Orlok Tsubodai Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 It hasn't changed much since last night, Hellscythe. Ripple. Your posts seem very 'off' to me. Your first post was RP, written after roles were distributed, and seems to try to within the RP make you seem a villager - you claim to be attacked by 'absolute scoundrels'. The second post was an out of game response to Stink on the composition of ink. The third post excuses activity, and then claims a lack of understanding about Wyrm's message and Seonid's death. I suppose the only thing I can say about this is it seems to me to be a contribution without adding anything, and planting the idea of Ripple's perceived inexperience in out minds. The fourth post is one I do agree with - not voting on inactives on what was day 1. In the fifth post, Ripple argues against lynching Wyrm, even should he be an eliminator, for the PMs, and then goes on to say that she hasn't had luck with gut feelings, and will abstain from voting. It's the latter bit that seems perhaps a little odd to me - surely she could have chosen another player which she found a little suspicious, and she once again professes what comes across as inexperience. In the sixth post, she answers Wyrm by thanking him for clarifying that there was another tineye, and yet despite now being assured that PMs do not go with Wyrm's death, she still does not cast a vote - which strikes me as hoping to not have to bring any light on herself through a vote. The seventh post is a brief post simply arguing that inactivity lists and kills are a bad idea this early, and in the holidays, without contributing anything material to the game discussion. Whilst not comprehensive evidence of Ripple being an eliminator, there were enough 'red flags' in her posts that I felt it necessary to bring them to other's attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyrmhero Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) I'd very much like to know why a Tineye has decided to single out Hellscythe as a lynch target with just that small bit of information (it wasn't me, I'm the other one - No quotation marks, by the way). While I may be looking at him a little oddly myself, it's very interesting that they decided to say it anonymously. The comment contained no sensitive information, and could easily have been mentioned during the day. My immediate concern is that this is said by an Eliminator who wants to get us to lynch him with little repercussion. I see no other reason for mentioning it in the write-up rather than bringing the point up in a discussion. As for my vote, I am going to place it on Haelbarde. He has not put a vote on anyone yet for any reason other than inactivity. Most of his posts have either been attempting to explain rules or these summary links he makes. His actions seem to me to be incredibly safe and neutral, preventing him from having to stick his neck out and do anything which people would think is immediately evil. Edited December 31, 2015 by Wyrmhero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RippleGylf Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Orlok, I haven't been active enough to truly have suspicions. At that point, it was Day 1, and I barely had enough time to skim through everyone's posts. Aside from STINK, no one has talked to me in a PM, and even in that one, it became a discussion of fish fingers and custard. Therefore, I have nothing to draw upon from PMs, and I just don't have the time to analyze posts. I also don't like voting purely on what then would have been a gut feeling, because it seems just a tad drastic. Your wording seemed just a little bit off to me, so DIE! (sound familiar?) As I know that I'm not very accurate as far as initial impressions go, it doesn't make sense for me to vote for someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STINK Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 It was a very important discussion 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious Anamaximder Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Haelbarde. I really don't like lynching people I like outside the game, but his reluctance is very suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellscythe Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Ok Orlok. So any Seekers or Seeker-proxys want to tell us anything important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Ok Orlok. So any Seekers or Seeker-proxys want to tell us anything important? Can't help there. However it has been brought to my intention that there is a fifth Smoker claim now. Kas, Mashadar's, Hellscythe's, Stink's and now mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mailliw73 Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Can't help there. However it has been brought to my intention that there is a fifth Smoker claim now. Kas, Mashadar's, Hellscythe's, Stink's and now mine. Another one? How come every claim is a Smoker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvron Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 So any Seekers or Seeker-proxys want to tell us anything important? Sure, I got something. Adavantos claims to have Seeked me however he got my role wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Sure, I got something. Adavantos claims to have Seeked me however he got my role wrong. Well, won't bother denying it. It's true. I expected you to ask me about this in our PM instead, but since you went around and told everyone I might as well throw