Long Game 79/Anonymous Game 10: The Rhythm of Freedom

[Araris Valerian he/him]

1 hour ago, Steeldancer said:

Of course, if Araris says otherwise, I'll defer to that, but for now I'll just stick with that decision. 

The only rule on codes that I'm going to enforce here is that if you are going to encode/decode something, you need to do it by hand. And I'll frown on using codes to extend lengthy PM conversions beyond what is intended by the rules (the first rule should basically do this, I hope).

[Melon Dingo]

Heyo! I am still suspicious of Plum Rhino, for the aforementioned things, plus the attack on Swan and their reasoning for that.

As for a question, hmmmm

How do you get rid of an angry coffin?

[Plum Rhinoceros]

1 hour ago, Indigo Weasel said:

I don't

Anyone?

1 hour ago, Melon Dingo said:

Heyo! I am still suspicious of Plum Rhino, for the aforementioned things, plus the attack on Swan and their reasoning for that.

...What attack on Swan? I never attacked Swan, I never even voted Swan (seriously, that is, they were my poke an hour into the game) and by the end of the turn I was tentatively village reading them for their final post. This reasoning of yours isn't suspicious, it's just wrong.

Edit:

1 hour ago, Indigo Weasel said:

Just an observation, I use different abbreviations to describe different animals, with Azure and Opal called by their color and Tuatara and Ostrich called by their animal.

I would write this off except for that I'm pretty sure this is your only post, and in it you only referred to Azure as Azure and Tuatara as Tuatara. You never mentioned Ostrich or Opal in the thread. Perhaps in a doc? I know that's kind of ridiculous but it's still something I noticed.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Plum Rhinoceros

[Opal Lion]

22 minutes ago, Plum Rhinoceros said:

Anyone?

I mean, I did but I'm recently questioning my existence, which is a very Lion thing to do. As you can see, I'm licking the wall in my pfp so I guess I'm kinda out of it.

NWIFGIFYITAEEMBLKOAYDYRFHMTQENHMHLRDO

[Melon Dingo]

23 minutes ago, Plum Rhinoceros said:

...What attack on Swan? I never attacked Swan, I never even voted Swan (seriously, that is, they were my poke an hour into the game) and by the end of the turn I was tentatively village reading them for their final post. This reasoning of yours isn't suspicious, it's just wrong.

Oops, sorry about that. I think I mistook Albatross’s post on Swan’s chaoticness for yours. Since anything suspicious has to come from my top sus. Of course.

[Plum Rhinoceros]

10 minutes ago, Melon Dingo said:

Since anything suspicious has to come from my top sus. Of course.

 

[Opal Lion]

THE DAY BEFORE THE EXODUS

Atticus ran.

He always had.

The nightmares haunted him. Dark dreams. Dreams of blood and ruin. Dreams of betrayal and death. He was not always him, in those dreams. Perhaps it was a desolation. He did not know. He knelt with a Shardblade in one of those dreams and blood was on his hands and he wept as though the world was ending, as though everything had gone terribly wrong, and he did not know how it could be made right again.

He was never him, not always, not in the dark dreams, until he jolted awake and tried to attune to the Rhythm of Tranquility. But he could not find it, not with the fear shivering through him. Not with the darkness of the dreams clinging to him like clotted blood. 

And then Thane and Moirin spoke, in hushed whispers, of freedom. Of life beyond toiling for Odium. He almost attuned to the Rhythm of Hope. It was there in their words, in their cadence, so fragile you could miss it. So easily killed. 

Atticus didn't know if one such as he deserved hope.

But he felt it blossom anyway, within the recesses of his gemheart. 

A fragile, silly thing, hope. It made you do stupid things, like abandon nimbleform for dullform, casting yourself almost, almost beyond hearing of the Rhythms. Dullform where even thinking was hard. 

In truth, Atticus went because he was running, because he never stopped. Because in those dark dreams he knelt over a dead king with blood on his hands and wondered where exactly the world had shattered, where things had fallen apart. Because in dullform, the dreams were distant, and had no hold on him.

