Kasimir

Yeah, then I think we can ignore the foregoing as moot [Edited to add 3: Ignore this section, or don't. I'm tired and I just realised I made an error in reasoning.] Araris submitted the kill, I think. Either he was lying about vote manip (possible, but if so, what's his tell? That he can only post in a single sentence when he lies? But that doesn't make sense because of what Lotus said about both the first statement on having vote manip and which is a very weird lie to get caught on) or he didn't have a viable teammate to put in a kill. But I can't see Archer missing a kill - if it was a three man team, then the Elim team would know it was lylo and Evil Archer had decent kill targets that weren't teammates: me, Ash, Fabien/xino. We've established why xino would've been a non-starter for the Elim team because you always play in case the round doesn't end, so it was down to me or Ash. Possibly decided Ash was less likely to attract protection, but either way you slice it, Araris should not have been facing actions economy issues if Archer was his teammate. I also still think that lying about vote manip is tough in a game with a number of scans floating around, and there are better "don't lynch me" cards to claim, namely Guards. We know Araris can't have been roleblocked in any case. The Shardblade kill definitely happened, and given it was on TUO, came from a Villager. Xino submitted nothing, you submitted a One of Pens, I submitted a One of Spears. Archer claims to have used Two of Guards (thanks @Archer ) but: A. I feel like if we presume Archer was lying, it's better for Archer to have actually lied about having roleblocked Araris, since that gets him more Village cred. The limitation is that's a bit less plausible, and Archer may not have fully caught up on the cycle, but something like "Oh yeah I didn't remove my action from Araris whoops" would still have not been especially sus, B. As a more general point, if Archer did in fact roleblock Araris, claiming that is better as we'd consider it an action with more verification. I'd ask if you think one of them is actually a Clever and is lying, but come to think of it, you and Mat both thought having a Cheater was a bit too strong for an Elim team. Having two Honests is sort of a counterbalance in that regard. It's ultimately up to your preference, I think. I note that if neither of us roleblocks, since our votes are currently on xino, xino can only choose between forcing a lynch (One of Pens removes one vote from you and randomly redistributes it to any player with at least one vote on them - so xino can only redistribute it to their counterwagon) and if they do that, then they can't NK. As long as we don't go for the tie option, which, IMO, requires us to block too much potential inteference, in the best case scenario, since we're more certain xino is Evil, we have two surviving Villagers and win. In the worst case scenario, we are still committed to a 1 v 1 with Archer. So unless I'm missing something (please correct me if I'm wrong!), I don't see anything inherently bad with going the coinflip route, if that's what you prefer. I think either way we should ask Archer to double the xino vote since that creates a bigger gap that can't really be exploited. With a four vote xino train, either Pens card shouldn't be able to save xino. Voting from last cycle clears Drake and myself. It's down to you and Archer. Archer has better voting patterns and Village Archer makes more sense with Araris's behaviour and posts from the last cycle. Edited to add: @Lotus, is One of Pens able to remove two votes if Two of Pens has also been used? So Ren uses One of Pens. Gamma is voting on Ren and uses Two of Pens. Can One of Pens remove two votes instead? Edited to add 2: Xino, I'm partly going to agree this is out of your control because as a pinch-hitter, it's hard to explain the actions of the player you took over for, particularly if they haven't done anything. I'm open to being convinced that Archer is a better target, though I have explained my reasons for thinking you are Elim. I think knowing what cards you have and intend to play would also be helpful. But otherwise, I acknowledge it's an uphill task because we have a record for Archer, and we have none for you. EDITED TO ADD 4: No, wait. Okay. Yeah. Only way for us to get 4:2 requires that you used One of Pens and Araris used Two of Pens. This means that either Archer (on an Evil Archer hypothesis) or TUO (on an Evil xino hypothesis) made the kill. At least we can then tell Araris was truthful. I still think an Elim team with Archer would have more kill flexibility though. I'm tired and need more sleep

Thanks! Alright. Be good to hear from Xino, agreed, though being a pinch-hitter having to explain whatever the player before you must have been thinking is unenviable. Still think it's better not to be too all-in on—huh. Right. I still think it's better not to be too all-in on xino and it's worth one of us surviving to endgame just in case we have to 1v1 Archer. Indifferent on which and I realise it doesn't make a significant difference as long as we ensure only one lynch train so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ How interested are you in fighting Archer?

