Mid-Range Game 9: The Steel Ministry

[TheMightyLopen]

@Wyrm, Alvron's vote on Ripple wasn't because of her typo. He said it was a gut feeling based on her first post(s). 

 

I can't decide if I'm suspicious of Joe or not. While his proposed plan turned out to be a simple misread of the rules, I was willing to go with it simply because I think we should try to use our abilities as a whole. It's going to be extremely difficult to do that without some type of plan. I couldn't see what Joe was trying to do with his plan, but I thought, 'hey, if I can't figure it out, maybe that means the Skaa won't be able to either.' Joe also assured us that he had worked out any flaws in it. While I still thought it might be a gamble(which, even if he was right about the rules, it would've been), I'd rather take a risk than simply sit back and everyone just uses their abilities with no particular aim. I think his vote on Ripple is more suspicious than his plan, but even that doesn't seem very suspicious to me. It seems like a majority of people were for a lynch rather than against it, so I don't really see a problem with it. I guess I'd say I'm not particularly suspicious of Joe. I don't trust him mind you, it's just that his actions so far seem villageish.

 

I'm not sure what to make of the kill and lynch, so I'm gonna put a vote on Phattemer for now. You were called out a few times last cycle, and yet you still haven't posted anything. I would still like to hear from Deathclutch, Honey Badger, and Shallan as well, because, as Kasimir pointed out, they haven't given us much information regarding their thoughts or opinions yet. And that is going to be the primary way to catch the Skaa.

 

One thing that I would like to ask the more experienced players about the roles. Do you think it would be a good idea to give some advice on how to generally use our abilities? We can't really make effective plans without PM's, but I think it would help to give an idea of what situations or what reasons we would use certain abilities. As it is right now, it seems like we would have to just get really lucky to catch an eliminator with our roles. Some roles just don't seem particularly useful. Any ideas?

 

Here's my basic thoughts:

 

Coinshot: Use your own gut feelings. 

Lurcher: Hard to say, don't want the Skaa to know who would most likely be protected

Gold person user guy: Depends on what roles everyone thinks the Skaa has. Like, if we think they have a Rioter, then if you get rioted, there's a good chance that person is evil. Especially now that a villager rioter is down.

Seekre(Bronze): I don't know, same as Gold I guess.

Rioter: Not sure how to use this either.

Soother: Yeah, nothing really comes to mind.

Copper: If you have a feeling someone is a lurcher or Coinshot, would be a good idea to copper than to protect from Skaa messing with them.

Pewter: Use your gut I guess. If you think you've made yourself a target, better safe than sorry.

Atium: If your out there, please be careful.

 

One thing I would like to warn people of is that we should not give out or even hint at our roles. I probably don't even have to say anything, but again, better safe than sorry.

[Sart]

Mar was annoyed. He had finally dragged Ailyth into the discussion, only to find it had become a tangled mess. Most of the discussion was centered around Joel's cockeyed scheme. The Tineye didn't even understand basic allomancy. How was he even Inquisitorial material? Perhaps, it was because he was actually a skaa. It would explain his stupidity, but his downtrodden expression appeared genuine.

 

What they needed was more information. The skaa had killed a Rioter, but it appeared as though the kill was random. The general consensus was that Milon was someone to be feared, and so he had been struck down preemptively. It made sense, though it would imply familiarity with his reputation. That line of inquiry was pointless. With the exception of a few mysterious outliers, most of the trainees gathered were familiar with him.

 

An interesting point had been brought up in the discussion though. The skaa would be too cowardly to participate in the voting. While one or two of them would most likely be trying to guide the group, the remainder would be trying to lay low, waiting for the right time to strike. However, they would not want to be completely absent from discussion. If their co-conspirator was in danger, or if a juicy target was to be lynched, they would jump at the opportunity.

