Orlok Tsubodai

I think it pretty clear. Araris is known to us all to be a court infliltrator in the Forest, and so an opponent of our great Lord Coyote. @Darkness Ascendant, @Majestic, I suggest you join us in voting for him. Oh, and Orlok - we need a new medium in the Court.

Locke Tekiel signing up. I'm with Wilson, here, and support 48-24 cycles. My rule: Every turn, each player proposes a new rule, and the players vote to select three rules to be added to the existing rules from those proposed each turn.

Given Araris recent declaration that DA and Majestic should take the test, indicating that they've won, I'd strongly advise them to stay. We're in a similar position here in the court, and indeed probably a stronger position. @Burnt Spaghetti, It's in your best interests to take the test tonight. I give you my word that staying is more likely to result in a loss for you.

Elbereth, Clanky. Drought.

Apologies for the delay. Not only do I have jet lag, I've also returned to my parents moving house. So, the first thing to address seems to be my "sudden" suspicion of El. I freely admit that I wasn't suspicious of her before this last night cycle. However, PM interactions with her, in which she's been fairly defensive, and the sudden emergence of additional kills after the zeta dimension, from which she Is one of the two living returned players, increased my suspicion of her last night. With Burnt, I looked back through my interactions with her, and her behaviour in previous games where she was evil (she kindly sent me a link to her most recent evil doc), and decided that it was both atypical for her being evil, and far too audacious for it to be a likely scenario as evil. With regards to Lopen's alignment being tied to yours, I was partially convinced by Randuir's argument to this effect (I forget the exact cycle, otherwise I'd quote it), and am of the belief that whilst village-village suspicions are indeed likely, for a player of Lopen's use to the village, pushing an early lynch on him at a point where I think there was relatively little to suspect him for is indicative of said player being more likely to be evil. (Yes, that's a run on sentence, but I'm too tired to address my grammar).

Right. For convenience, an up to date player list: Locke Tekiel (Orlok Tsubodai) Elbe (Elbereth) Budgie (A Budgie) Altea Meza (Crimsn-Wolf) - Barrier Mage Carrie Brule (Burnt Spaghetti) Clanky (Clanky) Anwir (Drake Marshal) Anansi (Metacognition) John (Winter Devotion) - Student Small Large (Stink) - Medium Lyren (Droughtbringer) Shqueeves (Shqueeves) Pickle (asterion) Lopen (TheMightyLopen) - Zeta Tarek (Randuir) - Student BrightnessRadiant - Student Ecthelion - Student Bart Allen (Flash) Leaving the following players in the game: Locke Tekiel (Orlok Tsubodai) Elbe (Elbereth) Budgie (A Budgie) Carrie Brule (Burnt Spaghetti) Clanky (Clanky) Anwir (Drake Marshal) Anansi (Metacognition) Lyren (Droughtbringer) Shqueeves (Shqueeves) Pickle (asterion) Bart Allen (Flash) Of these, Meta is completely inactive, and Asterion is still catching up. Drought and Shqueeves have both posted relatively little, and I don't really have reads on them. Budgie posted analysis on Day Three, but I'm still uncertain with her, and leaning evil, based on very little other than their read on Burnt, who I'm reading as good, and their mostly RP in posts. I'm reading Flash as pretty evil, and set out my reasons in the last day cycle. Drake's actions in the game read as evil to me, but I'm reading his more recent posts as village, and would be reluctant to lynch him in the near term, unless I'm wrong with my actua suspicions, and the game is still going. I'm suspicious of Clanky for his calling for Lopen's death so early, but need to read back through his main post advocating Lopen's lynch before coming to a decision on it, and am far too jet lagged to do so now. I'd support a lynch on El or Budgie, today, for reasons I'll set forward below: This cycle, we had three kills, rather than the normal one. This being the cycle after the Zeta dimension, I suspect Zeta had something to do with it. Lopen and Stink are dead, leaving El and Budgie as people who could potentially have gained abilities. El has been quieter than I'd normally expect, through the game. Part of this is because we were travelling at the start of the game, but she's been at home for the last couple of cycles, and her activity isn't where I'm used to it being. This would tie into the name of the cycle - "betrayal", and Stink's death, but that could just be my paranoia. Budgie has also been to the Zeta dimension, and has been active but quiet about opinions throughout the game, which is something I normally associate with eliminators. Apologies for the short post - I'm shattered, had a 30+ hour day yesterday, and am now in a materially different time zone. I think I'm going to vote on Elbereth, and put myself forward for medium, on the basis that I'm active, and know that I'm village with far greater certainty than I have for anyone else. If people don't support my candidacy, I'd suggest making Drake or Burnt the Medium. Orlok.