If you played a One of Pens, that complicates things. If so, we should see: I think the only two options that would result in the VC we see would be: 1. Someone on the Archer train used a Two of Pens, which negated the difference. Archer claimed to have used a Guard card. So if you weren't cardblocked (can you confirm this?) - it'd just have to be Araris. As you said, One of Pens could affect this, as could Two of Pens. Tbf, I don't see Araris lying about vote manip given the scans and there are better "Please don't lynch me!" cards to lie about/claim. 2. Araris was roleblocked. Neither you nor Archer has claimed a roleblock, I didn't do it either, and Fabien/xino was inactive so I'm going to thank @Ashbringer for that clutch Shardblade kill and move on If that is the case, my hypothesis then is that he likely did use vote manip to try to protect himself, yours cancelled it out (phew!) and TUO likely had the kill in their actions earlier. Does potentially mean Archer could've also done the kill order earlier, but I am more inclined to give weight to the vote evidence from D2. Elim Archer has no reason to double up on Striker. Also, just my read of what Araris was doing, I suppose That's a lot of Spears. If you've picked Two of Spears up, you want to do the honours, assuming we do go on xino in the end? I'll use Two of Pens to solidify the wagon. One of Guards feels selfish in this context Edited to add: Tbf, depends on if you want to be all-in on Evil xino. The alternative is we get Archer to Two of Pens, you Two of Spears xino, and I One of Guards myself and hang on to my Two of Pens, guaranteeing that in the unlikely event if I go into a one-on-one cycle with Evil Archer, I can ensure he gets lynched. If he NKs me, the lynch should get him, which I think should be a failure of the outnumbering condition. If he RBs me, he can't NK me and I think we both die anyway. @Lotus - what happens if the last Villager and last Elim both die? Who wins? Edited to add 2: Oh holy smokes I forgot this is negated -.- As long as you have the self-protect Guard card, you can do it too. I'm indifferent as to which of us goes into the last round to mano-a-mano on the offchance Archer is Evil. I forgot Two of Pens doesn't matter because Archer might draw more vote manip next round. One of us just has to hang on to the Two of Spears. But I'm waiting for the GM clarification first on the results of a Village-Elim 1v1.

Understood, thank you Lotus

I have a Two of Spears. Happy to stop interference if that's the decision. I'm not really interested in One of Guards-ing myself because I feel that it'd just let xino go for you or Drake or open too many options. Alternatively I can do Two of Pens as well and make this one hell of a solid train. ...Sigh. When I bet there would be at least two Oops incidents this game, I really didn't expect to be connected to them this intimately >>

Sorry for the double post, but I don't want my clarificatory question to @Lotus / @Illwei to get buried. I'd like to check my understanding of how strictly the Honest rules are enforced. 1. To me, this reads as though you would not consider this a lie as long as: A. It is true that Araris mentioned having vote manip earlier, and B. It is true that he is certain there will be double deaths today from the vote. 2. This is a very Aes Sedai statement to me. Araris implies having vote manip, but this is really a statement that vote manip is not helpful when you can't be online late, which is more or less true. Since Lotus has stated that she will also care about the spirit of the statement, I want to clarify if: You would not consider this a lie as long as: A. It is true that having vote manip is not very useful if a player (ANY PLAYER!) isn't online at the end of the turn. In other words, I'm asking if you would consider this a lie if a player does not have vote manip and actually says this. I want to clarify I'm not asking for GM confirmation if Araris is speaking the truth. I'm asking for GM confirmation if I am correct in interpreting the conditions under which you would require him to insert his tell. But I'm going to pre-emptively ping @Devotary of Spontaneity to make sure that this is kosher.