all pretenses aside. For whatever frustrating reason the real Seeker decided to scan me last night instead of Alvron. I figured that instead of coming out myself I would first try accusing him of being a self-protecting Lurcher to see how he would respond. Thought he'd confront me about being wrong in PM first so I could tell him what's really going on, but then jumped the gun by bringing it straight to here. If he had asked first, then I could have explained that the Trusted Trinity didn't have a reason to believe he was innocent currently, but would be willing to use him as a proxy for a proxy until we could eventually get around to scanning him when we actually believed it was safe to say he wouldn't be clouded. Instead the Spiked now know that I am in contact with a Seeker, which puts my life in considerable danger, and I definitely don't have the luxury of protection. And for the record I don't trust the Seeker just because they got my role right. They could be a Spiked Seeker, for starters, but I've told one player my role every cycle so far, and one of them in particular I'm extremely suspicious of. It's possible one of the players I told my role to is Spiked along with the "Seeker" and the player they scanned N1, but I'm inclined to believe that's not the case because if so they just handed me the names of three Spiked players on a silver platter. It's more likely that this one is a legit Seeker, Spiked or not. Anyway, beyond myself, I won't share the identities of the player's who the Seeker has scanned unless they turn out to be Spiked or they are sitting on the precipice of being lynched. This is to prevent the Spiked from finding out who has specifically been confirmed good and picking them off to prevent us from coordinating. For the time being that seems like the best option. Edited December 30, 2015 by Adavantos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvron Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 I purposely asked you if you seeked me or if you were acting as proxy for another. You claimed to have been the Seeker. Why do that if you were going to claim otherwise later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) I purposely asked you if you seeked me or if you were acting as proxy for another. You claimed to have been the Seeker. Why do that if you were going to claim otherwise later? Figured you would be more direct if you weren't simply just testing my resolve. Up to that point you didn't explicitly state that I was wrong and didn't think backing down from my initial claim would make the situation seem any less suspicious. If I was right and you believed me I would have had you thinking that until the end of time if necessary in order to protect the real Seeker's identity. Edited December 30, 2015 by Adavantos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellscythe Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Villagers manipulating more Villagers. Sounds like Sanderson Elimination to me. Don't you think Bort? C'mon inactive Spiked buddy. Wake up. Edited December 31, 2015 by Hellscythe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haelbarde Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 And for the record I don't trust the Seeker just because they got my role right. They could be a Spiked Seeker, for starters, but I've told one player my role every cycle so far, and one of them in particular I'm extremely suspicious of. It's possible one of the players I told my role to is Spiked along with the "Seeker" and the player they scanned N1, but I'm inclined to believe that's not the case because if so they just handed me the names of three Spiked players on a silver platter. It's more likely that this one is a legit Seeker, Spiked or not. Wouldn't an aluminium (or aluminum) platter be a better choice? As for my vote, I am going to place it on Haelbarde. He has not put a vote on anyone yet for any reason other than inactivity. Most of his posts have either been attempting to explain rules or these summary links he makes. His actions seem to me to be incredibly safe and neutral, preventing him from having to stick his neck out and do anything which people would think is immediately evil. Haelbarde. I really don't like lynching people I like outside the game, but his reluctance is very suspicious. Day 1, I was most suspicious of yourself, Wyrm, and Kas. And I didn't wish to lynch either of you - your tineye claim seems to be more than likely true, and I have no interest in killing off a tineye unless I absolutely had to. And for Kas' sake, I'd rather he at least make it to cycle 3. So my biggest suspicions weren't valid targets, so I treated it how I'd treat any day 1 turn - encourage as many people as possible to report in. When it approached the end of the cycle, I was going to throw a vote on Jain, but once Hellscythe put a vote on him, yes I was conscious of bandwagonning, but also, I wanted to see if rioters/soothers would do anything. A one vote lead allowed them to do something with that. I've since decided that I reckon Kas is probably village, and I still believe you're a tineye... Still working on who I think's being suspicious of. From this cycle, we've just had Ada, but I've willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would just hope that he and his seeker can find us a Spiked promptly. But I'm not inclined to lynch him and do the Spiked's work for them if they decide they want him dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyrmhero Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 