Long Game 56: Discord in Elendel

[Stick.]

27 minutes ago, Rathmaskal said:

So, I'm always curious about how things are going to look in different ways.  Here's a brief outline of what's happened so far this turn:

a = game analysis
p = player analysis
l = quick post, usually a response to something specific
c = check in or non-game related post
r = role play only

Aman aaaalllca
Ark rrr
Lum c
Fifth aaaa
Araris l
Ventyl rr
Fura cllllll
Rath alllll
Devotary aaa
Sart t
Stick alllla
Walin
Aonar al
Snip r
Straw
Drake aallap
Xino cc

Not sure what to get out of that so far.  Just thought it interesting.  (One of these days I'm going to find some different way to analyze posts that people actually like...)

I love this! 

What does the t in front of Sart’s name stand for though?

[Amanuensis]

15 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

My opinion on D1 lynches is fairly settled, true—except in extreme cases, I’ll value discussion over the lives of villagers, including my own; I’m unaware if you’ve played games with me before when I do this, but I tend to be okay with mislynches on me if the discussion and reads surrounding the lynch and my death are more productive than a pursuit of a suspicion of mine who I’m not certain is an elim; if they’re not, discussion is further wasted and there’s a major unresolved point of conflict. I don’t know how much of that made sense, but in essence this might amount to a difference in playstyle or preferences. While I’ll acknowledge that, it doesn’t particularly reduce my suspicion of you.

I believe we have played games in the past, though I don't have any recollection of such an occurrence. That said, what you're saying makes sense, and I don't believe we are in disagreement on that topic. As I said I want people to vote if they have a reason. What I'm advising against is votes for the sake of voting, whether it be poke votes or sheeping. I don't think anyone genuinely feels any kind of danger from poke votes, usually people end up responding with some kind of joke or simply vote back (also known as the OMG U STINK [as in the insult, not the player). As for sheeping, whenever a villager does it, it gives eliminators the opportunity to do the same exact thing (thus increasing the number of suspects we have) or the opportunity to do more, which will immediately put them in a higher standing than a villager.

22 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

As for your next three paragraphs, I basically agree completely with what you’re saying here, and recognise that I maybe (probably) misinterpreted your statement; however, I’d like to briefly defend at least some bandwagon votes—for instance, if a player presents a compelling argument, and another person follows their argument but adds “I disagree with part X of your analysis, but quote Y from this Player is another reason to find them suspicious,” or something along those lines, that’s fine as it still adds to discussion despite bandwagoning. Even players who do simply sheep still help more than by not voting at all because it’s easier to track who they’re sheeping and why. So bandwagon votes are a little more acceptable in my view. That said, original analysis should always be encouraged.

What you describe here is a perfectly reasonable way to follow someone else's vote. I don't really consider that bandwagoning, since the definition of bandwagoning is following other people for the sake of fitting in. In my perfect world, everyone has their own internally formed opinions, and with civility and understanding presents this ideas calmly with the hopes of finding something the majority can agree on. Since no one person can ever see everything, it's important for everyone to give their opinions on well... everyone this game. Although I know how it feels to be Aonar, for example, and see most of my thoughts expressed by others already, I think it never hurts to add on to those conversations with details like how you came about reaching the same confusion, or even playing a little devil's advocate with yourself to see if you're jumping the gun.

Like with Rath. I saw the same thing Mrake noticed, and I let it be because I wanted to see who else would bring it up. Depending on how it was brought up, how Rath answered, how the first voter responded back, and everyone else who weighed in on the situation, it gives us a lot of information to work with. While it could have been a sign of Rath having more knowledge than the rest of us, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and even posted to highlight Rath's response, which Mrake seemed to miss. Likewise, Mrake could have seen an opportunity to form a reasonable D1 lynch from an eliminator's perspective. I honestly considered joining his vote for more pressure, but then I saw Rath post again and it made me realize it was a dead lead. The fact that Mrake dropped it so quick to makes me think him and I are of a like mind as well. And when I say like mind, I don't necessarily mean we have the same opinions and thought processes. It's more that I believe we are tackling the game like we are trying to solve it. And I can see you're doing that too, which is why I think the three of us are fairly likely villagers.