Hi xino, welcome to the party True SE greeting. Edited to add: Actually, you know what. Yeah, I think Archer is Village. Several things stand out to me: 1. It's unusual for Elims to vote together. If we're suggesting the Elims were peripheral (which IMO, the voting data does show), it's odd for Archer to willingly follow TUO onto an endgame bad train. It's behaviour I expect from a new and underconfident player but not really Archer. Day Two: We now know TUO is Evil. The only three players in danger that day were Striker, Fabien, and Archer. A reason we could propose Elims clumping together is to save another Elim. But we now know Drake is highly-likely Village, and Striker is Village and was lynched. The only hypothesis that works in this scenario was proposing that Evil Archer was trying to save Evil Fabien but that postulates a four man Elim team. IMO, that just doesn't fly. (Actually same for Drake - it'd require a TUO/Archer/Drake team. This doesn't work.) [Edited to add: Well, four man team, including Araris. Also a non-starter.] 2. Araris has a bussing rep but has, of late, tried to avoid voting on teammates or at least decisively voting on them. But I also find it strange he'd propose Archer as a target on a cycle most players were calling lylo. The danger of players deciding to consolidate on a teammate and high volatility makes this a worse choice than, say, in a game where lynches tie. [Edited to add: Where lynches don't kill on a tie.] Araris pushes against an Elim team with Fabien and TUO on it. I think this depends and assumes that Lotus would in fact balance for activity levels. But remember: this is a game where a two-man Elim team is a bit too weak and a three-man Elim team a bit too strong. What would an Archer-Araris-TUO Elim team be like? IMO having Fabien/xino for an Araris-TUO-xino makes more sense: it splits the difference, nerfing the team with a new player. And Araris has a strong rep as an experienced Elim player. I feel Araris is redirecting too strongly to the Ash/Archer/Drake pool. We now know two of them are Village. It wouldn't be weird for him to slip an Elim in, but given he actually voted on Archer at lylo before swapping to self-pres, that just feels odd. 3. I would like to get action claims from @Archer and @xinoehp512. In xino's case, it'll likely be C1/C2. TUO's and Araris's action claims were odd, and we are at endgame here. I think there's every reason to share with the class at this stage of the game. @DrakeMarshall, I'd like it if you could share with the class as well because I think we can mechanically piece together part of what went on. 4. This post kind of stood out to me at that time. It seemed like a non-sequitur. Like, okay, it'd suck for us if Fabien is Village. But there was frustration in the tone of this post that didn't really make sense to me. Lotus had no way of knowing Fabien's activity patterns prior to the game because he was a new player. And how much it sucks for us therefore has nothing much to do with the problem at hand, which is lylo. It especially doesn't make sense now that we know Araris is Elim. But I think it does make sense for an Araris who is on a rather low-activity Elim team, with TUO and Fabien/xino. Araris on an Archer/TUO team would have no reason to let his frustration slip through. And if we reverse what Archer is saying - then a team with two low-activity players but especially one inactive Elim, given that we've already said that a two-man team seems too weak? This explains the frustration: even if they play perfectly, they're likely to face issues to do with luck of the card draw, or the inactive coming back. [Edited to add: To clarify, their path to victory will also significantly depend on the luck of the card draw, or Fabien's return. They have now been replaced by xino.] Anyway. The lazy way to resolve this cycle IMO is if we can force an Archer-xino tie since that'd guarantee a Village win. If there's no way to ensure this plays out, then I think we simply have to do the hard work. (We can't disrespect our efforts last cycle, and those of the Village vig!) Edited to add 2: Here's another thought. Drake, I didn't roleblock anyone. We had seven players last cycle. <Drake, Kas, Araris, TUO, Archer, Ash, Fabien.> Fabien was too inactive to put in anything. Araris and TUO wouldn't have done the Shardblade kill. IMO, the likely candidates are you or Ash. TUO was on Archer's trust list, and while Archer could have ruled him out in order to guarantee a non-wasted kill, I don't think so. I think mechanical claiming will help us sort things out a little more. I also think the Steel kill is not really in Evil Archer's MO. But I also feel that Archer is the kind of guy likely to put in an Elim kill before going. Why not? He can't react to last minute changes anyway so his card action would be useless, allowing the other teammates to use their cards, especially important if TUO Cheated a useful card, or if Araris needed to self-pres. So here's the thing. First, I think in this scenario, Elim Archer would put the kill on a player like Ash or potentially, me. Someone who wouldn't be up for the lynch so less reason to change the order last minute. It'd be odd to send it in on you since he voted you, and he knew there was a live Araris train. Fabien is pointless because inactive. Araris and TUO were non-starters for obvious reasons. If there is no role-block, i.e. you didn't put it in, and Archer didn't put it in, and neither of you put in the Shardblade kill order, and I sure as hell didn't, then I think what the Elim team really suffered from was actions economy issues. According to my check at 0448hrs my time, TUO last visited the site 22 hours ago. So TUO wasn't on for end cycle changes. In other words, I think that Araris had a choice: self-pres or NK. This doesn't make sense with an Archer team, unless we suppose Araris was lying about having vote manip. But then, what is Araris's tell? Araris NKed. And in doing so, he couldn't self-pres. He gambled on making one of us pull off, thinking he had vote manip. Barring further information about other player actions, I think this strongly points to an Araris-TUO-Fabien/xino team. Happy to revise, but unless I receive new information that significantly changes things, my vote will stay on xino. Edited to add 3: Just for reference, this post was first made at 0348hrs my time, and I am not going to keep editing and adding stuff I want to hear from everyone else. Tagging so you all know I have stopped adding thoughts: @DrakeMarshall, @xinoehp512, @Archer Edited to add 4: Ah well. Here's another thought. Suppose I am correct about the actions economy issues. Suppose Araris was truthful about the vote manip. Why would Araris choose to kill over putting in vote manip? Because the lack of a kill and the presence of vote manip would point either to an inactive or to someone using their card actions. And if a vote went missing from Araris, it can only be Araris who used a card action. Too much suspicion would accrue to him. So let's wargame this. Scenario A: Araris uses One of Pens Drake gets lynched. We go into the next cycle 3-3. Elim team must outnumber. We know that the card action can only be performed by Araris, and the lack of a kill is telling. Attention immediately goes to all the inactive players, which to be fair, could include Archer, but also, Araris, TUO, and Fabien. That's not optimal. We are almost guaranteed an Elim lynch in this scenario, to go to 2-2 or 3-2. Scenario B: Araris uses Two of Pens Drake and Araris get lynched. We go into the next cycle 3-2. Elim team loses their most active player, and the fact that no kill was put in once again points us to TUO, Fabien, and potentially Archer. This is suboptimal. Recall that in both scenarios, I have already been calling for TUO's head. Araris probably senses this could fuel a TUO lynch. Killing, in his view, would still leave ambiguity, potentially. It doesn't especially implicate his teammates. That's my guess anyway.

