Mid-Range Game 32: The Blight Encroaches

[Furamirionind]

To sleep or not to sleep, that is the question

I answer said question with the words, "Not to Sleep"

@Amanuensis This is the same ring as last turn. And it has the same health as it did last turn. So I don't think there was a sabotage.

Anyone defending would have been protected from vote manipulation, though it is possible one of those is an elim manipulate. Idk how we could possibly identify it in *that* though... the one on me would probably make the most sense though, as "what would be the purpose of removing a single vote when there are 6 others on Metaterminal". With the suspicions on me, I could see someone removing a vote on me to make me look more suspicious for D4.

I will 100% admit I didnt defend last night. I was hoping for ring 2 to fall, as I would much rather deal with ring three on a night turn rather than a day turn. (Reasoning found in my post N2 I think). I am starting to wonder if the elims are defending... and in so doing, driving up the damage, hoping that we will let it breach multiple rings at a time. I admit, this is something I haven't seriously considered before now, which seems to be a major oversight...

Though I agree it would seem Bard is tunneling on BR, the fact that I am actively suppressing my gut read of her being an elim isnt helping.  I still have a village lean on him.

Now I would like to respond to MrDoctor's comments:

Quote

The justifications against me are...interesting. 

  On 12/10/2018 at 10:44 PM, Furamirionindsaid:

Mr .Doctor I am not so sure about. They were quiet, but they still have done a lot of analysis the first 1.5 cycles... This would (I think) have been a good time to kill them.  Therefore, some investigation of Mr. Doctor's post are, I think, in order.  I will try to do that if someone doesnt beat me to it.

  15 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

I think the obvious choice to kill was Mr. Docter due to his absence yesturday.  Karn had a chance of being lynched, and I was tunneling on you, so killing the three of us would probably be a bad idea. Mr. Doctor showed his skill in analysis is previous posts, and leaving those people alive, I have recently learned, is often dangerous.

I don't think village!Mr. Doctor had a use for the elims, unless you are one and wish to hide behind him.  But as Karn seems to trust you, you probably wouldn't need Mr Doctor.

I feel like distrusting a player because they seem analytical and yet are still alive is a good enough reason. But note that randuir has been more analytical and active than me (and, I think, is a more dangerous player to the Elims) and is also still alive. I'm not saying that randuir is suspicious, but I would say that I am in a similar boat to him. I find that killing a player with a lot of analysis and opinions is often dangerous, because people have a tendency to consider why someone was killed (see Snipexe's post about Devotary's death) and look at who they suspected. The best strategy, I believe, is to wait until the player has stopped talking about your teammates, and then kill them and hope that no one looks back at who they suspected a Cycle or two ago.

You address most of my other points well, but I did state that there is an obvious advantage to keeping Randuir and myself alive as I was tunneling on him. You didnt have the protection Randuir did of... being suspected.

And I still stand by, that your default language was suspicious. I probably would have taken my vote off you if it wasn't for that one line.

 

Sorry CadCom, I didnt see your post last cycle, and forgot you are busy. I do appreciate you responding to that though.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Furamirionind

[Mark IV]

1 hour ago, randuir said:

Since the ring took no damage, there where at least 6 effective defense actions submitted, but there could be more. This actually makes me wish the ring had fallen,as the ridiculous amount of lost votes combined with knowing the exact amount of defense would have allowed for some hard-clearing, or at least narrowing a group down to '1-2 elims in these 7, no more than that'.

Some info: 
Name      Total Votes | Negated votes | Effective votes
Meta        7 .                4                              3
Furamir    2 .                1                              1
BR .          1 .               0                              1
Rath .       1 .               0                              1
Mr Dr .      1                 0                              1
Randuir .   1                0                              1

Total          13               5                              8

Randuir, I don't get your point here.

Okay, say we now knew that there were 8 defense actions. What now? We know for certain that atleast 3 people defended. 5, if no one sabotaged and Aginor didn't negate because 5 people lost their votes. Maybe the remaining 3 people in this scenario that defended didn't vote (there's 16 people alive by my count). (However, I just remembered Stink is MIA, so yeah)  
I don't see how you can conclude much about anything given the total number of successful defend actions. 
(My apologies to mobile users. Landscape mode might help if it isn't showing correctly)

 

1 hour ago, Amanuensis said:

EDIT: Thinking on that further, I find it interesting that the people who voted on literally anyone else (Young Bard, Steeldancer, Mark and Furam) didn't get their votes negated. Have any of them yet? Because that could be worth noting.

