little wilson

That conclusion is operating under the idea that I knew those points were non-alignment indicative when I mentioned them, but I didn't. Additionally, I take what people say about their own playstyles in any given game with a hefty of grain salt, since anyone is willing to say just about anything depending on their alignment. If someone else were defending your inconsistent playstyle, I would be more willing to accept that over your own defenses. I also wasn't basing my suspicions off of your inconsistency from game to game. I was basing it off of the inconsistency from within this game, in comparison to that of the standard villager. Your stated motivations for certain actions do not align with what I would expect of a villager. That is the crux of my suspicion. Honestly, the more I think about it, the less I think you're evil. I still hold that you're playing strangely for a villager, but there's not one right way to be village. I don't have any others that I suspect enough to vote on, though. Kipper is worrying me a bit, but most of what he's doing is things he'd do regardless of alignment, so I'm not willing to vote on him for his actions quite yet. I find Jon's admittance of suspicious behavior on your part but refusal to get involved in the lynch there interesting as well, but that's a stance I could see from village or eliminator. Before Araris' post, I was going to agree that an eliminator is likely involved in this and that even if you are good (which you probably are), we'll still learn something, but Araris' comment reminded me of LG12, in which we had two bandwagons in the first two cycles and everyone insisted that at least one eliminator had to be involved in both of them, but none were. They were completely village-driven. Of course, both of those bandwagons happened in the last two hours of both cycles, and this has been a turn-long bandwagon, so the situations aren't exactly the same, but....yeah. The fact that Araris is pointing that out is also standing out to me as well, because it occurs to me that Araris would make an excellent Inquisitor: doesn't generally die early, is a lurker, and flies under the radar. The Spiked have access to a team kill, just like most eliminator teams in these games. The Inquisitor does not have access to this same kill. The only way they can kill is through UberSteel. Here's a clarification Meta gave me in LG2 when I asked him about the Coinshot ability: So the whole of Team Evil gets one kill. That's converts and Inquisitor. If the Inquisitor uses Uber Steel to kill, the Spiked can't use the spike kill, and vice versa. On top of this, if a Spiked has an action they can do based on their abilities, they can't use both their ability and the Spiked kill. Question, @OrlokTsubodai. Is smoking passive or active?

I'm on my phone now, so this is going to be quick, but my non-alignment indicative comments were in reference to you using those things as reasons for your current alignment. They are not, given your play style. I don't care how you've played in past games. I'm looking at this game in particular and what I see is inconsistency that doesn't match up with typical village play, in my experience. You can claim the inconsistency to be just an effect of your play style, but that's not going to help you because it doesn't say anything about this specific game. And I still think you could've skimmed the thread enough to cast a vote. Not enough for any kind of analysis, but hey, you were the one saying a lynch was so important. Not multiple vote manipulation. One. All it would've taken was a single soothe for the vote to be a tie, given the vote count at the end of the cycle. I actually considered soothing a vote off Sart, but decided not to because he'd voted for himself and hadn't said anything after that so was basically inactive. Wouldn't have mattered if I had, given the riot, but still. I guarantee I voted before voting on you in AG 3. I'm pretty sure I cast a vote on Dalinar's first lynch though not for him, and I know I voted on Hero in the second lynch. I was also part of the bandwagon that took Rae's first life and kept Nyali alive for a cycle longer. So yeah, I definitely voted many times before voting for you. I generally try to vote in every cycle of the games I play, regardless of my alignment.

Which is precisely why I did it. Impulsiveness FTW. Or FTD in this case.

You know what? I'm going to make things a little more fun for me. My role is Village Soother. I soothed Ecth's vote on D1, to make sure that Mark wouldn't die due to vote manipulation, since Mark was actually active. For as long as I live (I expect this won't be long), I will soothe one vote off a player of my choice each day, and I will PM a random person just before turnover to let them know what vote I'm soothing, to prove that I can still soothe and have therefore not been converted. Vote manipulation has the added benefit of seeing if a person is smoked or not. It's like an additional mini seeking, and given that the spiked team will soon have two converts with copper spikes, and there's a good shot that one of them will take, so long as the village smokers aren't smoking, all village emotional allomancers can use their abilities the same way. Sorry, Aman. I know you wanted me to keep this under-wraps, but honestly, given that Lopen and Kipper knew already, and either could've been converted, or would be at some future point (assuming Kipper isn't the Inquisitor), there was a high chance the Inquisitor will find out my role regardless, assuming he doesn't know it already. Plus, I like the idea of being a publicly revealed Misting and seeing how long I'll survive. Anyone want to start taking wagers?