@DrakeMarshall, how good's your post analysis? I'm willing to go all-in on you being Village at this point. In this game, where ties kill, and where vote volatility is a thing, I just don't see any Elim team being this willing to make you the counterwagon. Two Cheaters on a three-man Elim team seems a bit strong for me as well, and you were part of the early Araris push, so I am essentially going to just commit to considering you Village. I'm going to play to my strengths, which is vote analysis. I'm going to highlight Drake in green as he's now my highest Elim confidence. [Edit: Village. Sigh. Drake, you're infecting me with your backwards style .__.] My main arguments for my being Village is that most Elim teams offered with me being Evil all assumed I was on a two-man team. The game hasn't ended, ergo we are indeed playing against a three-man team. I was the deciding vote on Araris, or one of the Araris voters, and I could have pulled off but ultimately did not. I also kept pushing for TUO late last cycle, potentially staking him out for a Shardblade kill, when I could have just remained quiet and not pushed back against the fact that almost every other player (including myself at certain points in time) had more or less softcleared TUO for D1. I'm also going to come right out and say that I have a One of Guards and a Two of Pens among the cards I've been collecting. Which I'm going to play this cycle is a mystery to the intellectual, but the last Elim has a choice. I intend to secure the train(s) against vote manipulation. They can cardblock me, forgoing the NK. Or they can NK me, forgoing the cardblock, meaning the trains will go through. It's possible the Elims have a Clever. If so, this would in my view explain why they didn't attack me. They knew I could self-protect. This was also, by the way Drake, why I was so resistant to being tied. I was hoping to force them to waste a NK on me and to block it. Would've taken a bit of clever Lurching, but. As a result, I'm going to do something I don't normally do, and I'm going to mark myself with the high credence Village on my charts. I usually don't as a courtesy but whatever. Day One: I think we can more or less say peripherality was true. I maintain that Evil Kas had better strategies than to go on TUO only to terbalik [=reverse course] a few hours later. That's not distancing, that's just screwball. On this day, both Archer's patterns and Fabien's are of interest. Both Archer's and Fabien's votes are stable - Fabien's a little more than Archer's. Archer's comment on D1 is that if he wanted to save TUO, he had a better strategy than going onto Elan and hoping to create a side-train. He could easily go onto me or stay on Ash. I will explore the viability of that line of argument later, I just want to get this out first. Archer's Move: Here's a timestamp of the cycle when Archer moved. We had a three-way tie between myself, Ash, and Araris. Archer had said he felt I was likely Village so I was not a viable choice. It was late in the cycle: Archer's move comes at 1940hrs when the cycle ends at 0000hrs. Shy of 4 hours and 20 minutes to rollover. No idea if votes would remain stable. TUO isn't voting, and Araris has by this point moved to Ash. A poke vote on Elan turns into a stay vote for what in my view is eh reasoning - that Elan had gone onto TUO without much reasoning, which isn't especially a marker of suspicion, even though it's D1. (Hi Eiwlil :eyes: ) That being said, without Archer's move, it would be a four-person tie between Araris and two Villagers. I read this as being positive for Archer that he moved off of Ash. This creates a tie between an Elim and a Villager who wouldn't die. I don't really see this as being an Elim benefiting move since he could just as easily have stayed on Ash. Given the timing of this move, I feel like the splinter train hypothesis doesn't work. TUO wasn't in danger at that point in time, and Archer's splinter train did doom Elan but it saved a Villager, which is odd for an Elim. Certainly, Archer chose to keep his vote on Elan and that's the eh part for me, but what's interesting is that Elan moves onto TUO barely an hour later: This creates a three-way tie between two Elims and the Village GC. Not at all a good state of affairs for the Elims. This is broken by me (whoops), as I move from