Quick Fix Game 39: Corruption in the Senate 2: Allomantic Boogaloo

[DrakeMarshall]

6 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:

....well dang. I was really hoping that Joe was going to be corrupt.

Weewoo weewoo alarm bells have been set off by these words.

5 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:

Okay, I definitely didn’t write what I meant very well.

As for trying to distance myself, I’m just trying to be cautious.

Maybe. I'm willing to give one bad post a pass.

To clarify, are you conceding that you were indeed trying to distance yourself?

5 hours ago, Haelbarde said:

It's Alv and I playing up our annoyance at Burnt being taken out of the game day 1 for seemingly no reason. Alv and Burnt get on, and were likely to murderise people together if they got daggers. Burnt's also my sister, so I was hoping to work together with her this game. It's annoying then that we can't.

Plus, this just a poke vote. A threat of lynch to encourage someone to answer a specific question. Given this game needs two votes for a lynch, poke votes should come in pairs anyway.

 

I didn't want to vote on any of the constables, at least not yet. I was hoping that if we gave it a cycle or two we might get a few more hints from writeups, or there's a chance that we could glean info from any corrupted senators, if we find them. But with only a few hours to go, there wasn't much I could do about the lynch. I mean, if someone else decided to join me on voting on someone, maybe, but that was unlikely with 2.5ish hours to go. Figured there was a chance maybe to at least try and get the inactives involved, make sure they knew the game had started - looks like Rae at least hadn't, so it did actually achieve something productive. Why Rath specifically - I've played with Bugsy and Rae before, but I've not played a full game with Rath before (I don't think?) so to me they're an unknown. Bugsy and Rae had been ofline for the better part of a day so seemed less likely to get on, whereas Rath had been online in the last 6 hours, and had been posting elsewhere I believe. There was little reason for them not to have seen that the game was active, or to have looked at the thread to see what's happening.  Felt like they'd be more likely to respond. If they'd turned up, I'd have removed the vote, which really, didn't achieve much in the first place, given we need 2 votes to lynch anyway. The final aspect to it was I think it's important to have a vote down as much as possible. It can help provide information if everyone is consistently voting, and in this game, if we have votes spread out, it's much easier to keep items in play if we have dagger deaths, which turns out we ended up with...

1. I'm not so sure about you, but I'm pretty sure I get Alvron's reasoning. Two possibilities. Either Snip did kill Burnt, and so Alv would be avenging Burnt by lynching Snip. Or Snip didn't kill Burnt, and therefore has a dagger, which Alv might get by lynching Snip. It's a win-win situation.

2. This is the second time you are minimizing the significance of your vote. Why?

3. Many players I know tend to put their vote where it will count in the last stages of the cycle, even if they don't like the options very much. I haven't played a lot with you before, are you not the type to do that?

4 hours ago, Snipexe said:

Sorry for the delay in response.

I didn’t kill Burnt. I did obviously get her dagger, and the dagger I got was called “JointheAlleyVerse” This is either a set up for Ark, seeing as that’s not how he spells Alleyverse and he said that’s what he would call a dagger before the game or Ark  was trying to set me up for the lynch. @RayOfSunshine, care to explain?

Okay.

Why did you vote for Burnt again?

2 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

This is rather interesting, as Someone added Alv to Joe, Someone added Kidpen to Gaea, and someone added Fifth to Wilson. My guess was:
Alv was added as someone felt like the Joe lynch wasn't secure enough.
Kidpen was added to Gaea by someone trying to lynch Gaea
Fifth was added to Wilson by... idk. An elim? It makes no sense to me.

Alv voted on Joe himself, that wasn't a vote manipulation.

I bribed Kidpen.

Fifth's vote moving to Wilson seems like it accomplishes very little. What this might accomplish:

• Protecting Gaea
• Framing Gaea to protect Wilson
• Transferring boxings to Fifth

The first two are very IKYK and not very helpful. The third option is interesting.

@Fifth Scholar do you know of anyone who would want to give you their boxings?

1 hour ago, Snipexe said:

Alright, so gm 

edit: yay, so that posted without me doing anything.

Anyway, so the gm has confirmed the dagger is titled “JoinTheAlleyverse”, so that makes it clear to me that Ark was responsible for Burnt’s death.

Okay, so it's spelled/capitalized correctly to be Ark's dagger.

There's also the fact that the killer specifically targeted a player who already had a vote. What this might accomplish:

• A villager suspected Burnt and trusted Ark, and figured they would kill Burnt and ensure the dagger passed to somebody they trusted.
• An eliminator wanted to murder Burnt and pass the dagger to Xino, their eliminator teammate.
• An eliminator wanted to murder Burnt and frame Xino.

The first option sounds unlikely. A 1-shot vig kill with no alignment flip is just not something it would make sense for a villager to use on the first cycle.