My apologies, Lopen, but I'm not buying a scenario where you carried on playing the game without knowing your win condition, which makes me wonder why you don't want your win condition known. I'm unlikely to change my vote. I've been awake 16 hours on 3 hours sleep, and don't really trust myself to reevaluate, and think that your action over the last hour are indeed suspicious.

Well. This is interesting. I can believe that you're Zeta, as that seems like a very simple thing to test. My issue is believing that you're village aligned. Would you give us the details of your win condition, and your win condition as laid out at the start of the game? I struggle to believe that you'd start the game without a win condition.

@Elbereth, good to have some information on Zeta. What was discussed in the doc? Would you care to reveal the hints you speak of? Now that you have received your PM, have you got any information on why you were attacked? Has your alignment changed? @A Budgie, whilst it's great to see you RPing, do you have any thoughts on alignment? Who are you suspicious of? What do you think of the candidates with votes on them this cycle? You've been in the Zeta dimension with both El and Lopen - how did they act in there? I don't want to vote on you yet, but at some point we're going to have to pressure you to give us something alignment indicative. You have the benefit of reluctance to lynch you on your first game, but I've seen eliminators use that to avoid contributing a number of times, and it is somewhat suspicious that you haven't provided thoughts. @randuir, my own thoughts on your points are as follows: I don't think participation in the Ecthelion lynch is alignment indicative. He was a villager, and so a plausible target for eliminators, but I found him suspicious enough to vote on, and so it's not unreasonable to think that others did. I still need to look through Drake's posts again, but stand by voting to save him - I've got a stronger village sense from him recently than I had in the first half of D2. One possibility that we ought to consider, though, is that the eliminators have Gillitie roles, and so had a vote manipulator, which meant a tie was a safe place to be, and ensured Drake would be "soft-cleared" in this manner. Equally, it would be early for the eliminators to tip their hand like that, and is nothing more than speculation. Randuir, you mention that your retraction was because of DA's vote, and use that as justification, thinking that "something was going on". At this point, we hadn't had the opportunity to communicate with Forest players, so I'm slightly confused as to what collusion you think could have taken place. Would you expound upon this further, please? Having swung the lynch in Drake's favour, I can tell you that there isn't any information to derive from lynching him, but would certainly have been sympathetic to such a lynch myself if I didn't already know that it wouldn't be useful, so could forgive you for pursuing it. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning on Clanky. There are certainly arguments for building momentum on a lynch of village!Lopen over several cycles, and once committed, it would be yet more suspicious to back down. I remain suspicious of Clanky's suggestions for the voting in the meet, which would have essentially guaranteed that we reached his point in the game without information, so think casting suspicion on Lopen as an eliminator does bear thought. That said, I think the part that does make him less likely to be an eliminator in my eyes is that I think there's a reasonable chance that Lopen is evil, and I can't see eliminator!Clanky going after eliminator!Lopen like that. @Flash, I think it is safe to assume that Crimsn was attacked by the elimaintors. The alternative is that El was attacked by an eliminator in the Zeta dimension, which requires communication within the eliminator team to establish that. Given we couldn't PM them, I think it unlikely that someone in the Zeta dimension would retain doc access. Further, El was attacked in a dimension known to carry a risk of attacking its inhabitants. Overall. I don't really think this was a necessary question, and can see it being an attempt at distancing yourself from knowledge about the eliminator kill. @Flash, I know this has been called out already, but want to add my voice to the criticism of this. Given you later call out the fact that there's less information to analyse in this thread, what made you think that the contribution crusade was a good idea? Why did you think it would help us? @Flash, I've already addressed why I broke the tie in favour of Ecth, but would now like to understand the specifics of your "mixed vibes" on Clanky. Which posts are giving you village reads, which eliminator reads, and why? The issue with doing a contribution crusade is that we end up with a more active remaining player base, but absolutely no information from which to find the eliminators, whilst letting them make kills that reveal nothing, and allowing them to hand pick the active players they want alive in the end game. I cannot see it being a sensible strategy for the village, and can't really see why the village would suggest it at this point. @randuir, would you explain why believing Brightness' comment makes her village? It's entirely possible to sign up for a game for that reason, and then turn out to be evil. As I've said, I'm wary of Clanky, and think his alignment is tied to that Lopen. Agreed on Budgie, as set out above. Would you clarify your point on me? I'm not quite clear on what you're saying here. I can see arguments for lynching Flash, Lopen and Burnt, but am less certain on Shqueeves. I don't remember their posting anything alignment indicative (although I suppose their limited posting might be alignment indicative in itself). If you've got time, I'd