Long Game 12: Shadows of Elantris

[the winter system]

Who was Converted during the night and who was Converted during the first day? That way, we get two confirmed people who aren't the gyorn.

[Bort]

Lightsworn Panda makes a good point about Dowanx. Didn't something like half a dozen people say they would like to play, but would be away this weekend, and so would not be about until Tuesday (today)? So, Dowanx can have my vote for the time being. This may be changed later, depending on if we get much new information.

 

I could have been tempted to vote for Wonko, but the way he said he was voting (letting someone else choose who), kinda makes me think he is innocent.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Bort

[The Honey Badger]

I think the most important thing in this stage, is for all the inactives to post a little, even if they don't have much to say. In MR:6 the Eliminators, just hid under the radar, and we lost that game, only hitting one eliminator. We need inactives to be active in order to win. 

The people who are eliminators are probably the people who watch the game, but don't post a lot. Though there probably is a vocal member of the mafs. 

[Kasimir]

Kaian stared at the body the guards were carting away, shaken. This is why you don't argue with people, he thought, dismally. All the disquiet the fortune teller had elicited in him was coming to the fore now, threatening to drown him. I should never have come here, he thought. And then he reminded himself that he could've been back in the monastery.
 
This was life, in the the world as Holy Jaddeth slumbered. You made choices. You lived with them.
 
Yesterday, Locke had been alive. Today, he was not. This was the way of the world.
 
The ferret chattered, staring up at him with dark, inquisitive eyes. Absently, he fed it a few seeds. He really had to give it a name soon, Kaian thought. He couldn't keep referring to it as the ferret. The fortune teller's words floated through his mind again. ...You will always be together with your companion, the ferret...
 
He smiled down at the ferret. That, Kaian decided, wasn't too bad. Before the bits about death and the Shaod. And at least that was another thing he'd done; that the Kaian who stayed at the monastery would never have. He'd never otherwise have gotten his fortune told by a fortune teller.
 
I think I like it, he decided. Minus the death and the Shaod. He'd seen them dragging Sienene out; the stricken man was like the living dead. He was barely conscious of his shiver of fear. Holy Jaddeth willing, he would remain far from Elantris.
 
-
 
I've been hesitating because I'm having difficulty making sense of what is going on. I'm just going to flag some things that have caught my attention.
 
1. I prefer not to speculate about Orlok's death at this point. We have a number of theories: maybe the Cultists thought Orlok and Araris were lovers and tried to go for a two-for-one deal. Maybe the Cultists wanted to cast suspicion on myself and Mek. (I note this would tar Maili as well; unless I'm mistaken, he, too, cast a vote for Orlok, though his reasons seem to be slightly different.) Or maybe we're Cultists who have ingeniously banked on reverse psychology to get ourselves cleared. Whatever the case, I think that only time--and more data--will allow us to figure out the reason. All we have at this point is speculation. Consequently, I don't find it particularly helpful to spend further time on this--at this point in time.
 
2. More pertinently, I noticed two differing views being voiced over the past cycle. Maili endorsed tying up the votes and then looking to the vote manipulators to obtain more information. Phatt, and Wonko (by implication) preferred creating enough of a margin that the vote couldn't be played with. At this stage, I must admit I lean towards Maili's view, but ultimately, this is inconsequential. What matters is that we should not be working at cross-purposes here. Pick one thing we're going to do and stick with it. If we're going to tie and let the Debtors and Vote Manipulators do their thing and then try to figure out what's happening from the vote shenanigans, then we need to be prepared for the possibility that things could get wild. (Even better if the non-Debtor vote manipulator roles could work with us here and abstain.) If we're going to pack votes in order to avoid ties, then we need to be prepared to forgo certain types of information about the existing manipulators and their motives, but we might get information about who are crowding the votes. Decide and let's not work against each other here. (Preferably no extended debate though. I agree with Mek that we can talk about all the things--we have somewhat over 24 hours left in this cycle! But at the same time, don't obsess about this to the exclusion of all else.)

3. Similar thing with lynching the lurkers. Okay, I get that the pinch-hitter mechanic means that we're drawing a distinction between lurkers and genuine inactives. Cool. But I'm still having difficulty following why we're suddenly all gung-ho on the lurkers. (I note that according to Hreo's regulations, it will be two cycles before we see any inactive being replaced by a pinch-hitter. I suppose it's one now.) But there seem to be two problematic assumptions in this reasoning, as far as I can tell.