I don't get how that says anything as neither sabotage nor defend have side efrfects that can be controlled. Unless you're saying none of us defended in the first place. Which leaves the possibility of us being elims. In that case, if we were elims but not forsaken, we'd have definitely done the sabotage action, which leaves your point moot because that carries a 20% chance of vote negation anyways. Therefore we might be the forsaken. In Aginor's case, he already has a vote negation ability. Which means, if they're smart, the elims might already have negated one of their own votes as a mild WGG. So, you can't really conclude much from the lack of negation on the four of us. 
On a side note, this is also an argument against the fact that anyone that was vote negated might be hard-cleared. 

Some stats: 

The above picture gives the probability of X number of effective votes, assuming all votes were negated due to the 20% chance of either sabotage or defend. 
It should be noted that the peak occurs at 11 effective votes. Which does mean someone was possibly negated by Aginor. But then again, this is probability. I wouldn't bet my life on it. 

 

Edit: I forgot to ask - Out of those who voted, is there anyone who forgot to put in a defence action? 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Mark IV

[DeTess]

I didn't do the exact math, but just from eye-balling it knowing the exact number of defense actions could theoretically allow for us to determine a rough amount of sabotage actions submitted, which in turn would allow us to determine the maximum amount of elims within the 5 people that lost their vote (assuming the elims wouldn't be submitting defense actions). However, since we don't know the exact number of effective defense actions, only that it's more than 6 we also can't calculate the number of sabotage actions submitted, which means that theoretically speaking, all 5 of the people that lost their vote could have been trying to sabotage.

Basically, if we knew the exact number of effective defense actions we could have asked for everyone that defended to claim, and it'd be fairly obvious when the elims where slipping in their own names as having defended when they didn't because you'd end up with too many claimed defense actions. Right now there's no way to tell.

[Karnatheon]

Aginor couldn't have negated someone who defended, as defending this ring grants the effect of no vote manipulation(with the exception of the 20%). So if anyone didn't defend and had their vote negated they were targeted by Aginor. 

As far as numbers go we do know that a minimum of 6 successful defense actions went through. The named characters are able to sabotage as well as generic agents with the exception of Fain(to my knowledge. It says he can't submit actions on their behalf but I don't know if sabotage counts as one of those or not). So at most there were 4(or 5) sabotages if we go with what seems to be the general consensus of 5 elims.

If all elims sabotaged that means we needed 10(or 11) defense. Counting Lan as 2, we would need 9(or 10) people to have defended. We had 17 living players who could submit actions. If every elim sabotaged, that would mean that 15 of those living players submitted defense related actions. We already know Rand didn't, and we have had a couple people claim today they didn't defend. With the number of inactives we have, some number of them probably didn't submit either. This leads me to assume that not the entire elim team sabotaged. Either due to some of them being inactive or just choosing not to.

I don't have the time to try and math out the max number of sabotage actions that could have been submitted, but will hopefully do so by the end of the day.

[CadCom]

I'm seeing a lot of discussion regarding the vote negation, seeing as it is come pretty high negation, out of 13 people. However, I don't see how much of the discussion is moving past that point. 

I think we can all agree that 

1. there was a lot of vote manipulation
2. most of it was probably caused by just the 20% of defenders votes doesn't count. 
3. It's possible that Aginor negated a vote. The location of the vote is not 100% verifiable though, at least with the information that the people who have posted so far have presented.
4. Enough people defended that a ring did not fall, which has now increased the strength of the attack this next cycle.

If anyone disagrees with these statements, or if you argue that we can, currently, derive information from these, please let me know, and I'll go back and reconsider them. 

So, I'm going to move on. I'm in the process of doing some more player analysis. Will provide that within a couple of hours.

[BrightnessRadiant]

   Starting my first day of work today so I'll be back on at some point but still don't know my schedule. The manager just told me to come in after my college appointment this morning so that's not very helpful haha. 

I want to look at Fura and Rand specifically. I didn't like the meta lynch and I want to state my reasons when I get back in full.

[Steeldancer]

I’m on mobile right now, so I can’t really do analysis, but I would like to say: 

we are totally and completely screwed if we don’t start killing eliminators, like, next turn. I’ll try to do some analysis soon to help, but I’m also trying to study for my finals that start saturday and so it may not be the most helpful analysis, but I’ll try my best. 