The second option sounds quite possible. It's such an obvious eliminator tactic that it actually makes for a decent double bluff, and I wouldn't put it past some of you. Occam's razor (which I generally try to avoid throwing out of windows), along with the precept that "when a plan is hard to understand, it's usually the person who gains from it who is responsible" would both suggest that this is the case.

The third option seems possible too. But if the eliminators gave up on keeping their daggers, why would they burn one of a limited resource so early? It only makes much sense if they are paving the way for a real "pass dagger to teammate" con in the future. The eliminators are banking on the uncertainty that the recipient of a dagger is an eliminator or not, either way.

As to whether the original assailant is Ark, honestly, that's anyone's guess. My guess is probably not. It would be simpler to just not identify the dagger with yourself; when the dust settles with this whole IKYK it still puts Ark under unnecessary levels of suspicion.

When it comes down to it, the only thing I can say with confidence is that the eliminators are obviously yanking our chains a bit, with a dagger named after Ark used to murder somebody who was only targeted by a single voter. It's unclear if Xino is evil or not, but for a 50/50, I wouldn't at all be against just lynching Xino to be safe, taking into account the fact that the average lynch is 30% accurate and 50% really isn't bad odds in light of that fact.

 

Right, so the Joe lynch. I am suspicious of the Joe lynch.

I am vaguely suspicious of Bard, Striker, Rae, and Hael.

Interestingly, two of them threw their vote on Gaea this cycle, out of nowhere. This makes me Paranoid.

Also interestingly, a lynch train on Striker is developing. What is really interesting about it to me is that different people are voting on Striker for seemingly uncorrelated reasons, yet the results are clearly non-coincidental. Therefore, my instinct says that Striker is not to be lynched. Anyways, somebody needs to play devil's advocate.

Bard, you made a show of voting for Gaea in a post, where at the bottom of that post you landed on Joe, with no edits. This feels a tad staged, no?

 

Other news, in light of the fact that the governor election requires a majority of all players behind one candidate, I just don't think a governor is going to happen. I've played in games before where majority votes are required to accomplish things. Even for actions way way less controversial than giving one player triple voting power, it's deceptively difficult to rally that kind of consensus. I'm still supporting my own candidacy and all but I don't really see the governorship going anywhere any time soon.

[+Ed Venture]

16 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Um, wow. Ok. Might have been a better question to ask in your GM PM so that it's not public info but... ok then...

I...did not think of that...oops. Just forget I said anything...ok? 

[Furamirionind]

8 minutes ago, Butt Ad Venture said:

I...did not think of that...oops. Just forget I said anything...ok? 

Forget what? : P

@DrakeMarshmallow your vote on Bard is a poke, and while I would be more okay with lynching Bard than most other players, I still think Striker is the best lynch. Who do you think is better? If you don't want Striker lynched, a poke vote is not putting your money where your mouth is.

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Furamirionind
added "?"

[DrakeMarshall]

5 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

@DrakeMarshmallow your vote on Bard is a poke, and while I would be more okay with lynching Bard than most other players, I still think Striker is the best lynch. Who do you think is better? If you don't want Striker lynched, a poke vote is not putting your money where your mouth is.

I don't consider it to be a poke. I want to lynch Bard.

I would also support the lynches of either Snip or Hael if they came up.

[Furamirionind]

2 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

I don't consider it to be a poke. I want to lynch Bard.

I would also support the lynches of either Snip or Hael if they came up.

A snip lynch makes sense... but is based more on speculation than anything. I wouldn't Support a Hael lynch. I'm partially biased as I've never played with him before, but I don't think he has done enough to justify a lynch.
Why do you suspect Rae?

23 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Also interestingly, a lynch train on Striker is developing. What is really interesting about it to me is that different people are voting on Striker for seemingly uncorrelated reasons, yet the results are clearly non-coincidental. Therefore, my instinct says that Striker is not to be lynched. Anyways, somebody needs to play devil's advocate.

I don't understand your defense of Striker. (Yes, I know you said you were suspicious of him, but this is still a defense)
I think Striker currently has the votes of Fifth, Araris, and myself. Fifth and I, as far as I can tell, are basically on the exact same page as to why we should lynch Striker.
Araris' was less explained, but was basically as a "last straw" thing I think. Striker had said enough sus stuff, and Araris decided he was worth lynching. (Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth)

In this situation, I am unsure of what the bolded words mean above.

[Kidpen]

14 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Why didnt you tie it between 2 people?

What makes you say that about Snip?

I think Kidpen's response to me wasnt made with a village mindset.

Kidpen

Just gonna respond to this real quick. It seems like the main objections to my post were related to the miscommunication in whether the Survivor's wincon changes, which obviously was a miscommunication, and the fact that I voted immediately instead of waiting for more explanation from you. I said in my post that I was going to bed right at that moment, so I wasn't going to have a chance to see whatever response you made.

More to come momentarily.