A. Lurking is a dominant Eliminator strategy.

We don't even know what this chull-spawned Eliminator team is doing. There's just as a good a chance that they're sitting among the semi-actives, rather than the lurkers, and just happily watching us go about lynching the lurkers. (Note: if I were to make a wild guess, then yes, I would guess they have a lurker or two. But there are definitely also vocal players among them, and if they have any experienced members of the team, these are bound to be at least semi-active. But this is only a guess and a fallible one.)

B. Quality: Posting is not necessarily the same as making a post that can actually give us information with which to double-check inconsistencies later on. I say 'not necessarily the same' because I think that this entails that we should not conflate the two. Why? I think what happened is a perfect example. If we accept the lynching of lurkers as the dominant strategy, it's easy for people to just join the lynch train under the guise of semi-activity. It's much harder when you actually have to stick your neck out when you vote. Lynching lurkers might be successful; I don't really know and as I said, I'm not really a strategy genius in these games. Just one of the smaller fish in the pond. But it seems to me that lynching lurkers is such a safe and cheap strategy for virtually everyone (Eliminators included) since all you need to do is to agree on a lurker rather than actually examine suspicions.

I've made these two points, only to take it half-back. What's done is done; no point crying over dropped chouta. Also, it's Day Two, and that's still slightly early. But I brought up these points because I want to still make some recommendations:

First, we should not determine--even before the discussion has run its course!--that we will lynch lurkers. Let's not let complacency override any potential information gained from discussion.

Second, I just cautioned against complacency and I will do so again. Keep a close eye on those who keep riding lynch trains for lurkers in the absence of attempting to interrogate those who are actually active. The lynch is no replacement for discussion and vice versa. Furthermore, we are not helped if we continually scrutinise the lurkers but fail to watch the active among us. Yes, we will get information and pick out inconsistencies--but only if we are mindful not to suffer from tunnel vision by focusing on a particular demographic within this game. Assumptions are deadly. They can kill.

Third is more a comment than a recommendation. I brought up this entire matter because the alacrity with which the assertion that we should lynch lurkers was accepted troubles me. I know that the pinch-hitters are a new practice. But all the same, I am somewhat concerned because in earlier games, it was also suggested (in fact, I believe it was Meta who suggested it) that leaving lurkers/inactives alive wasn't too bad an idea as they could basically serve as meat shields.) I do understand that we've lately shifted towards a 'take out the inactive' strategy (particularly, this was discussed in the AG dead doc.) But at the same time, I'm paranoid. It's just me doing my job as a member of House Urbain. And when such an unobvious strategy like this passes without any opposition that I can notice, I get worried. Something seems fishy. Of what sort is to be determined.

Perhaps it's just an MR6 thing as I didn't play that game.

Either way, there's still plenty of time left in the cycle. I'm going to red Luckat. Having said what I did about lurkers, it might seem like a strange move. I'd pressure Dowanx but I think he's already got someone chewing on his behind for it. More pertinently, knowing how deadly Luckat can be, I'm reluctant to leave her in the silence for too long.

-

If I've missed anything, do let me know, guys I've been radically short on sleep lately due to juggling three jobs and a thesis, and I've been having many d'oh moments of late like scalding myself when making a cuppa >> So if I sound like a concussed wombat...this is not how I usually am (I hope), it's just my taking the next punch in the ongoing boxing match against RL.

[Seonid]

 

Dowanx. You and Wonko created a bandwagon on Feligon during the last 10 minutes of the Day Cycle, without citing much reasoning, instead choosing to copy Wilson's argument. You later said, during the Night Cycle, that you were going to hunt down all the inactives. It's nice that you're provoking discussion, but did you really have to suddenly throw off a perfectly good lynch, especially in the very last minutes of the day, in favour of lynching an inactive who had only been inactive for a day? Couldn't you have waited to today? Hunting down inactives sounds too much like a cover for wasting lynches and killing innocents.

 

 

Besides, not all players are particularly active on the first day. Some like to sit back and watch before making any posts or presumptions. Following your logic, why didn't you lynch Luckat? She's been online, yet she hasn't posted. Or Seonid. Or Ostrich.

 

 

I've been out of town, with no opportunity to post, since last Thursday. I posted that clearly in the thread, so anybody who was interested (in something other than just finding a convenient target, of course) should have known that I would be back on Tuesday. It's now Tuesday, and I'm back.