Oh sweet, this turn is extended, so my analysis just became much more likely. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Ookla the Positive

[Karnatheon]

So I know my vote got negated. I didn't mention it earlier just cause I didn't figure there was a point since it doesn't confirm anything. But just out of curiosity who else got negated out of Randuir, Cadmium Compounder, Amanuensis, Droughtbringer, Ark1002, Mr Doctor?

[DeTess]

I was negated as well.

I'm not going to be particularly active for this night cycle due to lack of sleep and general busy-ness tomorrow

[Furamirionind]

You forgot Ookla of the East/Hemalurgic Headshot, in that list. 

That being said, like CadCom pointed out, this conversation isnt moving much. We can't confirm if an elim removed a vote unless someone comes out and says they didnt defend, but got negated.  I would be hesitant to this person coming out though, as it is probably someone with a role if this is the case.

I want to point out again: this ring is HELPING the elims, PLEASE let's breach it this cycle.

We probably want to transition to player instead of voting analysis.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Furamirionind

[Karnatheon]

How is this ring helping the elims? 

The Second Ring: While a player is defending this layer, their vote is immune to manipulation.

That only benefits village. Unless an elim really defends to prevent Moiraine from affecting them.

And I was more curious who got negated on the Meta vote. With Randuir and I that means 2 of Cadmium Compounder, Amanuensis, Droughtbringer, Ark1002, and Mr Doctor got negated.

@Ookla the Duck 

@Amanuensis 

@Droughtbringer 

@Ark1002 

@Mr Doctor

[CadCom]

My vote didn't get negated either.

Work is keeping it difficult for me to consistently do player analysis, but I've done a few more. They are out of order now, and some of them were just because of the ease of completing an analysis on an inactive player. Here's what I've got now.

8. Rathmaskal  I’m reading as slightly elim. But then again, if I weren’t me, and I were judging me the same way I am judging Rath, I’d also read myself as slightly elim, so It isn’t the most accurate reading. That is because he seems to be lurking a lot(a couple people have seen me lurking as well, and then tagging me to get me to speak, but my lurking has been very short sporadic views just so I don't fall too far behind, but no analysis took place), but pondering very carefully before he posts anything, as if he doesn’t want to say anything wrong. And anyone who has been watching me could possibly think the same thing.

15. Ark1002 (Ookla the Dragon Reborn) Is he Kidpen now? In my opinion, he usually reads elim, even when he is not. But this game, he has been exceptionally low on activity, so that seems odd to me.

16. STINK, Has been very inactive, due to computer troubles. On the one hand, I would like to get rid of inactives to keep the actives playing longer, but on the other, lynching an inactive only gives us probablilty chances of catching an elim. Which is what? About 4 or 5 out of 16? So 25ish percent? Not that great when we are can possibly narrow down the suspects through some other form of analysis. Same goes for Ark and other inactives. 

[+Ark1002]

Uh, sorry about that part. I've been inactive due to forgetting about it. Sorry.

[Furamirionind]

2 minutes ago, Ookla the Ring said:

The Second Ring: While a player is defending this layer, their vote is immune to manipulation.

That only benefits village. Unless an elim really defends to prevent Moiraine from affecting them.

This ring tells the elims who is defending. THAT is what I am concerned about. If they sucsessfully negate someone's vote during the day, that means they aren't defending. That means that they either wanted the ring to fall, or they had a better action to take.  Hopefully Moiraine tried to manipulate someones vote as it tells them the same thing... But for several roles, I would rather they go unidentified by both village and elims, Rather than identified by both. 

8 minutes ago, Ookla the Ring said:

And I was more curious who got negated on the Meta vote. With Randuir and I that means 2 of Cadmium Compounder, Amanuensis, Droughtbringer, Ark1002, and Mr Doctor got negated.

I once again disagree about the priority of knowlege of this lynch. No matter what, the elims had no reason to try and target this group, so it would be foolish to do so.  They did have reason to target Meta or HH, which js why I was curious about them.  But no matter what, HH will say his vote was removed, because otherwise he would be putting a target on his head for an elim.

What good does it do to the village to know who got their votes removed? Anyone who didnt protect becomes a target for the elims, and we no longer have Perrin!

I want to point out, that what I said about myself is, I believe, different. I pointed out I wanted the ring to fall. This doesn't tell the elims anything about me.