I'm not convinced enough to remove my vote at this point, and will wait and see whether you decide to stop being neutral. Your response, while fairly explanatory, still holds off on actually making any accusations or any strong commentary, remaining middle-of-the-lane and cautious. With regards to Adavantos and Alvron... I am just confused. The whole point of the Seeker having a proxy is that they're not in danger. Why do we need the Seeker's proxy to have a proxy? Adavantos has previously not cared about his own death in the interests of furthering the Village's interests. Why the change suddenly, saying he needs to work through another person? The Seeker doesn't need anything to be said publicly until they have results. And why does Adavantos' own survival matter when the Seeker has one other contact, and can gain an additional one each day? I see no need for this plot, and am increasingly of the opinion that it isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellscythe Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 A counter-proxy proxies proxy is never a bad thing Wyrm. You can never have too many buffers! Also as Ada claims, he has a lot of information right now and is apparently part of the Trusted Trinity group. He might value his life more now because of such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) With regards to Adavantos and Alvron... I am just confused. The whole point of the Seeker having a proxy is that they're not in danger. Why do we need the Seeker's proxy to have a proxy? Adavantos has previously not cared about his own death in the interests of furthering the Village's interests. Why the change suddenly, saying he needs to work through another person? The Seeker doesn't need anything to be said publicly until they have results. And why does Adavantos' own survival matter when the Seeker has one other contact, and can gain an additional one each day? I see no need for this plot, and am increasingly of the opinion that it isn't true. Well, there's quite a few scenarios that could explain why I did what I did. I won't bother mentioning the possibilities and just give the straight fact. I don't trust Alvron or his claim of being Lurched and wanted to see what he would do. Like you claiming Tin Eye D1, I gained a lot more information from doing this than I would have just coming out as a proxy on my own. Edited December 30, 2015 by Adavantos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STINK Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Wow Ada, stealing my nickname 'The Trusted Trinity/Three' like that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellscythe Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 You know I thought that Stink was in the group just because it sounds like something he'd name the group as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STINK Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 I'm not even in the group. That's the worst bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haelbarde Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) I'm thinking I'm going to throw a vote on Stink. So far, he's been posting a fair bit, but the extent of what he's done in thread is call out Hellscythe at one point, and say he wasn't a fan of the coinshots killing in the night. Otherwise it's been incidental comments that don't have much effect on anything, or the odd question. Edit: Fixed the typo as pointed out by Stink. Edited December 30, 2015 by Haelbarde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STINK Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Affect or Effect? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haelbarde Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Affect or Effect?Oops. It should be 'effect'. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mailliw73 Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Are we still planning on having the vote manipulators target the Smokers? I don't know how you're going to do that without revealing who they all are, Ada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Are we still planning on having the vote manipulators target the Smokers? I don't know how you're going to do that without revealing who they all are, Ada. I wouldn't mind seeing if any of the Smokers decided to burn despite telling me they wouldn't but since the Seeker didn't scan Alvron I don't really see a point as of right now. I also realize that in planning the Seeker to scan Alvron, assuming he is village, a Spiked Seeker could have just decided to not even smoke themselves since they knew they wouldn't be in danger of being found out, so even that wouldn't have ended up proving anything. For the record, I think I trust Alvron is innocent. Less so his Lurcher, but I want to say that if he were Spiked he would have brought it up in his doc first to see if they wanted him to call me out or not. It was a pretty fast response, so either he's just a confused villager or a majority of his teammates were active at the time and quick to respond in the doc. Former seems more probable. Plus, there's a good chance if he was Spiked he would have just gone along with whatever I said to extort information out of me. On top of lynch votes this cycle, I would like everyone to weigh in on who they want the Seeker to check tonight. Feel free to vote for it in Violet, because democracy. Edited December 31, 2015 by Adavantos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts