Orlok Tsubodai

I can't integrate this quote as an edit, so forgive me for the double post. This post also struck me as off, Elenion. It reads to me as deliberate overconfidence in the lynch on Alvron, to create an impression of surprise when he turns up as a villager. I don't think I've missed another clue as large as the C1 items, but am happy to be corrected if there is indeed a valid place for the second suspicion. Would you also mind explaining why you thought there were four eliminators? Sart hadn't yet posted, and his post seems indicative of there being four, due to the C1 exposure, but without that acknowledgement, I'm interested in how you got this number.

Steeldancer, why would you, as a villager, worry about my having a kill role, based on my historical accuracy? This seems like an attempt to cast doubt on me, given it’s not a sensible objection to my having the capability to kill. @Elenion, why do you so easily discount Budgie from your analysis? BR suggested item accountability, which I think poses a greater threat to the eliminators than Monster’s suggestion, yet you acquit Monster and vote on BR. Why?

Alvron, Jondesu, mainly to open up the lynch, and to see whether anyone changes it further. A tie does sound interesting. I believe the vote count is now as follows: Alvron: Kynedath, Jondesu, BR, Drake, Elenion (5) Jondesu: Steeldancer, LivingLegend, Orlok, Eternum (4) Orlok: Caesura (1)

Well, acting as a liaison as I am, the eliminators have decided that they do not in fact want assistance, or a change in village strategy. They're prepared to play the game as is.

They did. That was me, before I realised that the impact of the supply mechanic on me also carried over to the eliminators.

Sherrah sat on the edge of the mountain, watching the fires march every closer. They burned bright against the cool evening sky, a mix of bloody crimsons and blazing yellows and dark violets. “Once upon a time, a village called Rennan stood on a mountain,” she whispered, beginning the story that had passed down from the lips of generation after generation. She could barely hear herself over the crackling and popping of the fire. “The world had fallen, and yet that one light remained, surrounded by the growing darkness.” The stories had gotten that wrong. The fires surrounding Rennan burned brighter than anything around else, overpowering the soft Stormlight that illuminated the village. Sherrah could almost find it beautiful, if not for the destruction it heralded. They’d killed Axolotl today. Another villager, dead. Another innocent, dead. “And even within the town itself, darkness began to stir...” That too was wrong. The darkness had been there all along, inside the faces of friends and family, neighbors and lovers, people she had known since birth. Now, Odium’s Sympathisers walked openly in the streets, uncaring of who saw them perform their murderous deeds. Anyone who would have had the nerve to take them down was already dead. Even Sherrah averted her face when they passed her way, knowing that she could buy the townspeople some more time if she attacked, yet too frightened to so much as shake a fist at them. “The darkness grew and grew,” Sherrah continued. “As the villagers fought, day after day, their hope faded, and with it, their strength…” Her voice faltered. She knew how the story was supposed to go; she’d said it thousands of times before the crowds of children that used to flock around her. So why couldn’t she describe the valiant heroes that had risen up and beaten the Voidbringers back? “Out of the ashes,” she forced out, “valiant heroes rose to do battle.” A spark landed on the ground next to Sherrah. She flinched and jumped back, frozen in fear. The spark latched onto the dry grass below it and burst into flame, hungrily consuming at the fuel below. “Fire!” Sherrah yelled. “Fire on the mountainside. Help!” She turned and ran, leaving forever unsaid the ending where the heroes had triumphed over the forces of darkness. She couldn’t bring herself to lie, again. All credit to Mint Heron for the writeup. Violet Axolotl was lynched. They were a Villager. Vote Count: Violet Axolotl (4): Amethyst Scorpion, Azure Mouse, Mauve Crocodile, Sage Kangaroo, Sapphire Elephant Azure Mouse (2): Ivory Dragonfly, Mint Heron, Sunburst Toucan, Violet Axolotl Amethyst Scorpion (1): Fuchsia Ostrich Night 8 has begun. It will end in just under 24 hours, at 10pm GMT on the 7th February. Player List 1. Amethyst Scorpion 2. Azure Mouse 3. Amber Vulture - Villager 4. Charcoal Hyena - Cannoc - Villager 5. Chartreuse Penguin - Villager 6. Coral Swan - Elyle - Village Lightweaver 7. Cream Tuatara - Villager 8. Emerald Falcon - Aldrick - Villager 9. Fuschia Ostrich 10. Indigo Weasel - Village Elsecaller 11. Ivory Dragonfly - Nolan 12. Magenta Albatross 13. Mauve Crocodile 14. Melon Dingo - Quentisan - Village Edgedancer 15. Mint Heron 16. Onyx Flamingo - Squawk - Village Lightweaver 17. Opal Lion - Villager 18. Oxblood Beagle - Jai - Village Willshaper 19. Pearl Chameleon 20. Plum Rhinoceros - Villager 21. Quartz Zebra 22. Saffron Iguana - Emalia - Village Lightweaver 23. Sage Kangaroo 24. Salmon Meerkat - Village Bondsmith 25. Sapphire Elephant 26. Scarlet Octopus - Village Edgedancer 27. Sunburst Toucan - Vanna 28. Taupe Gecko - Villager 29. Turquoise Gorilla - Village Dustbringer 30. Violet Axolotl - Villager