 

One person in particular had stood out to him: Lan (Clanky). First and foremost, he had dared to put a vote on Mar. He should know better. Secondly, he tried to analyze Milon's kill, throwing suspicion at nearly everyone. Mar had expected the skaa to do something like that. He firmly believed they would attack several active players verbally, and then lynch whichever one the trainees became suspicious of. In addition, he was a stark detractor of Joe's plan. He was constantly arguing against it, even when he did not know the details of the plan. That seemed like something a skaa would do.

 

"Lan, it's time to have a reckoning. I name you as skaa. What do you have to say for yourself?"

Edited October 22, 2015 by Sart

[phattemer]

It appears I have missed a bit. So I was going to be lynched but not enough people switched, and now Mailliw(who didn't like Joe's plan) is dead and so is Ripple(who though skaa were people too). I probably won't place a vote this cycle because I don't think I am qualified to what with the amount of catching up I need to do.

[Clanky]

Mar was annoyed. He had finally dragged Ailyth into the discussion, only to find it had become a tangled mess. Most of the discussion was centered around Joel's cockeyed scheme. The Tineye didn't even understand basic allomancy. How was he even Inquisitorial material? Perhaps, it was because he was actually a skaa. It would explain his stupidity, but his downtrodden expression appeared genuine.

 

What they needed was more information. The skaa had killed a Rioter, but it appeared as though the kill was random. The general consensus was that Milon was someone to be feared, and so he had been struck down preemptively. It made sense, though it would imply familiarity with his reputation. That line of inquiry was pointless. With the exception of a few mysterious outliers, most of the trainees gathered were familiar with him.

 

An interesting point had been brought up in the discussion though. The skaa would be too cowardly to participate in the voting. While one or two of them would most likely be trying to guide the group, the remainder would be trying to lay low, waiting for the right time to strike. However, they would not want to be completely absent from discussion. If their co-conspirator was in danger, or if a juicy target was to be lynched, they would jump at the opportunity.

 

One person in particular had stood out to him: Lan (Clanky). First and foremost, he had dared to put a vote on Mar. He should know better. Secondly, he tried to analyze Milon's kill, throwing suspicion at nearly everyone. Mar had expected the skaa to do something like that. He firmly believed they would attack several active players verbally, and then lynch whichever one the trainees became suspicious of. In addition, he was a stark detractor of Joe's plan. He was constantly arguing against it, even when he did not know the details of the plan. That seemed like something a skaa would do.

 

"Lan, it's time to have a reckoning. I name you as skaa. What do you have to say for yourself?"

 

"Me a Skaaa!?!? I am to be the greatest Inquisitor of all time! A Skaaa, you jest."

 

-----

 

So I am a Skaa because I pointed out problems with a plan that involved the wasting of inquisitor lurching metal vials? The plan ended up being flawed anyways but I am just supposed to accept it? Whenever someone proposes a plan we should just accept it and let it happen no matter what I guess. The main porpoise of any plan even more than the plan itself is to generate discussion. How can you generate discussion without voicing your disagreements? I feel like this vote was because I voted on Sart and he just looked for reasons after that.

[A Joe in the Bush]

I'm going to start off by asking the Lurchers to NOT target me. The amount of discussion I'm inspiring is good, but useless. I'm an inquisitor. I've explained my plan, why I did what I did, and how I found out I had a flawed understanding of bronze. There's nothing else I can say on the subject. So I'd rather people focus on more important things, but I know that isn't going to happen while I'm alive. So to any coinshots out there, if you suspect me, and you have more than 2 charges, just kill me. Otherwise let's focus on other things.

Sart, why is clanky's analysis suspicious? That happens literally every game, by both eliminators and villagers. Surviving Experienced players aleays come under suspicion.

I'm inclined to think that meanderbrook is a inquisitor. His explanation matches up with what we saw, and since was online last cycle he would have received the pm with a link to his doc if he were a skaa. He probably would have posted to get suspicion off him.