[Alvron]

6 hours ago, Haelbarde said:

It's Alv and I playing up our annoyance at Burnt being taken out of the game day 1 for seemingly no reason. Alv and Burnt get on, and were likely to murderise people together if they got daggers. Burnt's also my sister, so I was hoping to work together with her this game. It's annoying then that we can't.

This.  If Burnt or I had gotten a Dagger at start, we would've been murderizing people.  Burnt doesn't play many games and the chance to work with her in our mutual love of killing random people would've been wonderful.  I had three goals this game.  Get a Dagger and call it Shadow's Embrace or The Shadow's Kiss or something similar.  Publicly get a Dagger and see what Burnt does.  I suspect she would either PM me asking to join in the murder spree or start to panic knowing I have a kill ability and haven't forgotten that she attacked me in a prior game.  Burnt descending into madness in fun to watch. (You should ask to see her GM PM from LG16 if she still has it)  And finally, kill Hael and collect his head which I have been after for oh so long now.

4 hours ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

All items get confiscated when a player is lynched. Items will also be confiscated if there are no votes on a player when they are stabbed.

4 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

I stand corrected then. Regardless, there will still be plenty of items flying around to make things crazy if xxGaea is lynched.

4 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Agreed. And while they then become a single use item, as far as the players are concerned, the items will always be a single use item. Therefore, they will likely be used the same amount.

No.  Just no.  In my opinion lynching Gaea is the worst thing for us to do as village.  I was willing to let it be a three way tie last cycle as then we would've wasted only one lynch but if we lynch either Wilson or Gaea then another cycle would be wasted.  I just don't understand why finding the corrupt constable is so important.
Yes, our lynch results will be reliable but so what if they aren't.  It's not like we need them.  Finding an elim through connections isn't as reliable as many think it is.  Yet they put great stock in it.  Sure when it works it's great but when it doesn't it can lead on a wild goose chase that causes far more harm than it would good if it did work.

But more importantly, lynching Gaea removes the Market!  Beforehand, that would've meant that the elims had an easy way to get rid of all Whiskey, Ledgers and Boxings.  That's no more bribes, no more seeking, no more protects.  With the new rule that items can be passed, that now includes Warrants.  Everyone is saying that it will also mean no more Daggers but that is not true at all.  I know of two ways to keep Daggers in the elims hands without the Market and that's just what I've worked out so far.  I'm not going to reveal them as this post alone will give them far more ideas than I wanted them to have as it is.  All the elims need to do to cripple the village is get rid of the Black Market.  Then they can use the Whiskey, Ledgers and Boxings on the one being lynched and poof, they gone.  Passing items now means the Warrants will also disappear.  What everyone is overlooking is that there is no elim kill. That means they very likely have higher than normal numbers.  By removing the Boxings, they gain better control of the lynch which they already have the numbers to influence more so than in a normal game.  Removing Boxings also removes the odds of anyone getting enough together for the solo win con.

IMO we should ignore the constables completely and focus on finding the elims.  Yes our lynch results might not be reliable but that isn't all that true either.  Enough votes on a player and it will always give false results so we would then have the truth.

Personally I feel that those pushing for the constables to be lynched, any constable, is far more likely to be an elim.  It derails discussion and wastes time that they can use to gather items/information.

3 hours ago, Arraenae said:

I'm honestly tempted to kill off Gaea now, regardless of alignment. Yes, she has nice items for villagers too, but the village can still work without alignment scans and item seizures. Protects aren't needed if there's no kills, either. Comparatively, an elim team with no kills is crippled. The elim team gets hurt a lot more than we do if Gaea's dead.

Please read above.  I'm fairly certain I had something else to say here but writing the above either covered it or made me forget what it was.

46 minutes ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

Yes. Flavorwise, i have no idea how that works, but mechanically yes.

Politicians do it all the time.  They say one thing and do another.  Flavourwise it fits well in the theme.

I think I covered everything but I jumped around while typing this so if a thought suddenly drops, I likely got distracted elsewhere.
There have been several posts made while I was typing this but I'm not going to risk losing my wall of text.  I don't do these enough to risk this one.

[StrikerEZ]

I'm so mad. I'd typed up a lot of responses to Fura's post, but then I clicked on one of my quotes in hist post, went back to this page, and then quoted some of his post and lost everything.  Guess I'll have to start over.

1 hour ago, Furamirionind said:

This post is a bit strange. How was Joe the obvious choice?  To me, it seemed pretty clear it was a trap. You can argue that I had a 66% chance of being correct, and yeah, I did. But mechanically, it doesn't make sense for Joe to have been corrupt...

Joe was the obvious choice to me at the time because 1) I figured that keeping the black market and PMs around was far more valuable and 2) I hadn't considered the fact that Joe might've specifically chosen who the corrupt constable was. Personally, I would've just let RNG decided, but I don't know what Joe would've done.

