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

[+Ed Venture]

55 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

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

Indeed it is! With the castle bot and train bot! Girl genius is a wonderful webcomic.

I’ve been gone so I’ll read through the thread and see if there’s anything I want to comment on.

[Alvron]

1 hour ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

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

I freely and wholeheartedly admit that this does factor into my reasoning.  
 

53 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

 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. 

Yeah, that's not going to happen.  It's not often I have that much to say and the time to write it out.   I would love to do this more often but it's just not me.

The elims would have to be very careful with their bribes if there's only a couple of votes.  It wouldn't take much to spot a pattern.  I fully understand that others use the lynch as their way of narrowing down the list of suspects but to be fair, you have that in almost every game.  Items not so much.  Yes, I'm using a fairly underhanded tactic by trying to play on everyone's sympathies a little but I like my items.  I signed up because of the items and you want to get rid of my fun.  I am always going to be against it no matter the overall cost.

Item will disappear.  If the Elims get them they will either hoard them if the Market is still up or get rid of them if not.  At very least if the Market is still around we have a decent chance of keeping them in circulation.  Already there's the risk of players not getting their items back so they aren't really being used.  Removing the Market will make them even more scarce.  We want items to be moving around, esp the Ledgers and Whiskey and those are the ones most likely to be the first things lost if we lynch Gaea.

Not really.  As long as we are careful, we can spot the elims if they use bribes to save another.  If we have four votes on someone and they flip elim then we can be fairly sure it's true.  If there's votes that changed the lynch then we can look more closely at whoever was saved.  It will take more effort but we can analyze without a reliable flip result.  Think of it as a challenge if you want.

Also, as for Stabbing in the Dark (I saw it somewhere but can't find it again to quote for some reason) that is something that I happen to be very good at.  In fact, everyone that has a Dagger should pass, not throw or stab, them to me.  Gently.  I have a 71% success rate of blindly killing Elims.  Let me do my thing and take a Stab at finding the elims.   Sure, you won't know if I hit correctly or not but that's part of the fun, no?

[DrakeMarshall]

5 minutes ago, Butt Ad Venture said:

Indeed it is! With the castle bot and train bot! Girl genius is a wonderful webcomic.

A good read, that.

Didn't spot the castle and the train riding on the wasp eater's back. Nice. I'm pretty sure that drawing is also from only a few pages ago, so I take it you're up-to-date 

53 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

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. 

Hear hear.

1 minute ago, Alvron said:

I freely and wholeheartedly admit that this does factor into my reasoning.  

Fair enough  Knives are a most excellent commodity. You can name them and you can use multiple at once, and either of those things is awesome in my books. I just place a lot of value in alignment flips, ergo wanting to lynch the constable I think is corrupt.

Regardless, I don't want to lynch a constable today, seeing as getting it wrong would be Bad News for the village. With the exception of 1 vote on Gaea right now I think most people agree that we shouldn't lynch a constable today.

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

Striker(2): Fifth, Araris
Snip(2): Alv, Hael
Bard(1): Drake
Ark(1): Snip
Gaea(1): Rae

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

 

• 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.

To be clear, do you mean Snipexe every time you say Xino? Two possibilities also doesn't mean 50-50, and I wouldn't put it past a village Ark to kill someone C1. If that's the case, we learn nothing about Snipexe's alignment for having received a dagger. 

2 hours 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.
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.

 

It's definitely helpful to be assured of player alignments. Having a 15-20% chance of a wrong alignment might actually be worse than the complete lack of alignment reveal from a dagger kill. Lynching someone targeted by a ledger, or someone involved in a bribe scandal, or a dagger possessor, could all easily backfire and end up driving mislynches. 

I'm not sure why the elims would want to get rid of whiskey, as they can just pass it among themselves to guard against village dagger attack. The elims wanting to get rid of ledgers makes sense, but as ledger use goes before the lynch it's also pretty easy for the elims to hoard ledgers with or without the market. I would think that closing the market would make it more difficult to get rid of boxings, unless the program with Gaea passing out boxings to those who vote for the lynch victim goes away if Gaea is lynched. I'm not sure when item passing happens, but it usually goes after the lynch so the elims couldn't ditch them onto the lynch victim. 