30 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

My apologies as to how that statement came off; it wasn’t my intent, but in my defence I’ve participated in enough discussion on the value of D1 lynching as to be slightly weary on the whole topic. Perhaps it’s because it seems like circular discussion which simply exists for its own sake, or because the constant debate is not changing my views, but discussion on this sort of thing always seems to me like an elaborate digression which gives players an excuse to comment on something which is generally NAI and not related to the actual business of finding Eliminators. Anyone who brings it up, therefore, makes me slightly suspicious, but your explanation as to why you did so is reasonable, so you get a pass.

No apologies necessary friend. I love this community because of all the mafia forums out there, I know we are all civil and mature enough that I don't take more decisive wording as insulting. I know that my sheer confidence as a player often bleeds into the way I write and can make me feel standoffish or rude, and I hope people know that's never my intent as well. In my earlier days it was a problem and I've made a real effort to do better. And I think in some ways I over compensate by being too nice or lenient. On the subject of well... this subject, I disagree that it's circular or views can never change. It's helped me reach my village read of you, after all, and especially for newer players like Ventyl, it can help them understand how players go about things. I also believe that hashing this out between each other will help you reach a village read of me as well.

I also believe that if I were an eliminator, I wouldn't have brought this up at all, let alone with the follow up of "I know this is an unpopular opinion, but..."

To clarify further, eliminators would always prefer a mislynch to no lynch, and they'd also rather avoid controversial topics that bring attention to themselves, as I have done. Could I manage it if I were evil? Probably. But I don't think it would be my first instinct.

38 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

An increased emphasis on the alignment flip was more implicit from your qualification that 

The idea here is that if people don’t have a genuine reason to vote, the D1 lynch should be abstained from because friendly fire is the main risk; hence, the killing and alignment flip are the most important products of a D1 lynch. Conversely, I see the lack of discussion generated by a no-lynch as more harmful than the friendly fire that a lynch can sometimes create, and therefore the greater risk; again, an emphasis on discussion and analysis over alignment flips and death, which seems to be your main focus.

Realistically, flips are very important in games where there's no way we can determine a person's alignment 100% otherwise. And I want to remind you that at no point I advocated people not voicing suspicions and voting on them. I just think the village would have a greater advantage if we didn't kill one of our own this turn. After all, we don't know the kandras abilities, whether or not there's coinshots, or who the Mistborn is and if they'd be willing to start burning Steel immediately. If the stars don't align right, we could theoretically lose 3-5 villagers in the first cycle. Which, in a world where there are 4 eliminators, we could end up as 10 - 4 if not worse by tomorrow, as opposed to 11+. I'm a bit of a gambling man myself but when it comes to gambling, I don't go for high risk, high reward. I contemplate, I calculate, and I make sure that I'm utterly convinced that my choice is the right one or at least not one I will regret. And to do that I need more information, not less, which is why I'd be content to let this lynch slide.

For the record, my intention was never to convince others not to lynch today. More so express my stance on it, and explain why I'll very likely abstain from voting today, barring any extreme circumstances.

46 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

We are of a similar mind, I’d agree, but certainly not the same; indeed, it’s in this paragraph in which I take the largest issue from your stance on the D1 lynch. You say that 

So my issue with this is that I agree with you.  The more a player is alive, the more chances they have to slip, the more we get a clearer picture of their alignment, etc. You’re correct. But they only need to create the kind of content which is worth analysing if they know that there’s a credible threat to them in the form of a lynch. The lynch, as you point out in your next paragraph, is wonderful at catching Eliminators. But it’s also a bludgeon, usable for prodding people into giving their opinions on other players and to pressure those players we find to be suspicious or quiet; however, this important function is scrapped if a predetermination is made that we shouldn’t lynch. Without retaining the ability and the threat of a kill, the village is unable to force Eliminators and indolent villagers into the sort of analysable discussions that eventually allow us to lynch them. Therefore, keeping them around longer, as you propose, doesn’t necessarily increase the amount of “quality” content which a suspicious player puts out, and simply gives the Eliminators more time to determine who should die (rather than the village), without really helping the village along in their quest.