I'm going to have fun with this.... It can be. For example, if a person has played a number of games and every time they're good, they take the game fairly seriously and don't joke around, but then they make many jokes when they're evil, joking would be considered a tell. A very obvious tell and one that should be easily fixed, but a tell nonetheless. Context is everything. Anyone of any alignment can say exactly that. Confident villagers with nothing to lose can (and do) say things like this. Eliminators who want to get villagers second-guessing themselves and potentially remove votes on them can also very easily say things exactly like that (and they have). Using the "You always mislynch me" excuse as a reason for your alignment is a ridiculous reason to give. See, eventually, a lynch will come along that isn't a mislynch, and if you use this exact reasoning every time you're up for the lynch, then that time when you're actually evil and you're up for the lynched, you'll do it again, guaranteed. So forgive me if these words mean nothing to me. The only way it would mean something is if a specific player or players have a habit of finding you suspicious when both parties are village. But it doesn't look like that's the case here. The same people might be involved to some degree or another, but they're not the reason for you being mislynched consistently. You don't know Maill because he's on a mission now, but whenever Maill and I were in a game and we were both village, I very frequently would cause his death because I found him suspicious. This happened more often than not, and it became a sort of running joke between us. In a case like that, one could easily go "Sigh. You did this same thing in these specific games, in which we were both village as well. If you're village this time, you might want to take a step back and look at the facts again." But anyway, you seem to take pride in the fact that your playstyle changes from game to game and people can't get a read on you. Which is fine. That's great. But you can't really be surprised, given that you so readily change from game to game, that people find different reasons to be suspicious of you. Because of this, you can't really say "You can't read me" because that's your entire point. You are intentionally making it hard to read you, so why even bring up the fact that people can't read you? It becomes non-alignment indicative at that point and therefore the point is moot. It can be, yes. But I would actually say that it depends on both the playstyle change and the person exhibiting that change. People learn as they play and make mistakes, and playstyles naturally shift as you play more. That's just a fact. Not only this, but there are also players who are like you and mix up their playstyle from game-to-game, never reusing a previous one exactly as they have in the past. Consistently inconsistent. With those players, a playstyle shift is non-alignment indicative. Then you have the players who are cognizant of how they play as village and can mimic their village playstyle with a fair bit of accuracy. With those players, looking for a playstyle shift will get you nowhere because there is no playstyle shift. So, sure, looking for shifts can help find eliminators. But you should rarely, if ever, lynch someone based solely on a playstyle shift, though it does depend on the exact shift and the amount of evidence you've accrued to support the shift being a tell. Playstyle changes, in and of themselves, are not alignment-indicative. Again, this just means you can't use your playstyle as a reasoning for your alignment because it's not alignment-indicative. If you wanted it to be, you wouldn't be consistently inconsistent. I don't care how consistently inconsistent players played in past games where they village. I care how they are playing now, because that's all that matters. I don't think anyone was saying that. Even when I pointed out that your words were contradictory back on Night 1, I wasn't saying I found you suspicious. On the contrary, I was nearly certain you were a Rioter, and were therefore not the Inquisitor. Contradicting yourself is merely a reason to look at a person closer, to decide if the contradiction is of malicious intent or not. That's all. There's no "hypothetical" about it. The only question is if that's your motivation. Eliminators don't like being accused for incorrect reasons. They generally dislike false positives. If you are going to accuse them, have the facts right. This is based not only on my own personal experience of being an eliminator, but also on many other people I've talked to and on eliminator docs that I have read. False positives are annoying. No hypothetical needed. From a certain viewpoint, a D1 lynch for this specific game is a bad idea. I would say that the only acceptable reason for a D1 lynch in a game like this, with only a single starting eliminator, is for momentum, as Aman brought up on D1. You didn't feel informed enough to vote, so instead of using your time to catch up on the thread and become informed so you could vote and therefore support the stance you were taking in thread, you instead used your time to write multiple posts in the last couple of hours of the cycle to tell others to vote. Right. Yes, villagers don't always want to get their hands dirty. But when villagers don't want to get their hands dirty, they usually don't pressure all the other villagers to do something they themselves aren't willing to do. And actually, in my experience, when a villager is sold on the idea that a lynch needs to happen, they're actually more willing to vote with a lynch they might not personally agree with completely, merely because they want to ensure that a lynch does happen, and isn't messed up due to vote manipulation. You see, had the Rioter not Rioted, and had one of the Soothers soothed one of the votes off Sart, it would've been a tie. No lynch. I can't count the number of times I've seen people throw a vote on a lynch in the last hour or even the last 5 or 10 minutes of the cycle to put someone far enough ahead to protect from vote manipulation. And most of the time, those people voting last minute are villagers. So you're saying that you strongly supported a lynch but didn't feel informed enough to vote doesn't fly for me. As for the villagers wanting to preserve themselves....Death is something that just happens in these games. A villager who avoids doing something they believe in merely because it might kill them later on and they don't want to die is a useless villager. If all the villagers did that, the eliminators would win every time. If one is a villager, one is basically ensured not to have malicious intent towards the village. Therefore, if one accrues suspicion for one's actions, all you should have to do is explain why you did what you did, and even if other villagers don't necessarily agree with you, if your reasons seem genuine to the action, then it should be fine. Obviously, mislynches can still happen even if one is doing that, but when that happens, it gives the villagers involved in the lynch a better read on one's personal village motivations, if they don't match up with the norm. I'll take you on your word for that, though it doesn't change my thoughts about