like to see your actual thoughts on each of these players, though. @Flash, would you explain how a vote can be a Wounded Gazelle Gambit (which I think is what you meant to say)? A wounded Gazelle Gambit entails a kill, rather than a lynch. I also dislike the wording here. "Apparently", particularly stands out. Do you agree that we should be avoiding a contribution crusade, or are you refraining from it only because others oppose it? @asterion137, in case you're still struggling to keep up with the game, I don't think so, Asterion. Flash's comment didn't make sense to me, either. @BrightnessRadiant, you've commented on Drake's post, but could you synthesise your thoughts, and give us an overall view? It's difficult to get a clear sense of your alignment from this post without it. You make points both in favour and against lynching Drake, and don't really say anything controversial. Do you think @Drake Marshall is an eliminator? @BrightnessRadiant, given you appear to be reading pretty elimaintor on Clanky, why refrain from voting? Do you have stronger suspicions on any other player? Given your current thoughts on Clanky, what are your thoughts on @TheMightyLopen? @Drake Marshall, I don't know that I like the fact that you don't appear to be reevaluating your initial list, given the information that's been generated thus far. Why aren't you doing so? I'm still not certain about Burnt. She's continued to act suspiciously inn my PM, but I don't think she'd be so blatant about it if she were evil. At some point, I'd support her lynch if only for my peace of mind - I don't like ruling someone out on the grounds of something being "too obvious", but I don't think she'd generate much information, and am more suspicious of other players than her. I'd like further alignment indicative material from Brightness Radiant, but definitely don't think a lynch is the right way to pursue that this cycle. I agree that Budgie needs to come further into the spotlight, and think it might be worth making clear to her that I might be prepared to vote on her next cycle if she continues to hide. I'd contribute suspicion of Lopen for his reading of me. I'm paying in a pretty similar way to the style I used in QF25 (and LG36), and Lopen was consistently sceptical of me. I don't think I've done as well as I could have in making it obvious that I'm a villager, and yet Lopen is reading me as village, rather than uncertain. It's a small thing, but I think there's a chance that he's saying this because he knows my alignment. Lopen, I really don't like the part of this post to which I've added emphasis. It reads to me like you've already made your mind up on pursuing a lynch of El, despite your argument being that she hasn't given you anything alignment indicative, and that you intend to make a case for lynching her, rather than trying to work out whether she is suspicious. Why are you so set on lynching her? Would you justify your view on BR? Randuir, I agree that Flash is pretty likely to be an eliminator, and think this raises an interesting question. Is it worth lynching Flash? I don't know that at this stage he poses any danger to us, and don't think he'll reveal terribly much information. What would be more interesting is keeping him alive, and watching how he interacts with other players. In AG3, I caught Wilson very early on in my analysis - Nyali made a slip up, and referred to a "second" WGG, incriminating Wilson. It was incredibly useful to go through the rest of the game as I was catching up knowing the identity of an eliminator, and it allowed me to identify Hero as another eliminator (sadly, I collapsed towards the end of the game, and was unable to actually get my suspicions in thread, but you can verify this with Wilson). It's clearly a risk, and would be less useful given Flash would know he was being watched. Given I don't think his death would give us much information at present, and there are other suspicious players who would give us a great deal more information, I think it's worth the risk that we wait too late to lynch Flash. Ultimately, we could get a string of incredibly useful mislynches right up to lynch or lose, and then use that information to get the entire elimaintor team. Whilst an extreme scenario, and one I hope doesn't happen, I hope it helps illustrate that information is more useful to us than a dead eliminator whose death won't reveal information. Flash, could you point to three instances of you doing so in the woods thread, where we know you were a villager? Why are you removing your vote from Drake? Why does opposing the contribution crusade clear El? There are a number of players who opposed the contribution crusade. DO you apply the same logic to all of them, and so clear them? Highly active players can also be eliminators, Flash. Yes, it's high exposure, but also influences opinion. Look at Wyrm in QF9 as a shining example of controlling the thread discussion as an eliminator. I agree that the contribution crusade thing is NAI for El. It's a view she and I hold generally, and that I'd expect her to make whatever her alignment, lest the contribution crusade become a prevalent tool again, and so influence future games. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Lopen. At the moment, I'm suspicious of either Clanky or Lopen, Budgie, Flash, and wary of Burnt. I don't think Burnt warrants a lynch yet, but do want her to engage in the thread, so I can get a non-PM read from her. I think Flash is evil, but don't want to lynch him at the moment for the reasons set out above. I think that there's a reasonable chance that Budgie is indeed hiding, but want to give them a cycle to engage before voting on them. I think Clanky may well be evil if Lopen does turn out to be village, but at the moment think Lopen is more likely to be evil than Clanky, and so Lopen has my vote for now.