I addressed the similar mind thing earlier. I tend to read people more so on how they reach their conclusions.

Bludgeoning is great, like you're doing with me. It should provide the other players with enough content to form their own opinions of both you and I. And if I'm right that you're not an eliminator too, that's a wonderful thing. It means that going forward the village will be able to focus on the eliminators while they have to spend two nights getting rid of us.

You stated it elsewhere, but I think this is a playstyle / philosophy dispute, and not an alignment related one. Only I hold the opinion - as stated above - that an eliminator would rather snag an easy lynch than advocate for a more peaceful resolution of today's events. Since no one was really up for the lynch at the time I posted that, and I was struggling to find any reason for me personally to vote for someone / go on the offensive, I personally figured it wouldn't be a poor option to consider.

Another thing is the problems you're highlighting with not lynching today is that it's temporary. It's just one turn, and while one turn can produce a lot of content, I hold the belief that the first turn is more likely to produce negative results for the village than positive. Even in the scenario where we kill an eliminator, I think the village loses more than it gains. As you said, keeping people around a tad bit longer does not guarantee they produce meaningful content, but I feel that lynching someone this early absolutely ensures that person won't be able to produce meaningful content. Through my eyes a "maybe" is better than a "no."

1 hour ago, Fifth Scholar said:

Re: friendly fire, I agree that nobody really appreciates dying, but death is ultimately what advances the game for both villagers and Eliminators (after all, we signed up for a game which explicitly promises that we’d get the chance to kill our friends ). Without lynching today, we would grant the Eliminators (and the judgement of any vigilante villagers) the only say in who is to die. That’s less fair to the killed villagers than a lynch in which they may participate and give reasons and arguments for why they should be allowed to live. I do understand your philosophy here, and your aversion to what you believe is an uninformed risk. But a D2 lynch without a D1 lynch discussion and result is just as uninformed as the regular D1 lynch, and only serves to set back discussion. And while every villager lynched does put the Eliminators closer to victory, the only way we kill and catch Eliminators is via the lynch (or by vigilantes, but they’re less predictable and not something most of the village can participate in). Our method of killing does put villagers at risk, but it’s also the only way to accomplish our win condition; therefore, sometimes we pay the price which a mislynch exacts. My apologies if I seem callous, but the risk you speak of is part of SE and never really goes away.

This paragraph is probably something I can't agree with. I don't think the eliminators benefit much, if at all, of a no lynch today. Not unless it meant saving one of their lives, which no one was in danger of at the time, or even still is now. I also don't believe that it means only a select few get to decide who dies. On night turns I always try to openly discuss who everyone prefers would get Coinshot, if a Coinshot exists. Of course there's no guarantee Coinshots will listen, but that provides content itself while simultaneously allowing the majority to point another kill in the right direction. If a Coinshot is willing to follow through, it's 100% possible to turn their kill into a night lynch. If they aren't willing, then we have plenty of stuff to analyze and discuss on the next day, leading into the next lynch.

I also disagree that D2 would be just as uninformed as D1. Information gathering roles and even seeing who the eliminators target first gives the village a much better advantage than a relatively blind lynch today.

Really it's your use of "only" that makes me wary of your approach. I believe there's plenty of different avenues of approach we can take this game. It's just a matter of people maximizing their individual effort and, if possible, working together.

Also no worries on seeming callous. You're perspective is valid and probably the most common when it comes to these games. Which actually just increases my desire to combat it, at least a little, because it may open people up to new ideas they wouldn't consider otherwise, or at the very least get them thinking in greater depth about their stances on players and the act of killing itself.