Atticus ran.

He always had.

He always would.

RP requirement done, don't make me shave my head and eyebrows, thanks!  

[Amber Vulture]

Alright, no vote manipulation took place, as expected. 13/19 players voted, which is above average. Well done.

I forgot that ties result in no kill, so thank you to whoever pointed that out, I am glad that did not happen. If you get a vote changing gem, it is your responsibility to make sure that you do not cause a tie and waste our kill. Steel, does having your vote forcefully removed count against you if you need to vote to keep your bond?
Emerald Falcon, how do you feel about your vote on Cream Tuatara now? You chose to make a targeted attack on them after their suspect analysis post, then were silent the rest of the turn. I would like to hear more from you, because I find the hit-and-run suspicious.
Personally, I found most of what Tuatara said suspicious. But I did not see a strong enough opposition to their wagon for me to believe the bad guys wanted them to survive. It is possible that they were planning on more blatantly adding votes late in the cycle, but my gut says no.

[Charcoal Hyena]

5 hours ago, Opal Lion said:

Write-ups are not meant to be indicative per se but it would not surprise me if there was a rush for Scholarform and Warform, which would imply there are a number of people who failed to collect a gem this time around

Do we want to do anything about this? We'll be able to see how many gemstones were taken next round, and see that, but does it provide more use to the village to claim if you did not get a gemstone, or more use to the elims? 

My gut instinct is to claim if you went for a gemstone and did not get one, specifically Scholarform and Warform this time around. If we have ~2 people who did not get each than we can be reasonably certain that it did not fall into eliminator hands. (Eliminators could be each other up and claim that they went for something and did not get it if one of them did get it, but there is always the chance that there are gemstones left over of that type, and would be outing themselves come day)

If we're going to do that then we should do it now, as those who went after gemstones and did not receive them will have the most information at the moment. As soon as the numbers of gemstones remaining is revealed it will allow the eliminators to scheme and plan a bit more.

 

Does that make sense? I'm uncertain if I explained my reasoning well enough. But, I think it could be useful to have 2 people claim if they went after each type of gemstone and failed to get it. It doesn't reveal who did get gemstones, and it helps us plan around the Elim's abilities. We would need to have a decent portion of people agree on this plan of action before we start following it though. 

 

[Amethyst Scorpion]

5 hours ago, Indigo Weasel said:

I wouldn't. Unless you're asking in what situations I would. In which case, why would I list those? Azure did similarly and I agree that it was an unwise decision to let the traitors know who to convert, as someone else said.

A wise answer, but also crafty. One of our enemies could say the same.  Hmm, I shall keep my eye on you, though perhaps no more than on others.

I need to do some more RP.

---

Madiv huddled around the camp, cold and wet. There was a highstorm tonight, but she couldn't decide whether to put on a form or stay in dullform. This form was so slow, but wasn't it what had allowed her to seek freedom?  Yet, as long as she didn't seek one of the Forms of Power, she wasn't betraying what they had worked for.  Surely she could go for one of the regular forms.  But which one had she grabbed?  Her mind didn't even seem to process enough to remember right now, and she glared down at the little gemstone in her hand, as if daring it to make her choose. Dare she transform tonight? Was it worth the risk?

---

As mentioned in the RP, I did grab a gemstone rather than "waste" my action with a PM last cycle, though I won't be revealing which one.  I hope most everyone else did, except I don't particular care if the Elims did, seeing as how their strategy is going to be different.  I almost hope they didn't, as it would limit them, but I don't really expect that to be the case. Regardless, tomorrow should be much more interesting once we have some forms in play!

As for the lynch this past cycle, I'm of course a little disappointed we didn't hit an Elim, but I'm not exactly surprised considering it was a D1 lynch and those rarely hit Elims, so there's not really a lot to say.  I think chances of an Elim being part of the vote on Coral are moderately high, but there's no guarantee.  I will factor it into deciding on future lynch targets, but not heavily.