Lastly, inquisitors with emotional allomancy should save their allomancy until.later, so we don't run the risk of acidently hijacking a coinshot or soothing a seeker.

[Alvron]

Now, I'm not going to vote for Joe here. I'm going to vote for Alvron. The reason for this is basically because Joe has said something so far, and Alvron has not. I want to know why this vote was placed there, and what exactly he hoped to get out of it.

I hadn't said anything as I hadn't been online until just now.    I have had a busy day and have work in 90 mins so I'm still not going to say anything.  My vote was placed on Ripple because of a gut feeling I had.  I kept it there as I felt I really need to follow up on my gut feeling rather than just ignore them.  I could've removed it after the others started voting on Ripple for a simple mistake but chose not to.  My gut feeling had only gotten stronger as I felt Ripple was being a little too defensive in their posts.

[Creccio]

Before I start spouting non-sense, can someone give me a tl;dr of Mail's action on LG14? I saw them on here and I was wondering if someone could let me in?

[Kasimir]

Well, thank you Araris (yes, I have greened you out in my original post as well, won’t be making that same mistake again). As I have a paper due somewhere in the hazy boundary between tonight and tomorrow afternoon (gotta love extensions), I’m probably not going to be able to come back on and do more analysis. So I’m going to try and bring up some issues that I think are relevant; quality over quantity, and all that.

1. Joe: I think your assumption that you were visited by an inquisitor is unwarranted. The skaa knew Maili wasn’t one of them, but I don’t think your preferred conclusion, that they concluded you were honest necessarily follows from that premise. Innocent players have been wrong all the time. Storms, how many times have any of us blundered in previous games and trusted someone we shouldn’t have or overstated our claims? (Yes, Wyrm, I’m looking right at you.)

The knowledge that Maili was innocent implies that Maili had no reason to lie. It does not entail that you were not lying to begin with, or that Maili could not be mistaken. In fact, the only way we could perhaps reach the conclusion you want us to draw is if we add the additional premise that Maili knows you too well. You have claimed this, and I have alluded to this, but do the skaa buy that? Remember, you have a reputation as an ‘experienced player’, and presumably, for craftiness. (I use scare-quotes as I am starting to feel very uncomfortable with how the term has come to be employed in SE.) I don’t think it’s clear, and so I don’t think we’re entitled to this assumption.

The upshot is that I’m asking you don’t reveal their name to us (I doubt you were going to anyway) but that you keep a close eye on them. Wait and see, in other words.

At this point, I am slightly inclined to think you’re on Team Good. On the one hand, I think your reasoning about Meandbooks makes sense, and it’s certainly been in your style in Village play to continuously come up with the (if I dare say; wackiest) plans. That’s consistent at least. I don’t really see you having any reasoning to lie either about having been visited, if only because if you have to name a name (though to be fair, it’s unlikely to happen) and you’ve lied about it, that would be incredibly awkward. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can reason from Meandbooks (likely) not being skaa to any conclusion about those people involved in the last-minute voting, since there was no real bandwagon.

We know that Ripple and (likely) Books are non-skaa, but we can’t exactly conclude that there was no skaa involvement in the lynch, simply because the people who were are Orlok, Adavantos, and Ripple. We don’t need to talk about Ripple. As I’ve previously mentioned, I argued that distancing himself from the lynch would be perfectly consistent with Orlok’s being skaa. (It could, of course, also be due to Orlok being a rather decent sort, which I would say he is.) However, it does incline me to think somewhat more positively about Adavantos, as he threw a vote onto Phat to make it a tie in order to save Ripple. I think a skaa would prefer to cement a lynch, and even that would be rather risky, as people tend to look askance at last-minute voters who cause a mislynch. [My point being that if he felt it was too risky to force a lynch, he seems to have no reason to even intervene, although one could argue that he counted on the vote being past the time limit and not valid.] I’m more convinced by the former than the latter.