Change of plan, again. Legend has contacted me, and I'll go for the gun. I don't see why I shouldn't be accountable, at this stage.

So, it looks like Legend has already claimed to be going for the gun. I'm instead stealing from them. Feel free to verify this action, if you so choose. I stand by my analysis from last cycle, to be clear. I was (clearly), wrong about MacThorstenson, but still do consider Steeldancer with some suspicion.

I'm still very unwell, so I'm unlikely to see the thread again this cycle. I've been asked in PMs and in thread why I didn't show as taking an item, and at this point don't see why I shouldn't present my case. This game is broken. It's great fun, and a fascinating concept, but the mechanics favour the village to an incredible degree. This isn't necessarily Sart's fault. He sent the rules to Wilson, Seonid, and myself, and none of us responded, due to varying personal circumstances. We are at least as responsible. So, you might ask, why is the game broken? Ultimately, it comes down to the revelation of those who take items. This ensures that, each cycle, we only have a small pool of people who can make the kill. In a game of 17 people, as this is, the eliminator team is unlikely to be more than three players. The eliminator team have a limited number of people through which they are able to rotate their kill placement, and as the game goes on, they're going to become more and more exposed. Part of this will be mitigated by people using items they pick up, but many of these are verifiable, and the village should be able to use that information to catch the eliminators with some degree of ease. As such, I chose not to take an item to provide some degree of smokescreen. Now, you may ask why I'm claiming this, as actually claiming undermines the value in proving a smokescreen. On reflection, I think that my actions alone will not be enough, and suggest that individual villagers choose a turn or two in the game, perhaps by rolling a dice, in which they won't take an item, or an action. Doing this should make it much easier for the eliminators to actually make kills. You might now be asking why I'm suggesting that the village intentionally handicaps themselves. My answer, ultimately, is fun and sportsmanship. An eliminator team that are locked down are unlikely to have fun. They'll be under significant amounts of pressure, and won't feel like they have an avenue for victory. I suggest people look at LG4 for a strong example of this. I further contend, though, that the village will have less fun if they don't help work around the rule change. SE games are meant to be a competition, and an easy victory takes away from it actually being a game. A further question you might ask me is why I've put so much thought into this. I am the Thief. I can't win the game, due to mechanics that are yet further broken for the Thief. I need to acquire five bribes over the course of a game unlikely to last more than seven cycles. It's made public if I pick up bribes. Both the village and the eliminators are working against me, and lose if I win, so are incentivised not to pick up bribes. Bribes get destroyed if used on players other than me. My path to victory could only be to steal from five people, who are highly unlikely to pick up bribes, before they actually use them on anyone. In the same way as the eliminator kill, doing so exposes me to scrutiny for not picking up items, but unlike the eliminators, there is only one of me, so the action can't be cycled. I recognised this upon getting my PM, and decided at that stage to have fun with the game, and then to try to help address balance. Why am I claiming? Firstly, to add credibility to my suggestion that we ought to help address the imbalance in the game. I'm the Thief, and can prove that I'm the Thief. I'm not making this suggestion as an eliminator trying to subvert the village, but because I am legitimately worried about balance in the game. Secondly, because I'm unwell. If I get lynched, it won't matter all that much to me. I've been trying to have fun this game, and claiming is an interesting move. If you let me live (which I'll set out a reason for shortly), I'll carry on just having fun. If not, I'll just convalesce. Thirdly, to offer to act as a mediator between the two sides. If the eliminators believe they can manage without our aiding them, they can let me know, and I'll relay it. If they believe the game still to be broken, I can communicate that. Fourthly, to suggest that I take the gun. I'm a neutral party, and I can't win. I have no use for the gun, but instead can act as a safe place for the gun to be kept without either side using it. In addition to those two reasons for leaving me alive, I intend to continue playing the game as I have been - doing genuine analysis, and stimulating discussion. If you look back at cycle 1, I'd argue that I created a significant amount of the information generating discussion, which benefits the village, and prevents the game turning into a low activity game, with lurking eliminators. I'd quite like to stay alive to carry this out - I am having fun, and ultimately, it matters little to me whether Alv actually is evil or not. Kind as he has been in PMs, I am in danger of being lynched. Alvron.