Flash, I essentially led the lynch on Drake. Why would I do that if we were teammates? For that matter, why are you reading evil on Drake? I am still suspicious of Drake, although to a lesser extent, and intend to do a full readover of his posts today.

I'll be gone for the next few hours, and a longer post to come shortly, but predominately because I was starting to get a village read on Drake, and wanted more time to observe him. Both Ecthelion and Drake were people I considered suspicious, but I thought that there was a higher chance of Drake being village, and so broke the tie in a way I considered productive.

So, the player list still here for this night is as follows: Court: Locke Tekiel (Orlok Tsubodai) Altea Meza (Crimsn-Wolf) Carrie Brule (Burnt Spaghetti) Clanky (Clanky) Anwir (Drake Marshal) Anansi (Metacognition) John (Winter Devotion) - Student Lyren (Droughtbringer) Shqueeves (Shqueeves) Pickle (asterion) Tarek (Randuir) BrightnessRadiant Ecthelion - Student Bart Allen (Flash) Woods: Marv (Hemalurgic Headshot) The Inspector (Paranoid King) - Forest Dweller Kintas (Jondesu) Straw (Straw) - Forest Dweller Bart Allen (Flash) - Hollow Faerie Rendren (cloudjumper) Jordren (Majestic) Noah (Eternum) Centaurus (Darkness Ascendant) Stick (Stick) - Protector Apologies, Ecthelion. Thoughts on the lynch to follow once I've had some sleep, and time to look through it.