 

I haven't read through the whole thread yet (and can I mention how annoying it is that the Day 1 thread is mixed up with the sign-up thread? Totally awkward to try to read through.), but I will, and then I'll have something to say for sure. Until then, any votes would be only poke votes, and I don't even have a clear enough picture to do that effectively.

[Bort]

Also here are some helpful links for navigating the main thread.  I will try to keep these updated throughout the game.

 

Day 1: http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/29102-lg12-shadows-of-elantris/page-9

Night 1: http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/29102-lg12-shadows-of-elantris/page-15

 

Seonid, maybe you'll find these useful.

[Seonid]

Thanks, Bort

[Araris Valerian]

I'm in agreement with Jain here. Not posting during the first cycle is a fairly common occurrence in Long Games. Just because somebody didn't claim to have IRL stuff going on doesn't mean that it couldn't be an issue. I'm not really sure what the point of tying the vote would be. The eliminators could just leave the vote alone and let the village kill somebody win vote manipulation and secret votes. The problem with relying on tie votes being manipulated is that the eliminators don't have to mess with anything. That leads to the same conclusion that Kas made; village type people shouldn't do vote manipulation if we are trying for a tie vote. So I will put a vote on Wonko, because the two of them could have had different reasons for trying to lynch an inactive and we should get that out in the open.

[little wilson]

Besides, not all players are particularly active on the first day. Some like to sit back and watch before making any posts or presumptions. Following your logic, why didn't you lynch Luckat? She's been online, yet she hasn't posted. Or Seonid. Or Ostrich.

 

I know you asked this to Dow specifically, but since I was the person who placed the first vote on Fel, I'll answer why I'd picked those 4 specifically (Clanky, Dow, Fel, and Aonar) rather than some of the others who hadn't posted as well. Seonid (who's already responded for himself) had said that he'd be inactive for the first cycle or two, so I knew not to expect anything from him. Ostrich is never very active. Luckat is virtually always inactive at the start of the game. So I was going for people who usually contribute early (even to a small degree) and weren't, but were online and checking the thread enough to have been contributing.

 

And as for the lynch being "perfectly good". The candidates were Mek, who was a Citizen (but we don't know what he is now), and Orlok, who was a Citizen. I fail to see how that was a perfectly good lynch. The discussion had been good. Very good. But the lynch? Not really, no.

 

And since a few people (Jain and Kas in particular) have been wondering about lynching the inactive/lurkers and the strategy of it, I'll give my reasons for that now.

 

In most games, I ignore the inactives. I'll poke vote them every now and then but nothing more than that. I focus predominantly on actives and semi-inactives. However, in MR6 over half of the eliminator team stayed silent, letting Gamma and Orlok talk in the thread. Similarly, in the AG (which was the last time I was on Team Good), the eliminator was perfectly content letting Claincy be the one to talk in the thread, and even then, he stayed fairly in the background until I died. After that, more of the eliminators started talking. This is a fairly common tactic. About half (or more) of the eliminator team will be borderline lurker/semi-inactive. And the rest will be somewhere between semi-inactive to very active, depending on their skill level.

 

Since I've typically ignored inactives/lurkers in the past, I'm trying a new strategy to bring focus to them earlier. Why now? Well, because in this particular game, we don't have the luxury of tying up the vote or just not lynching anyone if we don't like the options available. Someone will die. If it gets down to the wire and there's still not a great lynch target (and I disagreed with both the options yesterday as I thought (correctly) that they were both Citizens), lynching somebody who refuses to participate is absolutely a viable and reasonable option.

 

But Wilson, I hear you ask, how can we still get meaningful discussion if we're just going to turn around and lynch an inactive or lurker? That's a good point. However, my point isn't to go lynching lurkers wily-nilly and sacrifice the discussion. No. The goal is to continue discussing and calling out the semi-inactive and active poster just as we always do. Discussion, after all, is key. Meaningful discussion, in particular. If a semi-inactive is consistently getting called out and they post something but nothing really of substance, that's absolutely suspicious. If they continue like that, I'm all down for lynching them. But while we're discussing, we should also be placing poke votes on those we notice are lurking but not posting. Ideally, we should also be paying attention to the inactives and if they've been seemingly inactive but they're not replaced by a pinch-hitter when you'd think they should be, that person is feigning inactivity and likely checking the thread while private browsing and only getting onto the forum to send in orders. That person should be killed with extreme prejudice.

