Newan

My guess is that he doesn't have good control over them, and he didn't want them to kill Reader by accident.

Claincy: Completely forgiven.

1 World War Z 2 Zombieland 3 The Legend of Zorro 4 Hot Fuzz 5 The Maze Runner 6 Zoolander WLIU, name 5 films or tv shows Alan Tudyk has been in. Here's a picture of Alan Tudyk, if you aren't good with names: (I'm going easy, because I don't know if very many people are as big fans of Alan Tudyk as I am. If you know more, go for 10.)

I'm sorry. I was definitely too rude in my previous post. Sometimes I get worked up when I feel really confident about what I'm going to say, and I forget to think about how I'm saying it. You're right. There were parts of your post that I disagreed with, and those are the parts that I was addressing, but it was wrong of me to attack the post as a whole. For example, I completely agree with the part where you talk about how two people voting closely together is not indicative of them both being spiked. However, I do think that your logic was unbalanced. But would the spiked be willing to bet everything on that assumption? I would be erring on the side of caution, but I've only been spiked 1.5 times. On those occasions, I didn't attempt any intricate gambits. Others might be more likely to do something like that. I just don't buy it, though. It's too risky for too small a chance of fulfillment. I'm not trying to be contrary here; I'm actually curious: Have the spiked tried any gambits of this caliber? I don't have that much experience being spiked, but both times all I did was try to avoid suspicion while trying to cast suspicion in other places. Sometimes I had plans that included which order we would kill people, but nothing as elaborate as this. Has something like this worked before? Because if so, I'm extremely impressed. Also, if the spiked tried this, are banking on the fact that there aren't seekers, but carry on. I don't disagree with any of what you've said here. Moving on. I would never assume you were a fool. I said in my post that I think you are crafty and genius. You are correct that my post is based on the assumption of you being spiked. I know you're mad at me, and rightfully so, but putting logic in quotation marks doesn't debase my argument. I explained my reasoning in the third paragraph of my post, right after I called your reasoning absurd. Really? Because I don't think what I said is falling apart at all. I still don't believe that spiked would try something like that. I understand your points, but what you say still doesn't make it sound like a good plan. I honestly don't believe the spiked are doing it. However, if by some chance the spiked are doing it, then good on you. In that case, which I do not consider likely at all, it is obviously succeeding. I will state my points however much I please. The purpose of my post was to discredit your argument. I did not agree with it. This attitude like you're disappointed in me, or that you expected better from me... where is that coming from? What are the great works I have composed that have set your standards for me so high? I've always been like this. I think something, and then I say it. I use emotion as well as evidence, and I try to be concise. Here, it seems that you are looking down on my post because it isn't something that you would be happy with if you posted it. But don't judge me for having a simpler play-style than you do. Also, my own apparent bias? What is that? What's my apparent bias? My points are extremely clear. What I'm currently trying to accomplish, is that my bias that is getting in the way of my points? My points are getting in the way of my points? Saying somebody is biased is usually a good way to discredit someone, but I don't think it works here because I have absolutely no agenda besides what I publicly bring to the table. Attention everyone: I would prefer not to die. When I suspect that people are spiked, I want them to die. Behold, the bias of Newan. When I created my earlier post, I was feeling extremely confident. I wanted to inform everyone in a way that could not be misunderstood that I thought your post was manipulative and false. I rushed things. What I didn't think about at the time was that, no matter what your role was, you had constructed a brilliant post that took a lot of work. The way I made my point was rude, childish, and unnecessary. If I had taken a moment to consider your feelings, I could have restated things in a way that was just as clear without being hurtful. While I haven't changed my mind on the reasoning in my post, I am extremely sorry for the way I said it. I'll be better in the future. Please forgive me.