Araris to Ash. Archer is online but fine with this state of affairs, as he replies to Elan but does nothing. One Elim is still on the chopping block, though. One Villager for one Elim in a three-Elim team is still a decent trade. He may have been expecting to have TUO use his card. Unclear. And then Striker turns it into a proper TUO train under two hours to rollover. I hop onto the TUO train as well, and Mat flips and defects. Before Mat's defection, no amount of cards would save TUO. TUO would still be lynched. Archer could have been betting on TUO getting online in time to cast a self-pres vote, but the later it goes, the weirder it looks I think. People always pay more attention to move changes right before the end of the cycle. After Mat's defection, TUO could still be saved by a single use of his card. At twelve minutes to rollover, I pull off of TUO and onto Elan. Archer and Araris (IIRC) were on and fine with this. TUO was not on. But TUO survives. I don't especially find Archer's vote patterns weird, I think. It's possible for Archer to be betting on TUO but overall I lean Village on my read of D1 Archer. I also think that Evil Archer had no reason to specifically flag out that TUO was softing a lynch protect card. It's a bit like Araris's reasoning, but my take is that TUO has no problem making that known. I think Archer would. [Edited to add: Day Two] Archer moves on to the Striker train. Notably, I created a mid-game 1-1-1 tie between several players, including: This would have guaranteed the death of two of the Elims. Archer breaks the tie. It's hard to say, as Fabien is our other Elim candidate, and a tie of this magnitude was always going to be bad. But Archer went on Striker, and later in the cycle, Striker creates a Drake-Fabien-Striker tie, which I break, by voting Striker. Archer remains on Striker, and Drake goes to Striker. But by this point, I don't see Drake being Elim, so I accept this as a players gonna player thing. Day Three Pulling off the Elim and going onto the Villager after Araris accumulates three votes is not of necessity a good look for Archer. We don't have Fabien data, unfortunately, so that's just the way these things go. Issue is what to make of Araris's vote on Archer. Ultimately, I don't read this cycle as being very helpful except it vindicates Drake, and lightly myself. So I guess that's helpful: it reduces our Evil pool to two. And whoever came down on TUO, once again, thank you, that was clutch. I'm going to vote Fabien. I don't think we'll get Archer back until Sunday evening, so that's quite a while. I feel like if Fabien gets a pinch-hitter, we might be more likely to get a response before then. If neither Archer nor Fabien look to be back or posting by rollover, e.g. Lotus cannot find a pinch-hitter, I would suggest tying them. I also have a cardblock card (Two of Spears) which I can technically use to ensure no messing with the lynch RNGesus has been kind to me this game. I don't especially care if Drake is the sole survivor since I currently have high credence in Village Drake. Essentially the lack of voting patterns for Fabien is a problem. Later on, I'll do some post analysis for Archer and Araris. I just want to have done the vote analysis. Araris was Honest. If we're lucky, we could potentially sift his posts for his tell or lies. Edited to add: Ash's idea was a good one. I'm going to claim. I didn't do anything C1. As Drake correctly identified, I had a One of Pens and I started with One of Guards as well. I wasn't intending to blow either since I wasn't in danger, and I felt I was close enough to the lynch pool that the Elims wouldn't want to blow a NKL on me this early. I drew the Two of Swords and Two of Pens C2. I used the Two of Swords to check on Drake and saw he had a One of Spears. C3 was a bit of a tough one for me. I didn't know if I wanted to use the Two of Pens to secure the lynch or not. I was genuinely torn because I felt the TUO lynch (as I said) more than any of the existing targets and Archer-Drake-Araris was a choice I was meh about. Eventually I sent in an order to use my One of Spears, because what the hell, whatever. I was kind of too done to try to make a decision and second-guessing myself at each point. As a result of the One of Spears, I obtained the Two of Spears this cycle. Hence my card armoury