1 hour ago, Furamirionind said:

Then nominates Drake as Governor. I don't think that was a bad choice, but... why? Drake wasn't the only one to nominate himself. I also think the elims are going to have more to gain from trying to get people to elect governors. When that person is village, then that sucks, but statistically, they are still more likely to get other villagers. In the hands of an elim, it is very powerful

I nominated Drake because his post asking to be elected governor was the only one that I liked. I can't really remember why, though maybe I'll be able to point it out if I go back and reread it at some point. 

Also, not sure what those bolded sentences are trying to say....

1 hour ago, Furamirionind said:

Are you completely disregarding the possibility of Wilson being corrupt?

No, I am not. I just think that, even if Wilson is corrupt, the benefit of the village being able to coordinate in PMs, where the elims can't see what they're planning, is far more valuable than the black market and guaranteed correct lynch results. 

1 hour ago, Furamirionind said:

Oh Striker, I didn't realize you were such a PM activist! : P
I don't recall you using PMs all that much in previous games though. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong though.

I've always really liked PMs (it's how I met my best friend on the Shard), even if I tend not to make too many.

I actually PM'd a lot in Alv's zombie game and Sart's Rithmatist game. That's more because I had the time to do that, whereas I've been pretty busy during most other games I've played. Speaking of PMs though, I haven't made enough of those this game so far. I'm gonna remedy that.

1 hour ago, Furamirionind said:

I already got after you for this post, but one more thing: Complete reversal of what you say 2 posts ago where we would simply lynch Gaea.

I'll point out that the post you're calling me out for reversing my stance was after the reveal that Joe wasn't corrupt. Before Joe's death, I was really hoping (perhaps unreasonably so) that Joe would be corrupt so that we could keep both the black market and the PMs. I'd hoped to keep both, and I was expressing my frustration that we'd have to get rid of one of them. I've since decided that it would be best to get rid of the black market. 

45 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

To clarify, are you conceding that you were indeed trying to distance yourself?

I wasn't trying to say that. I was just trying to say that I was cautious of immediately jumping on a Snip lynch since he was the recipient of the dagger used to kill Burnt. 

[Elandera]

Regarding the suspicion Ark used the dagger, I don't think it should be used to condemn either him or Snipexe. He is just brash enough of a player that I would believe village!Ark got a dagger, named it what he claimed, and over-zealously chose to use it on someone. He only had a few option for people with votes on them, and probably wanted to keep the dagger in easy circulation. Additionally, by stabbing someone a fellow Alleyverse player had voted on, the joke around the dagger name would be more potent.

I don't like the votes on Gaea, nor do I like the idea of lynching another GMConstable until we can narrow down suspicions. It would be best to actually find the corrupt one, rather than get rid of one based on outcomes. I know this is a bit contradictory to my stance yesterday, but we're down to one GMConstable lynch and we have actual suspicions today.

On to suspicions then. Striker does seem like a good possible lynch. His response to everything that happened last turn seemed a bit disingenuous. However, I do agree with Drake. The lack of opposition is a bit sketchy.

I don't have any reason to suspect Bard at the moment, so I won't be joining that one. I also won't be joining the Snipexe lynch, as that seems too obvious a move when we don't even know Burnt's alignment.

Fura's posts are giving me a bad vibe. His posts seem a bit too confident regarding alignment, but a bad feeling isn't enough for me to want to lynch one of the most active players right now. I will want to go back through and review their posts when I'm more awake (unlike last night).

I will need more time before I vote. For now, I'm going to tag people I don't think have posted yet, or have very small post counts. @Bugsy, @Elbereth, @Lumgol, @RayOfSunshine, @Shqueeves.

Vote Count:

Snipexe (2) - Alvron, Hael
Ark (1) - Snipexe
Striker (3) - Fifth, Araris, Fura
Gaea (2) - Rae, Striker
Bard (1) - Drake

Edited August 5, 2019 by Elandera
Wrong words.

[Araris Valerian]

9 minutes ago, Alvron said:

No.  Just no.  In my opinion lynching Gaea is the worst thing for us to do as village.  I was willing to let it be a three way tie last cycle as then we would've wasted only one lynch but if we lynch either Wilson or Gaea then another cycle would be wasted.  I just don't understand why finding the corrupt constable is so important.

You've quoted me out of context here, Alv. Try these:

6 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

I want to kill Wilson as the last Constable, but maybe we should wait a cycle or two for that.

5 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

Because of how much most SE players value PMs (regardless of whether they personally use them), it seems reasonable that Joe would make Wilson corrupt, if he didn't do it randomly. I personally think that PMs can be detrimental to a game. The reason to wait a bit is because we only have one more Constable lynch. It would be nice to get everyone to say which constable they prefer to lynch and have some discussion around that before we potentially make things much harder.

I, in fact, agree with you. So no need to quote me in the opposition.