 

The idea of placing poke votes on lurkers is to get them to respond to the discussion in a meaningful, substantial way, or at least give a valid excuse for why they haven't and when we can expect them to be able to. In theory, this removes those lurkers from where they were and puts them into active discussion, where we can then engage them more and figure out their alignment better. And if a lurker refuses to participate or consistently fails to provide a substantial response, then lynching them if there's no better candidate is fine. Now, if there is a better candidate, then obviously we'll lynch them.

 

My point with this is that we need meaningful discussion. That's a fact. Lack of discussion allows the eliminators to do as they please and the village always loses. The more people that discuss, the easier it is to catch the eliminators.

 

I have a few people I'd like to hear more from before I cast my vote: Clanky, Maill, and Luckat. 

[the winter system]

I agree with you, Wilson. This game is based off of information. Though I am amused on how much discussion their is in this game about discussion and lynching. Usually it's just who to lynch.

Now! Here's another attempt to make a big post like everyone else in this storming game! (and failling):

I agree, Lynching people who are talking actively is pointless. Sure, the eliminators are among them, probably. But discusssion is important. I see your points and I'm going to try to analyze those you pointed out, Wilson:

1. Clanky: Only responded to a poke vote as real analysis in the first cycle, but wasn't afraid to RP in the second. The particular Roleplay distracted people. (I'm pretty sure about this but blame my memory if I'm wrong) But speak up!

2. Mailiw: Not sure, offered useful advice in relation to the lynch thing. But speak up!

3. Luckat: Not sure, probably should speak up, but maybe some in real life reasons why the best they can do is check? Dunno. But speak up!

(And wow, this game is getting me to analyze in depth. Serriously, I'm impressing myself right now!)

[Kasimir]

1. Cursor of Doom: Good to see our stances are generally in agreement. I suppose I should as well be more explicit: my targets are specifically those endorsing a rather skewed view that really just thinks that the destination is lynching the lurkers, and therefore missing the larger picture. I want to caution against doing so to the exclusion of pertinent factors as we do so to our peril [Again, given that this was not explained as well early on, I am still somewhat cautious about those who took the idea up so enthusiastically and proceeded to charge on with it.]
 
Personally at least, I'm still a bit more sceptical about poke votes, and I think that Ren (and I believe Luckat mentioned it as well at some point?) is correct in criticising how poke votes have become rather institutionalised. But to be fair, Ren's critique in particular simply asks for discretion in the use of poke votes.
 
2. Did anyone notice Winter Cloud is 'Winter Butt' on the player list?
 
3. I did a quick search on the player names since I couldn't sleep. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere (possible as Schechter would hold that one ought to hold rational self-doubt in the matter, and I'm sleep-deprived!Kas), the two with no standing reason for absence and who haven't said a thing (unlike Seonid, for instance) are Luckat and Ostrich. We know one is habitually silent. Ostrich wasn't in the AG but perhaps his teammates in MR6 could shed more light on this?
 

[Herowannabe]

2. Did anyone notice Winter Cloud is 'Winter Butt' on the player list?

Woah! How did that happen??? Tulir? Do you have some secret grudge against Winter Cloud that you haven't told me about?

Edited May 26, 2015 by Herowannabe

[the winter system]

Yeah, that's happened before on the Winter Butt thing. I believe it was MR 5 where it happened. Something about a pluggin that changes all instances of Cloud to Butt.

 

I don't like it, to say the least, but I know what causes it!

[little wilson]

Ostrich wasn't in the AG but perhaps his teammates in MR6 could shed more light on this?

 

Ostrich played the AG. That was his first game. The fact that you don't remember him isn't surprising though. He's typically borderline inactive. In MR6, he was around a bit in the planning, and he posted a little bit in the thread, but hardly at all until halfway through the game.

[Metacognition]

MenE was sweeping the floors toady, rather than scrubbing the walls. The swish-swish of the broom was soothing to him after another death and the Shoad taking Sienene. Of course, he had predicted that the Cultists wouldn't take to being stuck in the palace very well, but it was one thing to know this and entirely another to see the aftermath. 

