Orlok Tsubodai

Wyrm has asked me to close the thread in his absence. As with Wyrm's precedent, players should refrain from PMing until the next turn is up in 24 hours time.

@Arinian, I’d also point to Lemonelon, as a player who I think may well be evil, predominately on the basis of this post. I don’t see the advantage of killing off inactive players for the village, yet it’s clearly advantageous for eliminators.

And yet killing her is of no advantage to the village, whilst one would expect you to think that killing PK, who you allegedly consider suspicious, is of use to the village. What you're proposing is essentially equivalent to killing an inactive, which we have already established is to the detriment of the village. Regardless, Wilson is shortly to return to activity, as was always a possibility.

Does the fact that it is a Coinshot, rather than the lynch, working against the interest of the village make it any better? Indeed, vigilantes tend to be more accurate than the lynch, with an accuracy of 43%, vs 30% for the lynch. Having vigilantes target players unlikely to pose a threat to the village neuters the village yet more than misleading the lynch. Interesting. I had thought that obvious, but accept that there is some room for error. regardless, I don't think my case undermined. You chose to undermine a tie, rather than propagate a tie, and do so through targeting a player you claimed to believe to be village.

Rae, I might accept that, if I hadn't made clear that I'd rather vote on PK, had you not been online following my making that clear, and had you not made the following post: There are a few things I find suspicious with this post - firstly your views on Wilson and PK, and yet the inconsistency in your actions. You claim that you have a slight eliminator read on Paranoid King, and a village read on Wilson, yet voted on Wilson, then tried to kill her after the second tie, ignoring the opportunity to lynch PK. I'm afraid I don't consider your worry about malicious vote manipulation all that convincing, given there had been no evidence of it occurring during previous turns. I'd also draw attention to your asking for inactives to be killed. This is not a policy that serves the village. An entirely inactive eliminator will not submit kills. If we get to that stage, we can lynch the inactives ourselves, but at present they provide a buffer allowing active villagers longer to analyse before the eliminators win on majority. Further, is there not contradiction between this and finding semi-actives suspicious? Why wouldn't you call for the deaths of suspicious, rather than inactive players?

I am of the view that Rae and Paranoid King are both evil. My view here is informed predominately by Rae's actions last cycle. Rae, as a claimed and proven soother, chose to change the voting from a tie, a situation without a village death, to one in which a relatively obvious villager would die, claiming self preservation. After discussion with her over messenger, Rae claims that she was worried about offensive vote manipulation leading to her own death. Should she have wished to ensure a tied lynch that did not leave her vulnerable, she could have voted on PK, and soothed a vote on herself, tying the votes at 2-2-1 for Wilson, PK and herself respectively, rendering her invulnerable to even a malicious rioter. This, I think, makes it quite clear that Rae's action was offensive, and designed to cause the death of a villager. By extension, I believe PK is also evil. When I voted on Rae, I also made clear that I'd rather lynch Paranoid King. Knowing that I was online, Rae maintained her vote on Wilson, rather than switching to PK, who I think is far less obviously village than Wilson. It ought to have been clear to her that at this stage she could still maintain a tie through switching to PK and soothing a vote on her, or have lynched Paranoid King with my support. For the sake of clarity, I am a soother. For the purposes of confirming the narrative above, you can ignore the soothed vote on Wilson, which I placed after it became obvious that Rae would not retract her own vote. @Arraenae, @Paranoid King, @little wilson

Rae. @Arraenae, Inthink you’re more likely to be evil than Wilson, and whilst I’d like to lynch PK, see this as more useful than letting village!Wilson die.

@randuir, am I correct in thinking, then, that Joe voting on Jondesu for an action he had also taken himself?

I’m of the same opinion as Sart, and indeed, doing so increases their likelihood of contacting a Surgeon’s Apprentice and scanning them early, which will allow them to increase the trusted list for longer. I’m afraid I’m in very poor physical health right now, and am completely burnt out. I shall endeavour to be as active as possible, but would warn you all at this stage that my activity will not be close to the level I’ve maintained in other recent games.

@Paranoid King, what possible evidence do you have for your belief? Precedent stands entirely opposed, and you’re choosing to ignore it for a reason you have not set out. What do you think you know that means you’re choosing to disregard every other time I’ve been evil? El has been here this week, which has occupied a great deal of my time. I will make SE a priority again from Sunday, after she departs.

I’ll sign up as Locke Tekiel. This was a fantastic game last time, and I’d encourage anyone on the fence to join.