Whoever who shot TUO, nicely done. RIP to Ash. I'm glad I didn't peel off Araris. I feel much better about Drake now. I don't think Elims would try to engineer a tie given my known end-cycle unpredictability and the impact of ties so Drake reads like the convenient CW. Don't know if Archer was distancing or not. I'll have to think this one through. @Lotus, this is the second cycle of inactivity. What happens to Fabien?

Thanks Araris. I don't like this and I'm just having all the worst feelings about this but I don't think I'm in a state to think this through at this point of the cycle with three minutes to go. Alea iacta est. O7 Village. It's been an exhausting one, if it's Lylo.

Alright. I'm up. Nightmares of torture and murder so that was fun. What the blazes is going on 1. I have it in my notes that Ash retracted but I see he didn't. That's one abnormally stable stab vote but I don't think Araris ever answered. 2. I just feel bad about basically both the active trains but I think I've been vocal about my TUO preference since before I went to sleep. Sigh. You all had to keep forcing me to redo my reads right -.-

Could be both I think. Villager would want to claim to clear the PoE. Elim would want to claim to have an alibi. Unless it's Archer (who has done a bit of a 180 on you this cycle, I think), I feel like it's more likely to be Steel or Striker. Steel sussed you, and Striker was in the thread late and might've seen you there. Two minutes to react isn't much time though, at end of cycle, but. Sigh. Alright imma do something kasyana. Araris. Edited to add: I don't think there's a point in waiting or splitting the vote at this point I guess. So much for that thought. We don't know for sure if the Elims will hammer, but if they do, we're in for it anyway, on the assumption this is lylo. Might not be true, but you always play for the worst scenario, not the best. The three existing candidates are Drake, Archer, Araris. I am honestly very tempted to let the tie sort this out but we know the Elims won't let this pass, unless it so happens that the Elim team is Ash-TUO-Fabien. Doing so would then immediately guarantee an Elim victory so that is not a viable option. Of such a team, I currently have the most credence in Village Ash. I feel that Elim Ash could've focused on reads and vote analysis to sort of skate by instead of bringing in the mechanical aspect, which at least gave us another element to look at, even if it has turned out not being particularly helpful. I don't have any voting history for Ash, so I'm going to have to keep any credence in Village Ash light. I feel a bit reluctant to meta-game about the viability of a TUO-Fabien pair but I don't vastly disagree with Araris's reasoning that it just seems very hard as a GM to allow such a thing through. While SE has moved on from the days of assuming that skilled players alone can overcome any distro disadvantage (hello LG20, which presumed a team of Wilson, Orlok, and Alv, with me and Lopen as ridealong sidekicks would be able to take on anything) I would not be surprised if the distro for the Elim pair ends up being two active but peripheral players, which would take me back to the current existing triad of <Drake, Archer, Araris.> The nice thing about such a scenario would be that 2/3 our candidates are already up for the lynch, but I'm hardly going to rely on that. Hmm. Ah, bloody hell. If it really comes down to reads... I feel as though Drake could be bluffing. But there's no real point in being so detailed about it and I'm not necessarily sure Drake would be the sort to clarify the scan rules with the GM before trying the bluff. There are also simpler ones to deal with. Light Village. Ash stimulated and engaged with more activity, feel Elim Ash would behave differently. Very light Village. Araris and Archer are the two peripheral/low vote flexibility voters that are left in my pool and that are up for the grinch. I feel a bit uncomfortable with both of them. Araris's reasoning for ignoring TUO and Archer's reasoning for Drake/Ashbringer/Araris are things I'm not comfortable with. I'd put it the other way around: why would Village TUO admit to having a lynch protect card? Using it can keep you from being mislynched, whereas admitting to it tells the Elims that if they want to take you out, a NK is best. The point is that we want to keep the Elims guessing, though the profusion of Clever roles will interfere with this somewhat. I feel this comes from the perspective of a player who doesn't have to think about the NK, so not as Village. I'm honestly feeling a TUO lynch more and more but it's not doable this divided at lylo, and worse, TUO has that card so it's just not doable, simpliciter. (Notice that if TUO is Elim, our precise reactions here are exactly what he gains from having admitted to it.) Unfortunately, I think I'm on Araris. If I accept Archer's reasoning that he had better ways to protect TUO and the timing of the N1 kill, feel like it'd better fit Araris's profile. That's all I've got at this point. End of the line for me. @DrakeMarshall, just to point out since you said otherwise on page 1 of this thread - Lotus has clarified the Elim kill cannot be roleblocked, so that's a /shrug from me on the issue of your cardblocking. That's it from me. I've been OTing until 3-4AM for nearly two solid weeks in a row and working on the unmentioned something that may or may not be the same something that Ash can't talk about. I'm dead tired and I can't think straight anymore. I'm napping and setting an alarm but in my current state, it is absolutely possible that I'll oversleep. If so, whoever who comes on gets the dubious pleasure of having to deal with this. I'd blue that last paragraph but my policy is I don't lie about RL and requiring bluetext for RL sets a bad precedent so I'm not contributing to it. Goodnight, world.

Ah. Awkward So just to recap: I am a little suspicious of Araris's claim not to have used any cards but I feel as though it would be easier for him to lie and claim something like One of Spears, especially given we are looking for kill candidates. I'm a bit alarmed by TUO's claim to have used One of Swords on Drake. And I'm also a bit eh about Drake's claim to have used Two of Guards on Archer. We need to also remember that the lack of a claim from Archer doesn't necessitate anything - it's just that more information won't be forthcoming on that front. Edited to add: I think this might give us a way to make sense of Striker's shift. He may have used his ability on Araris, saw Araris had vote manip, and joined him in a last ditch hope that Araris had used it. Edited to add 2: Because cheated cards do not belong to your hand, Drake's specific claim is unverifiable. TUO's is in theory verifiable if someone happened to scan him, which did not happen.

Who did you target? Can they confirm this?

Mechanical analysis? A man after my own heart I'm interested if you get responses. On the assumption Archer is Village, Archer is going to be a problem one way or another depending on player numbers as his vote won't move, so this should make for an interesting Lylo. I think we are generally in agreement Fabien is a non-starter, despite my leaning Elim on him. Which makes my main existing Elim read Araris, but Araris's first post on this page is making me waver on that. I might be okay with reintroducing TUO into that pool given assumptions about the Elim team's risk appetite and the revelation of his card. I think I'm also thinking of consolidation. If we're right that Fabien is Elim or there's some measure of Elim inactivity, we might not have to worry about an Elim hammer but who knows. At any rate I'm not certain I'm feeling the Archer or the Drake trains per se. They're in my pool strictly based off voting patterns but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I do have to cull them off reads too, and IDK. I assume this is where your "a two-man TUO-Fabien team would be too unbalanced" thoughts come into play.

