were two main sides. But they were equal sides. 
But, arguing was hard work, and one of the thirstier pirates, asked for a drink. A thing of Rum was thrown at him, and he caught it, drank it, and passed out within half an hour."
"I'm not sure that's how rum works...."
"It's one of fiction's many perks. Now, when this pirate passed out, the other side became superior. They grabbed the pirate that they wanted- Shree King Eelz. They beat him, and one took the bottle of rum that was empty, and whacked him in the face with it, lacerating him with broken glass."

Alvron let out a dark chuckle. "Brutal."

"They left Shree in the hallway, bleeding and dying. His only hope was if Max decided to take pity on him instead of robbing him, which is what he had been doing to most of the other dead bodies."

---

"The albino threw the body of Brutus out of the hollow tree. Silly man hadn't said a thing while being tortured, making him useless to the Count for the research of pain. Time to find another victim."

Elenion has been lynched! He is Mostly Dead

Kidpen has totally died! He was a Pirate

Roadwalker has totally died! He was Pirate with a Dagger

Eternum(1): Elbereth
HH(1): Elenion
Sart(2): Straw, Devotary
Fifth(1) Rathmaskal
Elenion(3) Eternum, Cadmium, Sart
Devotary(1): Randuir
Elephant(1): Fifth
Doc12(1): Bort

Spoiler

1. Walin (Bill Ted)

2. Bort (Asu Wish)

3. Elephant Earwax (Maw Wiage)

4. Araris Valerian (Araris) Princess/Buttercup

5. Cadmium Compounder (Indigo Montoya)

6. Devotary of Spontaneity (Polydactylous Pterrodactyle) 

7. Eternum (Rob Indie Banks)

8. Hemalurgic Headshot (Leonard Wilkins)

9. Snipexe (Exetes the Wandering Artist)

10. Fifth Scholar (Plaristocrates)

11. Jondesu (Q)

12. Elenion (Shree King Eelz) Mostly Dead

13. Roadwalker (Brutus Kowd) Pirate with a Dagger

14. Doc12 (D. Senfalo)

15. Dalinar Kholin (Reginald Canuk)

16. Bugsy (Dread Pirate Cummerbund)

17. Kidpen (Incan C. Vable) Pirate

18. Straw (Straw)

19. Mr. Doctor (Dead Private Hobbert)

20. Val (Val)

21. Randuir (Captain K.C. Grumbleton)

22. Sart (Grandpa Lace)

23. Coop772 (Kay Oss)

24. Mark IV (Mark)

25. Elbereth (Elenta)

26. Rebecca (Sir Shrei King Eel)

27. Rathmaskal (Rath)

bla_1528412400.png

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I...thought the cycle was being extended and didn’t actually cast a vote. Oops. I likely would have voted for Len or Eternum. 

Doctor’s and CadCom’s analysis is interesting. I’ll read through it again and respond if I can.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Elenion, I had to protect myself, in case you had vote manipulation as well. I used up my Bottle of Rum, so I'm just a normal villager now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, everyone. Sorry I wasn't active that day cycle, a lot of stuff came up that I wasn't expecting. I plan on catching up on the thread between tonight and tomorrow morning, and hope to post my thoughts then. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I’m going to be inactive the next two cycles because I’m going to the desert where’s there’s no service. Sorry Rand, but I guess I’m going to be staying neutral in your analysis for now :P 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to sound a bit hypocritical, given that I won't be around fort he next cycle, but could everyone that does gt the chance to read through the serious vote down? Low voter turnout is to blame for a lot of the vils in the world, including elim victories. Less than half of the living players voted this cycle, and the leading wagons only had three votes each. Under those circumstances it'll be very difficult to lynch an elim unless the elim team is pretty much entirely inactive.

Anyway, Len's death should help resolve the D1 discussion more at least. I'll need to go over the Sart wagon again as well. When I quickly read over the end of the day I felt like something was off (in addition to two of my suspects being on it), but I'll need to take another look at it to make further conclusions, and I might not actually have time to do that.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything but the writeup has been edited in! I will put in the write up very soon, soon as I go say "noted" to everyone. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I wish I had taken my vote off of Sart. After all, my vote was made as a joke, but it risked getting in the way of a legitimate lynch. :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The villagers are losing bed,

Which is really really sad.

The village has lost at least now,

The elims are hiding and we don't know how. 

We'll soon reach LyLo at this rate of attrition

It's even worse because I don't have a suspicion. 

The good news now is that night is upon us.

We can open new PMs so we have more to discuss. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steeldancer - I see my vote is missing.  Did you miss it, or did something block me?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bort said:

@Steeldancer - I see my vote is missing.  Did you miss it, or did something block me?

I really should do my own vote counts sigh 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bort said:

@Steeldancer - I see my vote is missing.  Did you miss it, or did something block me?

You probably ran into a tree

6 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

I really should do my own vote counts sigh 

Or you could get an official vote counter guy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.