 

As he swept, he picked up on the conversations of those around him. Dow's name seemed to getting tossed around a lot today, especially for his hand in the death of Fel the day before. MenE didn't see it though. It seemed like Dow was being offered as a scapegoat, someone that everyone else could focus on while the Cultists stayed hidden. He could even use their own arguments against them. As Jain had pointed out, there were plenty of people who weren't speaking up, so why did they pick Fel? The same could be asked of him though- why Dow? There were plenty of people involved in the lynching of Fel, so why focus on Dow? 

 

Of course, the worst part of the situation with Dow was that Jain and the rest were making the assumption that Fel (now Mek) was innocent. How could they know whether or not Fel/Mek wasn't a Cultists? What if he was? How did they seem so sure? There was just something that felt wrong about the entire thing to MenE. 

 

And he still hadn't found an answer for Duke Pifferdan's odd actions the other day! 

 

MenE continued to sweep and to think. The clues were buried in his mind somewhere, he just needed to sort them out! 

[Kipper]

First of all, I want to call out Clanky. His posts seem to just be off. I get that roleplaying is fun and all, but virtually all of his latest posts have just been joking around, nit really even attempting to discuss strategy.

Secondly, as Kasimir and some others hinted at/implied, it is a mistake to assume that the maf is doing some particular thing because "It's only natural." It's easy for us to say, "Oh, the maf killed Orlok to cast suspicion on McKeedee and whoever else." In fact, it is only right for us to make that declaration because, after all, that is what the maf does. But it is important to remember that the maf knows that too. They know exactly what we will suspect of their motives! We quite honestly don't have a clue who is on the maf team. The maf could be either largely inexperienced or largely experienced. Kasimir could be a maf. Wilson could be a maf. Luckat could be a maf. Heck, even I could be a maf writing this post to make myself seem more trustworthy. My point in saying all of this is that we HAVE NO CLUE why the maf killed Orlok. We know one thing for certain: The maf will do whatever causes the most confusion. Of course they kill Orlok. But what they hoped to accomplish by killing Orlok? We don't know. The maf is just as smart as we are. We oftentimes look at the maf as a bunch of halfwits when a certain play happens, predictable and dumb. Mistake.

So why did Orlok die? Three possibilities (at least) exist.

1. The obvious: To cast suspicion on McKeedee (as a villager).

2. To clear McKeedee (as a maf): This would be done by players believing #1

3. To start a meta-discussion about whether or not we should pay attention to Orlok's death.

I am personally partial to #3. At any rate, I think that it really becomes irrelevant.

Edit for grammar and I mentioned two possibilities while having three.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Kipper

[Clanky]

OK so I noticed unfortunately that my RPing has brought suspicion on me. The reason I haven't posted much actual content is because I didn't have anything to contribute. I have been wanting to do a fortune telling rp for a while and I thought that it would be best to do it early in the game before it got to be in the way of major discussion. I will try and post my thoughts when I get home from work in about 6 hours.

[dowanx]

Thanks for posting Karlin.  I am going to move my vote over to spencer.  I know he was on recently, but hasn't posted and I would still like to know what role manipulated his vote.  

 

As for the lynching lurkers/inactives strategy here are my reasons for advocating this strategy.  I started playing roughly around the AG game and ever since then I have seen how much damage lurkers can do.  I have not played nearly as many games as some of the other players but from my perspective they are not good for the village as a whole.  

 

Not only is getting rid of the lurker element good for the village, but it promotes discussion which is great for the village.  If you compare this to other LG games I think we are doing great so far on discussion.  We haven't found any cultists yet (it's only day 2), but I know my game notes are much larger then other LG games I have played which is a great sign.  

 

As for my target, I voted for Fel because he was the only inactive that I saw at the time that already had a vote on him and I didn't see him post anything saying he wouldn't be playing the first bit of this game.  

 

A valid point was brought up by Kasimir that poke votes have limited value if they don't respond with meaningful posts.  I agree somewhat to this.  We have to start somewhere when trying to draw inactives/lurkers into the game and this seems like the best method.

 

With all of that said if a valid target comes up for a lynch I will focus them.  However I believe going after lurkers/inactives this early in the game is a much better strategy then going after them mid game.  During the mid game we have a lot more information to go off of and voting for lurkers/inactives at that point makes less sense.

 

I would also like to point out that I find it more fun to play this game when there is activity in the forum which probably factored into why I decided to go strongly after lurkers/inactives early on this game. 

