Mid-Range Game 9: The Steel Ministry

[Creccio he/him]

@Zeph

 

I wonder why everyone is so suspicious of me. Well, at least it promotes discussion.

 

I got some reasons that i hope tell you I am not a Skaa, I have said before to others and will now repeat to you,

 

1) I have been trying to shed light and discussion on this game from Cycle 1. Believe or not, the Skaa hate to discuss as you can see from Shallan's post. His/Her did not post or try to contribute mainly because maybe she didn't know what to say or maybe because she wanted to scoot under the radar. Why would a new player like me take the spotlight on the game if I was a Skaa? Should I just not try to lay low and blame my non-existent experience for my lack of content? We are both new to the game and we have taken very different stances on making people talk or how we approach the discussion game. I repeat, If I was a Skaa it would make no sense for me to try and make the town discuss, it is against the Skaa ideal for the town to discuss.

 

2) I will claim if you claim. At this point I believe there are only 2 metals you can possibly be and I am sure others have noticed. You are either Tin or Gold. If you really are a townsman come out and lets start discussing things. We can kill the Skaa together. And Again, if you do claim, i will claim with you. I got some plans but we need to come together.

 

Zeph, do what you believe is best for the town, be it we both claim or we both stay silent. If we dont start talking things that matter we wont get anywhere.

 

 

I will put my suspicions on Orlok

 

Why? Well, He started the bandwagon on Ripple and jumped off, why do that?  Just so maybe suspicion is not on you and clear your hands of the blood? Also, if i recall correctly you cemented the nail on Joe's coffin, and really did not contribute anything to that lynch, while someone else, namely Zeph, was on the block. Was it to protect a companion or just to pass the "contribution test"?

 

I haven't trusted you since day one and if you have anything to say, please do. Who are your suspicions and why.

I Love Cats

 

 

Edit: Re orde rof paragraphs

Edited October 27, 2015 by Creccio

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

I'm going to put another vote on Wyrm. I've been looking through his posts, and I'm getting the feeling that he's trying to seem helpful and active without really doing much. Example: In the 2nd cycle, he called Alvron out for his vote on #1Ripple(welcome back, btw). Alvron then explains that it was a "gut" vote and that he didn't remove it later becaues his feeling about her only grew as she posted more. Wyrm says that he would like to hear "more" from him about it, so he leaves his vote on him. Thereby excusing himself from the lynch debate. There was still some cycle left and Alvron said he was going to work soon, so what was Wyrm trying to gain by leaving his vote there? How is Alvron supposed to explain a "gut" vote? That doesn't really make sense to me. I thought the whole idea behind "gut" votes is that they're feelings based on people's posts that you can't really put into words. Wyrm also says that he's getting a "gut feeling about Alvron" which could be a way to spread suspicion on Alvron without really accusing him. Although he did question why Alvron acted on a gut feeling of a new player, so that could be viewed as an accusation. But that doesn't really seem suspicious to me. In the 1st Cycle, what are you supposed to act on? The lynch was also a mistake because people messed with votes after rollover, so accusing someone for it doesn't make sense.

 

Last cycle, all of his posts center on Zephrer. 1 newish player. That doesn't seem like the most informative thing to do. I only posted once at the end of last cycle though, so I don't know how much I can really say about that.

 

Now, about Zephrer. I wouldn't say you weren't defended/assisted. Kipper, Phat, and Orlok all pushed the lynch away from you by voting for Joe. None of them mention you, and yet they avert the lynch from you. That seems like a defense to me. And while I am suspicious of you simply from the fact that you have repeatedly told us you are an inquisitor and that does not help us at all, I'd rather hear some more from Wyrm as you've said your piece.

 

Of the three (possibly) defending Zephrer, I would like to hear some more from Phat. While you did vote last cycle, you're posts have left us starved(pun intended) for information regarding your opinions and suspicions. What do you think of Zephrer? Any suspicions of your own you'd like to share?

 

Edit: ninja'd by Creccio

 

Edit2: removed vote

Edited October 28, 2015 by TheMightyLopen

[Orlok Tsubodai]

@Zeph

I wonder why everyone is so suspicious of me. Well, at least it promotes discussion.