2. Creccio: Thanks for replying. I must admit that I in part wanted to see how you would react; as I’ve mentioned, words like ‘this argument doesn’t roll for me’ are quite vague, and it’s often worth the effort to press someone to say a little more about them, lest they end up being about as useful as instinct. While you’re puzzlingly defensive about this, especially since you previously invited us to interrogate everyone who voted for Ripple—yourself included, I am not inclined at this point to further press the issue. (To be fair, I was more concerned with arguing for the claim that instinct does play a role, rather than immediately condemning you solely on the grounds of having appealed to reasoning as opaque as instinct; apodictic evidence is so rarely obtained in SE that we’re better off not sitting around and waiting for it.)

3. Winter: I mean I am disagreeing with you.

4. Clanky: Any reason why you stacked a second vote on Araris, when he already had one on him? Could this be a convenient way to push someone for the lynch?

Clanky already has one vote on him, so I don’t really want to be a hypocrite by stacking a second on him.

5. Maili’s death: it’s obvious, folks! Wyrm killed him! Wyrm has the Death Note! We’re doomed!

Okay, more seriously: while I like to keep an open mind, I’m also a fan of the principle of parsimony. It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation is in fact that it’s a fear kill. Let me put this in perspective: say Meta was in this game. He dies on Day 1. Would any of us really find this surprising or seek further explanations?

No. He’s a dangerous player. He’s the kind of player you kill ASAP because you don’t want him sticking around to give you more problems later on. So I think the reason we keep digging for an extra explanation on why Maili died has to be phrased contrastively: why Maili? Why not

1. ?

Well, my understanding is that Maili has been doing pretty well in previous games of late. In particular, I suspect his success at manipulating everyone and just generally being a real pain in the pula probably scared a number of people who saw LG14. It’s just the same as how Wilson started getting attacked more after some of her landmark games. This sort of thing just happens: you play well, and you get boosted in terms of people’s threat perception, particularly if that watershed game was a recent one. And I think in Maili’s case, it was. And since I don’t find it surprising that Maili died in light of his recent achievements, (just as I don’t find it surprising that Alv is our resident Dodo, nor that Meta gets killed early, nor that Wilson attracts her own share of kills), I don’t see the need to further apply a contrast/foil “Why Maili and not X?” and search for more explanations.

In fact, Clanky, I think your argument further supports my contention that it was a fear kill. If you are correct in your claim that “normally you don't target someone who is potentially going to get lynched”, (i.e. that it would not be the rational decision to target someone with suspicion on them for the kill), then that precisely indicates to me that our skaa were not thinking rationally but were strongly motivated by fear. And as I’ve argued, I do think Maili’s recent shenanigans supports that.

Actually, scratch that. I am in fact going to slap down a second vote on Clanky. Why do you keep trying to running over Maili’s death again and again and turning it into the Mystery of the Cycle? Could it be that you are in fact a skaa trying to subtly connect Joe, Wyrm or myself to Maili’s death, thereby casting suspicion on us?

Edited because link was not showing up. Also, long post is long. Sorry guys. I'll try to be more concise next time :/

Edited October 23, 2015 by Kasimir

[Curious Anamaximder]

Hey guys, I am on mobile. Can I make my text red?

[Kipper]

Before I start spouting non-sense, can someone give me a tl;dr of Mail's action on LG14? I saw them on here and I was wondering if someone could let me in?

Basically, he manipulated a ton of people into giving him their roles, and generally played an excellent game as Survival. Sorta-kinda half teamed up with the OCs, right?

 

Anyway, he narrowly avoided a village kill on him, as quite a few village members were mad about his playstyle, calling it bullying, etc. I thought it worked.

[Haelbarde]

Hey guys, I am on mobile. Can I make my text red?

If you type [&color=red]Vote[&/color] without the ampersands (&), that'll color it.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Haelbarde

[Clanky]

My laptop broke last night so I will have to be playing on mobile for the forseable future. I will probably be posting less because of that sorry.