@Sart, a couple of challenges to this. The first of these centres on your following statement: "His activity level has dropped off completely after day 2, which makes me think he's been converted." Your argument here is predicated on two assumptions. Firstly, that were I converted, my activity would change considerably, and secondly, that were I evil, my activity would be diminished. Neither of these are sensible, nor fair, assumptions to make. Regarding activity, first, I'd point you to the last QF, to LG37, to QF25, to LG33, and QF22. Recent, and repeated evidence bears out that my activity does not diminish on being evil, and indeed, I try to drive and control discussion. Further, I think that suggesting that a conversion would change requires assuming that I'd make a blindingly obvious mistake. Were I evil, do you really believe that I would do anything other than maintain consistent activity? Why would I want to draw attention to myself in such a manner. My activity has instead diminished for far less sinister reasons. Partially, the Quick Fix burnt me out a little. I was pouring a great deal of energy into the game, and spending a great deal of time on it. I've enjoyed observing this game, and discussing it in PMs. I do expect my activity to pick up, though. Whilst El is now visiting me, I'm relatively free compared to recent days. I've done a great deal of travelling, attended a funeral, and looked after the friend I mentioned previously. Sart, I don't see how you can reach your conclusion without some extraordinary assumptions. I would posit, though, that something sinister is at work here. I agree with Wilson completely on this post feeling disingenuous. "Well that was disappointing", and "it always sucks to lose a villager" are banalities, and are typical of eliminators seeking to appear one with the village. Your attacks on me strike me as an attempt to lynch me through weak arguments whilst I am not focused. Sart.

@Straw, I think it unlikely that Steeldancer is currently evil. His argument was poorly constructed, and centred on lynching me for being myself. I don't think he'd risk bringing attention on himself in this manner if he were evil.

@Steeldancer, I'm really not sure what the point in this vote is. Do you believe that I should never be allowed to play a conversion game, without being lynched in the first turns? The Seer is intelligent, Steeldancer. If you think I'm the obvious convert, it stands to reason that they, too, believe me to be the obvious convert, and so will shrink from converting me, knowing I'll attract scrutiny and eventual lynching.

@Sart, I haven't been active much for a few reasons. A good friend in my accommodation block has returned from his mother's funeral, and I've focused on keeping him company - something I hope no one here has an issue with. I've had a busy day lecture wise, and am now travelling. Wyrm asked me to close the cycle because we talk on facebook relatively regularly, having got to know each other through Heirs. I'll be able to get actual thoughts up later tonight, I hope, but think this ought to allay any meta concerns you may have. Regarding activity, I'd point you to most of the recent games I've played, Sart. Last cycle was not atypical of how I play. This cycle represents an aberration, but one that I think has entirely reasonable causes.

Thank you all for such an excellent game. I hugely enjoyed playing alongside you all. Mestiv, Sony, Brightness, it was great fun to work with you. Elenion, El, thank you for running the game - I had great fun.

Wyrm has been taken ill, and had asked me to close the turn on his behalf. He has asked that PMs not be used until the next turn is up.

@Manukos, I'm pretty certain about Straw, as explained above. I'm going to look over every other player once I'm out of lectures, but for now certainly wouldn't vote for Alv or Sony over him.

Right. This, clearly, isn't a good situation to be in. I've gone back through the thread, and have tried to reassess my views of players. I'm pretty sure of @Manukos' innocence. His gambit doesn't make sense as an eliminator, although I would like an explanation of his vote switch at the end of last cycle, given his professed belief in Randuir's arguments. Looking through @Jondesu's posts, he begins the game professing suspicion of Alv for using insanity to pretend innocence, then points out the inconsistency of votes on Manukos. He's attacked for this, and acknowledges the attack, but doesn't really defend himself or distance himself. He's attacked by Sony, Mestiv, and Straw. Sony appears suspicious of his defence of Manukos, Straw doesn't provide reasoning, and Mestiv's rationale is that Jondesu is inactive. None of the reasoning provided here is terribly sound, and Jondesu asks for reasoning, and doesn't become defensive. Jondesu then reveals himself as a Nobleman, and states that he had revealed himself to the noble doc, which leads him to believe that Straw, Mestiv, and Sony are in communication, before voting on Roadwalker for self preservation. Straw immediately retracts his vote, saying that he voted for Jondesu on the basis of the scribe message, and to solidify the vote. Straw is right to say that his own vote did solidify the vote, bringing it to 3-1-1 at the time of making it, but I'd question his reliance on the scribe message. I can't really see him voting on something merely because a cleared good player expressed suspicion. Confirmed good is certainly not confirmed right, and Straw has played enough games to know this. I'm suspicious of Straw after this interaction, both because I think the reasons he offers are very poor, and feel to me like excuses rather than convincing reasoning, and because of the speed with which he retracted the vote. He claims it was because of Jondesu's role, but is well aware that having a role isn't indicative of innocence. It reads to me like an attempt to distance himself from the aftermath of lynching a village noble, already knowing their alignment. Interestingly, Jondesu wasn't attacked the cycle he claimed (although he did claim towards the end of the cycle), and wasn't attacked this cycle, either. I'm minded to believe that this is due to not wishing to confirm him as a village Nobleman, and so not bringing yet greater levels of suspicion against those who voted for him. Jondesu again questions the suspicion of Manukos, indicates that he believes there was an eliminator Noble from the death of DA, and asks for protection. Jondesu's posts conclude by stating that he'll look back through the noble doc to see whether he can ascertain any of their identities. Overall, I'm of the view that Jondesu is likely innocent, and I think the chances of a Jondesu-Manukos team are slim. I'd like to focus further on the interaction regarding Jondesu's near lynch the turn he revealed, as I think that's most likely to provide useful material to analyse. As such, I'll look next at Straw. Straw begins the game with a comment on Alv's insanity, in a light hearted manner. He then reveals possession of the One Ring, and its effects. At the time, I thought this a village move to make - I didn't think that there was an eliminator motivation for bringing it up. However, on rereading his post, and his next post, he claims that he'll focus this game on working out the One Ring, despite his no longer having possession of it. This, to me, seems a convenient excuse to remove oneself from serious lynch discussion, and that seems to be the path he's aiming to take. Straw once again comments on Alv, and is then involved in the Jondesu interaction, before completing a volte-face, and calling for Guardsman protection of Jondesu. This cycle, he merely expressed the poor position we're in, and didn't offer suggestions. My overall view of Straw is that he's highly likely to be evil, driven by his distancing himself from discussion, the timing of his attempt to lynch Jondesu, and his poorly explained, yet total, change in opinion on Jondesu. I now need to go to a lecture, but will carry on this afternoon, once I'm free. For now, my vote will be on Straw, who I think is very likely to be evil.