I also don't agree with the whole riddle/question idea.  Too easy to claim an answer that wasn't what was intended at all.  It should be easy enough to just watch for difference in writing style.  My RP is easy enough to match, but for someone to mimic me the entire time would be a bit more difficult, and with many of you it would be even harder, particularly since we can actually go back and look at previous cycle's posts to compare.  Just don't change your own playstyle too much, or you'll get mislynched because we'll think you're Mavset-im. 

[Emerald Falcon]

Friendly reminder to submit your night actions. 

I'm not one hundred percent sure what happened yesterday. I was pleased that my vote on Cream Tuatara provoked discussion, and I didn't want to change midstream. I'm still trying to figure out why the vote shifted to Swan. My laptop isn't working, so I'm doing this on mobile. 

Analysis of Swan votes.

• Plum Rhinoceros votes for them pretty much randomly. Not much to glean from that. Early votes are early.
• Opal Lion does what appears to be a stab vote. I'm not a huge fan of this strategy, but it's not alignment indicative.
• Rhino gets distracted by Magenta Albatross and implicitly retracts their vote. Swan has still not posted, but early votes fluctuate wildly.
• Swan trolls the thread by putting a third vote on a stab vote, with literally no reasoning. Albatross says what the heck, but does not vote on Swan.
• Amethyst Scorpion is miffed their poke vote is snowballing, and switches to Swan.
• Rhino somewhat defends Swan, so that's a point in their favor.
• Swan posts another jokey post.
• More time passes, and Swan makes an analysis post. He's suspicious of Albatross and Rhino. Confirmed good does not mean confirmed right.
• Then Swan votes on Dingo with zero reasoning. Thanks Swan.
• Flamingo sees the obvious contradiction of voting on your suspect's suspicion. 
• Albatross is fed up with Swan and finally votes for them, quoting each post they've made.
• Swan makes another jokey post responding to Lion's joke.
• Swan says okay, and votes for Rhino. Interestingly, the unofficial vote count is off here. Swan thinks he is voting for someone with two votes, but Penguin has retracted his vote on Rhino.
• Rhino wonders why he's getting voted on over Albatross. Albatross has 0 votes, so that would be a weird decision for Swan.
• Another troll post from Swan, but then they get serious. They refuse to move their vote again. Apparently, the Dingo vote was a test of some kind?
• Swan and Rhino debate a final time. Swan's main argument comes down to an apathetic tone on one post. 
• Rhino claims he's being more formal than usual.

I think the wierdest vote is from @Opal Lion. Their initial vote is a stab vote, but even after Swan gets on, and does a Monty Python joke with Opal Lion. The vote remains in place.

[Plum Rhinoceros]

45 minutes ago, Emerald Falcon said:

Rhino wonders why he's

You are correct, by the way.

46 minutes ago, Emerald Falcon said:

Rhino claims he's being more formal than usual.

I said this earlier, when Penguin first voted me. And I am; it's quite enjoyable actually. More effort though. When I explained this to Penguin I gave a sample of my normal tone. If it were my decision, I'd move past this detail as it's NAI and potentially distracting.

In other discussion, if you grabbed a gem from a supply that someone didn't, that technically makes you more likely to be village rather than elim. There's no real way to tell that though, and it's a potentially dangerous line of reasoning but still interesting.

[Opal Lion]

7 hours ago, Emerald Falcon said:

Friendly reminder to submit your night actions. 

I'm not one hundred percent sure what happened yesterday. I was pleased that my vote on Cream Tuatara provoked discussion, and I didn't want to change midstream. I'm still trying to figure out why the vote shifted to Swan. My laptop isn't working, so I'm doing this on mobile. 

Analysis of Swan votes.