This requires he didn't play one on Day One, I think. But good point, that's harder to assess. Edited to add: Araris, I'm interested in why TUO is so low on your suspicions list. I agree that there was no real movement to save TUO, and that spending cards recklessly isn't Elim, but the more I look at his voting patterns, the more I don't feel good marking him more than lean Village, especially given the fact he had an anti-lynch card. I feel like there's a tendency to over-anchor on the D1 vote here when we've acknowledged a less risk-averse Elim team (or one that inactive) could be happy with those events. Same from @Archer, really.

Perfect. Resolves it, and gives us the plus of two players who have been at loggerheads for a decent chunk of the game agreeing. Sorry @DrakeMarshall, you're vindicated now Thanks Eiwlil, I'm gonna go ahead and think through my reads again now

Hmmm. I think I have a way to resolve the Drake issue. If I am correct, it's a misunderstanding/miscommunication. @Lotus - I'd like a clarification of the Cheating rules. I'm going to give you a scenario. Please tell me if I am correct in surmising this is how it works. Wyrm is a Cheater. Suppose that Wyrm begins the game C1 with the One of Spears and One of Pens. Wyrm uses his Cheat action. He sacrifices the One of Pens to gain a card. You present him with three options during C2 (well, rollover) [Two of Pens, One of Swords, Two of Guards.] The One of Pens is already written-off. At any point during C2, terminating at rollover, Wyrm is allowed to select one of these three cards. Selection does not cost an action as he has already spent his role action C1 on this. So Wyrm can select and use the Two of Guards and then change his mind and go for the Two of Pens. It's allowed because it's 3C1 and the role action has already been spent. Whatever he confirms in the GM PM at rollover is final. Moreover, he is allowed to use the card in the same Turn it is selected. Am I correct in my understanding? Edited to add: Here are two more questions I'd like to build into this scenario. A. What would someone who scans Wyrm during C1 with a Two of Swords see? B. What would someone who scans Wyrm during C2 with a Two of Swords see?

It does, but there's nothing we can do about that, and no reason Lotus et al would have been able to predict this prior to the game actually starting. I think we have to wait two cycles before Lotus will replace Fabien which is unfortunate but that's the effect of her inactivity rules. I'd just like to focus on finding an Elim today, and if it ends, it ends, but getting one will buy us a tiny bit of breathing room. We're generally losing Archer anyway, which is fair, but is going to be a problem if Archer is Village because we do need active Village voting, and one way or another, the kindness of RNGesus. I'm sticking by my Drake vote for the moment as something still doesn't smell right and I suspect Striker was card-blocked, which again resolves to a very narrow list of possibilities. But I fully intend to do some more analysis in the morning.

Right, yeah. I'm going to proceed under the lylo assumption and re-evaluate if it turns out to not be, though. I'd rather have that buffer

Oof. Sorry Araris, I think you ninjaed me. @Devotary of Spontaneity, do you need me to cancel that edit and repost or will the current set-up be fine? Edit: @Araris Valerian, I'm not sure I follow why we're at lylo if Fabien isn't an Elim. Fabien shouldn't, by Lotus's ruling, be considered inactive just yet due to the two cycle inactivity requirement. There is also no filter in place. Edited to add 2: Sounds like a grumpy old guy face-off

Thanks! I guess if I think about it this way: if I were more certain about Fabien, I'd be more gung-ho about just voting him. We know that one person does not an Elim team make, and honestly I have no other data points than his initial voting pattern which still raises a red flag for me. Since we're at lylo or presumably at lylo, and we know he couldn't have submitted the Elim kill, I'm inclined to go back and try to scrutinise my reads and decide who I have the highest credence in being Elim. Ideally, we'd take out an active Elim. Not so ideally, honestly any Elim will do, since that's what gets us out of lylo, though I guess we'll be in perma-lylo (hello lylo hello lylo hello lylo - God am I beginning to hate this phase of the game) so it's touch and go anyway, but that's when we go to the "Is Fabien really our best shot at bagging an Elim?" question. The answer may very well be yes but I am not yet prepared to say so. I'm interested in why Archer is now suspicious of being joined on an Araris vote by Drake and Ash. They're in his Elim pool but not everyone in his Elim pool is surely Elim. You've got Araris and Ash down as not E/E but I'm curious why you would think so, as it's still fairly young in the cycle, and Araris has not put Ash under serious end cycle pressure. Edited to add: I am starting to think Striker played a card and was card-blocked. Striker was getting lynched and then swapped at 0000hrs precisely to Fabien. It could just be showing his suspicions but he hasn't really pointed too hard at Fabien before this. TUO was his first, and Drake his secondary. It was too late to really hope to invite anyone to switch, so I suspect he had One of Pens and likely also hoped Araris was double-voting or that the extra vote, if peeled, would go to the Fabien wagon over the Drake wagon. It's not an awful gamble since it does put things 50-50 at taking his suspect out with him. If so, I suspect Striker got card-blocked at the time he set up the tie, or a little after. Anyone want to admit to cardblocking Striker?