[Alvron]

1 minute ago, Araris Valerian said:

You've quoted me out of context here, Alv. Try these:

I, in fact, agree with you. So no need to quote me in the opposition.

My quote of you was your assumption that there would still be plenty of items floating around when they can be very easily removed and likely will be.  I believe that removing the Black Market would help the elims and hurt the village despite what everyone else is saying.

[StrikerEZ]

Thank you Elandera for posting, I didn't want to double post or edit my last post to do this. 

@Alvron Gaea 

Thank you for being the only person so far to explain why we shouldn't lynch Gaea in a way I could actually understand. I'm not willing to vote on Wilson yet, so I guess we'll have to deal with the 15% chance (hopefully no one else votes on me) that I'm revealed as corrupt for now. 

[Furamirionind]

3 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

Just gonna respond to this real quick. It seems like the main objections to my post were related to the miscommunication in whether the Survivor's wincon changes, which obviously was a miscommunication, and the fact that I voted immediately instead of waiting for more explanation from you. I said in my post that I was going to bed right at that moment, so I wasn't going to have a chance to see whatever response you made.

More to come momentarily.

Yeah, I misunderstood the thing about the survivor. Also, my suspicion of you was overstated as a poke. You aren't a good lynch today. Thanks for responding though! I would lean that you are village at the moment. 

3 minutes ago, Alvron said:

IMO we should ignore the constables completely and focus on finding the elims.  Yes our lynch results might not be reliable but that isn't all that true either.  Enough votes on a player and it will always give false results so we would then have the truth.

Personally I feel that those pushing for the constables to be lynched, any constable, is far more likely to be an elim.  It derails discussion and wastes time that they can use to gather items/information.

I'd like to note that those you are responding to, are the ones arguing for a player lynch today...

5 minutes ago, Alvron said:

There have been several posts made while I was typing this but I'm not going to risk losing my wall of text.  I don't do these enough to risk this one.

Ah, that explains it.

---

This was meant to be in my last post, but I forgot it.

34 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Bard, you made a show of voting for Gaea in a post, where at the bottom of that post you landed on Joe, with no edits. This feels a tad staged, no?

Is this your only reason for voting Bard? wouldn't Snip would be a better lynch than just this. Sure, it feels staged, but it's how many people write posts. It's worth calling him out on it (as I did in my analysis), but it's hardly worth lynching over. As both alignments, I will often just type down whatever i am thinking, and will contradict myself several times as my thoughts develop. I did that in this post:

 

---

12 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Quote

Then nominates Drake as Governor. I don't think that was a bad choice, but... why? Drake wasn't the only one to nominate himself. I also think the elims are going to have more to gain from trying to get people to elect governors. When that person is village, then that sucks, but statistically, they are still more likely to get other villagers. In the hands of an elim, it is very powerful

I nominated Drake because his post asking to be elected governor was the only one that I liked. I can't really remember why, though maybe I'll be able to point it out if I go back and reread it at some point. 

Also, not sure what those bolded sentences are trying to say....

Yeah, I almost nominated him too. I just wanted to see what you said.
As for the bolded part, I am thinking from an elim mindset of why you would want to encourage the village to elect governors. In the end, I think the chance that an elim could be it, is worth the risk of harm the village could do. It's confusing because I switched from my PoV, to a specifically elim PoV but didn't transition into it at all. So that's my bad.

15 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

No, I am not. I just think that, even if Wilson is corrupt, the benefit of the village being able to coordinate in PMs, where the elims can't see what they're planning, is far more valuable than the black market and guaranteed correct lynch results. 

2 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

So you are saying that the chance of getting the corrupt constable is worth losing both a lynch and our recurring items?

16 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

I've always really liked PMs (it's how I met my best friend on the Shard), even if I tend not to make too many.

I actually PM'd a lot in Alv's zombie game and Sart's Rithmatist game. That's more because I had the time to do that, whereas I've been pretty busy during most other games I've played. Speaking of PMs though, I haven't made enough of those this game so far. I'm gonna remedy that.

2 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Fair enough. And I look forward to it. : )

Striker's responses don't make me feel much better, but I am willing to look elsewhere for a lynch if I see something suspicious.

15 minutes ago, Elandera said:

Fura's posts are giving me a bad vibe. His posts seem a bit too confident regarding alignment, but a bad feeling isn't enough for me to want to lynch one of the most active players right now. I will want to go back through and review their posts when I'm more awake (unlike last night).

I mean, I don't feel any more or less confident than usual, so idk. Are you saying I seem to confident in my alignment, or my ability to read other's alignments?

Ninja'd 6 times, responded to everyone. Im ending this post now.

Darn, I need to stop posting so much. I'm approaching 1000 posts far faster than I like...