it, since a person can be sleep-deprived, in bad health, annoyed, and also be an eliminator and over-react like that. A villager can as well. Your RL things are non-alignment indicative. Yes, it is. I'm aware. It's actually not even a factor in my suspicions of you, for the sole reason that it is an IKYK and therefore trying to guess at it is useless. The only reason I even brought it up was because everyone up to that point had been suggesting that the Inquisitor killed Dalinar to place suspicion on you, and that's not necessarily what happened. There are other explanations for the Dalinar kill, but at the end of the day, we don't know why Dalinar died. He said so little. It could've been to place suspicion on you. It could've been because you're the Inquisitor and he was fixated on you. It could've been because he told the Inquisitor in a PM that he was a Misting. It could've been because he said so little so his death would give us no information on the Inquisitor. We don't know, so speculating in a way that actually affects a persons thoughts on different players is pointless. Great. That means I was doing my job in that game, mimicking my village playstyle. Excellent. Thanks for the affirmation. Also, my laying low wasn't because of my alignment. It was because I said I wasn't going to devote as much time to the games, and I was making a distinct effort to force myself from spending too much time on that game despite my being evil in it. I guarantee that had I wanted to be active, I would've been active. You're right: this is my first vote this game. It's also only the third day of the game, and on the D1, I was against a lynch, and D2, I was busy. I missed over half of that day, and only got caught up about an hour or two before the cycle ended, and I could tell an inactive would be lynched and therefore there wasn't any point for me to get involved. It was too late to do anything, and I didn't feel the need to vote when Drought had a 5 vote lead. So yeah, I'm voting on cycle 3. How is that similar to AG3? In AG3, I'm pretty sure I voted in almost every single cycle. I didn't back-up DA's suspicions. DA's comments on you made me rethink my thoughts on you, and I had more to add, so I did. I can't be blamed for any bandwagon and to say that the bandwagon afterwards is my fault is ludicrous. Can no one add their own thoughts to another person's suspicions without being seen as inherently suspicious for doing just that? I'm not in cahoots with DA. It's for that exact reason that I would be a terrible convert right now. Because I'm expected to be converted. I'm also expected to be seeked (and I have it on reasonable authority that there is a Seeker in this game, or at least someone who claims to be a Seeker. Whether they are actually the Inquisitor or not remains to be seen). Converting me also has the added risk of not knowing my current role. If I'm regular, no worries for the Inquisitor, but if I'm a Misting, I guarantee you that I would've set up some way to confirm my ability to those who know my role (of which there would be multiple). Converting me is a huge risk. And as I said, I don't care to devote as much time to the games as I used to, so having me as the first (or second) convert wouldn't be as much of a boost as it would've 6 months ago. I'm not going to be on the doc strategizing every second of free time I have. I'm fairly minimalist in docs now, compared to my former activity. But my saying that doesn't help, because I'd say it regardless of it I'd been converted or not. Also, why can't we resolve this with Bronze? Let's say hypothetically that I were converted. The spike only has a 50% chance of taking. If it did, sure, I'd be a Smoker, and I could smoke myself, but a person who ends up smoked to a seek should be watched closer, particularly in this case. If the spike didn't take, then I'm wide open to a seeking. I see no reason why Bronze can't get involved in this. I'm not one single whit worried about a seek, because I can tell you exactly what it will find, and it won't be a Spiked anything. I'm pretty sure Aonar isn't the Inquisitor, though he could've been converted last night. One of Aonar's biggest alignment tells is PM activity. He wasn't terribly active in the thread in LG28, but he was pretty active in PMs and out of the 3 people I was working with in PMs, he was by far the one I trusted most. He's been fairly active in PMs again this time around, and he was being helpful as well, hence why I rather think he's not the Inquisitor. But he hasn't had much of anything to say so far today in PMs (though I haven't tried to talk to him either) so yeah. May have been converted, but he just as easily might not have been. And then you never voted. To me, it looked like you were voting on Ecth because you thought he was the Rioter and you didn't like him accusing you. Why vote on someone you think is a villager? I think it strange Randuir mentioned that, because denying it is the only thing you could do, no matter what. If you are the Rioter, the Inquisitor would kill you. If you aren't the Rioter, you can't claim Rioter because then the real Rioter would know you were lying and would tell someone about it. If you're village in that situation, you're casting suspicion on yourself needlessly, and if you're the Inquisitor in that situation, you've basically just revealed yourself to someone, and even if that person is killed, once they die and are revealed to have been telling the truth about being a Rioter, you're done-for. You denying it tells us nothing. Yes. In standard games, this is true. In this specific game, that's less true. Killing an eliminator is highly unlikely to happen in a D1 lynch in a game with only one starting eliminator. Getting information is also negligible, since, again, there's only one starting eliminator. The useful information you gain in D1 in a game like this is stuff that doesn't relate to D1 lynches. It's thoughts about other players, and opinions about different strategies and stuff that aren't strictly relevant to D1. In other games, D1 lynches can be used to get information through ties to other players, but that's not a factor here because there was only one eliminator. And since you're so intent that a D1 lynch was crucial in this game, I think I'll ask you at the end of the game what information one could've gleaned from this D1 lynch that would've been useful and relevant for later in the game. Have fun making something up, because if you're not the Inquisitor I highly highly doubt there's anything there. Sigh. I almost miss my long posts. Not enough to bring them back though. This was a one-off. I also want to make it clear that I'm not convinced of Drake's being the Inquisitor. He might well not be. But none of his arguments can be seen strictly from a village-mindset and a fair number of them are actually rather contradictory to how villagers usually act, which doesn't really tell us anything about his current alignment, since that's his intent. He could just as easily be evil as he could be village since there's no Drake-tell that helps one way or the other. But that's fine, because I don't need past-game analysis to find things done in this game suspicious, and based on what he's done, he's the person I'm most suspicious of.