I've been hospitalised, and may not be able to post again before the end of the cycle.

Unfortunately, due to illness, the new thread will be up in just over 22 hours, at 10pm GMT on the 6th February. Edit: I've since been hospitalised. I'll give a time for the new cycle as soon as I have enough information to make a judgement.

I’m currently unwell, and will come back to this in a couple of hours, but I ended up PMing nearly three quarters of all players last cycle. I think it’s also a misrepresentation to say that I asked Alv for assistance in thread. I asked for his thoughts on Steeldancer and MacThorstenson, both of whom I was suspicious of, just as I asked ten other players their thoughts on the two of them.

I think this view ignores the fact that villagers also communicate through PMs, particularly when discussing suspicious behaviour, which, in my mind, includes limiting information. All that said, I’ve just had an interesting PM from Kynedath discussing Steeldancer, suggesting that I should look at his arguments from a more emotional level, and consider that he might be attached to an idea, and then reacting to it being attacked. Steeldancer, I apologise if I’ve come across as heavy handed. I mean no personal slight. I’ll look back over the thread tomorrow, and will try to discuss your views in a more open minded manner. For now, Steeldancer. MacThorstenson, based on the aforementioned lack of consistency in his statements and his actions, and my perception that he was looking for reasons to vote on me, rather than having reasons to do so.

Thank you for writing this out - it’s good to have something to respond to, at least. I still have a couple of questions. You say you’re voting on me because you disagree with how to play, but then act in a way that would express agreement - voting despite limited information. This seems inconsistent. Given your previous answers, it seems like you’re rationalising a vote on me, rather than voting on me for preexisting reasons. If you don’t disagree with my logic against Steeldancer, and you’re only voting on me because of gut, why not switch to Steeldancer? Steeldancer has provided a string of alignment indicative posts, and not lynching without more information than he’s provided encourages lurking as a playstyle, as people won’t stick their heads above the parapet to create discussion. If he hasn’t provided enough, I’m curious as to how you’ll justify votes on future cycles, given most players haven’t done anything alignment indicative.

@Steeldancer, the eliminators begin the game with a significant information advantage. They likely know the information already. Hiding information of this sort does nothing other than keep it from other villagers. Your strategy of looking for information leaks is doomed to failure anyway. You’re not the only one people have PMs with, and if they discuss you in those PMs, looking for information leaks turns up too many false positives. Ultimately, Steeldancer, my position has been entirely consistent. I have worked for information to be public because I am, and always have been, of the view that the village benefit more from information becoming public than eliminators. I don’t see why this view is something worth voting for me on. You didn’t acknowledge, much less respond to my point about the eliminators having information from multiple sources, which frankly undermines your position. Overall, you seem to be cherry picking points to respond to, and ignoring inconvenient responses, in order to portray an inaccurate picture of my motives. I believe I’ve created significant amounts of discussion this cycle, and contributed useful ideas, and frankly don’t see a lynch on me as useful or justifiable. Glad though I am to see you engaged, your strategies are not novel, and I think you’re scraping the barrel when claiming I’m voting for you due to being threatened. I think there’s a pattern of creating strawmen of my arguments here, and it seems that you’ve decided to lynch me as a first step, and are then looking for reasons. @MacThorstenson, I would argue that at this stage my vote is not without logic or analysis. I think that Steeldancer’s position is one that decreases village information, which is absolutely critical for us to acquire in a game likely so short. Given we have had alignment indicative discussion now, holding off a vote based on previous D1 lynches not being alignment indicative makes little sense. Further, is there a reason that you simultaneously claim that you’re against voting for people unless you can put a lot of thought and logic into it, and then voting for me because you disagree with me about D1 lynches being fair? This seems to be doubly inconsistent. You haven’t justified why I’m suspicious, and are contributing to a D1 lynch despite claiming to be opposed.