2 hours ago, Elandera said:

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).

What do you think is the best way to determine whether Gaea or Wilson is evil? The obvious solution is to lynch people who voted for one of the two, e.g. Fifth flipping village would make me think Gaea is more likely to be corrupt while an elim Fifth makes Wilson a better target, but the alignment uncertainty of lynch victims means one data point isn't enough to make a clear judgement.

I would be wary of assuming lack of opposition means the target is village, especially as it's still a fairly close lynch and we have six hours until rollover. Ignoring a lynch on a teammate until much closer to rollover is a valid strategy for the elims precisely because there's a tendency for villagers to back off a lynch that seems too easy. That certainly doesn't mean Striker is evil, but he's not in enough danger that there would be a coordinated elim effort to save him if he was.

1 hour ago, Fifth Scholar said:

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. 

ltem disappearing definitely would happen with a broken market as people get lynched. We'll probably only be losing warrants and daggers that way as the other two can be ditched if the owner is about to be lynched, but I can definitely see a case where someone isn't around for rollover and misses the lynch train on them. There are also certain items that the elims would throw away rather than let them fall into village hands.  

[Snipexe]

3 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

ltem disappearing definitely would happen with a broken market as people get lynched. We'll probably only be losing warrants and daggers that way as the other two can be ditched if the owner is about to be lynched, but I can definitely see a case where someone isn't around for rollover and misses the lynch train on them. There are also certain items that the elims would throw away rather than let them fall into village hands.  

Item passing actually happens before the lynch in the OOA, so I think that they could be just be passed onto a different player (or an elim teammate) if a player wanted to avoid getting them lynched.

[Alvron]

22 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I'm not sure why the elims would want to get rid of whiskey, as they can just pass it among themselves to guard against village dagger attack. The elims wanting to get rid of ledgers makes sense, but as ledger use goes before the lynch it's also pretty easy for the elims to hoard ledgers with or without the market. I would think that closing the market would make it more difficult to get rid of boxings, unless the program with Gaea passing out boxings to those who vote for the lynch victim goes away if Gaea is lynched. I'm not sure when item passing happens, but it usually goes after the lynch so the elims couldn't ditch them onto the lynch victim. 

With Warrants around, they could easily lose their Whiskey and then have to worry about their target being protected and costing them a Dagger as well.  Far better to just ditch the Whiskey and take their chances.  After all, not many players are willing to just blindly stab another when we don't learn the results of said stabbing.

Passing items comes first in the OoA.  First.  That means that even though we know Snip has a Dagger, lynching him will not remove it from play as he can just pass it on.  It also means that those with Warrant might not get the Dagger from Snip if they go for it.

Boxings that are used to talk to the Jailed without being revealed go to Gaea, Boxings to buy items go to Gaea.  Boxings from lynches go to Gaea.  All the elims need to do is pass anything they want gone to a lynched player and it will be removed from the game if the Market is closed.  The lynched player wouldn't be able to pass them out as they don't know they are getting them.

And, ninja'd by Snip's post that somehow didn't show up until now.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Alvron

[Young Bard]

Right. That's a lot of backlog to go through - I forgot how fast QF's went by. The worst thing is, I was skimming it because I'm at uni, and trying to listen to a lecture at the same time.

Between Wilson and Gaea, I'd rather lynch Wilson. But I think we should probably lynch players for the next couple cycles - once we have a better idea of who the Elims are, we should go back to their posts here and . I want to vote on Striker, but I also don't want to increase the odds that their alignment will flip wrong - if someone could check whether Snip or Striker is in the lead right now, that would be great. Or, if someone could take their vote off Snip (which would have the same effect as me putting my vote on Striker, but without the 5% alignment penalty.)