I didn't read that as DA saying inconsistency is suspicious. I read that as him saying inconsistency from a player who was specifically saying we should look for inconsistency and play style changes as causes for suspicion was suspicious. And honestly, I think DA is onto something here. I got it in my head that Drake was the Rioter so clearly couldn't be the Inquisitor, and never adjusted that alignment assumption back to neutral when he so vehemently denied bring the Rioter (and now I think he was telling the truth). So this makes me wonder about the real motivations for why he didn't vote. He never placed a single vote during the day, but I doubt his opinions about the necessity of a lynch suddenly appeared in the last few hours. Now I'm wondering if his lack of a vote was because he didn't want to put himself out there too much. He wanted a lynch but he didn't actually want to get involved. He wanted everyone else to do it for him. Which is very, very eliminator-y. I initially trusted his very self-assured comments about his alignment and lynch him to find out, and how maybe another mislynch will finally teach people about him. But considering that most of these comments weren't in relation to his alignment but his role, I'm fairly wary now. See, I can see why a villager would defend themselves from being accused of being a Misting publicly: you don't want the Inquisitor to kill you to make a convert. But that's not at all the impression that I get from Drake's defense. He seemed like he was defending himself more from an incorrect accusation, and in my experience, there's not many things that irritate an eliminator more than them accruing suspicion or attracting attention for the wrong reasons. And while the Dalinar kill could've been to place more suspicion on Drake, it could also have been to protect Drake from those same accusations, because he's exactly what Dalinar was saying. While it's a risky move to kill to protect yourself from your biggest accuser, it's still a totally valid one. And given the red flags with him, I think that's what happened. Drake.