• Plum Rhinoceros votes for them pretty much randomly. Not much to glean from that. Early votes are early.
• Opal Lion does what appears to be a stab vote. I'm not a huge fan of this strategy, but it's not alignment indicative.
• Rhino gets distracted by Magenta Albatross and implicitly retracts their vote. Swan has still not posted, but early votes fluctuate wildly.
• Swan trolls the thread by putting a third vote on a stab vote, with literally no reasoning. Albatross says what the heck, but does not vote on Swan.
• Amethyst Scorpion is miffed their poke vote is snowballing, and switches to Swan.
• Rhino somewhat defends Swan, so that's a point in their favor.
• Swan posts another jokey post.
• More time passes, and Swan makes an analysis post. He's suspicious of Albatross and Rhino. Confirmed good does not mean confirmed right.
• Then Swan votes on Dingo with zero reasoning. Thanks Swan.
• Flamingo sees the obvious contradiction of voting on your suspect's suspicion. 
• Albatross is fed up with Swan and finally votes for them, quoting each post they've made.
• Swan makes another jokey post responding to Lion's joke.
• Swan says okay, and votes for Rhino. Interestingly, the unofficial vote count is off here. Swan thinks he is voting for someone with two votes, but Penguin has retracted his vote on Rhino.
• Rhino wonders why he's getting voted on over Albatross. Albatross has 0 votes, so that would be a weird decision for Swan.
• Another troll post from Swan, but then they get serious. They refuse to move their vote again. Apparently, the Dingo vote was a test of some kind?
• Swan and Rhino debate a final time. Swan's main argument comes down to an apathetic tone on one post. 
• Rhino claims he's being more formal than usual.

I think the wierdest vote is from @Opal Lion. Their initial vote is a stab vote, but even after Swan gets on, and does a Monty Python joke with Opal Lion. The vote remains in place.

If you're not a fan of stab votes, it's unsurprising you find my stab vote weird. Your response here also suggests you don't have a firm grasp of the distinction between stab votes and poke votes. Poke votes incentivise activity and therefore vanish the moment interaction happens. The weakness of poke votes is they incentivise a quick response but not necessarily one that is indicative. Stab votes are more sticky and designed to unsettle and place more psychological pressure on the target (and sometimes Elims do overreact to stab votes, especially those that make them a viable train.) 

Your expectation that my vote should have disappeared because Swan made a Monty Python joke like Wyrm did with me in MR1 is curious. I'm not interested in joking around—well, I am, but the point of my doubling up the vote on Swan was to turn it into a viable (if not the lead) train and to watch what the thread did and to actually be able to read Swan. Joking around with me doesn't really help me read you, as Wyrm proved. So why should I consider myself satisfied? I like watching how players respond to more vote options coming online, too. I think it's a useful way of provoking observable behaviour. As I've commented to Archer on a prior occasion, players can say whatever they like but votes give you more of a sense of their strategic priorities. I don't know if I'd have removed the vote had I been on near rollover but given that Swan dialled down on their Lord of Chaos act, I'd probably have considered going to someone else. 

This became a moot point because a bro of mine introduced me to a game and I got sidetracked trying to speedrun and missed rollover. 

Probably no reason to fight this much as there's really no call for much of a response, but I like meta discussion on playstyle and strategy, and I admit I don't understand why it's mysterious that someone who avowedly hates 'stab votes' finds one weird. Might as well say you dislike carrots and think they taste weird. 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Opal Lion
justification

[Mint Heron]

Chashen looked around at her fellow rebels. They were huddled in a cave, though some of them were donning cloaks and going out into the storm to take new forms. Chashen looked at those who were still in the cave with her. "If did end up grabbing a gem," she said, watching another singer go out into the highstorm, "I think you should be discreet about taking on new forms. Letting any spies amongst us know what we have can give them plenty of information to use against us. And even if you just say that you didn't grab a gemstone, that lets the spies know that they can avoid you and go after other people instead who might actually be threats to them." Chashen paused. "I don't know how I feel about those who have been..." she looked at Madiv, who seemed to be repeatedly checking if they had something, "obvious about whether or not they possess a gem right now."