This character will be downright villainous: Name: Iris Total age: 144 Current incarnation age: 19 Tribe: Zericia, the medicine tribe. They worship Zerix. Iris led Zericia for most of her second incarnation. It was her plot that allowed them to enslave the Pathonians. Zerician magic kept her alive for a very long time, but at age 91 she finally died. For nearly 20 years, her third incarnation has stayed out of the spotlight, practicing magic and refining her plans as she grew to maturity again. Now she wants to initiate the final step of her plan, but first she needs to regain control of Zericia. Abilities: Like all Zericians, Iris is practically impervious to all natural illnesses, and heals more quickly than members of most other tribes. Iris has the ability to touch something and instantly know how it will effect a human body. She speaks to Zerix, and often assuages his feelings that what they are doing is horribly wrong.

Pardon my Alethi, but Clan's mega post is a load of chull crem. That reasoning is soooooo precarious. Let me sum up: Weiry might not have been spiked because the spiked might have decided to use copperclouds to cast suspicion on people, even though they don't know for sure that the villagers no longer have a seeker. And the spiked might have lurched Weiry to delay us, even if he was a villager. Hahaha what?! That's absurd! Yes, I understand that it's possible, but it's also outlandish! With evidence that there are likely 4 smokers, why would the spiked risk so much based on the uncertainty that there were only 2 seekers, just hoping that somebody they smoked would be seeked so they could frame that person. The spiked don't need to do ridiculous plots where they cloud people and then lurch them, because they obviously have a smoker and a seeker! They're going to be clouding and protecting themselves, because that's what the spiked always do. (I think that's what they always do. Isn't that what they always do?) Anyway, apparently Clan thought these possibilities were redeeming enough that Weiry was less suspicious than Peng. I don't. Weiry Also, Wyrm: No, we don't know that I'm not the spiked smoker, because nobody soothed my vote last cycle, even though I asked them to. But even if I was, that would mean it was even more likely that Weiry was the spiked lurcher! (because it would mean he wasn't the spiked smoker.) Not certain, but more likely. So it doesn't make sense why you would also choose to vote for somebody who wasn't Weiry. Joe's reasoning makes sense. I tentatively believe that Mailliw is bad. This makes me feel better, because a couple of cycles ago he told me how much he trusted Clan and Wyrm. I don't trust them. Their playstyle reminds me of the pirate quick fix. It seems like they're being super helpful, and everything they say makes sense on the surface, but they manipulate by giving some things more attention than others, rather then by telling lies. It's crafty and genious, and totally forgivable for anybody to believe them enough to create a chart that shows how trustworthy they are. Right? Right??? Also, you all should know that my coppercloud is currently on. I honestly believed that I would be killed in the last night cycle, so I didn't PM Meta. And the smoker's default position is to have the coppercloud on. Sorry about that.

Ok. Well maybe that tribe doesn't live close enough to the tribe of medicine to have been part of the original conflict, but once some of the other tribes start suspecting funny business, they send for help from the tribe of contracts, or something like that.

How so? I'm not contradicting, I'm just confused.

1 Caemlyn 2 Carhien 3 Tear 4 Illian 5 Ebou Dar 6 Lugard 7 Rhuiden 8 Fal Moran (Is that all I can think of from Randland? Wow, I've really let myself go.) 9 Kholinar 10 Rall Elorim 11 Vedenar 12 Luthadel 13 Elendel 14 Hallandren 15 Minas Tirith WLIU, name 5 fictional mothers whose pregnancies have been major plot points.

Here's an idea. This could work for the middle or early times. With this idea, there can be members of the tribe of pestilence trying to break free from the oppression, members of the tribe of medicine trying to cope with what they're doing, and members of other tribes slowly realizing that they've been played. It's not a perfect idea, and I'm sure there are a ton of ways we can improve it. What do you guys think?

So if everybody from tribe A is either killed or converts to tribe B, the god of tribe A dies. If one of the converts then dies, are they (1) reincarnated as a full member of tribe B who can use the powers of tribe B, (2) reincarnated as a lesser member of tribe B who still cannot use the powers, or (3) dead forever?

Can people convert to worshipping another god, and defect to that tribe?

1 David Tennant 2 Peter Capaldi 3 Matt Smith 4 Christopher Eccleston 5 John Hurt 6 William Hartnell WLIU, name 15 fictional characters with red or reddish hair.