I got some reasons that i hope tell you I am not a Skaa, I have said before to others and will now repeat to you,

1) I have been trying to shed light and discussion on this game from Cycle 1. Believe or not, the Skaa hate to discuss as you can see from Shallan's post. His/Her did not post or try to contribute mainly because maybe she didn't know what to say or maybe because she wanted to scoot under the radar. Why would a new player like me take the spotlight on the game if I was a Skaa? Should I just not try to lay low and blame my non-existent experience for my lack of content? We are both new to the game and we have taken very different stances on making people talk or how we approach the discussion game. I repeat, If I was a Skaa it would make no sense for me to try and make the town discuss, it is against the Skaa ideal for the town to discuss.

2) I will claim if you claim. At this point I believe there are only 2 metals you can possibly be and I am sure others have noticed. You are either Tin or Gold. If you really are a townsman come out and lets start discussing things. We can kill the Skaa together. And Again, if you do claim, i will claim with you. I got some plans but we need to come together.

Zeph, do what you believe is best for the town, be it we both claim or we both stay silent. If we dont start talking things that matter we wont get anywhere.

I will put my suspicions on Orlok

Why? Well, He started the bandwagon on Ripple and jumped off, why do that? Just so maybe suspicion is not on you and clear your hands of the blood? Also, if i recall correctly you cemented the nail on Joe's coffin, and really did not contribute anything to that lynch, while someone else, namely Zeph, was on the block. Was it to protect a companion or just to pass the "contribution test"?

I haven't trusted you since day one and if you have anything to say, please do. Who are your suspicions and why.

I Love Cats

Edit: Re orde rof paragraphs

Creccio,

I do wonder if you have actually read my posts over the last few days.

I will reiterate again, to save you the time.

I voted on Ripple to put pressure on her - to see how she would react to the threat of the lynch, and to bring to people's attention the slip up she had made - which, whilst obviously with hindsight a simple typo, could conceivably have been a mistake made by a Skaa.

I then went to sleep, woke up and saw that people had turned it into a bandwagon, and that Ripple appeared to be rather upset at being lynched over it. I decided that I wouldn't enjoy having it on my conscience to further perpetuate a lynch that was causing her this much upset, and she said might drive her from SE altogether.

On Joe - I had been suspicious of Joe for a while - again, you will note by reading through my prior posts I've stressed that lynching him would give us a fair amount of information, and then there is the cycle 1 plan, which again, caused an element of suspicion, and increased the information we stood to gain. In fact, I believe I actually tried to get Joe lynched in place of Ripple on cycle 1 (or was it 2?).

Creccio. Your posts have been belligerent, and accusatory without actually carrying a weight of evidence - as if you are trying to steer opinion, but not on grounds you actually believe. I've thought something has been up with your posts since day 1, but would refer your vote on me with logic contradicted by my actions as evidence of my above accusation.

Edit: Sent post before I finished it...

Edited October 27, 2015 by Orlok

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

I said it once and I'll say it again

 

Can anyone tell me what we learn from Joe's death?

"I think we gain sufficient information from his death that I'm going to vote on him without more concrete suspicions. Sorry, Joe" - Orlok

 

"Creccio. Your posts have been belligerent, and accusatory without actually carrying a weight of evidence" - Orlok

1) There is no clear-cut "evidence" in this game especially when there are such few claims and no pm's.

(by the way without claims almost all of our investigative roles are completely useless)

 

2) Belligerence is based on perception and the eye of the beholder.

3) Accusatory is a part of the game. If nobody is accused nobody has to be defensive and the skaa are able to slide by without being threatened.

 

By the way to the people who may think I'm changing my vote too much --- a vote for Orlok is a vote for Zephrer because in a world where one is skaa the other is skaa because yesterday Orlok protects Zephrer from being lynched by nailing Joe's coffin. So really I'm not changing my vote at all.

Also Orlok I'd like to hear your reads on everyone. Especially Zephrer.

Edited October 27, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[Orlok Tsubodai]

Deathclutch,

The information we get from Joe's death is firstly that his intentions regarding his plan were correct - which means that we can look at the dynamic of who opposed it prior to its flaws being pointed out, among other things, and how Joe has been voting, and who has been pushing for his lynch. I haven't yet had the time to actually look through to see what we have actually gained, but those are my preliminary thoughts before I do.

I'm afraid that my vote yesterday has nothing to do with Zephrer. I hadn't formulated a position really on his alignment, but had suspicions on Joe. So rather than voting centred on the Zephrer issue, I voted on a completely different agenda.