See, here's the thing. One of the reasons I'd actually relaxed my suspicions of you is the fact you had a lone card, One of Spears. In my view, you're one of the Elim team best positioned to make the kill due to time flexibility, and the fact you had a single card gives me weak confident [Edit: confidence] you're using card actions rather than making the NK. Of course this is defeasible - you could be letting another teammate stick in the knife. If so, it'd have to be Araris or Archer. I don't have enough data on Ash, it sure as hell isn't me, and I'd like to know how Fabien can put in a kill when he hasn't been online since Wednesday 0348hrs GMT+8. Or TUO, I suppose. Light Village isn't confirmed Village. ( @Lotus, can you confirm that a player must send in kill orders via the GM PM? You're not accepting NKs from the Elim doc?) My issue isn't with the Two of Guards per se. My issue is that you started C2 with three cards and were scanned to only have the One of Spears. You claimed to have used the Two of Guards, so what happened to the Two of Pens? My read is you're either lying about having vote manip or you're lying about trying to protect Archer for Village cred. I'm more wary of the latter, and eh whatever about the former. Edited to add: Fair warning, I'm gonna do the thing where I think aloud in the thread again. Let's go with the crack possibility I suppose. If TUO is Elim, it's likely to be as part of a three-man team. I can't see a teammate failing to protect TUO on realising that TUO wasn't coming online in time to self-pres. But if we postulate protection, it'd just have to be Archer. There's no one else in that scenario who could be it. Thing is, as Archer pointed out, if he'd wanted to protect TUO, he should've added to the three-vote train on me, which I agree would be a better move, as I wouldn't flip. It could be Archer favours splinter-train tactics instead since they generally tend to be less overt, and also TUO had a card. But I feel like this is a crack enough possibility I'm not giving too much credence on it. My current state of credences, in crude form before I do proper reads: Village Evil TUO (weak) Araris (profile, pool, PoE) Ash (weak) Fabien (????) Drake (weak) Archer (weak) I just culled this by a very weak PoE. I looked at everyone I had weak Village credences on and stuffed everyone else into the Evil section. Which to me reads like I have a number of mistakes somewhere. Inactive new Elims isn't impossible. Being inactive doesn't mean Fabien can't be Elim, just means he can't put in the kill, isn't an immediate threat, and is a warm body between the Village and loss at this point in time if Villager. My credences push me more to Araris and to be fair, I am tempted to make Araris my final vote. I just don't believe in deciding a train before the halfway mark of the cycle, and Meta always told me to keep my suspicions fluid, so I try. This sometimes leads to awkward situations like reversing course on a trust oh, about two hours to rollover and trying to get him lynched. So I guess let me try to look at my weak trusts again. Ash: -Just the reasoning that Elim Ash wouldn't be that dead TBH. Very weak because I feel as though Elim Ash would at least vote or try some sort of perfunctory post, just to appear present. Could be that Ash is really that busy because that's just how life is. TUO: -Honestly, I haven't liked TUO's voting patterns much. That hasty D1 retraction, and that early, stable vote on Striker does make TUO a peripheral Elim candidate. I guess I might be okay re-adding TUO into the pool of suspicion. Certain recent events have left me cautious of putting too much credence on the occurrences of D1 lynches. I feel like what Archer said D2 isn't wrong either - that the fact TUO has a card might've let his teammates feel there was some kind of safeguard, so they didn't need to intervene, though perhaps they would have if I hadn't. ...God I should've Two of Swords him eh. Whoops. I don't know. I guess doing up this list makes me feel like I have overstated the strength of my Village credences in TUO. Maybe I should try ranking these four players afterwards. Drake: -I feel like his early strategy was designed to avoid being overly-scrutinised for voting, but I can't disagree that he's been active, engaged, and at least apparently trying to solve things. The card scan makes me a bit more willing to say he's a Villager, but only by a bit, due to all the possible confounding factors. I'm wary of a potential false Two of Guards claim, which might be a response to Archer's suspicion. Archer: -Generally getting helpful and engaged Villager vibes. Defeasible because Archer's Elim profile is a known powerwolf. Archer's voting patterns aren't peripheral but they do tend to be stable, which is fair but can also be a warning sign. I agree not everyone is kayana enough to change their vote seven times in a cycle ( ) but stability can be an Elim as they already know what the answer is, and where they want the cycle to go. Also what I commented before on kill profile. I guess of all the weak trusts, potentially strongest in Archer, but I'm either getting an eh gut feeling or my paranoia is rearing up again. Fabien, we already know. Opportunistic and peripheral voting pattern, and then just never showed up again so it's impossible to really change/get a new read. Araris, I've mentioned as well. Time to re-read and re-rank after I get a life, I guess.

Did I stutter? Did I say this was my final vote? We're not even halfway through the cycle and you're already panicking because I put a vote on you?