1 hour ago, Fifth Scholar said:

As for my views on Devotary and Rath? I initially suspected Devotary for what seems in hindsight to be nothing more than misunderstood/messy phrasing (perhaps here you’d draw an analogy ), but have since moved my read back up to neutral with perhaps a slight elim tilt. She’s not said or done much to earn my trust, and my initial suspicion of her comments is kind of lingering. I’m not entirely sure why people are pursuing Rath for the role-madness comment—based on the last few LGs, it seems a fair assumption to make, though on the off-chance he’s both wrong and village he did paint a target on his back.  As with Devotary, however, I’ve seen little which makes me trust him, and would probably like more analysis on players from him (though that goes for pretty much everybody). 

I think you noticing the analogy without my prompting shows that you have at least some subconscious doubts about me being an elim. And on that note, I think I'll end this post here and let you determine whether or not you think I'm a good lynch candidate for today. In the mean time, I'm going to take a quick shower and, when I return, look into Devotary myself to see if your lingering suspicions there might be a sign of something amiss, as well as post my official stance on Rath, which I've already spoken of briefly in PMs.

[Rathmaskal]

37 minutes ago, _Stick_ said:

What does the t in front of Sart’s name stand for though?

Oh, right.

t = using rp to play...or something like that  Sart's post was all in RP, but actually had a bit of analysis and a vote.  Figured it was worth separating out.

[Stick.]

35 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I don't think anyone genuinely feels any kind of danger from poke votes, usually people end up responding with some kind of joke or simply vote back (also known as the OMG U STINK [as in the insult, not the player).

I've said this before in a recent game but I'm gonna repeat it cuz why not: Poke votes, at least in my opinion, are intended to act as disincentives to inactivity. Not the kind where a player just doesn't get online, but the kind where they just don't participate in thread discussions. If you're a villager, you'll care enough to respond with a substantial post so that your two cents provide at least something for the thread to get a read on you. 

45 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I honestly considered joining his vote for more pressure, but then I saw Rath post again and it made me realize it was a dead lead. The fact that Mrake dropped it so quick to makes me think him and I are of a like mind as well.

For what it's worth, I haven't completely dropped it  Not enough suspicion to warrant a vote, but I'm staying wary of Rath. 

48 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I also believe that if I were an eliminator, I wouldn't have brought this up at all, let alone with the follow up of "I know this is an unpopular opinion, but..."

Oh how I love IKYKs 

27 minutes ago, Rathmaskal said:

Oh, right.

t = using rp to play...or something like that  Sart's post was all in RP, but actually had a bit of analysis and a vote.  Figured it was worth separating out.

Ah, makes sense.

[Fifth Scholar]

Without fully addressing your latest wall, Amanuensis. I believe we’ve reached, or at least closely approached, a general point of agreement, and as such my vote is no longer helpful where it lies. We’ll retain our separate beliefs on D1 lynches, certainly, but with your explanation it’s no longer a serious reason to suspect you, though I don’t reciprocate your alleged confidence in me—I think your statements have been generally NAI, perhaps with a village lean, but my paranoia is still on high alert. Sorry about that  

To everyone else, I’d call for a greater quantity of analysis from everyone, as if neither Aman, Stick nor myself are evil, this current thread will be decidedly unhelpful to the village. Additionally, I encourage any player undecided on who to PM to begin a conversation with me. 

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

Seems like the one PM per turn limit has pushed discussion into the thread instead. I haven't seen Aman push no lynch over likely mislynch in recent games, but I have seen him support lynching inactives D1, which he addressed was less necessary with a two cycle filter. Two cycles is probably going to be a substantial chunk of this game though, especially since meeting the post requirement for a single turn resets the two cycle limit.

56 minutes ago, _Stick_ said:

I've said this before in a recent game but I'm gonna repeat it cuz why not: Poke votes, at least in my opinion, are intended to act as disincentives to inactivity. Not the kind where a player just doesn't get online, but the kind where they just don't participate in thread discussions. If you're a villager, you'll care enough to respond with a substantial post so that your two cents provide at least something for the thread to get a read on you. 