I am now somewhat suspicious of Zephrer, but remain more so of Creccio. As I explained above, her vote on me is based on reasoning completely contradicted by my actions over the last few cycles - and it appears she hasn't actually read my posts - making it seem more like a vote on a suspicious player to ensure an inquisitor gets lynched, rather than a well formulated position.

It's also very interesting to see you leap to her defence in such a manner - without waiting to see how she responds, you change the direction of the discussion dramatically.

So if Creccio is guilty, I wouldn't be surprised if you also are.

Alvron is still alive, which means of course that I am somewhat wary of him, and I'm getting a worrying feeling about Wyrm.

Kas was on my list of suspicions, but not terribly highly. I shall be watching Ripple carefully.

[Wyrmhero he/him]

Fourth, my main suspicion is Wyrm.  He claimed not to see a reason behind the deaths of Maill and Adavantos.  Both players were active and analysed quite a bit so there was plenty of reasons to kill them.  The same can be said about Sart.  You not seeing it when you are a very analytical player yourself is strange and suspicion raising.  Kas/Ripple is next on my list but that was due to things Kas was saying but that can be attributed to his busy life so I'm discounting it for the moment.

 

Woah there, hold your horses, let's not go putting words in peoples' mouths. You are entirely wrong on the first count, and that just shows maliciousness or carelessness, Alvron. I gave multiple reasons for Mailliw's death and reached the conclusion that looking for meanings in his death would be pointless as there could be so many different ones responsible when it's just as easy to say 'active and experienced'. So actually the opposite.

 

Adavantos... To be honest, I actually didn't know he was the one who died. I looked at the player list and saw it belonged to 'Alvom'. I didn't realise Adavantos was Alvom until just now when I looked over it.  And then you add a little bit on about Smart when I have no idea why you're connecting my previous comments to his death.

 

With regards to yesterday's vote, my intention was to take my vote off of Zephrer in the morning after (hopefully), he had replied. Unfortunately, I got the times mixed up quite a bit, and due to daylight savings time coming into effect during the Cycle and messing up the forum's times, I was unable to remove that vote.

 

For what it's worth, I am out of metals now. I was a Seeker, as useful as it is for you guys to know that. My findings are... Inconclusive, sadly. Three charges and only one succeeded in discovering something. What do you guys want me to do with them? I can tell you what I found, it's not exactly going to be earth-shattering news, but you guys might be able to think of something to do with it.

 

Edit: Also, and knowing it may get me in trouble if I am wrong, I believe Zephrer is an Inquisitor. I have no actual proof, not even through Seeking, but I think a few things line up with what I'm thinking.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Wyrmhero

[Creccio he/him]

@Orlok

 

Ok then, Is there anything you would like of me to make me less suspicious? I do read your post, i read everyone's post. I just said my suspicions. Can they be dead wrong? Yes Can I still retract? Yes.

 

What were they based on? I didn't think we would gain that much information from Joe's death, as such i just instantly jumped on you, Also, didnt think Ripple was so affected from the lynch thing and saw you as suspicous.

 

I did not think she was going to fly off from SE from that lynch pressure, had no idea. Guess it now makes more sense than before why the retract on day 1.

 

Still, Please tell me your suspicions of everyone, I will do suit myself, I can even claim if you want me to, at this point we just need information and see how everyone responds.

 

I do not have evidence, I possibly can't with the tools I am given and everything I have said I mean it and will follow through until proven otherwise; 

 

@Wyrm

 

Please do so, maybe our information can get us some confirmations or something

 

Edit: Added Wyrm and a bit to Orlok

Edited October 27, 2015 by Creccio

[Wyrmhero he/him]

@Wyrm

 

Please do so, maybe our information can get us some confirmations or something

 

Edit: Added Wyrm and a bit to Orlok

 

I'll do so later if a few more people ask for it - But really, don't get your hopes up.

[Creccio he/him]

I'll do so later if a few more people ask for it - But really, don't get your hopes up.

 Ok, Let's hope the best happens

[Orlok Tsubodai]

Creccio, I'm somewhat surprised that you claim not to be aware of my jumping off the Ripple bandwagon because of the distress it was causing her - I discussed it with you on the 22nd in some detail...

[Creccio he/him]

@Orlok

 

I am aware of her distress, not her distress to the point of just quitting the community

[RippleGylf she/her]

@Ripple Activity has nothing to do with deduction based on previous days. Anyone can read any post from any time at any time.