[OOC: @Steeldancer You can go ahead and add Chashen onto the player list for me. I was intending to mention that earlier, but it slipped my mind.]

[Amber Vulture]

4 hours ago, Charcoal Hyena said:

Do we want to do anything about this? We'll be able to see how many gemstones were taken next round, and see that, but does it provide more use to the village to claim if you did not get a gemstone, or more use to the elims? 

If a baddie succeeded in getting a valuable gem, they would be the first to fake claim not having succeeded and we would have little way of challenging their statement. This is more likely to provide information the bad guys want than to provide useful information to us. 

But let's assume most of the good guys tried to claim a gem (10/14). And all of the bad guys either tried to claim one too (2/5), or got one from their own supply (3/5). 

Together, there was 5 scholar and warform gems. Let's assume half the good guys and all of the relevant bad guys went for those (7/19). Five were successful, while the remaining two, the evil greedies, were snubbed.

We would then see no scholar or warform gems remaining, and five other gems have been taken. We can then expect to see five other gems have been taken. Maybe seven if you want to increase the assumption of how many good guys requested gems to 12/14. Any more than that probably indicates that a baddie got a valuable gem. Any less indicates more people requested the top tier gems than I have guessed here, which decreases the odds of a baddie getting one. 

This only works if we assume no replacement gems are added to the stockpile. But in short, if over seven second tier gems have been taken, we should be worried. If less have, we probably got all of them into trustworthy hands. 

[Plum Rhinoceros]

9 minutes ago, Amber Vulture said:

Together, there was 5 scholar and warform gems. Let's assume half the good guys and all of the relevant bad guys went for those (7/19). Five were successful, while the remaining two, the evil greedies, were snubbed.

Steel clarified somewhere that the village having priority isn't absolute. He said that villagers would simply have a higher percent chance of being the one to grab the gem, though he didn't say what those percentages were.

I'm imagining something like, say, if four villagers and two elims went for the three warform gems, each villager would have a 20% chance of grabbing a gemstone while the elims would have 10% apiece, for a combined 80% chance for the village and a 20% chance for the elims. That's just something I made up though, but Steel can clarify the exact percents if he wants or he can leave it up in the air.

[Ivory Dragonfly]

4 hours ago, Charcoal Hyena said:

Do we want to do anything about this? We'll be able to see how many gemstones were taken next round, and see that, but does it provide more use to the village to claim if you did not get a gemstone, or more use to the elims? 

My gut instinct is to claim if you went for a gemstone and did not get one, specifically Scholarform and Warform this time around. If we have ~2 people who did not get each than we can be reasonably certain that it did not fall into eliminator hands. (Eliminators could be each other up and claim that they went for something and did not get it if one of them did get it, but there is always the chance that there are gemstones left over of that type, and would be outing themselves come day)

If we're going to do that then we should do it now, as those who went after gemstones and did not receive them will have the most information at the moment. As soon as the numbers of gemstones remaining is revealed it will allow the eliminators to scheme and plan a bit more.

Does that make sense? I'm uncertain if I explained my reasoning well enough. But, I think it could be useful to have 2 people claim if they went after each type of gemstone and failed to get it. It doesn't reveal who did get gemstones, and it helps us plan around the Elim's abilities. We would need to have a decent portion of people agree on this plan of action before we start following it though. 

 

If you're only wanting people who didn't get gemstones to claim, and since not getting a gemstone is slightly indicative of being an elim because they won't get any gems if villagers order the entire stock are less likely to get gemstones if villagers order the entire stock, elims who went for a gem and didn't get one could stay silent. If two villagers and two elims failed to get gems, and one of those villagers claimed failure, at best all we'd know tomorrow is that three people didn't speak up about failing to get gems. This is further complicated by elims going for regal gems, so if only 13 gems are missing it could mean that five people failed, or that four people failed and one elim got a regal gem, etc.