Eliminators begin the game with a significant information advantage. They have multiple players. There's a reasonable chance that they already know about most of your ideas, simply by having multiple PM recipients. As I put in in our PM, your division of information means that we have at most 15 conversations, each on a single strategy, all centred on a single player, rather than up to 15! conversations, on all strategies mentioned. My philosophy in SE is that the village always need to maximise their information and discussion - I see SE as a race between the village achieving parity in information and the eliminators achieving parity in lives. This is particularly critical in this game, given the previously mentioned potential eliminator victory in 5 cycles. Everything I've done this turn has been in the interests of generating public information, and I stand by my view that having 15 conversations around a suspicious lynchpin is not a productive way of doing that.

I don't think it unjustifiable D1, although it's not the strongest reasoning I've seen. Almost as interesting is keeping the vote on me after I made clear that I wasn't aware that such an action was a staple of Kynedath. I'd like to know why you still think it worth lynching me. I'd also like your input on the other points I made - on Steeldancer, and on whether we should declare which item we're going to go for, given the potential it has to strip kills from the eliminators.

This is a fascinating angle through which to view it. I agree that it creates discussion, but do still have reservations. I think that there exists a danger that such discussion isn't alignment indicative, as it focuses on meta-discussion rather than alignment information, and I maintain my view that I'd like to see a greater number of opinions from you. Equally, I do think it fascinating that @MacThorstenson jumped on the vote on me that it created. In the expectation of more opinions from you tomorrow, Kynedath. I think, on reflection, that this is the strategy for the gun that I'm most inclined to endorse. This both presents a significant deterrent to the eliminator team, and avoids village deaths. @livinglegend, I presume you plan on holding onto the gun, rather than using it? @Steeldancer, I mean player's accusations or defences of other players, correlations of votes or lack thereof, and discussions that have occurred. You contributions thus far haven't really given us any opinions of yours, other than repetitions of standard advice. My interactions with you have given me an odd feeling, which I'm struggling to place. I'm not sure whether our PM interactions give a terribly flattering view of you. You seem to be pursuing a strategy that puts you at the centre of PM discussion, by having 15 discussions of your ideas with you alone, and not open discussions, and in so doing, your strategy decreases village information. For the record, Steeldancer's idea that he mentioned to me was looking at people expressing suspicion that they don't vote on. This is a valid, if not entirely new, factor of analysis, but should form but a part of analysis, rather than replacing it altogether. I think, on balance, I'm going to vote on Steeldancer. This, actually, makes me pretty suspicious of you, @Kynedath. I'm slightly concerned that this game might be broken, in that if every player goes for an item and declares it, we can see which players should have received an item but don't, which in turn gives a very small pool of players who could have made the eliminator kill. I'd make the same point here as I made about Steeldancer earlier in turn. I think it a pretty significant understatement of the turn to summate it as "lynch or no lynch" discussion. I think there are a number of fair lynches at this stage - I still have a vote on me, and have offered thoughts on Steeldancer and Kynedath. Given this, @Eternum, would you give further thoughts on players?