I believe this is only the case if the converted player was a Misting themselves. There's always a slight chance a person will snap (if the snapping rules are the same as LG 2). But the only time it's guaranteed for someone to snap is if a Misting is converted, since they lose their original power. I believe there's a 75% chance the snapped will get the converted's' former ability and a 25% chance they'll get something else.

You do know that ties result in a no-lynch, correct? Sart only had a one vote lead over Mark. Vote manipulation could've easily flipped it. One soothe and it would've been tied. Not with the Riot, but it was by means apparent that there would be a lynch. And yet for the last about two hours of the cycle, you kept making posts about percentages and probability and how it was important to lynch and people should vote. Yet you never voted. That's inconsistent. And had you voted the first time you talked about how important a lynch was, it wouldn't have been suspicious at all. I don't even think it would've been a big deal if you'd voted in the last couple minutes of the cycle. Plenty of people have been known to vote in the last couple minutes to solidify a lynch against vote manip. I don't think you're evil, because if you are the Rioter, you're clearly not the Inquisitor. But at the same time, I don't get why you're fixated on Ecth. He noticed exactly what a number of people noticed (Aman and I both thought it was pretty likely you were the Rioter, based on what happened, and it looks like Rae did as well): You wanted a lynch, but you never voted. Why would someone who wants a lynch not vote? Perhaps because they know their vote will be negated because they're planning on Rioting to secure a lynch. His logic makes sense. Might not have been best to put in the thread, since if the Inquisitor didn't have a guess about the Rioter, now he does, but at the same time, he himself was being accused of being the Rioter, and Ecth has a bad habit of dying in Cycle 1, so I can understand why he'd mention the obvious second option. He's trying to keep himself from dying. Yet you're voting on him, not for putting that in the thread, but for him not thinking it was someone else? Why does that make him suspicious?

I'm curious about this too, because Drake was very adamant about lynching. He made multiple posts about how we needed to have a lynch, but I found it strange that he never voted at all, despite so much pressure for everyone else to vote to lynch. Not that I find this suspicious. I just think it's indicative of Drake being the Rioter, but he vehemently denied that. So why didn't you vote, Drake?

Rae, as per the rules, Soothers can soothe anyone (including themselves), and it's just a vote negation. Nothing happens to their vote. Rioters, however, have their own vote negated when they riot a vote. I would assume that they could riot their own vote, but I'm not sure why anyone would, since it would be useless. Their vote would be negated in the process of the riot, so it would end up no different than a soothe.

I'd like to keep doing it.

Well, you're gonna have to work on your humor then, because it definitely didn't come across. And no, I'm not angry about that and I never was. I was mildly annoyed at the time, but not angry. I was far more upset about you revealing people's roles without their say-so in the AG because that doesn't help bring inactives back into the game, and why would it, if the players don't care? It shows a severe lack of respect for your fellow players, hence my calling you out in the thread about it. Are you sure you don't carry a grudge against me for that public call-out? Because that's kind of what it looks like. Just so you know, it's not my fault you didn't scan me. That's yours, as the village seeker. Even if I were the Inquisitor, I wouldn't do a WGG after having just done one. Especially not after having pulled one in the first iteration of this game. And rest assured, if I were the Inquisitor, I would kill Orlok because he asked me to join so I could play casually. The Inquisitor is not casual play. But go ahead and paranoid about that, assuming I'm lying (I'm not). Also, it's not actually alignment-indicative. See, there are two potential driving emotions here. The first is paranoia, which would indicate that I'm the Inquisitor, because only the Inquisitor would be paranoid about others thinking they're the Inquisitor. The other emotion is annoyance, which is easily felt by a villager who is irritated that someone refuses to put their money where their mouth is. I feel like it's pretty evident which emotion this is, what with the snark towards his comments yesterday. He acknowledged that my points have logic (right before voting on Mark), but also says that I clearly don't believe myself because of the failure in my logic. Because that makes sense. Trust me, Arin, if I hadn't thought something through all the way and realized that my logic was incorrect or that I'd changed my mind, I would have no qualms accepting that and publicly acknowledging that. I wouldn't run with a view I don't believe. Because here's the thing: I don't care what you or hardly anyone else thinks. Call me evil. Be paranoid. But have a better reason that your own self-contradiction and grudge.

You know, if you're that certain I'm the Inquisitor, why don't you cast a vote on me?

That's not really what I said, nor is it what I meant. I didn't mean to get that involved, as in making a post somewhat reminiscent of my old essay-posting self. If I'm signing up for a game, I'm playing. I just have no intention of devoting as much time to it as I used to, and I wanted to try even harder to maintain that this game, due to the original's significance to me. Yes, every player has a responsibility to put effort into the game. I wholeheartedly agree with that. But when I'm asked (not by you, Aman. I think it was Mark, actually, but I can't remember for certain because I've really only been skimming the thread at best), because I advocated a non lynch on D1 when I've only done that once before (in LG 2, in fact), what in the world the village will talk about if not the lynch, as if the lynch is the only thing possible to discuss, yes, I'm going to get a little sarcastic because it's not my job to figure out every possible point of discussion. Sigh. Yes, I did, and I still do, though I could also get behind a Crusade lynch, because I do see the point of starting with momentum. I also specified that it was for this specific game, with these specific mechanics, and I acknowledged before I even suggested it that I usually always support a D1 lynch. Why in hell would I change that up if I were the Inquisitor right now? Oh, but I'm Wilson and I'm so super manipulative and totally would've considered that angle and would be bringing it up now because I'm Wilson. You're being paranoid just because it's me, and your paranoia is entirely unfounded.