Anyway, can we please move away from talking about votes? With the combination of ring 2, and all the lack of potential info to be gained by the village as a whole, and all the potential info being to be gained by the elims, this is a very dangerous conversation to be having.

Mat, hopefully you have reached out to Karn by now... You have? Cool, thanks! : )

(Obviously don't respond to that comment, just pointing out Karn should be reached out to.)

[Karnatheon]

Are you saying that Mat has reached out to you? If so, it would be nice to know for a fact that role is in play. Or are you just shouting out to the aether hoping someone hears you?

I can kind of see where you're coming from now, but at the same time I think the more information the village has the more well informed decisions they can make. Why do you think the elims have a reason to target Meta and HH? Also, HH saying his vote was removed or wasn't removed doesn't make him any more or less village/elim. If it wasn't negated, he could have defended, not defended, or sabotaged. If it was negated it means he defended, or sabotaged. or didn't do either and got targeted by Aginor. I think there's a big leap in assumption saying just because someone wasn't negated means they were doing something other than defending. 

[Furamirionind]

39 minutes ago, Ookla the Ring said:

Are you saying that Mat has reached out to you? If so, it would be nice to know for a fact that role is in play. Or are you just shouting out to the aether hoping someone hears you?

I can kind of see where you're coming from now, but at the same time I think the more information the village has the more well informed decisions they can make. Why do you think the elims have a reason to target Meta and HH? Also, HH saying his vote was removed or wasn't removed doesn't make him any more or less village/elim. If it wasn't negated, he could have defended, not defended, or sabotaged. If it was negated it means he defended, or sabotaged. or didn't do either and got targeted by Aginor. I think there's a big leap in assumption saying just because someone wasn't negated means they were doing something other than defending. 

I will neither confirm nor deny whether or not Mat has contacted me... However, the fact that I said what I did publicly, and not in a PM, should mean something to you...

We know there at least 6 people who defended D3. The elims know the actions of themselves, which will be 3-5 players, which narrows down who could be defending. Factoring in roles that wont be/shouldn't be defending (i.e. Rand/Moiraine) that narrows down how many people should be defending.  Factoring in a couple inactive players, everything can be significantly narrowed down. The elims don't need to find Rand right away, it would be better for them to just figure out who the roleless are, and target everyone else. 

Remember at least 6 people protected last turn. At least 6. It could have been 11 for all we know. 

You are right, just because they may have been able to manipulate a vote, does not inherently mean they have caught a special role. However, it would be significantly more likely. Do not discount the info they gain from purely knowing that someone did or did not protect on a given night.

I am not saying that we shouldn't discuss this, just that in public, I think the elims will get MUCH more benifit out of this discussion than the village.  And as Steel said, things are already looking dire for us. Hence why Mat should contact you.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Furamirionind

[Droughtbringer]

14 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Is this the point I vote on Drought again? xD.

Probably

4 hours ago, Ark1002 said:

Uh, sorry about that part. I've been inactive due to forgetting about it. Sorry.

You're good, just don't forget about it again

2 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

I am not saying that we shouldn't discuss this, just that in public, I think the elims will get MUCH more benifit out of this discussion than the village.  And as Steel said, things are already looking dire for us. Hence why Mat should contact you.

I'm not thinking that it matters too much, anyone can claim that they defended the Ring, and anyone who did defend the ring can easily claim that they didn't.

[Furamirionind]

Hello peoples, I know this is an extended turn... But things have gotten pretty quite here... I am going to try to accuse lots of people of being elims now to get people talking again. : P

I am just going to talk about the people I want to hear more from at the moment.
(Umm, can someone please tell me how to link someone else's post? that would help a lot... Thanks!)

@Mark IV:

Quote

I have a strong gut feel about 2 people, but not much evidence.  I'll not be voting for now, for aforementioned lack of a case. However, if I do happen to come online before rollover, I may drop my vote to solidify the lynch at the very least. 

You implied that one of these gut reads was on BR, but you don't state the other. I could be wrong, but generally gut reads are suspicions without evidence. So I don't know what you are trying to say. What if everyone didn't vote because they were unsure? We would never have a D1 lynch. Maybe you just don't like D1 lynches either?