And... yeah, if my posting style is slightly off, or if I change my mind halfway through writing something, it's probably because I don't have as much time to go back and change what I wanted to say as I might normally - playing two games and going back to uni was a mistake.

[Elandera]

41 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

What do you think is the best way to determine whether Gaea or Wilson is evil? The obvious solution is to lynch people who voted for one of the two, e.g. Fifth flipping village would make me think Gaea is more likely to be corrupt while an elim Fifth makes Wilson a better target, but the alignment uncertainty of lynch victims means one data point isn't enough to make a clear judgement.

It would either be through clues in the write-ups, or like you said, through lynching people who've voted on/argued for Constables.

42 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I would be wary of assuming lack of opposition means the target is village, especially as it's still a fairly close lynch and we have six hours until rollover. Ignoring a lynch on a teammate until much closer to rollover is a valid strategy for the elims precisely because there's a tendency for villagers to back off a lynch that seems too easy. That certainly doesn't mean Striker is evil, but he's not in enough danger that there would be a coordinated elim effort to save him if he was.

This is a very good point as well. However, I still don't see much in regards to a reason to lynch him other than a few off posts. I'd rather do a search on him for that, than a lynch. Especially since villagers tend to have more poorly-worded posts than elims.

[Haelbarde]

First up - I was asked as the end of a PM chain to say that some used a Ledger on @Lumgol and had it turn up Corrupt.

I have some thoughts on that, but if possible I'd like to hear from Lumgol first.

---

3 hours ago, Alvron said:

And finally, kill Hael and collect his head which I have been after for oh so long now.

4 hours ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

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?

2. What exactly did my vote achieve? And I basically said that half the reason I put it there was in the off chance that Rath was daggered, I'd get items.

3. That might be true, but that's quite a significant change in process from how games were played when I started. Bandwagoning was severely frowned upon and scrutinised. The prevailing wisdom of the time was vote for who you've got a reason to vote for, don't just pile on a bandwagon. I still subscribe to that point of view. If you look up the game I played for the first Mafia Universe Championship we participated in, I played in exactly that way (and got killed for it for they played more like you and found it similarly suspicious). I didn't want to make it harder to prevent a Constable lynch, so I didn't have a good reason to put a vote on any of the lynches. 

[Furamirionind]

Just now, Haelbarde said:

3. That might be true, but that's quite a significant change in process from how games were played when I started. Bandwagoning was severely frowned upon and scrutinised. The prevailing wisdom of the time was vote for who you've got a reason to vote for, don't just pile on a bandwagon. I still subscribe to that point of view. If you look up the game I played for the first Mafia Universe Championship we participated in, I played in exactly that way (and got killed for it for they played more like you and found it similarly suspicious). I didn't want to make it harder to prevent a Constable lynch, so I didn't have a good reason to put a vote on any of the lynches. 

Um, it's still frowned upon... It's just that there are now several players here who have made it their normal playstyle. : /

[Haelbarde]

4 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Um, it's still frowned upon... It's just that there are now several players here who have made it their normal playstyle. : /

Alright, good to know it hasn't changed as much then. On MU, they basically killed you if you didn't put your vote where it would matter, i.e. on the bandwagon, or one one of them, if there were two, say.

[Furamirionind]

6 minutes ago, Haelbarde said:

Alright, good to know it hasn't changed as much then. On MU, they basically killed you if you didn't put your vote where it would matter, i.e. on the bandwagon, or one one of them, if there were two, say.

Wait what? They modkilled you or lynched you?

Actually, when I played there, some people tried to lynch players like that, but there were too many, so the village gave up after C2.

[StrikerEZ]

I can confirm that Hael’s claim that Lum was scanned as corrupt is true. I passed along that information to someone else, who then told Hael it seems. I was waiting to vote on Lum until we had multiple people in the chain.

[+Ark1002]

11 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?

 

11 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

You are sorely disappointed? The way I play this game revolves around PMs, and the first time i'm in a game with someone similar, they die C1. :sob:

That was Ark's only post so far. Its not a bad post, and we have seen Ark become more active in recent games. He and Burnt have had no interactions.