16 minutes ago, Amber Vulture said:

If a baddie succeeded in getting a valuable gem, they would be the first to fake claim not having succeeded and we would have little way of challenging their statement. This is more likely to provide information the bad guys want than to provide useful information to us. 

But let's assume most of the good guys tried to claim a gem (10/14). And all of the bad guys either tried to claim one too (2/5), or got one from their own supply (3/5). 

Together, there was 5 scholar and warform gems. Let's assume half the good guys and all of the relevant bad guys went for those (7/19). Five were successful, while the remaining two, the evil greedies, were snubbed.

We would then see no scholar or warform gems remaining, and five other gems have been taken. We can then expect to see five other gems have been taken. Maybe seven if you want to increase the assumption of how many good guys requested gems to 12/14. Any more than that probably indicates that a baddie got a valuable gem. Any less indicates more people requested the top tier gems than I have guessed here, which decreases the odds of a baddie getting one. 

This only works if we assume no replacement gems are added to the stockpile. But in short, if over seven second tier gems have been taken, we should be worried. If less have, we probably got all of them into trustworthy hands. 

Also an interesting perspective, weighed against the fact that someone who failed to get a particular gem is much more likely to be evil than the confirmed good players those who succeeded in taking that same gem.

For the elims, Meditationform is top tier since double votes help much more when you know who's evil. I do know that replacement gems are not added to the stockpile except for unused gemstones in the case of death.

7 minutes ago, Plum Rhinoceros said:

Steel clarified somewhere that the village having priority isn't absolute. He said that villagers would simply have a higher percent chance of being the one to grab the gem, though he didn't say what those percentages were.

Where did Steel say that, since it wasn't in a post?

[Indigo Weasel]

8 hours ago, Plum Rhinoceros said:

Edit:

I would write this off except for that I'm pretty sure this is your only post, and in it you only referred to Azure as Azure and Tuatara as Tuatara. You never mentioned Ostrich or Opal in the thread. Perhaps in a doc? I know that's kind of ridiculous but it's still something I noticed.

Fair point. I meant in my head. I noticed with my post on those two, then elaborated with other accounts playing this game and present in other games I've read.

Yes, that post is my only post. Technical difficulties.

7 minutes ago, Ivory Dragonfly said:

Where did Steel say that, since it wasn't in a post?

In a post in the signup thread. Edit: it was in an edit in a post in the signup thread.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Indigo Weasel

[Ivory Dragonfly]

7 minutes ago, Indigo Weasel said:

In a post in the signup thread. Edit: it was in an edit in a post in the signup thread.

Didn't go back that far in Steel's post history or read the signup thread after the first post. So that means knowing who did and didn't manage to get gemstones is less likely to be alignment indicative, so not a lot of information gained from knowing who failed to get gemstones.

[Plum Rhinoceros]

18 minutes ago, Indigo Weasel said:

Fair point. I meant in my head. I noticed with my post on those two, then elaborated with other accounts playing this game and present in other games I've read.

That's what I figured, but you'd say that regardless. This reads genuine to me though. I don't know what it would look like if you had made an honest mistake but I also think the likelihood of you outing two teammates in your first post is low enough not to worry about it at all.

[Opal Lion]

6 hours ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

As for the lynch this past cycle, I'm of course a little disappointed we didn't hit an Elim, but I'm not exactly surprised considering it was a D1 lynch and those rarely hit Elims, so there's not really a lot to say.  I think chances of an Elim being part of the vote on Coral are moderately high, but there's no guarantee.  I will factor it into deciding on future lynch targets, but not heavily.

I'm interested in your thoughts on Tuatara and the Tuatara train, especially since you believe with moderately high confidence that an Elim is part of the Coral train. I think that this should condition your credences.

7 hours ago, Charcoal Hyena said:

Does that make sense? I'm uncertain if I explained my reasoning well enough. But, I think it could be useful to have 2 people claim if they went after each type of gemstone and failed to get it. It doesn't reveal who did get gemstones, and it helps us plan around the Elim's abilities. We would need to have a decent portion of people agree on this plan of action before we start following it though. 