The main issue with poke votes and other semi-random votes is that they don't give the player anything to respond to. We can learn things about the voter by who they decide to target, but you won't really get the valuable back-and-forth discussion like what we saw with Fifth and Aman if the justification for a vote is 'this person was inactive' or 'I chose this player from a truncated list' or 'I have a bad feeling about this person'. 

[Rathmaskal]

11 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

The main issue with poke votes and other semi-random votes is that they don't give the player anything to respond to. We can learn things about the voter by who they decide to target, but you won't really get the valuable back-and-forth discussion like what we saw with Fifth and Aman if the justification for a vote is 'this person was inactive' or 'I chose this player from a truncated list' or 'I have a bad feeling about this person'. 

With poke votes, if they are entirely designed to get someone into the thread and are removed based on that criteria, then I think they are moderately useful.  Getting additional discussion in the thread results in more information (or disinformation) being thrown around that can be used to determine who are elims.  If the last part of your comment is calling out Drake's truncated list to vote from, I'm actually not too opposed to that kind of logic if nothing better presents itself.

[Lumgol]

Alright.

@Devotary of Spontaneity's posts feel a bit off to me... I'm not sure why, and I can't really pinpoint it. But there's not really something that particularly sticks out or warrants a vote. So you're staying neutral for now, and I'm keeping an eye on you.

@Amanuensis has had some good points that he's explained really well. I'm especially interested in the idea of not having a lynch D1. Honestly, I think that's a pretty good idea (although I haven't been in any games where no D1 lynch happened, so I don't have the experience to back that up). I wholeheartedly support voting on players for whatever reason, "genuine" or not, because voting always has a function. Even if votes are retracted at the end of the day, votes can still be analyzed and patterns can be looked at later in the game (who tends to listen to what players and which players vote for which people for which reasons, etc). If a villager is lynched D1, though, we lose a villager, which is not good. If an elim is lynched D1, then obviously the good news is that an elim is lynched but since it's D1, there just aren't any clues that the elim can leave behind to connect themselves to other elims.

On the other hand, the elims are always going to kill a villager (or possibly the kandra, but that is much less likely), and the kandra is going to target both the village and the elims but is more likely to choose a villager D1 because there are more villagers and not that many clues. So lynching someone D1 can at least possibly remove an elim or the kandra, and if a villager is lynched, then at least the kandra might have more clues as to who the elims might be (and if a villager is both lynched and elim-killed, I would assume that the kandra would try to target an elim if their goal is to balance targeting elims and villagers).

So, back to Aman. He's sounded really defensive when Fifth voted on him, even when Fifth said that a lot of it was just paranoia. That raises a bit of an alarm, because there's really no need to get that defensive D1 unless someone is particularly vulnerable. I think his analysis is quite solid and I agree with much of what he says about the game, though his whole tangent about not wanting to kill villagers because of not liking to kill people and him being empathetic was... kinda off? Yeah, I think it's pretty normal to feel at least slightly bad about killing a villager. That is not really a legitimate argument against friendly fire or vigilante kills, though. Killing is going to have to happen, and the important part is about whether it's a good strategy for the game, as opposed to how it makes you feel.

[Amanuensis]

11 minutes ago, Lumgol said:

So, back to Aman. He's sounded really defensive when Fifth voted on him, even when Fifth said that a lot of it was just paranoia. That raises a bit of an alarm, because there's really no need to get that defensive D1 unless someone is particularly vulnerable. I think his analysis is quite solid and I agree with much of what he says about the game, though his whole tangent about not wanting to kill villagers because of not liking to kill people and him being empathetic was... kinda off? Yeah, I think it's pretty normal to feel at least slightly bad about killing a villager. That is not really a legitimate argument against friendly fire or vigilante kills, though. Killing is going to have to happen, and the important part is about whether it's a good strategy for the game, as opposed to how it makes you feel.