@Kas first things first , what is wrong with placing a second vote on somebody? There can be no lynch or even a real threat of lynch without multiple votes.

Onto maills death I may be putting too much emphasis on it sure but I just think it's an odd choice. If you actually read my first post about it I say that the skaa may have been trying to put suspicion on you , wyrm and Joe because none of you are actually skaa.

Edit. I was also not trying to turn it into the mystery of the (cycle sorry if that happened) and had stopped talking about it after getting Joe's opinion on it.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Clanky

[the winter system]

To Orlok, 

Yes, I saw that post. I would still have liked more. For now, I'll retract (yes, I'm going to edit my first post), but you're still on my watch list. 

[The Honey Badger]

Hey guys, I've been keeping up with the thread. I'll try to post regularly twice a day, so expect another post this afternoon. And I think the Meandbooks is a little suspicious, but we'll need some more evidence/ discussion before embarking on a lynch. I'm suspicious of IruleSTINK right now because he said twice, in short posts how he didn't like the level of discussion going on, or what was being said. Yet he didn't do anything to change that. He just placed a vote on someone else to get discussion from them, why don't you start the discussion IruleSTINK. 

 

I've done this at places, so I'm not innocent in this regard. But it is suspicious to try to get people to talk without doing anything yourself. And I read into it as trying to look like your contributing when your not. 

Edited October 22, 2015 by The Honey Badger

[STINK]

Why did I vote for someone? Because the current discussion as I stated in my previous post was about either Ripple and Maillw, both of which were topics that wasn't giving us much, though now that Wyrm has said something I think I'll place a vote on Kipper. (so much green!)

 

If anyone has anything else to suggest we talk about, then go ahead but I'm not a player that can write pages about what this person did and why or what should be done, and without PMs votes are a great way to make people talk. 

Edited October 22, 2015 by IrulelikeSTINK

[Creccio]

Here is a little list of players in both LG14 and MR9

 

• Stink
• Araris
• Alvom/Adavantos
• Shallan
• Phatt
• Kipper
• Winter
• Alvrom
• Clanky
• Nico
• Orlok
• Badger
• Lopen
• Joe
• Alvrom

Of these players, I am more concerned about:

 

• Stink: Encourages discussion yet it seems he only pokes with votes around... Do  you have any plan or any suspicion as of now? Voting for people just because they haven't said a thing is, as said before, a really non-committal way to "contribute" and get away with being Skaa

 

• Adavantos: Really active on page one of this cycle but he has said nothing out of the analysis he is making. It would be beneficial for everyone to know what you think went down that day and compare your analysis with that of other experienced players

 

• Kipper: Talked about Mail's death and it being the best way to create confusion. Also explained it to be the best way for people to "skate" by and put suspicion onto others. What if... you are a Skaa explaining the plan just so it does not cross our minds? Kill Mail, someone experienced should have done it, im clean for a cycle or two.

 

• Orlok: Created the bandwagon and jumped off it. Kek. You didn't think it would become a bandwagon? You put a vote on someone and did expect them to fully die? Maybe you went off the wagon because enough good guys were on it and it was going to reach Lynch City without Skaa help.

 

• Joe: Moderated the last game if im correct. He knows how the Shenanigans went and how it worked. Even if we pin him as team good and he came out clean saying he is a Tin, who is to say that the Skaa aren't all burning tin out of their minds? Literally he could be even lying about being visited and we wouldnt know it.

 

• Lopen: I just have a gut feeling about you. I dont know, lol, anyway, you are here

 

And last but not least, Alvron, I know you are busy with life (Who isnt?) but i do want to hear your opinion on my opinions and why we should not be suspicious of you. You are a really analytical player and, well, there is no analysis.... can we get some so Team Good can compare and contrast ideas and maybe get somewhere?