I feel like Snipexe's second lynch was a bit weird too. after people were discussing for a bit, we weren't going to lynch him until Mark popped up and said Snip was in the warrior doc. There was no vote or anything. Just enough of a post to ensure Snip got lynched. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

@Ookla the Unprepared:

I have vouched for Bard several times so far this game, but I really don't think I have any reason to. Out of the 2 game significant posts Bard has done, both were gut reads on BR. In his second post, he goes says that he also suspects HH because HH was targeting me, and he trusts me. However, no reason was specified for why I am to be considered trusted.  Perhaps this is another gut-read, but if so, this goes against what he said about me after LG50.  This could have been purely an attempt to make me trust him meta-wise, but if so, that backfired.

 

@Rathmaskal:

I don't know... People have been saying they suspect Rath for a while, and I would of course love to hear more from them... 

Quote

You use the word 'felt' in your response...does 'feel' more accurately represent your feelings since you didn't retract your vote?

I admit, I am probably slightly biased toward Rath being village purely because of this line. I love picking at people's words, which people may have been able to tell from my post on MrDoctor. 

Quote

You're saying I'm not including much content in my posts?  Mostly just trying to be efficient.  As I've mentioned, it's been a slightly busier time for me than normal, so trying to provide thoughts where I can.

I assume you mean being efficient IRL. As I would 100% agree that in most of your posts, there hasn't been a ton of content.  The thing is, there are many people who have had significantly less content, so targeting Rath on this I don't think is the best reason.

Quote

Furamirionind (I'm proud to say I can spell that without looking it up now)

Congratulations! You get a medal!
The posts to me sound like a villager talking. It is just a gut feeling, but that is what I am thinking...

@Sart:

Sart mentioned this is finals week for them, but hopefully that means that they will have time within the next few days.

Quote

Okay, still trying to catch up with this game. I've got finals this week, so don't expect too much activity, but this is a good break from studying. If I understand the rules correctly, to defend the outer-ring, we needed to muster a defense of 8. One role (al'Lan) can contribute 2 defense, but all other roles contribute 1 defense. This requires using an action. There is also an evil role that reduces the camp's defense by 1. Since the outer ring held, we can conclude that at least 7 people did an action that actively helped the village.

Therefore, I'm going to do something stupid. I will not vote for anyone who voted today. We're more likely, at least in my view, to catch an Eliminator by going after the inactives. That may be naive, but it should be an interesting strategy. At the very least, I believe that Padan Fain is inactive. I would have taken a free kill any day of the week, but instead they left Snipexe alive. That just reads as laziness.

This is the quote that gets me. It seems to me to be trying to distance Sart from the role of Padan Fain, while saying to go after the inactives.  What we should not forget, was that the role Sart picked up, was inactive until this post.

Quote

I noticed the bandwagon, but there was nothing I could do about it then. So much for being active... I disagree with calling this vote a bandwagon. For most of the cycle, it was very closely tied, with a large spread of votes. It's only late into the cycle that it tipped so drastically. I'm slightly suspicious of Drought, as his defense on Furamirionind seemed a bit like pocketing to me. Then we had a slew of last minute votes. Yes, I understand not liking vote manipulation, but that was ridiculous.

"I noticed the bandwagon", then, "I disagree with calling this vote a bandwagon. For most of the cycle, it was very closely tied, with a large spread of votes. It's only late into the cycle that it tipped so drastically".  Not only is this a slight contradiction, but the fact that the bandwagon happened late in the cycle, does not mean it isn't a band wagon. It is just a bandwagon that happened late in the cycle.  If Sart is an elim, I might suspect at least one other person who joined in this bandwagon.  That would be: Randuir, Karn, CadCom, Amanuensis, Drought, Ark, Mr Doctor.
However, and I am going out on a limb here, the part "It's only late into the cycle that it tipped so drastically", could mean that the (potential) elim in this group voted early on in the cycle. If so, that would narrow it down to: Randuir, Amanuensis, Drought, or possibly CadCom.
I crossed out Drought as I don't think an elim would accuse another elim of pocketing a villager.  This would be risky, and raise the guard of the villager in question towards that person.  This is a very possible attempt to make me tunnel on Drought.

Wow, going into this, I didn't find Sart that suspicious at all, but as of writing this, I am thinking more and more he may be one.

 

CadCom:

I want to hear more, but I still feel bad for calling for a post from them after they already posted... : /
I will analyse them later, as I have been working on this for ~1.5 hours at this point.

 

@Ookla of the East:

Quote

I realize I didn't look over Mr. Dr, as he was the other contributor to Snip's lynch.