@randuir, in my PM with Ecthelion last cycle, he gave "wanting to test the vote minimum" as his reason for voting on Shqueeves. I'm in two minds on him. Objectively, his actions are suspicious, and seem counterproductive to the village. Equally, Ecthelion is an experienced player, and I can't see him wanting to draw the sort of attention that a single vote on a player might give. I certainly wouldn't have done so, if I were evil. That said, it's possible that he could have considered a village death worth some degree of suspicion, and counted on us believing that it's too suspicious an action for an eliminator to make. Lopen has been consistent in his suspicion of Drake - he brought it up during N1, in my PM with him, and said that he didn't find Ecthelion's actions suspicious. @TheMightyLopen, would you give your own position on @Ecthelion III, in greater detail? During N1, I was getting a slightly village feel from Lopen in my PM with him, but going back over it, I'm no longer reading it as providing a village sense. Regardless, I'd rather lynch Ecthelion over Lopen, and keep Lopen engaged, and so providing material to analyse. @BrightnessRadiant, why would the contribution crusade lynch be on Shqueeves if he had posted? More seriously, I'd like to see greater explanation of this "weird vibe" you've had. Was it anything beyond the contribution crusade advocation? I have no doubt that the two of you spoke in PMs - what were your thoughts on Ecthelion from his PMs? Given @Drake Marshall and @Clanky's posts this cycle, do you remain suspicious of them? Given your vote remains on Ecthelion, we must presume that you remain suspicious of him, but I'd be interested in seeing the progression of your thoughts from this day cycle. @TheMightyLopen, would you explain why you consider Clanky, Brightness, and particularly Ecthelion to be villagers? What makes you more certain of Ecthelion's alignment than of Randuir's alignment? Given the points brought up against him, why are you going with your gut over a reasoned view, here? @Ecthelion III, you argue that no-lynch doesn't generate information, agree that contribution crusade lynches don't generate information, but want to prevent last minute vote swings, which are guaranteed to give us a great deal of information. I don't see why this is a sound course of action to pursue if you actually believe in generating information, rather than wish to establish a pretence of believing in generating information. I think that we can all agree that testing for a vote minimum is a terrible excuse for a vote, and hope you don't actually believe it to be a sensible thing to do. @Crimsn-Wolf, I'm glad to see you express, and commit to an opinion, but would appreciate you laying out your own suspicions. What in your interactions in your PM with Drake increased your suspicion, and what have you found suspicious from Drake's interactions in thread? @Clanky, at this point in the game, I think it incredibly important that we try to lynch a court member. If we don't, how do you propose we go about the day three lynch in the court thread? Yes, we'll have two eliminator kills by that point, but nothing linking those kills to players, which makes them of very limited use in determining alignments of players remaining in the thread. I'm certainly suspicious of you for advocating a strategy that reduces information available to the court, in favour of one likely to encourage the woods to lynch our confirmed villagers if they have players online to conduct a hammer, or outnumber us in thread in future meets. 2. I'd agree that we have a random alignment Medium (although Stink now appears to have been verified, unless both Doc and Stink are both eliminators in their respective threads), but I think that I'd rather trust that RNG than an individual putting themselves forward after they see their alignment, at a point where the eliminators have a significant motivation to ensure an eliminator Dragonslayer. 4/5. Interesting. It is possible that I've misinterpreted you, and also possible that you're bringing up this strategy without agreeing with it in order to benefit from it without being culpable after everything goes wrong for the village. I think that's an unlikely strategy for you to take, though, and am more inclined to take you at your word that you do indeed only bring them up for gametesting purposes. 7. I would argue that no lynch at all is better than a contribution crusade lynch. In both situations, we get very little information, but with the contribution crusade lynch, we also lose a player, and likely a villager. @Ecthelion III, there is an automatic bailout mechanism, but one that costs the Court eliminators a player, in return for a single village life, which is a remarkably poor return on investment for any eliminator. @Drake Marshall, I don't see Ecthelion as having pushed for a lynch as village indicative. He didn't push for a lynch that would reveal any information at all, which is the salient point. I had a village read on @Burnt Spaghetti from my PM with her - she was acting so suspicious that I don't think she could possibly be evil. Any sane eliminator (and Burnt can be a good eliminator), would have been far more careful about how they came across. @randuir, I don't think that's really alignment indicative. I don't know whether the forest have alignment scanners, but if they do, they haven't had time to scan a player from the Court, and so have no way of knowing Ecthelion's alignment. @Drake Marshall, I'm torn on your alignment, now. I still think your actions are suspicious, but am getting a village sentiment from this post that makes me uneasy. Regardless, addressing your points, I don't think eliminators would counter-bandwagon on you, as it ties them too strongly to you, and think that suggesting Stink is evil strikes me of desperation or trying to cause the village confusion - Doc has verified his win-condition, which makes it unlikely that Stink is evil. @Shqueeves, why do you think Ecthelion is evil? @Burnt Spaghetti, would you mind explaining your reads on those who you've placed away from the 50% mark, without providing explanation? Why am I slightly village to you? What did your interaction with Lopen comprise? What posts of Randuir have made him seem fine to you? For my part, I'm suspicious of Ecthelion, Drake, and Clanky. I've laid out my suspicion of all of them above, but in summary: Ecthelion's actions D1 strike me as very strange from a villager's perspective, and his explanations of his actions strike me as excuses rather than sound reasons. Drake I read as very suspicious during my initial reading of D1, but my suspicion has been lessening with his last few posts, although his attempts to get us to lynch a likely village medium strike me as strange - at the moment, we can at least be reasonably certain that our Dragonslayer was chosen by the village. I'm suspicious of Clanky for advocating a strategy that makes future meetings much less productive, and that ensures we go three cycles without having had an informed lynch in the Court. I'm slightly wary of Lopen, and want to see more from him, but think Burnt is likely village, unless she's deliberately acting so suspicious as to avoid suspicion. I wouldn't mind seeing any of the three above lynched, but want to see more of Drake, given my recent read of his posts, so will remove my vote from Drake, and add it to Ecthelion, given Clanky is highly unlikely to pick up a third vote in the next four minutes.