 

EDIIT: Bolded Names

EDIT: Misspelled a name, KEK

Edited October 22, 2015 by Creccio

[Orlok Tsubodai]

 

• Orlok: Created the bandwagon and jumped off it. Kek. You didn't think it would become a bandwagon? You put a vote on someone and did expect them to fully die? Maybe you went off the wagon because enough good guys were on it and it was going to reach Lynch City without Skaa help.

 

I certainly did not intend them to face a bandwagon. And jumping off it was far higher profile than staying on - why on earth would I want to attract attention like that, as a skaa?

 

It was an interesting occurrence, and one many would likely not have noticed had I not brought it up, and voting on those grounds was the most effective way of doing so. I was clearly over reading it, unfortunately.

As to why I jumped off it, having slept, I thought further on it and didn't think it warranted dying, and had seen how distressed Ripple had got, and frankly, did not think lynching her, even if I was slightly suspicious, was worth driving her from the game.

[Creccio]

@Orlok

 

It comes up at the end of vote tally who voted for who, someone should have noticed.

 

Now, for you on this game where almost no information is given, what warrants a death? Should the Skaa come out guns blazing and we lynch them? 

 

Tell me on what grounds do you believe lynching is the right thing to do

 

 

Edit: Bolded names again >_>

Edited October 22, 2015 by Creccio

[Kipper]

Here is a little list of players in both LG14 and MR9

• Kipper: Talked about Mail's death and it being the best way to create confusion. Also explained it to be the best way for people to "skate" by and put suspicion onto others. What if... you are a Skaa explaining the plan just so it does not cross our minds? Kill Mail, someone experienced should have done it, im clean for a cycle or two.

 

And last but not least, Alvrom, 

I wondered when I would draw fire for that post. You've put me in the interesting position of not being able to come up with a real denial, one that looks good, because of course, anything I say in defense of myself could be an I Know You Know. Thus, there's not much I feel is necessary to say, or really anything that will make a difference to this particular suspicion. Multiple other people have said that we shouldn't focus on Mailliw's death, and I do believe that that sentiment is rather objective. I was just the most pedantic and honest in my analysis of it. Interestingly enough, I originally had in my draft of the post a parenthetical that said in part, "(read what you want out of this post)," but I removed it because I don't believe that intentionally giving oneself suspicion is a beneficial thing to do.

 

Also, because this is done over and over again...

The player that you are referring to as Alvrom is actually named Alvron, with an "N" on the end of the word.

The other player, Adavantos, was formerly known as Alvom, with no "R" and an "M." Personally, I'm quite glad he changed his name, because it was quite annoying to read people's posts and be all like, "Who the rusts is Alvon?"

[Creccio]

Typos! I shall smite thee out of this forum!

 

I have to go to class now, will reply to you later Kipper

[Orlok Tsubodai]

@Orlok

 

It comes up at the end of vote tally who voted for who, someone should have noticed.

 

Now, for you on this game where almost no information is given, what warrants a death? Should the Skaa come out guns blazing and we lynch them? 

 

Tell me on what grounds do you believe lynching is the right thing to do

 

 

Edit: Bolded names again >_>

 

Creccio,

 

Many things warrant a lynch. The information we can gain on voting patterns, things not adding up, and yes, intuition.

I do not believe that when someone is actively upset by what has occurred, we should prioritise lynching them over ensuring our community continues to be a welcoming place. Now, I may have drawn the line at the wrong place, or overestimated how upset Ripple was, but I am confident that I was right to have withdrawn the vote, regardless of her alignment.

 

Lynching Joe, a player fully capable of defending himself, with 25 games of experience, for the information his alignment would give, does, perhaps warrant a lynch. I haven't yet decided my position on it. 

[Kipper]

 

 

• Stink: Encourages discussion yet it seems he only pokes with votes around... Do  you have any plan or any suspicion as of now? Voting for people just because they haven't said a thing is, as said before, a really non-committal way to "contribute" and get away with being Skaa

 

And because I forgot to say this, Stink really is being consistent with himself. He does start discussions, even while sometimes not taking part in them.