Looking over his posts from the last turn, it seems his motives were to 1. get information 2. somehow gather suspicion for Karn. He does admit that he has some hesitations in placing a vote on Snip. In actuality, Mr. Dr's vote came before most of the votes (which were tacked on without much given evidence).

This, and the general vibe I'm getting from his posts, I'm giving Mr Doctor a village read.

Quote

I'm intrigued by this vote on Mr. Doctor. Fura states this is a poke vote, but this is D3. Is this really the time for poke votes? I understand that Mark IV had some confusion with votes last Night, but this vote still leaves something to be desired. 

The line of thinking Fura presents is reasonable, but discredits the possibility of inactivity among the Elims, a factor that creates variability in such logic. Mainly, I have a general village read for Mr. Doctor, and the supposition that because he is still alive means that he is an Elim doesn't seem like grounds for a lynch. Under the same logic, Fura could be Elim as well.

This may just me me, but I don't understand your first quote saying that you trust MrDoctor. You say that they were trying to gather suspicion of Karn? That doesn't read like a village thing to me. Perhaps you wish to rephrase?

You picked at the post that was weaker, but I had already posted again to support the first one. I actually thought I may be lynched when I went offline, and you hadn't talked about my reasons at all, just the conclusion.  However, I grudgingly admit that I think this sounds more like a rushed villager post than an elim one.

I still have my eye on you... 

@Droughtbringer:

... Must I really say more? : P

I really want to hear more from Drought, but Sart going after them makes me less suspicious of them for now. 

Quote

Don't trust me. I have now read through the rules 7 times since the game started and I am still lost. For all I know I could be an elim, and be completely misinterpreting the rules.

I like jokes! : ) ... Though I did try to use it as a cover for being an elim last game...   : |

Quote

I think that, if you have no idea what is going on, and are attempting to get some form of a vote going, and the start of a cycle, doing a 'semi-poke vote' based on your suspicions at least slightly, is a good way to start discussion and see what people are thinking.

I'm not seeing much of a reason for the Fura lynch, or more specifically, the reasons for the Fura lynch don't seem quite right to me.

I personally don't think I can comment on this.  As I know I am a villager, I understand my reasons for doing what I do, and I see why people's accusations against me are flawed. This post seems to be understanding what I did and why I did it. I want to say I trust Drought more because of it, but I honestly can't, as I am too paranoid of people who are protecting me. @Ookla the Ring, what do you think?

I think either Drought or Sart is an elim, though I doubt both are.

 

@Ark1002:

I can understand forgetting about this at the moment, but if you do some analysis sooner rather than later, then you don't have to worry about forgetting about it. : )
I honestly don't know what to think about Ark. 
Post 1: Intro post
Post 2: Said he didn't read D1
Post 3: Pokevote
Post 4: has been inactive due to forgetting about this.

Ark, we really just need something from you to confirm you aren't an elim. Thanks!

@BrightnessRadiant:

Saw you lurking in-thread a little earlier and got my hopes up that I would be ninja'd. Alas, twas not to be.

I know you are busy, perhaps another couple sentences about your current thoughts? You say you are suspicious of me? Here is another analysis post of mine for you to look through.

My thoughts on BR are basically the same. I am tired now, so I am not going to reread her posts and really try to analyse her yet, I will do her and CadCom later.  However I still have a gut-elim feel about her.

---

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Furamirionind
Removed my final sentance. It was too IKYK for me. No one has been in thread yet, so I don't think anyone read it.

[DeTess]

I still don't have a lot of time today, but I'll probably have a couple of small things to say as I look into things that have been bothering me. @BrightnessRadiant, you said the following things during the second SnipExe lynch:

Quote

Okay so about Snipexe, I said I was leaning village on him because:

1. He was already in the spotlight so much on Day 1 then why would elim!Snip want more spotlight on him with the redirected action that Fura talked about?

2. If Padan Fain exists and could have killed Village!Snip than would they have or would they use a mislynch? Or could they have been inactive? Or could they have missed that rule clarification? 

3. If Snip flips as Rand then that could be really bad. (I know this isn't a point in favor of him actually being village, it just made me worry about lynching him.)

However, based on the fact that Karn is pushing very hard for his lynch, I would like to see Snip's alignment and for the same reasons as day 1 I would like to know Snip's alignment based on all of the interactions people have had regarding him. I think at this point, it's probably just worth it to find out his alignment so we have more to look at from there.