 

That is true. However, I find it hard to believe that after (as far as I noticed) never posting, implying that you weren't active at all, that you read through the entire game so far, and drew enough conclusions to decisively vote for polking.

 

EDIT: And now I see all the conversation about my "death." For clarifying purposes:

At the time I did feel very stressed, and having that on top of the school term ending wasn't very good. In retrospect, I can almost laugh that I got killed by the Grammar Inquisitors. Then, it was very emotional. I was considering just not doing Sanderson Elimination anymore, as I didn't feel like I was having fun doing it. But I'm good now.   Part of that was because it seemed like Orlok wasn't intending for it to turn into a lynch train, and Creccio PM'd me later just to chat. So, I'm not really sour over that death now, just at the time it wasn't very good.

Edited October 27, 2015 by RippleGylf

[STINK he/him]

Polking, You are voting for me as you did last cycle, which I defended myself against (or if I didn't, its because I had already explained my actions), so why are you pushing for my death so hard?

Also, I'm currently on holiday where the chances of me getting WiFi are low so can't really do much.

[Meandbooks she/her]

This has given me a lot to think about. At first I was mostly just suspicious of Creccio and Zephrer, but now I'm suspicious of almost everybody again to some degree. Sigh.

 

I'm really tired and don't think I can put together a coherent post, but I'll try.

 

At first it seemed to me that Creccio and Zephrer were working together, but now that Zephrer is voting to lynch Creccio, that actually makes me less suspicious of him, simply because from an Inquisitor standpoint, Creccio is standing out as very suspicious, and if they are both skaa I can't really see a reason for him to want to lynch Creccio.

 

The thing is, Creccio's posts seem so obviously skaa to me that I find myself doubting that a skaa would use this tactic on purpose, and it becomes an I Know You Know thing, which doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Even still, I'm voting for Creccio. At the very least, the reveal of his role will provide us with things to analyze, and could be very helpful in evaluating Zephrer.

[Clanky he/him]

We seem to be going around in circles voting for the same people for the same reasons. They are also all the most active players who are being most active who are being heavily targeted. So Zephrer I will be removing my vote from you for now. You are correct that there isn't anything you can say to clear yourself and I remain very suspicious of you. 

 

So instead I will be placing my vote on Alvron. How I see this game is a bunch of inquisitors throwing accusations at each other while the Skaa happily keep to the background and let us kill each other. 

 

 

 

Fourth, my main suspicion is Wyrm.  He claimed not to see a reason behind the deaths of Maill and Adavantos.  Both players were active and analysed quite a bit so there was plenty of reasons to kill them.  The same can be said about Sart.  You not seeing it when you are a very analytical player yourself is strange and suspicion raising.  Kas/Ripple is next on my list but that was due to things Kas was saying but that can be attributed to his busy life so I'm discounting it for the moment.

This is an odd reason for a vote I think. Everyone can tell that players are normally targeted by eliminators based on their threat and activity levels. I'm sure Wyrm knows that and was saying that he can't see what else we can learn by analyzing these kills. Then you say that Sart was also killed for the same reason which does make sense but really has nothing to do with the argument. 

[polkinghornbd he/him]

Oh my goodness, stink! I was looking into sart, not you! I am incredibly sorry for voting for you. I saw sart and wrote stink. Again, incredibly sorry for any inconvenience.

[Guest]

I was hoping the cycle would be posted sooner. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to spend any time on it or on the Shard until Wednesday afternoon EST. Got a calc test and a psychological profile of my character I'm playing in a play to write, and all of it is due Wednesday morning. I'm in class right now, but I just wanted you all to be aware that's why I'm not saying anything...back to class now; the professor is looking at me.

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

 

Deathclutch -  Hopefully I'll get some evidence to either clear or condemn you before I'm lynched or killed by the Skaa

Wyrm - you said you would have a seeker watch me as I burned a metal last cycle, which conveniently didn't happen. 

 

 I burned a charge of my metal last night in case a seeker was watching, but I doubt this happened.

 

First off you have inconsistencies in your stories. In one you are DOUBTING that a seeker watched you. " but I doubt this happened."

 

In the next post you KNOW that a seeker didn't watch you."which conveniently didn't happen. "

 

Then second off this narrows down your role to only a few possibilities considering you would HAVE TO KNOW that a seeker checked you in order for your posts to have any sort of truth to them. Also you have to able obtain evidence in some way "to clear or condemn" me.

Now if you don't mind I'd like you to claim your role because

1) Your posts are inconsistent which is very skaa to me.