The references to Uber metals are from the LG2 rules: The rules only refer to them as special abilities, but Meta called them Uber metals. Like thus in the master spreadsheet: So UberBronze, UberCopper, UberSteel, UberPewter, and UberTin.

Not really. I mean, she'd claimed to have snapped into a Thug, but she claimed that the night I was attacking her. So if we hadn't planned for that, she would've stayed claiming Regular. So in that case, no, there wouldn't have been any scan way to determine her ID. But not only would she have had to get rid of it anyway at some point, because Uber-Tin was far more valuable than Uber-Copper, I don't go with Follow the cop strategies, and I don't think you need to count on scans and Seekers to catch the bad guys. Analysis and/or gut reads can work just as well. So even if there wasn't a way to determine her ID via scans, she still probably would've been caught eventually. It just would've taken longer, in that specific game, because of those specific circumstances. But yeah. Seekers aren't a guaranteed thing. The distribution might not have one, so it's best to not rely on them 100%. Even if we do have one, it's still best to not rely on them 100%, since then you're fumbling in the dark when/if they die.

That's not a safe assumption, just so you know. The Inquisitor in the first run of this game had Uber-Copper, which allowed them to scan as a Regular Villager. I strongly suspect there is something similar in this game, to protect the Inquisitor against a scan. They will have to give up that ability at some point though, since they have to give up a power (their choice) whenever they convert. In LG2, Cessie held onto Uber-Copper until after we'd pulled a Wounded Gazelle on her and she claimed Thug. At that point, showing up as a Regular Villager when she's claiming Thug and clearly has Thug-like powers was more harm than good and would've revealed her anyway, so the next conversion she made, she got rid of Uber-Copper. She held onto Uber-Pewter until her second-to-last life was gone, since that was useless at that point as well. I figure the Inquisitor this time around will do something similar: once a power is either useless or does more harm than good to keep, they'll get rid of it. Ha. Seriously? Have you seen me cast a vote or advocate for a lynch? Oh, but obviously, I don't believe what I'm saying about not lynching, but because I can't let people know that, I've been talking about that, and also been discussing things that don't have to do with the lynch or suspicions. But that's clearly just a cover for my lack of belief. Brilliant. You caught me, Arin. Amazing.

I've said similar things as well, even before Aman said it. I just don't care enough to go find them. There's nothing inherently wrong about acknowledging an IKYK, and it's well-known (to players who've played 3+ games with me) that I dislike them and mostly tend to ignore them, beyond an initial acknowledgement. Also, because I missed this the first time around: Just because the Inquisitor is more likely to adopt a passive playstyle at the beginning doesn't mean they will be silent. Cessie, the Inquisitor in LG2, wasn't silent. She posted. She just adopted a very neutral stance, since she was brand new to the games (but most of us were at that point). I fully expect the Inquisitor to be posting, and possibly even taking an aggressive stance, depending on who it is. For example, were Meta the Inquisitor, I certainly wouldn't expect him to be passive. Same with Aman. There are certain players who won't adopt a passive playstyle because it's so against how they generally play that they cannot. But most others are easily able to be passive. It's more likely that the Inquisitor will have a passive playstyle at the beginning, but it's not certain, and it's certainly not a must for them to be silent. And if they speak at all, they risk attracting suspicion and the lynch. Passive players have done so in the past so it's not hard to imagine it could happen again. As for discussion if we decide not to lynch: there's plenty to discuss and to try to minimize that is ridiculous. We can discuss role and actions. We can discuss potential Uber-metals. We can discuss roleclaims. We can discuss things players have said thus far. Or, better yet, we can try to engage those who haven't posted yet and draw them into the game. There are many things we can discuss, and it's not my job to figure that out for you. But here's a question for everyone who thinks we should lynch D1: With only 1 eliminator in the game right now, what information do you expect to gain in the lynch discussion? In a normal elimination game, where there are multiple starting eliminators, you can potentially start tying players to one another based on how they defend each other, assuming you're paying attention and taking notes and willing to look back on those notes and tie things together (most people say there's information in a D1 lynch, but they rarely, if ever, go back and find it to use it). Day 1 lynches in standard games are good, particularly for the players who analyze and take notes. But that's not something that's going to happen on this Day 1 because even if the Inquisitor defends anyone, it's not a legitimate tie because that person isn't a teammate. The Inquisitor has no teammates right now, and they're unlikely to give away their alignment if they are talking a lot and taking stances. Therefore, we net practically zero in terms of useful information, and we kill one of our own. Nice job? Oh, but if we don't lynch, we'll start D2 in the same place, but with one player dead. Yes. And guess what happens if we do lynch? We'll still start D2 with practically no info, but this time, we'll either be two villagers down, or one villager and a convert. That's even worse. Please explain to me why a D1 lynch in this game is absolutely critical. Lastly, Yitzi's idea has merit for this cycle, though I think it's more about the Seeker building a circle of people they can trust for now. However, this is running on the assumption that we even have a Seeker, which we might not. I will assume we do until I see proof to the contrary. The Inquisitor is highly unlikely to show up as "Inquisitor" on a scan. With how outnumbered he is, proper balance dictates that he has something to keep him relatively safe until mid-game, assuming nothing goes drastically wrong (like a lynch survival and scan as a regular villager). His Uber-Copper (I definitely think he has Uber-Copper, or something similar) likely makes him scan as a villager. Whether that's a regular villager or a Misting or even a Mistborn remains to be seen. I strongly suspect it's regular villager. And to address Rand's counterpoint, that's not really an issue right now. Assuming the Inquisitor has the ability to include another person in his uber-coppercloud (I doubt it), that would probably be an active inclusion rather than passive, which means that if he decided to do that, he'd be sacrificing his kill or his conversion, since he can only do one action per cycle. Until a Smoker dies and the Inquisitor converts someone afterwards, we can safely assume that the Inquisitor isn't interfering with scans, unless he himself is scanned. It would probably be wise of the Seeker to be wary of regular villager scans and not blindly trust those you've scanned because the Inquisitor could convert someone in your circle. ...I wasn't supposed to get this involved. I'm actually a little irritated at myself now. :/