[StrikerEZ]

5 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Yeah, I almost nominated him too. I just wanted to see what you said.
As for the bolded part, I am thinking from an elim mindset of why you would want to encourage the village to elect governors. In the end, I think the chance that an elim could be it, is worth the risk of harm the village could do. It's confusing because I switched from my PoV, to a specifically elim PoV but didn't transition into it at all. So that's my bad.

I mean, I didn't really expect anyone else to vote on Drake since so many people were against the whole "vote for me thing," and I didn't want to join in on that trend either. (I don't think I'd make a good governor, in real life or in the game )

7 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

So you are saying that the chance of getting the corrupt constable is worth losing both a lynch and our recurring items?

At the time I wrote my post, yes. As of reading Alvron's post, I'm not so sure anymore. 

7 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Striker's responses don't make me feel much better, but I am willing to look elsewhere for a lynch if I see something suspicious.

[Furamirionind]

2 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Striker

Oh, I also never actually removed my vote from Kidpen I don't think, so...

Kidpen xD

Edited August 5, 2019 by Furamirionind
added comma

[StrikerEZ]

Just now, Furamirionind said:

Striker

Oh, I also never actually removed my vote from Kidpen I don't think, so...

Kidpen xD

Striker 

I don't think we should have a tie between me and Snip. Don't ties result in both players being lynched? I trust Snip, and I think it'd be bad to lose two villagers in one lynch. Until someone else gets 3 votes (or someone takes a vote off me or Snip), I'm fine getting lynched.

[Elandera]

11 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

I mean, I don't feel any more or less confident than usual, so idk. Are you saying I seem to confident in my alignment, or my ability to read other's alignments?

Everyone is always confident in their own alignment, even when they're lying. You seem more confident in the alignment of others and the Constables than villagers usually tend to be at this stage. It's throwing me off a bit, but like I said, not worth a lynch yet. You're making good points and are being a driving force for discussion. I don't want to lose that over a gut read.

[Furamirionind]

Just now, StrikerEZ said:

Striker 

I don't think we should have a tie between me and Snip. Don't ties result in both players being lynched? I trust Snip, and I think it'd be bad to lose two villagers in one lynch. Until someone else gets 3 votes (or someone takes a vote off me or Snip), I'm fine getting lynched.

Lol. While your efforts are... interesting... There's still 8 hours to the cycle, and I can guarantee, I'm not ending a day without a vote on someone, and I'll do what I can to get that person lynched over anyone else. So you voting on yourself kind of gets in the way of that. Though... Who knows. I may just vote on you again later. : P

2 minutes ago, Elandera said:

Everyone is always confident in their own alignment, even when they're lying

Umm... Good point xD

2 minutes ago, Elandera said:

You seem more confident in the alignment of others and the Constables than villagers usually tend to be at this stage. It's throwing me off a bit, but like I said, not worth a lynch yet. You're making good points and are being a driving force for discussion. I don't want to lose that over a gut read.

I mean, I wasn't 100% confident in Joe's alignment, but I was more than 99% confident. : P
As for anything else... Oops xD

[DrakeMarshall]

42 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

1. A snip lynch makes sense... but is based more on speculation than anything. I wouldn't Support a Hael lynch. I'm partially biased as I've never played with him before, but I don't think he has done enough to justify a lynch.

2. Why do you suspect Rae?

3. I don't understand your defense of Striker. (Yes, I know you said you were suspicious of him, but this is still a defense)
I think Striker currently has the votes of Fifth, Araris, and myself. Fifth and I, as far as I can tell, are basically on the exact same page as to why we should lynch Striker.
Araris' was less explained, but was basically as a "last straw" thing I think. Striker had said enough sus stuff, and Araris decided he was worth lynching. (Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth)

In this situation, I am unsure of what the bolded words mean above.

1. A snip lynch is based on speculation, but considering every village-lead lynch will be based on speculation, I’m okay with that. The move to stab Burnt with a named dagger is clearly a bid to sow confusion, and from our PM I think you agree that the eliminators are trying to leave us confused.

In the face of deliberate obfuscation the simple answer is usually correct. If Snip got implicated in this way and I didn’t get the impression that the eliminators want us second-guessing ourselves, my assessment would be that Snip was framed, but as it is, I find it entirely conceivable that Snip is in fact evil.

2. Idk, kind of just gut. There’s a reason she didn’t make it on my shortlist of lynch targets.

3. Yes, I am defending Striker. To make my case more clear (I apologize for not explaining it very well before):

• Fast trains are always suspicious to me. You know well that I am always up for defending those who are not being defended by anyone else. And while I’m not the best at picking lynch targets I have pretty good instincts at picking the right people to defend.
• People don’t usually pay attention to this sort of thing, but when a lynch develops, the homogeneity of the reasons behind lynching that person is significant. When people throw their weight behind a lynch train without even acknowledging that other people have voted on them or citing any of their reasoning, it’s suspicious. I don’t like it when people pretend they thought of a lynch on their own with no hidden motives when it clearly isn’t a coincidence that they voted for the leading lynch target.
• In my experience, when somebody gets nailed for a singular badly worded post, it’s almost never an elim.

29 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

I wasn't trying to say that. I was just trying to say that I was cautious of immediately jumping on a Snip lynch since he was the recipient of the dagger used to kill Burnt. 

Hm.

11 minutes ago, Alvron said:

I believe that removing the Black Market would help the elims and hurt the village despite what everyone else is saying.

I believe you just want the black market to get knives  Nothing wrong with that, though.

[DrakeMarshall]

Sorry for the double post, but we are not supposed to edit votes into old posts.

Quote

Is this your only reason for voting Bard? wouldn't Snip would be a better lynch than just this.

You're right. Bard. Snip.

(to clarify, I hadn't really processed that Snip already had 2 votes)

Edited August 5, 2019 by DrakeMarshmallow

[StrikerEZ]

3 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Lol. While your efforts are... interesting... There's still 8 hours to the cycle, and I can guarantee, I'm not ending a day without a vote on someone, and I'll do what I can to get that person lynched over anyone else. So you voting on yourself kind of gets in the way of that. Though... Who knows. I may just vote on you again later. : P

I'll take my vote off myself once someone else has at least two votes that is not Snip (I'm not certain that he's not an elim, but I feel like he's probably not) or before I go to bed, whichever happens first. You can just pretend that there's only two votes on me.

4 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

In the face of deliberate obfuscation the simple answer is usually correct. If Snip got implicated in this way and I didn’t get the impression that the eliminators want us second-guessing ourselves, my assessment would be that Snip was framed, but as it is, I find it entirely conceivable that Snip is in fact evil.

It is entirely possible that he's actually an elim. I guess I'd be willing to let a Snip lynch happen....oh, you're voting on Snip now....

Whelp. I'd rather not get lynched, but I also think it's a bad idea to lynch Snip....ugh. Striker

[DrakeMarshall]

Also, I just realized you can pass items this cycle.

As a politician, my avarice will not permit such an opportunity to be passed up.

I am now offering a 25% OFF DISCOUNT to bribe my vote!! I will change my vote by request in exchange for a gift of 3 boxings, 1 boxing below the usual rate. PM me for details.

6 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

I'll take my vote off myself once someone else has at least two votes that is not Snip (I'm not certain that he's not an elim, but I feel like he's probably not) or before I go to bed, whichever happens first. You can just pretend that there's only two votes on me.

It is entirely possible that he's actually an elim. I guess I'd be willing to let a Snip lynch happen....oh, you're voting on Snip now....

Whelp. I'd rather not get lynched, but I also think it's a bad idea to lynch Snip....ugh. Striker

Hm. I'm kind of inclined to trust your instincts if you think Snip really isn't evil.

Not that you're a better target of the lynch, in my books.

Would you mind trying to explain why you don't think Snip is evil?

[StrikerEZ]

2 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Hm. I'm kind of inclined to trust your instincts if you think Snip really isn't evil.

Not that you're a better target of the lynch, in my books.

Would you mind trying to explain why you don't think Snip is evil?

It’s mainly just paranoia that Snip is being set up for a mislynch by the elims. Plus, Snip’s posts, even though he’s tunneling on Ark (which I probably would’ve done in his position), feel genuine to me. 

[DrakeMarshall]

Hm.

@Snipexe why did you vote on Ark even when you believed the name of the blade was written incorrectly? You yourself believed that this was strong evidence for Ark being set up, prior to GM clarification, so why did you still vote up Ark?

Regardless, there are some things I missed about Snip's posts. I think Striker might be right. Which is honestly annoying. I don't like having a lead ruined, even if it's for a good reason.

Can we please lynch somebody that isn't Snip or Striker. Preferably Bard for a suspicious vote on Joe but I'm open to other ideas.

 

Also, @Butt Ad Venture is that a wasp eater in your profile pic?

Edited August 5, 2019 by DrakeMarshmallow

[Fifth Scholar]

Hmm...Snip and Ark feel like setups, I agree, and Striker’s tone has been giving me very different reads than I had a few hours ago; that said, I think I’m going to stick with my gut, as the backlog here is a bit intimidating to pull a solid lynch case together in the two or three hours before I sleep, and my qualms with Striker are still lingering, if mitigated. I do want to respond to this, though:

1 hour ago, Alvron said:

This.  If Burnt or I had gotten a Dagger at start, we would've been murderizing people.  Burnt doesn't play many games and the chance to work with her in our mutual love of killing random people would've been wonderful.  I had three goals this game.  Get a Dagger and call it Shadow's Embrace or The Shadow's Kiss or something similar.  Publicly get a Dagger and see what Burnt does.  I suspect she would either PM me asking to join in the murder spree or start to panic knowing I have a kill ability and haven't forgotten that she attacked me in a prior game.  Burnt descending into madness in fun to watch. (You should ask to see her GM PM from LG16 if she still has it)  And finally, kill Hael and collect his head which I have been after for oh so long now.