The only link between Ark and Burnt, is that Ark and Snipexe are both members of the alleyverse, and Snip voted on Burnt. However, I don't think it particularly likely that this link is relevant at all.
Burnt never voted, but I don't think that is something Ark would care about.
But I will say this, it would be very much like Ark to claim a name beforehand, and then follow through with that claim, even if it outs him.

I definitely want to hear what Ark has to say about this...

I'd quote the other posts but there's too many

Snipexe, I totally forgot about how daggers get redistributed. So I didn't mean to almost frame you. Sorry.

I mean.... that is a very me thing to do.

 

So, yes, I killed Burnt. This was because I honestly thought Wilson was being lynched (I guess I just counted really badly), and I forgot how the dagger got redistributed. I thought it went to the black market (and I'm also gonna go do a reread of the rules ). Burnt and Alvron were acting nefarious, so I just chose to kill Burnt. I had no suspicions past that, I just wanted to use the dagger. Hope that helps!

I'm going to vote on Wilson again, for the same reasons as last time.

[Furamirionind]

12 minutes ago, RayOfSunshine said:

 

I'd quote the other posts but there's too many

Snipexe, I totally forgot about how daggers get redistributed. So I didn't mean to almost frame you. Sorry.

I mean.... that is a very me thing to do.

 

So, yes, I killed Burnt. This was because I honestly thought Wilson was being lynched (I guess I just counted really badly), and I forgot how the dagger got redistributed. I thought it went to the black market (and I'm also gonna go do a reread of the rules ). Burnt and Alvron were acting nefarious, so I just chose to kill Burnt. I had no suspicions past that, I just wanted to use the dagger. Hope that helps!

I'm going to vote on Wilson again, for the same reasons as last time.

1. Should have killed Alv instead of Burnt (no offence Alv. ) 

2. Dont vote on Wilson, you are wasting your vote. Wilson will not be lynched today nor will any other constable. 

[Lumgol]

Alright now, Striker, please tell me why you decided to frame me. 

Was it because you regretted your posts and knew suspicion was going to come onto you?

With your voting on yourself to make sure Snipexe wouldn't be lynched, I assumed you would be less willing to deflect attention away from yourself onto another villager.

(edit: @StrikerEZ)

Edited August 6, 2019 by Lumgol

[Furamirionind]

5 minutes ago, Lumgol said:

Alright now, Striker, please tell me why you decided to frame me. 

Was it because you regretted your posts and knew suspicion was going to come onto you?

With your voting on yourself to make sure Snipexe wouldn't be lynched, I assumed you would be less willing to deflect attention away from yourself onto another villager.

(edit: @StrikerEZ)

Any analysis to share? We have a 1v1 here, and the more info/analysis you/striker can provide on other players, the more confident I'll be in you being village.

Edit: lum, right now, my vote would probably land on you. But you and Striker arent far apart.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Furamirionind

[DrakeMarshall]

1 hour ago, Haelbarde said:

First up - I was asked as the end of a PM chain to say that some used a Ledger on @Lumgol and had it turn up Corrupt.

I have some thoughts on that, but if possible I'd like to hear from Lumgol first.

 

---

2. What exactly did my vote achieve? And I basically said that half the reason I put it there was in the off chance that Rath was daggered, I'd get items.

3. That might be true, but that's quite a significant change in process from how games were played when I started. Bandwagoning was severely frowned upon and scrutinised. The prevailing wisdom of the time was vote for who you've got a reason to vote for, don't just pile on a bandwagon. I still subscribe to that point of view. If you look up the game I played for the first Mafia Universe Championship we participated in, I played in exactly that way (and got killed for it for they played more like you and found it similarly suspicious). I didn't want to make it harder to prevent a Constable lynch, so I didn't have a good reason to put a vote on any of the lynches. 

Great. Considering there’s only one bribery unaccounted for, and there has been time for a villager to own up to it, I will trust the scan on Lumgol.