I'm not going to quote because my phone is being stupid and I just woke up and don't feel like being a terribly serious post. Let me first say that I knew that post would get me some flack. I didn't care and I still don't. I'm not taking this game very seriously because I signed up on a whim and because Orlok asked me to (he also felt that what better way to show that I'm not serious anymore than the rerun of my first game as an eliminator, and I happen to agree with that). So very quickly, I'll say that the "contradiction" you are seeing isn't a contradiction. It's a misinterpretation brought about by my not completely finishing the thought there. Anyone who survives the lynch will either be killed or promptly scanned. The Inquisitor in LG 2 scanned as a REGULAR VILLAGER. Therefore, they cannot be a Thug. Therefore, how did they survive the lynch? Therefore, the game ends cycle 2-3 because they're lynched again and any and all village coinshots target them. I don't know about you all, but to me, a win isn't worth it in those circumstances. I like it when games are memorable, and that's not memorable. It's boring. The game hasn't even really gotten underway at that point.

For some reason, I thought this game was starting tomorrow. A couple things I want to say. First, Rae, there's one critical error in your logic. Mage couldn't convert. The Inquisitor can. So the Inquisitor might act similarly to Mage at the beginning of the game. Might. But it's just as easy for him not to as well. That said, most past conversion games where the converter started alone, they were pretty quiet at the beginning, and then as they built up a base of allies, they'd tend to get a little more vocal. Still player dependent since some players still stay quiet, like Sart in QF4, but I think the Contribution Crusade will help with that. I'd suggest watching those who start out quiet and then get more vocal. (Of course, now that I've mentioned this, they'll probably play differently, if they were going to do that.) Len, the conversions are based on the number of powers the Inquisitor starts with. They have to give up a power for every conversion they make. The number of powers they have will be dependent on player count and I don't know how many players we have and I'm on mobile and too lazy to check the previous page for the player list. It'll likely be between 20-25% of the player count. And I'm nearly certain the Inquisitor would've started with an Uber thug type power, where they have multiple lives. Which makes what we do today interesting. See, usually, I advocate for D1 lynches. For this specific game, in these specific circumstances, for these specific mechanics, I am going to advocate against a D1 lynch. Why, you ask? Let me explain: 1) There is only one evil player out there right now, and they almost certainly will not only survive the lynch, if it were to hit them, but they also likely have a cover for their alignment/role (LG 2 had one that showed up as a Thug first hit, Inquisitor second hit, and died third hit) so even if it does hit them, we won't know for sure they're the Inquisitor. 2) The Inquisitor cannot convert until a Misting is dead. The village lynched their Coinshot on the first lynch, in a bout of terrible luck, and the Inquisitor used that spike to convert someone. The spike took, giving the eliminators an additional kill right at the start. I was that Spiked Coinshot. I would prefer to avoid the risk of lynching an important village role and thus putting more potential power into the eliminator's side too early. Plus, if we don't lynch, there's no way we'll kill a Misting, and therefore the Inquisitor cannot convert tonight. Easy peasy. 3) The game would be lame if we lynched the Inquisitor on the first lynch. That is all I have. I'll RP next time, but like I said: mobile. It's now late and I must sleep. Good night.