Does anyone read white text these days? If so, reply in your next post, and we can have a conversation.

I feel like I should say more, but that's it...see LG14 if you don't believe me.

[Alfa]

Ruin, I start to remember how I hate this feeling of paranoia in all those games.

I do, but psshht!

And I am absolutely uncertain. I can bring reasons to vote for almost everybody including myself, but nothing to work with.

I am almost sure that Adavantos is not a Skaa...

Orlok iniciated the Riplle-kill and this vote withdrawal makes him a little bit suspicious. Joe's plan could have been a plan to vaste resources, but the mention of it not to work makes him less suspicious (probably fewer metals burned) , which makes him more suspicious, which makes him less suspicious and so on.
Meandbooks story is understandable, but makes me also suspect him... basically I am suspecting everybody.

More text in white.

Okay. Now let's see... Creccio, you were very active and involved in the Ripple-kill. Now explain me, why I shall not suspect you.

[STINK]

Kipper is indeed contributing, and also semi-defending me! Good news for all! 

 

Creccio, if what I am doing seems to be what a Skaa would do, then (instead of asking about Ripple) tell me what all Inquisitors should be doing this game to make catching the eliminators easier, if it is not discussion, then please tell the general public.

 

Also, just analyzing those who played LG14 is an easy way to ignore Skaa.

Edited October 22, 2015 by IrulelikeSTINK

[Creccio]

@Alfa

 

You can be suspicious of me. You are allowed to. I do not have anything to hide.

 

Things is, I have been trying to make discussions happen, some of us here have not been even doing that. Why prosecute the one who is trying to shed some light into the game instead of those who just lurk in the darkness?

 

Prosecute the one who brought up the list of the past game player and is trying to make everyone collaborate and find who is more likely to be afraid of Mail. I don't  know anything about Mail, or about any of you to be exact. 

 

I will say to you what I said to Kasimir earlier, right now i believe we are on the same team, stop trying to poke me and lets investigate the real murderers.

 

@Kipper

 

Funny how i made you be in an uncomfortable spot, not my plan, we need to all be friends right ?

 

Tell me why we should not. Its the only thing we have to go off and writing it off is like writing off everything we have. Ripple's death did give us information on who is OK with killing early, who is OK jumping off bandwagons, who is OK just poking votes and we also noticed who is THE TRUE HOLDER OF THE DEATH NOTE.

 

Mail's death gives us 2 things, RIP ZINC and someone feared him. Someone (5 times, aka i believe again, 5 Skaa), wanted him out of this game, most likely from LG14 (Based on my assumption that everyone in there is/has/has obtained experience), list provided earlier by yours truly, tell me your believes of the guys, tell me your suspicions. If we don't discuss about people and accuse them we will never get them to talk. Everyone here bleeds and no one is immortal. Everyone on the eyes of the others could be a Skaa, we just have to weed them out and swiftly bring their demise. 

 

@Stink

 

It is discussing, that is the whole point. Thing is, you instigate discussion yet seldom participate in it. Inquisitors, talk, discuss, accuse everyone you see. let the defense begin.

 

On the "ignoring" Skaa. Yes, I am aware of it, but, if we can narrow the list and get one or two, even only one, its a great improvement. Ignoring Skaa is a risk yes, but i prefer to take it than blindly poke shots in the dark and hope to pancakes we hit a Skaa

----

 

Experienced, middle ground, new players, everyone could be a Skaa. Heck, I could be a Skaa (let me assure you i'm not...). Investigate everyone. leave nothing behind, we are either really thorough with everyone, or we will perish together.

 

If you still believe I am a Skaa or I am responsible of Ripples's death, lets talk about it, lets discuss. I want to hear you talk.

 

EDIT: Added Stink

Edited October 22, 2015 by Creccio