AG4/AN1 - Day 8: An Honourable Death Aldrick had been a warrior, once. He’d fought and killed and brought peace. But when the new Desolation started, he was too old, already retired to Rennan. And so he could do nothing but sit and watch in pain as villagers killed each other over tiny things, desperately searching for the killer among them. When they came for him, he fought. He couldn’t not - surrender had never been his way. But he was old, and unprepared, and there were more of them than he could fight. He died honourably, struck through the heart by a sword. And another sun rose. Emerald Falcon was killed. They were a Villager. Day 8 has begun. It will end in 48 hours, at 10pm GMT on the 4th February. Player List 1. Amethyst Scorpion 2. Azure Mouse 3. Amber Vulture - Villager 4. Charcoal Hyena - Cannoc - Villager 5. Chartreuse Penguin - Villager 6. Coral Swan - Elyle - Village Lightweaver 7. Cream Tuatara - Villager 8. Emerald Falcon - Aldrick - Villager 9. Fuschia Ostrich 10. Indigo Weasel - Village Elsecaller 11. Ivory Dragonfly - Nolan 12. Magenta Albatross 13. Mauve Crocodile 14. Melon Dingo - Quentisan - Village Edgedancer 15. Mint Heron 16. Onyx Flamingo - Squawk - Village Lightweaver 17. Opal Lion - Villager 18. Oxblood Beagle - Jai - Village Willshaper 19. Pearl Chameleon 20. Plum Rhinoceros - Villager 21. Quartz Zebra 22. Saffron Iguana - Emalia - Village Lightweaver 23. Sage Kangaroo 24. Salmon Meerkat - Village Bondsmith 25. Sapphire Elephant 26. Scarlet Octopus - Village Edgedancer 27. Sunburst Toucan - Vanna 28. Taupe Gecko - Villager 29. Turquoise Gorilla - Village Dustbringer 30. Violet Axolotl

@BrightnessRadiant, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on my second proposal - that being lynching whoever takes the gun. Through this, we can minimise village deaths through multiple players going for it, and prevent the eliminators from going for the gun unless they've already won. Edit: I really ought to read the rules better. Sneaky players undermine the value of this strategy. As such, I think a 50/50 chance, or perhaps 25/75, of each quick player going for the gun is the optimum strategy for the village. We want to know who has the gun, in order to provide a disincentive for its use. With 16 starting players, and probably 12 starting villagers, I think the greater information we derive through maintaining discussion is worth far more than a risky shot at a player, given our incredibly fine margin for error. I think that if 25% of quick players go, we're unlikely to get more than one going. For the eliminators to choose to send a player too delivers a 50% chance of death, which I think is high enough to outweigh the advantages they may derive from being able to end the game a cycle earlier.

A couple of points, here. I'll address first the second part I've emphasised, and would assert that this isn't always the case. Look at LG36, in which Joe and Cloud were caught by analysis. LG37, I was caught by analysis. QF27, the village came very close to catching two eliminators. I haven't played as much recently, but think that giving up analysis will simply let eliminators hide in the shadows. People are caught with it, and encouraging discussion leads to it. The second thing I'd call out is the first part I've emphasised. This chimes with the first post you made, giving standard advice and not really adding to discourse. @Steeldancer, what are your thoughts on player interactions? That's information far more useful to us than repeating the common wisdom about PM safety and stating that D1 lynches must occur. @Kynedath, whilst it is interesting to learn that this is a regular view of yours, I maintain my wholehearted disagreement with it. Acknowledging the possibility of a D1 lynch is something we must all do when we sign up for a game. I contend that little pleasure can really be gained from a game that you refuse to play. Being in an SE game in an of itself ought to provide little fun. Engaging in discussion, thought, and strategizing is what provides the pleasure, not merely having a role. If we don't lynch on D1, we minimise pleasure over the course of the game. We provide less information for D2, and so have a far less interesting D2 lynch discussion. If you're interesting in ensuring people enjoy SE games, it would make sense for you to seek to maximise D1 discussion, which is most easily done by engaging in the lynch discussion. If you put enough energy into it, it won't matter so much whether you're lynched at the end of the day. Having to defend yourself is hugely exciting, and you'll likely get far more out of the game than sitting on the sidelines letting other people discuss. Do you not find yourself more engaged when you have to respond to votes? @A Joe in the Bush, as stated above, I hadn't noted that Kynedath was prone to this, but stand by my vote for now. I don't think it productive for maximising discussion, or for maximising fun. Kynedath has, despite responding, not actually provided any thought on other players, which he's capable of doing without voting, which doesn't help the view that this is a convenient way to avoid suspicion.

I'm not sure the debate is over whether we will have one, Steeldancer, as there appears to be a consensus that one will occur. What I'm instead challenging is the notion of having one, and supporting one, but refusing to engage. I find it interesting that you comment as you have. I think it could quite conceivably be an attempt to seem like you're contributing whilst saying something entirely uncontroversial. If I were to don my tin foil hat, I might even question whether it is intended to portray Kynedath's actions in a far less suspicious light.