And it's about time this game gets locked up. I want to thank everyone for staying active. Yeah, it was short, so it was easy to stay active the entire time, but still. Thanks. And while it was short, I think it went well enough. I enjoyed running it with Stink, and I've got some more ideas of how to fix it for a third run. If I do a third run. We'll see. Thank you, Stink, for running it with me and handling most of the writeups. It was a great time. As always, if anyone would like to try your hand at running a game, just get a hold of Gamma, Meta, Alvron, or myself. Not only will we get you added to the list, but we'll be more than willing to help out in any way we can. You can also post game ideas, ask questions, and get feedback from everyone over in our Art of Game Creation thread too. With all the games that we've run so far, we have plenty of experienced GMs that can help you refine any game you're working on. Thanks again to everyone who played and we look forward to killing seeing you in future games!

It's okay, Master Tineye. You clearly blocked that game from your memory, forgetting that you were taken in by Inquisitor!Cessie masquerading as a Snapped Thug. - Klara wasn't native to the Western Dominance. She and her younger brother, Victor, had grown up near Urteau until they'd been thrown into the Pits of Hathsin. Thank the Lord Ruler for his untimely death (no, really. Thanks, Sliver), escaping the Pits had actually been relatively easy, and they'd started west, heading toward the Farmost Dominance. Maybe things would be less chaotic out there, away from civilization. But then she'd gotten separated from Victor. They'd set up camp one night a short distance from a small village and snuck in to scavenge for food. He never returned to camp. So she'd tracked him. Tracked him all the way to Fadrex, which had been barred to her, with walls too high for her to scale and no foreseeable way in. This Lord Tekiel, whoever he was, certainly knew how to imprison his subjects. Not that that surprised her. All nobles were the same--tyrants, the lot of them. Why would this Tekiel be any different? Still, she hadn't let his seemingly impenetrable city stop her, so when she'd heard rumors of some mysterious 'test,' where only those with invitations would be allowed into the city, she'd found one. Okay, 'found' was an exaggeration. It wasn't like she'd stumbled upon it. She'd stalked the previous owner, a man named Willie according to the invitation's salutation, and killed him, stuffing his lifeless body into an empty wine barrel. Willie wouldn't be found for quite some time, which was just as well for her. Then, she'd disguised herself as a man, which had been...difficult...to say the least. But now, wearing a costume that was at least passable for a man (though she knew it likely wouldn't fool anyone who looked terribly closely, but why would anyone do that for skaa?), she held his former invitation, now hers, tight in her hand. Her pass into the city. Her pass to find her brother. Now to figure out a way past these 'tests'....

Sorry. My move date got delayed a week, and since it's President's Day and I had work off, I spent it packing and talking to family. Well, and talking to friends, but, yeah. Anyway. I haven't spent like any time thinking about the game or the events of the night, so I'm going to vote for my second highest suspect from the last day cycle, which was Conquestor.

I had my copper off until the cycle after Arinian died, and when PMs were up the second time, Hero contacted me and told me my role/alignment to prove that he had indeed seeked me. In that PM, he told me Stick's scan as well, so she wasn't smoked when he scanned her. I don't know exactly when he scanned either of us, but...yeah. The scan on me was at least during the time my copper was off.

Huh? I didn't say I was buddying up with you. I said that Mage had been buddying up with you, and that I thought the suspicion on you was ridiculous because you were acting exactly like you always do when you're village. Sart. I think you took advantage of the swing over to Mage in hopes that it would leave two villagers dead: Mage and Stink. Three votes in the final half hour of the cycle decided that lynch. I really don't think the Spiked didn't get involved in that last minute swing, since the game is close enough that they want every mislynch they can get. Stink saving himself is no surprise, and we know Joe is a villager, which leaves you. And I think your theory about the Spiked saving Joe is ridiculous. For one, it's end-game, and Joe is a confirmed villager. The Spiked want villagers dead. The only reason they might want to keep one alive is to use them, but PMs are down, so even that's not really an option. There's no reason for the Spiked to save Joe. A villager saved Joe, perhaps even Joe himself. Additionally, I see no reason for the Spiked Lurcher to truthfully claim Lurcher. They probably claimed roleless, thug or smoker, since those are the easiest to claim without drawing too much attention to yourself, and they're also hard to verify without a seeker. I find it rather suspicious that you're trying to find a Lurcher who claimed to Joe when that's probably the villager who saved him. And of course Lurchers can lurch themselves. This is the same rule set as the past AGs, in which the Lurchers have always been able to self-target.