2) Your role is one of two things that you can hardly help the inquisition with without anyone claiming roles.

3) The skaa are most likely looking for lurchers and coin shots anyway so if you end up claiming Gold or Tin you won't be targeted anyways.

 

Please stop trying to lynch Creccio. Lynching 4 Inquisition in a row is getting us nowhere.

 

 

Pewter: Makes you stronger and increases your endurance. Burning it at night protects you from one attack. Does not save from lynches.

Tin: Enhances your senses, and with heightened hearing and being able to see through the

mists at night, nobody is able to sneak up on you. You are told who targeted you during the Night, if anybody did. (if multiple people target you, you will be told of one of them at random)
Steel: With strength and precision, you are able to kill even an Inquisitor with your coinshot powers.  
Iron: You do what a Lurcher does best, and you protect your target from one attack at Night. You can not protect yourself.  

Bronze: Detect if your target used a metal action, what they were burning, and if they targeted somebody,. But not the identity of who they were targeting. No alignment revealed. 
Copper: Coppercloud yourself and one target, making you immune to emotional allomancy and bronze.
Brass: Sooth a target, role-blocking their metal-action. Does not prevent the Skaa kill.
Zinc. Riot a player, re-directing their metal action to a target of your choosing.Does not affect the skaa kill.

Gold: The introspective nature of Gold allows you to see what actions you were targeted with the turn you burn it. You will be told up to two actions you were targeted with, if any, but not from whom the actions came from.  

Atium: The ultimate metal, letting you see a few moments into the future, giving you the ultimate advantage in battle. You are nigh invincible when burning Atium, and a deadly sight for any enemies nearby. You become immune to all actions used against you and kill everybody who targeted you with an action.

Edited October 27, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[Creccio he/him]

This has given me a lot to think about. At first I was mostly just suspicious of Creccio and Zephrer, but now I'm suspicious of almost everybody again to some degree. Sigh.

 

I'm really tired and don't think I can put together a coherent post, but I'll try.

 

At first it seemed to me that Creccio and Zephrer were working together, but now that Zephrer is voting to lynch Creccio, that actually makes me less suspicious of him, simply because from an Inquisitor standpoint, Creccio is standing out as very suspicious, and if they are both skaa I can't really see a reason for him to want to lynch Creccio.

 

The thing is, Creccio's posts seem so obviously skaa to me that I find myself doubting that a skaa would use this tactic on purpose, and it becomes an I Know You Know thing, which doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Even still, I'm voting for Creccio. At the very least, the reveal of his role will provide us with things to analyze, and could be very helpful in evaluating Zephrer.

 

A reason could be to get suspicions off him. Not uncommon for the bad team to start lynches on themselves if it clears suspicious.

 

Again, if it clears suspicion off me I am willing to tell everyone my role.  There is no possible way for me to just  be completely clear of suspicion but I will go as far as I can. Ask me anything and I will do my due duty in answering

[Zephrer he/him]

@deathclutch

What you have read into what I posted is far more than what the intent of my posts were.

They weren't meant to shrug off suspicion, they were meant to show my suspicions before I ended up getting lynched.

Though I must admit that what you drew out regarding my role is correct, even if I didn't even realize I knew about the seeker until you pointed it out.

I might as well reveal my role, as its of little use to me now since its in the open:

I'm the inquisitor Augur, and I have two charges left.

[Creccio he/him]

@Zeph

 

As promised, you said yours, I will follow suit and say Mines. I am a Rioter, I spam Zinc all day.

 

Gamma yesterday on the thread referring to himself and I guess as a joke to me "Should probably lay off the Zinc"... Zinc is amazing tho

 

Zeph, I also narrowed it down to 2 metals, tin and gold, lets work together... there are some ways I can make your metal work and we can get some information.

 

I don't suspect you as much as you suspect me, but I can only do so much to prove where I stand, if you need anything else from me I will oblige

 

Creccio The Inquisitor Zinc Rioter for dayz

 

If im Zinc and I know who the other roles are, i can use that to help people such as yourself, a gold, to know people. If i make a lurcher visit you and you burned, i can be sure that the person is a lurcher if no one else target you and I can come out with that info and try to help. 

 

It is not my intent to hold information, I just want to use my role the best way possible and knowing what everyone does just helps me.