But what about the gene pools?! If there are tribes with around 100 people and there is no cross-pollination, so to speak, aren't there going to be an abundance of genetic illnesses?

I vote that we should play it in the early time period when there are a ton of tribes. That way, there would be a ton of different power options, and we could witness things like plots to destroy tribes. We could explore how tribes interact when they aren't at war with each other. With larger tribes, they could stay independent of each other, but with tiny tribes they would need to interact for marriages and for trade.

How does the reincarnation work? If you die and you haven't already used up your five reincarnations, are you born as a baby without any memory loss?

Well, I guess nobody decided to sooth my vote. Good coinshot: Unless you have anything better to do, I suggest that you kill me. I honestly am good, but we just wasted a lynch, and I think that people are ready to waste another cycle lynching me. I'm sorry to everyone that I have only been semi-active this whole game. I was hoping to make it up to you all later in the game, but right now my presence is being very unhelpful to team good. So it's time for me to grow up and leave self-preservation mode. Kill me.

1 Cheddar 2 Goat cheese 3 Bleu 4 Colby Jack 5 Brie 6 Mozzarella 7 Parmesan 8 Asiago 9 American 10 Swiss 11 Cream 12 Cottage 13 Feta WLIU, name 25 pokemon. (Don't worry about perfect spelling)

I have been keeping up with it. I've checked in every cycle. I just haven't been able to add to the discussion, and I don't really know who to trust or who to suspect because I haven't been able to read everything in detail. What I meant when I said that I take the game too seriously is that I really don't want to die even though it's just a game. That's how I have been every game. I've already told you why I have no alternatives to offer. I don't know the game well enough to know who I want to kill. If I was just in it for self-preservation, I would have thrown my vote on Peng back when we were tied for votes. But if we ended up with a tie, it would just make you want to kill me more, and it would waste the next lynch cycle as well. Yes, we gain information from every lynch. You would know that I was a village smoker. Yipee. This is information, but it doesn't really help. It's clear that we have at least three smokers, maybe four. Even if the spiked had a seeker, why would they take the risk to turn off the coppercloud based on the assumption that there were only two seekers total? Claincy: I have been paying attention to the thread the best I could. I didn't really know what to add. Now that people are accusing me, I have things to say. I explained my statement that I take these games too seriously earlier in this post.

1 Lee 2 Hooker 3 Grant 4 Washington 5 Ramses 6 Hannibal 7 Julius 8 Augustus 9 Dalinar Kholin 10 Davram Bashere Edit: Without looking it up, name ten fictional evil secret organizations.

Not to be that guy, but *8 Anyone holding the Casket of Ancient Winters. The Bifrost is the teleporter thingy. Flip, you've got me stumped there. I know... at least one.

I'm going to go for a European theme... 1 German Pancakes 2 Polish Sausage 3 Belgian Waffles 4 English Muffins 5 Spanish Rice Without looking it up, name 8 fictional characters with the ability to create ice or freeze things.

Yes. Yes I am. I promise to play more offensively later in the game though. Right now, I'm talking about posts that have addressed me, because those are the ones I am familiar with. If you are concerned that this is indicative of me being spiked, you can put that thought to rest. I always get defensive like this and kind of freak out when people start to vote for me, whether I'm spiked or not. It always makes me sound suspicious, and I don't know how to avoid it. But I can address it. Yes, my viewpoint is skewed because I am being targeted, but I do believe that Sarcomere's vote for me was not a good idea. It was a bandwagon. I am not spiked. It's a waste of a lynch cycle. Simple as that. Also, of all the wagons to band upon... Wyrm's vote for me was a poke vote, and Hero's was based on the idea that he thinks there probably aren't three village smokers, and he doesn't really have any better ideas so what the heck! If Sarcomere explains his reasoning, then I'll be satisfied. I'll still be freaking out, because I take these games way to seriously and I don't want to die, but at least it won't be a blatant bandwagon, which helps no one.

Has Sarcomere done stuff like this before? Because it's blatant bandwagoning, and from my perspective (which is, admittedly, a little bit skewed by the bias of self-preservation) it seems pretty suspicious.