I intend to respond to this further in depth, but just so everyone knows I will be busy the next few hours and not be able to respond properly as a result. But before I do, can you point out which parts you read as defensive, Lum? I'm curious because I actually have felt really calm and rational about this situation  

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

31 minutes ago, Rathmaskal said:

With poke votes, if they are entirely designed to get someone into the thread and are removed based on that criteria, then I think they are moderately useful.  Getting additional discussion in the thread results in more information (or disinformation) being thrown around that can be used to determine who are elims.  If the last part of your comment is calling out Drake's truncated list to vote from, I'm actually not too opposed to that kind of logic if nothing better presents itself.

Any sort of vote provides information about the voter, and the potential to provoke the person who was voted on to respond is always valuable. I certainly can't claim that my voting strategy in my past games contributes to back and forth discussion. Mrake's strategy isn't a bad way to cast a D1 vote, especially if 'will be on at rollover' means 'doesn't have much time until shortly before rollover'. Some of the inactives mentioned are now participating more, though that may be coincidental. The issue is that there isn't anything Ark can really say in direct response to Mrake's vote, and player interaction is one of the best ways to distinguish between actual suspicion and killing random villagers.

[Straw]

 @Amanuensis can add me to his list.

It's kind of interesting that from what I can see, there are no major lynches, just poke votes.

[Ookla-son-son-Ventyl]

I will admit, I love the fact that no one seems evil enough to lynch me on D1, hopefully the elims won’t decide to murder me, because that would be unfortunate . Anyways, after reading through these post for the last 20 minutes I am very confused, but I think I have a somewhat accurate summary of what has happened so far.

• Aman and Fith were both suspicious of eachother, but then after some explaining from both parties, they came to a half agreement
• Lumgol thinks Aman is suspicious considering how defensive he seemed, but Aman said he felt calm, though to me wouldn’t that be what an elim would say?
• Random poke votes, and Mrakes vote on Ark1002 using RNG

Okay, so this is my beginniner analyst. If I’ve gotten anything wrong tell me, but from my understanding these are the things we are looking at to try an find who the Elims are.

EDIT

My brother has read my post and said, “It’s not really giving your thoughts on anything,” So I’ve deicided to do that. Right now, I don’t really have any big suspicions on anybody. My vote on Ark is more just of a poke vote, though after reading Lumgols post about Aman, I have a 2/10 suspicion rating on him. Mostly, because of him saying that he felt calm, which could easily be a ploy, but besides that he hasn’t done much to make me suspicious of him, which is why I’ve given him a low suspicion rating or SR.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Ventyl

[Fifth Scholar]

So I’m finding myself in the slightly uncomfortable position of wanting a D1 lynch but having little clear target. While I am curious about Aman’s alignment, I’ve not seen enough suspicious content compared with his sound analysis to merit a second vote on him, and Devotary feels like too easy a target; if she’s evil, I’d place her as a more likely Kandra than an Eliminator. I’m inclined to wait and watch both players, especially since they’re active enough that their death would be a significant loss were they lynched early on as a villager with no real suspicion surrounding them. 

In terms of other active players, I’m getting slight village reads from Stick for her generally helpful contributions (which I’m mostly ignoring, as she’s good enough at those to fool me), neutral leaning evil on Rath for hesitance and reluctance to commit to a particular stance, which I’m also mostly ignoring as I think I read him as evil in basically every game we play together for that exact reason, and no significant read one way or the other on Fura or Lum. Lum in particular is interesting, as her latest post gives me something to suspect (her commentary on Devotary, which could be hesitance but mostly looks like textbook hedging) and something to praise (her poking of Aman, which, while I don’t agree with all of the actual content, appears to be coming from a villager mindset). 

Note: if you didn’t appear on either of these lists, that’s not necessarily bad, as some players have produced good content even with only a post or two (Sart, Araris, etc.), but I would like to see more out of you, up to and including a vote. 

That leaves Drake. Aside from being left after PoE, there’s also the fact that despite his posts providing good insight on roles (his comments on elim hazekillers, Kandra Mistborn, etc.), they’ve been mostly confined to speculation, and he’s avoided most talk on other players other than a vote on Rath which he removed very quickly (making me think a Drake/Rath team isn’t out of the question). While the role analysis is appreciated, it’s also a convenient way to be active without directly contributing to discussion on the lynch itself. Also, upon actually coming to a decision on who to lynch, Drake’s method doesn’t sit well with me. At the very least, he could have used his list of six to pare down who he found most suspicious among those six and then added a vote; however, using RNG (or supposedly doing so) takes responsibility out of his hands if Ark actually is lynched, which I don’t really like (on top of this, the fact that Ark was chosen, who already had a vote on him, seems rather convenient). Finally, his comment that 

I think we undervalue the use of village reads. Sure, an accurate elim read can catch an elim, but an accurate village read permanently narrows the hunting field. Even a random vote can be effective if you can narrow down the list enough.

makes me suspicious, not only because it allows trusted Eliminators to use an early village read to coast through the game, but also because this comment follows on the heels of Drake being read as village by almost everybody. It seems like an indirect way of giving trust to himself. 

This perhaps isn’t as strong a lynch case as I’d really like; however, unlike Drake, I’ll be unable to get on in time for rollover because my church has VBS which I have to help out with right as the cycle is closing. As such, this vote will be permanent unless someone can change my mind in the next thirty minutes, as Drake is my strongest suspicion currently. Mostly, even if this doesn’t kill Drake, I’d ideally just appreciate his response to the points I’ve brought up. 

[Furamirionind]

20 minutes ago, Ventyl said:

My brother has read my post and said, “It’s not really giving your thoughts on anything,” So I’ve deicided to do that. Right now, I don’t really have any big suspicions on anybody. My vote on Ark is more just of a poke vote, though after reading Lumgols post about Aman, I have a 2/10 suspicion rating on him. Mostly, because of him saying that he felt calm, which could easily be a ploy, but besides that he hasn’t done much to make me suspicious of him, which is why I’ve given him a low suspicion rating or SR.

Ventyl is 100% village.
I am 99% certain that my previous statement is correct. I'll reread the thread in a moment and see where my vote lands.

[Stick.]

Here’s a vote count but because I did it, there’s no guarantees on the accuracy. Refer to this at your own risk.  

Walin(1): Ark

Ark(2): Ventyl, Drake

Devotary(1): Sart

Drake(2): Araris, Fifth

*Ninjad by fifth* I’ve added your vote

Ark and Drake are currently tied and up for the lynch. And iirc ties end up with an RNG deciding who dies. ...I forgot where I was going with this.

Anyway, 4 out of the 6 votes above are gut reads xD 

ninjad by Fura too. And yes, I agree with what you say about ventyl

Edited June 11, 2019 by _Stick_

[Rathmaskal]

I believe we're at about 90 minutes to rollover?  (Assuming CDT is Central time.)  I'm trying to get a semi-reasonable vote figured out right now.

[Walin]

I just got here; I realized I don't have nearly as much time as I had assumed. I'm going to read the backlog, but tomorrow I'll have less time.

[Mailliw73]

8 minutes ago, Rathmaskal said:

I believe we're at about 90 minutes to rollover?  (Assuming CDT is Central time.)  I'm trying to get a semi-reasonable vote figured out right now.

There is an hour and fifteen minutes till rollover. 

[Rathmaskal]

Just now, Mailliw73 said:

There is an hour and fifteen minutes till rollover. 

So, about 74 minutes now?

[Mailliw73]

Just now, Rathmaskal said:

So, about 74 minutes now?

73 and counting as of right now.

[Furamirionind]

@MrakeDarshall fifth has an interesting case on you. You are also tied for the most votes right now. Anything you want to say to convince those without placed votes to vote on people who arent you?

[Rathmaskal]

OK, so first point.  I was starting to wonder why everyone was pointing me out as having come up with the idea of role madness by myself when I clearly said 'I agree'.  So I went back to see who had come up with it initially...and found that no one had.  OK, my bad.  *Cue "Oh, so you must have had that discussion in the elim doc" comment*  Well, nothing I can do about that.  A combinations of Fifth's, Devotary's, and Drake's comments probably meshed in my head and I came up with, "Oh, somebody else thinks that we're in role madness".  *sigh*

Stick - Might be going for the derp clear with the '...the kandra can be among the elim team?' 'Yeah, I'm assuming that the Kandra would have a kill.'

I'm still trying to figure out what I think of the assertion that mechanical analysis at the start of the game is a slight elim read.  *looks at comment about Stick* OK, guess I'm not entirely off there.

Drake - " And because I think an eliminator or an elim!kandra would keep such a discovery to themself, you can have one of my Villager Bucks (TM). " - Actually a response to part of what I pointed out from Stick...  I disagree.  Everyone here assumes there are enough people who read deeply into the rules that something like that could easily be found by someone else.  It quickly becomes a bit of IKYK, but I don't think there's any reason for elim.kandra or even neutral.kandra from pointing that out.  (Actually, I think neutral.kandra - and yes, I know neutral isn't quite right...but just pointing out it's not elim.kandra - would be more likely to point something like that out to put the elim team off balance.

Drake - " A mistborn wouldn't generally make sense in this setting, so it's not out of the question for the mistborn to be a secret role. And we know Bleeder was capable of switching out different spikes to gain different abilities, just only one ability at a time (which is exactly how the mistborn mechanic works). " - somehow I missed this on my first read through.  I like this reasoning.  That could be why the kandra's abilities weren't explicitly stated.

Both Aman and Drake almost forgive their earlier suspicion on my a bit too quickly.  Could easily be pocketing by one of them.  I doubt both would take the same strategy within like 3 posts of each other...but I guess it's possible.

/*side note - Aman still hasn't responded as to whether my d: counts toward the emoji count.  Clear elim read.*/

/*Mechanical question - if we have group pms, and one person dies, how is that going to be handled @StrikerEZ?*/

Sart - I'm going to have to some additional reading on the Devotary/Aman interactions.  I didn't really notice that in my first read-through.

I'm looking back at Lum's assertion that Aman was defensive in the conversation with Fifth.  I'm thinking this might be where that comes in:

" Every innocent life is precious. Sure this might just be a game, but that's the way I see it. Although it's a risk people sign up for, who honestly enjoys dying? I know I don't. And because I'm a naturally empathetic person, I have issues killing other people. "Do only onto others what you want done to yourself," right? While there's no hard feelings between factions (we're just doing our job), I still take this philosophy into account with every post I write and every action I take. "

Everything else was very calm and rational, but this sends out a slightly different tone.

Gah, I'm going to get this out right now...but I'm having a lot of trouble finding someone to vote on.  I could easily see Araris or Lum being elims and kind of just making sure they checked in but not worrying about getting too involved with the conversation since no elims are under fire.  I hate putting off votes to the last minute on D1 since people may not get to appropriately respond :/

[Mailliw73]

Concerning the death of one member of a PM group, the PM will continue as it is. Just as dead players may view the thread but not comment, the same will go for PMs they are in. This will allow the player to not have to be removed from a PM in case they like to keep them (like me). 

[StrikerEZ]

Thread is closing in 13 minutes! Get any last minute votes or actions in now, or forever hold your peace!

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

Right now, either Mrake or Ark will die. When Mrake shows up, he will presumably either keep his vote on Ark, or switch his vote to one of the other two people with votes, Walin or I. Giving one of the people up for the lynch the power to swing the vote into any of three ties doesn't seem like a great way to resolve the day. Since Fifth is gone for the cycle and Araris has strong tendencies to push for D1 lynches, I can't see this day ending in a no-lynch unless a vote manipulator attempts to save Mrake, which might otherwise be a valid option with how few people have voted.

Despite that, I'm not really sure about voting for either Mrake or Ark. Mrake hasn't come back for 15 hours(except for a post in a completely different thread), which makes it seem like his vote strategy was partially because he didn't have time for a more thorough elimination. I'm relatively sure he's not a Mistborn, but that's about it. Ark will apparently be trying to get through the entire game with RP, which isn't particularly conducive to getting any sort of read on him.