[the winter system]

OK so I noticed unfortunately that my RPing has brought suspicion on me. The reason I haven't posted much actual content is because I didn't have anything to contribute. I have been wanting to do a fortune telling rp for a while and I thought that it would be best to do it early in the game before it got to be in the way of major discussion. I will try and post my thoughts when I get home from work in about 6 hours.

Thank you for the explination, Clanky.

[Lightsworn Panda]

I've been out of town, with no opportunity to post, since last Thursday. I posted that clearly in the thread, so anybody who was interested (in something other than just finding a convenient target, of course) should have known that I would be back on Tuesday. It's now Tuesday, and I'm back.

 

I haven't read through the whole thread yet (and can I mention how annoying it is that the Day 1 thread is mixed up with the sign-up thread? Totally awkward to try to read through.), but I will, and then I'll have something to say for sure. Until then, any votes would be only poke votes, and I don't even have a clear enough picture to do that effectively.

 

My apologies. I see, to have missed that post.

 

Dowanx, I would like to hear your defense. 

 

Edit: Somehow got ninja'd.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Lightsworn Panda

[dowanx]

Sure look three posts above.

[luckat]

I’m really sorry I’ve been so inactive. I’ve been a lot busier than I thought I would be, and I haven’t had time to really look at what everyone’s said, let alone post. I’m trying to get my thoughts together, but I have a headache, so I don’t know how much sense I’ll make.

First, I’ll put up a current vote tally.

Dow (2): Jain, Bort
Hael (1): Clanky
Luckat (1): Kas
Wonko (1): Araris
Clanky (1): Kipper
Piff (1): Meta
Spencer (1): Dow

This isn’t necessarily complete because Elantrians could have voted, but they can only vote for each other and there’s only four of them right now so we probably don’t have to worry about that right now.

However, we don’t want to completely ignore the Elantrians. While it doesn’t seem likely the Cultists started with any (although they could have), and obviously none of them are the Gyorn, eventually there will be Cultists among them. Some of the things Phatt said last cycle seemed a bit suspicious, but now we can’t really talk to him about them. Obviously, voting for them wouldn’t be very useful right now because they could only respond through someone with a Seon and it wouldn’t be good to make them all Hoed. However, it would be good for some of the people with Seons to open discussion with them, if they haven’t already.

Regarding Orlok’s death, I agree with the others who have said there are too many possibilities for discussion about it to be very productive.

 

Who was Converted during the night and who was Converted during the first day? That way, we get two confirmed people who aren't the gyorn.

People can only be converted during the night. I agree with everyone who has said that whoever is converted should speak up. No one has yet that I’ve seen, so maybe the gyorn converted a lurker. For now, I think all we need to do about the gyorn is keep track of converts until we know more about their strategy.

 

3. I did a quick search on the player names since I couldn't sleep. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere (possible as Schechter would hold that one ought to hold rational self-doubt in the matter, and I'm sleep-deprived!Kas), the two with no standing reason for absence and who haven't said a thing (unlike Seonid, for instance) are Luckat and Ostrich. We know one is habitually silent. Ostrich wasn't in the AG but perhaps his teammates in MR6 could shed more light on this?

Spencer also hasn’t posted since signing up, and he didn’t give any reason for being inactive that I saw. What is also interesting is that his vote was used by a vote manipulator last cycle. I don’t know what to make of that, if anything.

[Lightsworn Panda]

Dowanx, you still have not responded to why you did a last minute bandwagon. Is lynching an inactive really that urgent? My vote holds.

Wilson, "perfectly good" was largely an exaggeration on my behalf. However, it was still better than a last-minute bandwagon.

[dowanx]

Jain, I didn't agree with the targets that were up for a lynch.  Both of the players were active and there wasn't any valid reasoning behind lynching either of them.  I thought and still do think that lynching an inactive is currently the best option for the village.  

 

That being said there was an another benefit from doing it last minute.  It generated a lot of discussion and more importantly we got to see last minute actions of several people which will be helpful later on.  If there wasn't a GM error we would of had even more information.  I am actually confused why you think it was a bad thing that it happened the way it did.  No one likes last minute bandwagons, but in this case I think it was valuable.

 

I stand by what I did, but I would like to ask you why are you focusing on me above others?  

[The Honey Badger]

I think that we do need to focus on why they killed Orlock, why haven't they tried to take out some of the more experienced players? Why him? In the past have the more experienced guys been the first to go? It appeared that way in MR 6.

QUG-NFH-NSTBMYXSZ