The issue I think is that distribution is probabilistic, and sometimes, RNGesus feels cute and then people with low probability (cf. Elims in this case) still get the gemstones. I don't feel the level of information from a reveal currently justifies doing so - we gain some sense of the probabilities involved but honestly there are just too many uncertainties for it to be informative. I just realised Steel has also tagged "mad dash for scholars and warriors" so I presume we can already work out with moderate credence that these was in fact the most sought-after gemstones anyway - it wasn't just a write-up thing. (I had to keep that in mind as a possibility as when I GM, I take creative liberties with the write-up and have to caution players not to read into it but I know that's not always the case.)

2 hours ago, Ivory Dragonfly said:

Didn't go back that far in Steel's post history or read the signup thread after the first post. So that means knowing who did and didn't manage to get gemstones is less likely to be alignment indicative, so not a lot of information gained from knowing who failed to get gemstones.

Absolute priority only applies to those in dullform, which this cycle, should be everyone except Mavset-im, unless I'm misunderstanding the rules. But here's the ruling again for everyone's ease of reference:

Quote

In the rules, I say villagers get priority over elims for getting gems. This is not an absolute thing, I was working out the details yesterday. Essentially villagers get a higher percent chance of getting a gem than an elim does. I have yet to 100% settle on what that percentage is, but it is higher than what an elim gets. 
Meanwhile, a roleless person gets absolute priority before people with roles. Hope that makes sense. 

@Steeldancer, when you say absolute priority, here's a scenario: suppose a roleless Elim goes for a warform gem. Five Villagers - all with roles - also go for it. Rolelessness should override both numbers and alignment in this case - as long as there is a roleless person/pool, they are guaranteed to get the gem prior to anyone else?

Edit: @Melon Dingo, also interested now if Rhino's response changes your suspicions - are they still your top sus? What about Albatross since that's the post that triggered your suspicions?

C'mon you lot, it's Night but there's no rule that says discussion can only be done in the Day. My view of Tuatara hasn't shifted all that much but I'll look at the Day thread again when I have some time.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Opal Lion
how do y'all live without justification

[Onyx Flamingo]

6 hours ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

I think chances of an Elim being part of the vote on Coral are moderately high, but there's no guarantee.

With the number of votes compared to players, the statistics would suggest you are correct. It's pretty likely there was at least one elim on all the top trains, though, since elims don't generally like voting together unless necessary.

[Opal Lion]

Limpeh tell you ah, dontch be rike TJ/Zelda, anyhowly think look at Frog also can. Cannot one. GM tell you already got item must use, please don't just eyepower fierce fierce, want to use then use, okay boh?

[Eiwlil: You're welcome.]

Wow this is harder than TJ's Brummie accent and I expect to go stark raving insane if I want to speak in a Singlish accent throughout this game. Anyway, now that I have fulfilled my obligation to troll Illwei:

PSA: Please be reminded that like LG78 and Frogs, gemstones kind of have to be used by sending an order in  If you have one and intend to take the form, please send in the order, holding on to the gemstone won't help, you'll stay dullform, and it might result in you instead losing it to Decayform Elims, going forwards. (If you use it N2, that's fine, but be aware!) You're welcome TJ, unless you're Evil, in which case, welp, guess that happened.

I can neither confirm nor deny having signed up to an anon game strictly for the chance to potentially troll Illwei or TJ 

Edit: Alas, errors happen. Sadge. NWIFGIFYITAEEMBLKOAYDYRFHOTQENHMHLRDO.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Opal Lion

[Amber Vulture]

8 hours ago, Ivory Dragonfly said:

For the elims, Meditationform is top tier since double votes help much more when you know who's evil. 

More than what? Not an extra life or the ability to make Evil Gems. And it helps about the same as passive vote removal and an extra action for submitting the kill. Good guys should grab the gem because their good faith votes need to out weigh the baddies' intentionally misleading ones for our kill to be of any use. 