Quote

   I feel like I should point out that if he does flip village, that we shouldn't be too quick to kill Karn. 

I'm not certain that elim!Karn would push that heavily for a lynch this early in the game?

I just get nervous when I see so many people saying that it would essentially confirm Karn's alignment. Remember to keep an open mind.

In the first post you explain why you think SnipExe was village, but then sue the fact that Karn is pushing hard to change your mind. You state that you hope that seeing how SnipExe flips will help solve the alignment of other people.

But then, in your next post you weaken this reason by saying that your main reason for voting snipexe (Karn's push) is NAI if SnipExe flips village, which according to your previous post you think was likely to happen. So if that's the case, why did you proceed to keep your vote on SnipExe anyway?

[Amanuensis]

Wait, is this turn still going?

20 hours ago, Ookla the Ring said:

How is this ring helping the elims? 

The Second Ring: While a player is defending this layer, their vote is immune to manipulation.

That only benefits village. Unless an elim really defends to prevent Moiraine from affecting them.

And I was more curious who got negated on the Meta vote. With Randuir and I that means 2 of Cadmium Compounder, Amanuensis, Droughtbringer, Ark1002, and Mr Doctor got negated.

@Ookla the Duck 

@Amanuensis 

@Droughtbringer 

@Ark1002 

@Mr Doctor

My vote was one of the ones negated.

[Elandera]

40 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

Wait, is this turn still going?

Fifth mentioned it in the write-up. He had a conflict on Wednesday night, and with the delayed posting of this turn, he extended it. 

As a reminder, the rollover time has changed (this will be a permanent change, unless other extenuating circumstances arise). There are about 9 hours left in this turn.

[CadCom]

Alright, I've done a couple more people. Once again, I didn't go in order, because these two people seem interrelated in this game. 

10. Young Bard (Ookla the Unprepared) Playing entirely in RP. Which is fine. I personally don’t think that conceals much for him, because he is using RP to still provide analysis when necessary. But, I also don’t see much alignment indicitave stuff. D1, he didn’t like BR’s posts, and he got some backlash for it D2. Despite being somewhat less active, he has generated a lot of discussion from his limited analysis. Could be a good option to lynch if we want to get rid of a possible less active, while still getting a lot of Information. From what I’ve seen there could be a bit of tunneling on BR, which I will discuss when I get to her, but I tend to agree with most of his reasoning, even if I don’t necessarily trust him. (if that makes sense)

18. BrightnessRadiant, I actually kindof agree with Bard on this. I know Brightness hasn’t played many games since I’ve started, but I find it odd how often she has claimed to be confused in this game in particular. Not necessarily alignment indicitave, but I would put her as slightly elim, just because of how much she’s said she was confused about the rules.

I kindof wish that I had done some of this analysis on these people prior to the end of the last day cycle, because looking at these two people, and who is defending who, i think can lead us to at least one villager, Currently I'm leaning more toward BR being elim more than Bard, but as I went through each of their posts, it did flip flop back and forth. 

During the next day cycle, I don't want to only discuss these two, but perhaps more people's opinions on the apparent discussion here would be good? Thoughts? 

[+Ark1002]

9 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

 

@Ark1002:

I can understand forgetting about this at the moment, but if you do some analysis sooner rather than later, then you don't have to worry about forgetting about it. : )
I honestly don't know what to think about Ark. 
Post 1: Intro post
Post 2: Said he didn't read D1
Post 3: Pokevote
Post 4: has been inactive due to forgetting about this.

Ark, we really just need something from you to confirm you aren't an elim. Thanks!

...

Again with people thinking I'm an elim...

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to prove I'm not. I've been trying hard to stop elims, but I haven't got a read on anyone. Sorry.

[CadCom]

3 minutes ago, Ark1002 said:

Again with people thinking I'm an elim...

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to prove I'm not. I've been trying hard to stop elims, but I haven't got a read on anyone. Sorry.

I don't think that they necessarily think you're an elim more than they think anyone else is an elim. It's kind of a general rule to assume everyone is an elim until you can confirm they're not. 

Personally, I don't see anything you've said that makes me think you're elim, all of you're posts have been NAI, but unfortunately, that gives you a 1 in 4 or 5 ish chance of being an elim. (because we are assuming 4-5 elims among 20 people) 

[+Ark1002]

Well then, I'm now suspicious of... everybody. Dang.

Watch me get lynched again, even though I'm innocent.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Ark1002