@Manukos, your doubts about Asterion being? Would you care to set out why you think Sony is more likely to be evil than Asterion? You agree with his case against Doc to such an extent that you rule him out from being the politician? I don't really understand your rationale here.

Interesting. I'm of the pretty strong view that Manukos is highly unlikely to be evil, and so is unlikely to yield significant information at all. His gambit was an attempt to get encryption into his post - the capitalised letters spell "Lies", and I don't see his actions as having been remotely advantageous from the point of view of an eliminator. If you flip evil, we can look at those others who have supported a Manukos lynch - namely Doc and Alv with greater scrutiny, and at those who have defended you this cycle - namely Randuir. Further, given I think it not unlikely that you are evil, we would buy ourselves a dead eliminator, which is clearly useful. @randuir, in response to your question regarding Asterion, I think Manukos represents a relatively easy lynch @randuir, what advantage would a secret vote on Jondesu pose? It certainly wasn't going to lynch him. Having looked through the Politician votes, it's completely impossible to narrow down the identity of our rogue politician. We can't rule out Drake having made the cycle two or four votes, given we know he wasn't a politician, and given he didn't vote on either cycle. If we assume it wasn't Drake, the potential politicians are Sony, Alv, Doc, Steph, Manukos, Straw, and Megasif, which doesn't really get us anywhere. @randuir, @Manukos, I don't really see the case against Sony. The evidence doesn't point to him being any more likely to be the politician than any of the other players, and it's fairly typical for new players to lurk. What information do you think it would produce, Randuir? Manukos, what are your reasons for following Randuir's vote? Why do you think his case is sound?

@Alvron, I appreciate that you're taken a view that clarity of communication won't be your forte this game, but any explanation of this vote beyond what I presume to be arguing that Manukos is making posts that don't really say anything would be appreciated. At this point in the game, we do need to scrutinise you. @asterion137, would you care to explain why you've joined Alv's vote? What are your own reasons for suspicion of Manukos? His gambit was certainly unconventional, but I don't think it's really indicative of his being evil, and think that your actions look to me like trying to get an easy lynch, rather than representing an attempt to solve the game. Unless you can convince me otherwise, Asterion. @randuir, what are your own thoughts on the state of the game, and your suspicions? More generally, despite the Long Game starting, we do need to maintain activity here, or we lose all chance of solving the game.

Because there's a difference between pressuring a single individual, and encouraging general participation through the nebulous threat of a lynch. Right now, the first is of little use to us, given the single eliminator. The second, and general participation that ought to ensue, is useful, and doesn't require me to vote yet.

I could well do so, Shqueeves. That sad, I think advocating such a post indicates a misunderstanding of my point. Rather than a classical lynch discussion, mechanics discussion, enforced by the threat of a lynch ought to increase the generation of information this turn. Voting on myself would remove the threat of a lynch, and corresponding incentive, from other players, and wouldn't serve to generate information.

What makes a D2 lynch significantly more attractive than a D1 lynch?