Although I confess I have no idea what the whole PM chain thing is trying to accomplish since items are 1-shot. I’m also a bit lost for why nobody is voting for the person scanned as corrupt. This situation is a bit weird.

Anyhow, no reason to make the lynch results needlessly inaccurate. I encourage following a credible lead from a scan result, but don’t pile on too many votes.

With regard to voting habits, I’m not really talking about bandwagonning. My ideal policy is to vote for a legitimate suspicion for the duration of the cycle, and then at the very end of the cycle when it is clear that only a few candidates are in the running, choose between those leading choices and provide additional reasoning for that decision. Maybe it’s just me but that is not how I define bandwagonning.

 

 

[Lumgol]

Oof. I'll have to... um... actually closely read the thread now... welp... uhhhhhh

@Furamirionind Have a few sentences for now

Elandera's defense of Striker seems pretty village. I imagine an elim would have tried to tunnel on somebody else (assuming Striker was elim), for instance, voting for me when Hael posted my "scan" results.

Alvron: I'm definitely liking that he has a lot of content, and I'd say I agree with his argument about lynching players rather than constables, especially if there are a lot of strong suspects at the moment. As I've mentioned before, I'm a big fan of PM's and definitely wouldn't want to lose them. I'd be somewhat more ok with losing the black market, but I'd definitely prefer to keep that for now.  However, he's being pretty forceful with his arguments... I'd expect such from either a player under a lot of pressure: either a suspected player, which he isn't, or a player who has a lot of motivation to not have one of the constables lynched. This makes sense, because even if we lynched a village constable today, we would know which constable is corrupt the next day, so it would benefit elim!Alvron to really drive in his argument.

Also, Alvron has said a lot of other things which I haven't really looked into as much; that part just happened to stand out to me as I was skimming the thread XD

Edited August 6, 2019 by Lumgol

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

2 hours ago, Snipexe said:

Item passing actually happens before the lynch in the OOA, so I think that they could be just be passed onto a different player (or an elim teammate) if a player wanted to avoid getting them lynched.

Should have actually read the rules, I guess. That would make it easier for the elims to dump items onto lynch victims to destroy them if the market were closed, or allow the lynch victim time to pass along their own items. That's usually why item passing is after the lynch, to ensure that lynched players can't pass along their items indefinitely.

24 minutes ago, DrakeMarshmallow said:

Great. Considering there’s only one bribery unaccounted for, and there has been time for a villager to own up to it, I will trust the scan on [Lumgol].

Although I confess I have no idea what the whole PM chain thing is trying to accomplish since items are 1-shot. I’m also a bit lost for why nobody is voting for the person scanned as corrupt. This situation is a bit weird.

Anyhow, no reason to make the lynch results needlessly inaccurate. I encourage following a credible lead from a scan result, but don’t pile on too many votes.

If @StrikerEZ was actually the one to initiate the PM chain, he should be able to explain. Probable reasons include wanting backup for his claim and attempting to suss out elims who weren't willing to pass along the information(village!Striker only).

I wanted to see whether Lumgol would take responsibility for bribing Fifth or claim the scan results were completely fabricated before casting a vote. It appears she has gone with the latter. Fifth probably won't come back, and Lum's vote is presumably going to stick except perhaps if Striker reveals that someone else claimed to use the ledger. If Araris retracts we can get away with a 15% chance of a false alignment reveal. If Lum is evil though, the elims might well use bribes to save her. Four votes(20% fail) ensures Lum's death for one bribe, six votes(30% fail) for two bribes, etc. Bribes from Striker to Lum might help, but only if those are accounted for ahead of time.

Striker(3): Fifth, Araris, Lum
Lum(3): Striker, Drake, Devotary
Snip(2): Alv, Hael
Ark(1): Snip
Gaea(1): Rae
Wilson(1): Ark

[Bugsy]

Hello, everyone! I just wanted to pop in the thread right now to say that I completely forgot the game was going on until late last night, and today has been quite busy for personal reasons. I’ll be doing a close readthrough of the thread tomorrow, when I’m more clearheaded than I am at a time past midnight. Apologies for my inactivity to date. 