 

EDIT: Added a bit more reason (Italics)

 

EDIT: I apparently forgot how to spell

 

EDIT: Clarification, English is not working with me today

Edited October 27, 2015 by Creccio

[Wyrmhero he/him]

@Zeph

 

As promised, you said yours, I will follow suit and say Mines. I am a Rioter, I spam Zinc all day.

 

Gamma yesterday on the thread referring to himself and I guess as a joke to me "Should probably lay off the Zinc"... Zinc is amazing tho

 

Zeph, I also got it down to 2 metals, lets work together... there are some ways I can make your metal work and we can get some information.

 

I don't suspect you as much as you suspect me, but I can only do so much to prove where I stand, if you need anything else from me I will oblige

 

Creccio The Inquisitor Zinc Rioter for dayz

 

If im Zinc and I know who the other roles are, i can use that to help people such as yourself, a gold, to know people. If i make a lurcher visit you and you burned, i can be sure that the person is a lurcher if no one else target you and I can come out with that info and try to help. 

 

It is not my intent to hold information, I just want to use my role the best way possible and knowing what everyone does just helps me.

 

EDIT: Added a bit more reason (Italics)

 

EDIT: I apparently forgot how to spell

 

In the interests of full disclosure, may I ask have you have used your Role so far?

 

@deathclutch

What you have read into what I posted is far more than what the intent of my posts were.

They weren't meant to shrug off suspicion, they were meant to show my suspicions before I ended up getting lynched.

Though I must admit that what you drew out regarding my role is correct, even if I didn't even realize I knew about the seeker until you pointed it out.

I might as well reveal my role, as its of little use to me now since its in the open:

I'm the inquisitor Augur, and I have two charges left.

 

So why would this Role be seen as the 'Skaa equivalent'? Because of that, I was assuming you were our Coinshot. Admittedly, I'm glad to know you're not, since you're out in the open like this.

 

And yeah, I didn't check up on your metal last night. It was my intention to if you agreed to use it or if you were not lynched but (like so many other things this Cycle), I was defeated by my most powerful adversary, timezones. I used my metal on someone less than optimal because I had set them as my choice right at the start of the Cycle. I will reveal who I checked up on tomorrow morning before I go to work. I just want to see a bit more discussion today before I unload them.

[Creccio he/him]

@Wyrm

 

No i haven't used any. I did not know anything about anyone so I didn't want to waste it.

 

I have all my charges but with the info we have right now i don't think i can riot anyone to do anything useful at this point.

 

Again, I am open to answering everything, just ask 

[Wyrmhero he/him]

@Wyrm

 

No i haven't used any. I did not know anything about anyone so I didn't want to waste it.

 

I have all my charges but with the info we have right now i don't think i can riot anyone to do anything useful at this point.

 

Again, I am open to answering everything, just ask 

 

...Actually, that was exactly what I was waiting on. I am disappointed. I was so hoping you'd say you used a metal yesterday so I could catch you out in the lie. So:

 

1. Joe. Turns out he's a Tineye. ...Yeah, I kind of regret making that call. I was half thinking it would let him know what I got, and half wanting to check him for being truthful, but in hindsight if he was lying about being a Tineye it would have been a stupid move on his part.

2. Alvron. Used no metal. Potentially could be killer skaa, but frankly he'd be the worst person on an Eliminator team to try it if he was Skaa, considering he's relatively high-profile as a player. So he either didn't use his power, or made the kill. I'd bet on the former.

3. Creccio. Yup, no metal use. Consistent with what Creccio's saying, sadly. Could be he's our killer, being a new player who claims to have not used their metal. But no solid evidence from what I've found by Seeking.

 

So yeah. Told you not to get your hopes up guys.

[RippleGylf she/her]

@Ripple Activity has nothing to do with deduction based on previous days. Anyone can read any post from any time at any time.

 

 

That is true. However, I find it hard to believe that after (as far as I noticed) never posting, implying that you weren't active at all, that you read through the entire game so far, and drew enough conclusions to decisively vote for polking.

 

And now looking back at it, you did post last cycle. I just hadn't noticed that you did, and I apologize. 

 

As for everyone else: I have no idea.

In the SE games I've played so far, my instinct has been terrible. So, I prefer to look at more logical evidence. At the same time, I'm not very familiar with everyone's play style (aside from maybe Stink's). I don't really have any overarching suspicions of anyone, really. Could anyone explain to me the argument against Zepher and Creccio? I've tried reading though the thread multiple times, and I fear I am stuck in the four-page zone.