@Kynedath, this immediately strikes me as off. You want someone to die, but you're not prepared to make any alignment indicative actions to contribute to said death? The only reason someone needs to die on D1 is to generate information, and you're taking an approach that decreases the information generated. Whether you're involved or not someone will die. Kynedath, until you can convince me that this idea isn't one that actively harms the village and hides your own alignment. @A Joe in the Bush, equally, the village ought to have a quick player. If a village quick player, and an eliminator both go for the gun, we have a 50/50 chance of killing an eliminator, which presents better odds than those we'll find elsewhere. I might suggest that each village quick player flips a coin, and goes for it on heads. This ought to minimise the likelihood of multiple going for it, whilst presenting a significant enough threat to the eliminators that they may be dissuaded from going for the gun themselves. @A Budgie, I think it important that we at least deter the eliminators from acquiring the gun. We don't have many players this game as is - 16, with likely three eliminators, and a thief. With twelve villagers, if the lynch and kill are on a villager each turn, the game could end in 4.5 cycles. If the eliminators get the gun, and kill a villager, the game could end in four cycles. Given cycle one discussion is muted normally anyway, we need to maximise the time we have discussion going. As such, I propose to focus analysis on whoever acquires the gun, assuming an eliminator doesn't get killed in the process of acquiring it. Thinking about it, what are peoples' thoughts on agreeing to lynch any player who gets the gun? Such an agreement ought to act as an ultimate deterrent to anyone going for the gun.

AG4/AN1 - Night 7: Despair The days continued to drag on. Every day a death, and every night a killing. Each one innocent, each mourned less and less as the townsfolk grew numb to the deaths. As sunset fell on the village, Amber Vulture died to a dagger across his throat. He hadn’t been anyone important, true, but he had been someone. A regular person, sustaining the town, having children, and now dying. Like all the rest… The eyes of the townsfolk grew more hollow. The fear hanging over the village was replaced by despair. Sherrah still lived, still told tales to those children who would come, but those were few, now. Elysian was gone, and the children of many of those who had already died were gone as well. Amber Vulture’s children did not come to the fire that night, either, and Sherrah gazed at the few brave children sadly. And after her tale was done, she walked to the edge of the village and watched the fires surrounding the mountain grow closer. Amber Vulture was lynched. They were a Villager. Vote Count Amber Vulture (4): Amethyst Scorpion, Ivory Dragonfly, Magenta Albatross, Sage Kangaroo Amethyst Scorpion (3): Amber Vulture, Azure Mouse, Sapphire Elephant, Sunburst Toucan Azure Mouse (3): Emerald Falcon, Fuchsia Ostrich, Mint Heron, Violet Axolotl Sunburst Toucan (1): Pearl Chameleon Night 7 has begun. It will end in 48 hours, at 10pm GMT on the 2nd February. Player List 1. Amethyst Scorpion 2. Azure Mouse 3. Amber Vulture - Villager 4. Charcoal Hyena - Cannoc - Villager 5. Chartreuse Penguin - Villager 6. Coral Swan - Elyle - Village Lightweaver 7. Cream Tuatara - Villager 8. Emerald Falcon - Aldrick 9. Fuschia Ostrich 10. Indigo Weasel - Village Elsecaller 11. Ivory Dragonfly - Nolan 12. Magenta Albatross 13. Mauve Crocodile 14. Melon Dingo - Quentisan - Village Edgedancer 15. Mint Heron 16. Onyx Flamingo - Squawk - Village Lightweaver 17. Opal Lion - Villager 18. Oxblood Beagle - Jai - Village Willshaper 19. Pearl Chameleon 20. Plum Rhinoceros - Villager 21. Quartz Zebra 22. Saffron Iguana - Emalia - Village Lightweaver 23. Sage Kangaroo 24. Salmon Meerkat - Village Bondsmith 25. Sapphire Elephant 26. Scarlet Octopus - Village Edgedancer 27. Sunburst Toucan - Vanna 28. Taupe Gecko - Villager 29. Turquoise Gorilla - Village Dustbringer 30. Violet Axolotl

I’ll sign up as Orlok.