Here is a rundown of the threads I plan to follow next round.
~Amethyst Scorpion used RNG in an illogical manner and over reacted to my trolling them. 
~Charmander Penguin took unconfident stances last round. It seems like a bad guy trying not to be connected to any bad outcomes while keeping their options by supporting both sides
~I can see the merits of a Cream Tuatara kill and am open to having that discussion.
~As previously mentioned, I noted Emerald Falcon's vote as the most suspicious of yesterday. I think technically, their response to my accusations is what a good guy should have said (denial, put effort into some analysis, present an alternative to be compared to) but I did not think Opal Lion was the most suspicious person last Day based on their vote. I am confused why they picked them out of the lineup.
~It strikes me that Opal Lion's aggressive softing of Kas is a good way to post without contributing objectionable analysis.
~Mint Heron, whose identity is a complete and total mystery. Made a possibly odd comment about posting one OOC post per round. It could be a baddie feeling guilty for not engaging in a suspectable way.

[Opal Lion]

19 minutes ago, Amber Vulture said:

~It strikes me that Opal Lion's aggressive softing of Kas is a good way to post without contributing objectionable analysis.

Someone tell me when Kas has ever done aggressive analysis on C1 since after 2018. I'll wait  Whether or not you think I'm 'softing' Kas, it's certainly perfectly on-brand. I'm going to chalk this one down to a personality issue: "I am like this, too bad."

22 hours ago, Magenta Albatross said:

I also just realised how much of a pain in the backside Mavset-im can really be - any NK that shows up in the write up could easily be Mavset-im's old vessel, so essentially, we can't fully trust any reads or conclusions we make from any NK flips. Like, the only upside to NKs in normal games is that we get to go back and analyse posts made by the victim and extract analysis from it. 

Yes, sort of, I think. Essentially I expect us to be jumping at discrepancies after this cycle, and on people who are mysteriously silent in PMs. That being said, I think it just means look for Mavset-im indicators, be open to revising our assumptions, and look for the other bunch of flunkies who've joined the party besides Mavset-im. Doesn't do to get too caught up staring at Mavset-im that we cut our own throats. As an aside, I remember what Gamma said about Padan Fain being a set of limited slaps that the Village knows is coming but not when - this is basically my view of Mavset-im as well.

I did the re-reading of D1, and the current state of my thoughts are:

-I'm hesitant to consider someone Evil on the basis of strategic disagreements since this was essentially me @ Archer last AG, and this has been me @ Araris since posterity to the extent I was actually floored when we agreed during LG73. That being said, I do find Tuatara's analysis suspect/just odd, and am leaning light blech on them. And the relatively late Swan train did save Tuatara from the chopping block. I'm not interested in having the info-kill fight again: I'm just going to say I think it's worth looking at why someone who was going to be dead was saved by a late train, and I think knowing whether it was v/v or v/e tells us something about likely Elim disposition, which is worth knowing.

-Same for Scorpion, though this is gut - Scorpion's reaction to having people join on a RNG vote just read strangely performative to me. It's D1, some people are going to join on a RNG vote. That's just what happens. Calling attention to it in the way Scorpion did just seemed unnecessarily showboating.

-Crocodile is staying fringe. I'm interested to hear more from Crocodile. Same for Beagle, who showed up to give some analysis, clearly paid attention to the thread, but not to vote. 

-I've yet to determine whether Dingo is running off D1 reasoning but their behaviour is odd to me, since a number of other players haven't bothered to provide reasoning for votes at various points in D1, myself included.

-Mouse (urgh, so weird to say this.) I'm unfortunately gung-ho on Mouse as there's really nothing to stop the Elims from handing out a gemstone to Mouse and collecting a new teammate, especially if it's near a critical point. Ultimately, I'd rather go after actual suspicions but this is a case of "Eh, couldn't care less."