No.  Just no.  In my opinion lynching Gaea is the worst thing for us to do as village.  I was willing to let it be a three way tie last cycle as then we would've wasted only one lynch but if we lynch either Wilson or Gaea then another cycle would be wasted.  I just don't understand why finding the corrupt constable is so important.
Yes, our lynch results will be reliable but so what if they aren't.  It's not like we need them.  Finding an elim through connections isn't as reliable as many think it is.  Yet they put great stock in it.  Sure when it works it's great but when it doesn't it can lead on a wild goose chase that causes far more harm than it would good if it did work.

But more importantly, lynching Gaea removes the Market!  Beforehand, that would've meant that the elims had an easy way to get rid of all Whiskey, Ledgers and Boxings.  That's no more bribes, no more seeking, no more protects.  With the new rule that items can be passed, that now includes Warrants.  Everyone is saying that it will also mean no more Daggers but that is not true at all.  I know of two ways to keep Daggers in the elims hands without the Market and that's just what I've worked out so far.  I'm not going to reveal them as this post alone will give them far more ideas than I wanted them to have as it is.  All the elims need to do to cripple the village is get rid of the Black Market.  Then they can use the Whiskey, Ledgers and Boxings on the one being lynched and poof, they gone.  Passing items now means the Warrants will also disappear.  What everyone is overlooking is that there is no elim kill. That means they very likely have higher than normal numbers.  By removing the Boxings, they gain better control of the lynch which they already have the numbers to influence more so than in a normal game.  Removing Boxings also removes the odds of anyone getting enough together for the solo win con.

IMO we should ignore the constables completely and focus on finding the elims.  Yes our lynch results might not be reliable but that isn't all that true either.  Enough votes on a player and it will always give false results so we would then have the truth.

Personally I feel that those pushing for the constables to be lynched, any constable, is far more likely to be an elim.  It derails discussion and wastes time that they can use to gather items/information.

Please read above.  I'm fairly certain I had something else to say here but writing the above either covered it or made me forget what it was.

Politicians do it all the time.  They say one thing and do another.  Flavourwise it fits well in the theme.

I think I covered everything but I jumped around while typing this so if a thought suddenly drops, I likely got distracted elsewhere.
There have been several posts made while I was typing this but I'm not going to risk losing my wall of text.  I don't do these enough to risk this one.

 First, I love seeing you talk this much, Alv. If you can keep this speech quality up you certainly have my vote for Governor.  That said, as an advocate of a Gaea lynch, I feel obliged to give some counterpoints. 

While your desire to cooperate with Burnt and kill everyone is admirable understandable, I work as much in-thread and with the lynch as you do in PMs and with items, plans, and the like. As such, my priority is purifying our lynches and ensuring their accuracy. While I wasn’t really around to protest the massacre of Joe, I’m still a believer in corrupt!Gaea—additionally, as to why we should “waste” another lynch on a constable, because knowing who is what alignment is the only way to perform reliable analysis? Without that, everyone is floating in limbo completely isolated from past events and other players, and analysis is reduced to a game of find-the-evil-sounding-tone, which simply doesn’t work, as some people will sound village no matter what, and villagers are essentially stabbing in the dark hopelessly trying to make contact, while the Elims, who have more coordination, can steer the lynch where they will. Confusion, in the vast majority of cases, only benefits those trying to hide, which would be the Elims. Also, finding Elims through connections is one of the most reliable ways of finding them at all, and your statement, that it can lead to a horrid mess when misapplied, is true of all lynching strategies and shouldn’t be used as a reason to avoid a particular method which has proved its usefulness time and again. 

Items disappearing will in most cases not happen, and at any rate will cause those using them to use them more cautiously than they otherwise might, knowing that they might not get it back—besides, any attempts to both use and keep an item within a faction will necessitate revealing to some extent those juggling the item, as we saw with Snip and the Dagger. The black market isn’t necessary to maintain the fun of the game, as seen in this very cycle; there’s really not much in there at all, and I believe that by increasing the value each individual item holds, and being careful to use it in a way that keeps it in circulation, we would add another fun dimension of planning to the use of our items. 

We need 18-20 votes to guarantee the unanimity you propose to reverse the lynch results, which is probably never going to happen. The most likely remedy if we keep the current system around is to have very small numbers of votes, which also doesn’t work—people with Boxings, and Elims with hammers, have too much of a say. The only way to restore the integrity of the lynch is to purify its results, which means taking another shot at lynching a constable. Finally, as for suspecting those pursuing the constabulary, I again disagree. I respect the desire to have a reliable lynch which will allow us to perform good analysis later in the game, and will defend those who share that desire.