[Alvron]

1 hour ago, RayOfSunshine said:

So, yes, I killed Burnt. Burnt and Alvron were acting nefarious, so I just chose to kill Burnt. I had no suspicions past that, I just wanted to use the dagger.

Acting nefarious is kinda Burnt and my default states.  You basically killed Burnt because she acted like herself.  Also, welcome to my kill/revenge list.  When Burnt died I decided that whoever killed her would regret it.  I shall kill you.  In a game.  Likely a long time from now given how few I've managed to get revenge upon.  So long as you don't leave.... you're probably fine.

1 hour ago, Furamirionind said:

1. Should have killed Alv instead of Burnt (no offence Alv. ) 

I kinda agree.  If one of us must be killed I would rather it be me than Burnt as she doesn't play nearly enough.

[+Ark1002]

2 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Acting nefarious is kinda Burnt and my default states.  You basically killed Burnt because she acted like herself.  Also, welcome to my kill/revenge list.  When Burnt died I decided that whoever killed her would regret it.  I shall kill you.  In a game.  Likely a long time from now given how few I've managed to get revenge upon.  So long as you don't leave.

well, that's nice

I do have tendency to die in games

Ok, Wilson, Lumgol.

If they scanned her they scanned her. Unless Striker framed her. But I feel like framing her is a stretch, as you could easily figure out if they're lying.

[Arrae]

Lum, have anything else besides a few lines of reads? 

I think it would be fairly safe to take the scan as accurate. Lum didn't claim to have bribed someone, and I find it hard to believe that an elim would make up a fake claim like that when they could be lynched afterwards once the target flipped village. I'm also a little suspicious of those who have posted after the scan claim who didn't mention the scan at all, such as Fura and Ray. I'm exempting Bugsy from this because he only posted to say he's been too busy to follow the game.

Edit: Ray voted on Lum right before I posted. Nevermind.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Arraenae

[Elandera]

1 hour ago, RayOfSunshine said:

I'm going to vote on Wilson again, for the same reasons as last time.

This seems mildly suspicious to me. His initial response seemed to be ignoring 90% of the discussion in the thread for the day. While I understand that might be from lack of time/initial reaction to what's happening, this seems off.

I am willing to trust the scan on Lum. However, I would like the person who did the scanning come forward, since you wouldn't be able to do it again anyway. You wouldn't really be a target. If you don't come forward, I'd be more apt to think it was a set-up on Lum.

If we need more votes on Lum, I'll gladly place it. I'm a bit out of sync here, since I'm in middle of a Starfinder game. I'll check in before the game ends though.

46 minutes ago, Lumgol said:

Oof. I'll have to... um... actually closely read the thread now... welp... uhhhhhh

@Furamirionind Have a few sentences for now

Elandera's defense of Striker seems pretty village. I imagine an elim would have tried to tunnel on somebody else (assuming Striker was elim), for instance, voting for me when Hael posted my "scan" results.

Alvron: I'm definitely liking that he has a lot of content, and I'd say I agree with his argument about lynching players rather than constables, especially if there are a lot of strong suspects at the moment. As I've mentioned before, I'm a big fan of PM's and definitely wouldn't want to lose them. I'd be somewhat more ok with losing the black market, but I'd definitely prefer to keep that for now.  However, he's being pretty forceful with his arguments... I'd expect such from either a player under a lot of pressure: either a suspected player, which he isn't, or a player who has a lot of motivation to not have one of the constables lynched. This makes sense, because even if we lynched a village constable today, we would know which constable is corrupt the next day, so it would benefit elim!Alvron to really drive in his argument.

Also, Alvron has said a lot of other things which I haven't really looked into as much; that part just happened to stand out to me as I was skimming the thread XD

I do not like this. At all. It very much feels like an attempt to frame either myself or Alv when she dies and flips corrupt. This very much makes me want to vote on her, but as I said, I'll wait to make sure percentages are correct.