Makes sense. My point has been that we shouldn't do that - I don't think it would be useful for the court to do so.

@randuir, having thought on it further, there is the potential for it to remove an eliminator's incentive not to reveal their team, which could clearly prove disastrous for the eliminators, to the point that I'd discourage it vehemently in the spirit of fun. I'm here to solve the game, and have fun doing so, not to have it revealed. That aside, if it removes villagers and elimaintors in the original proportions of the game, it will have no net effect other than reducing the time available to the village to solve the game, which I think is of significant detriment to the village. On the second point, it both turns meetings into a confrontation, which I don't think is helpful to either faction, and in this case significantly reduces our information for the D3 lynch in the court, which is the salient point. At the moment, I don't have material suspicions of anyone other than Drake, and I haven't seen many suspicions advanced by other court players so far. @Eternum, I would be lying if I said that I thought your claiming was a remotely good idea for you. That said, I don't think it would be beneficial for us to spend this turn lynching you, when our eliminators in your thread can do a very good job pinning you down or killing you themselves. My view is that without a productive lynch this cycle, the court will be neutered until potentially N4, which is far too late to be useful. @Dalinar Kholin, if you wouldn't mind, I'd be much obliged if you'd let us get on with a lynch of a suspicious member of the court without intervening? The odds of us finding a cryptid (sp?) at this stage, if they exist, is unbelievably low, when neither thread has yet found even an eliminator. I think it in both our interests to have productive lynch discussions, which we can carry out if both sides have the potential to lynch. We can do this entirely independently of each other, so long as neither side targets a member from the other thread. @Megasif, I have no idea what you're asking me. My views on this have been clear since the beginning of the cycle. COuld you rephrase your question? Your thoughts about the mediums seems to be nothing more than speculation, unless you have information on this that you'd care to share? I certainly think that it would be a terrible idea to lynch a medium on this basis.

@Ecthelion III, why did you nominate Brightness in the first post of the game? Had she expressed interest pre-game in the role? @Drake Marshall, I think there's another aspect not being considered here. In a normal game, eliminator distribution is somewhere between 20-25%. Someone moving across is 15-20% more likely to be an eliminator. However, they’re also not tied to the existing eliminator team in any way, and so give us no information for future lynches, essentially costing a cycle of discussion and a player to the night kill. I'd argue that a more useful strategy might be to leave them alive, as “safe lynches”. We can lynch them either after we’re confident that the original eliminator team are dead (due to having 3-4 dead Gillitie originally in the Gunnerkrigg thread), when we’re confident that we’ve gained enough information that we can afford a cycle of little discussion, giving us time to analyse, or after they've had a few cycles to interact, and so become a useful lynch information-wise. I’d argue that there's also an element of fun involved, here. The Test, and dual threads is a fascinating mechanic, and I don't want to support a strategy that massively dissuades the use of a major part of the game’s mechanics. @randuir, a couple of points here. I’d be interested in your view on the Zeta’s alignment. I’d have thought that they must have a neutral (or potentially eliminator alignment). Given their ability to change alignments, they represent a far greater threat to the village than the eliminators, being much more likely to significantly reduce the number of villagers in the game, making it far easier for the eliminators to gain a majority. As such, I don’t imagine that they will claim to the “Making Everything Boring” role. On our choice of Medium, I’d point to QF25 as a recent example of Stink’s ability to play very effectively. He often does cause chaos, but clearly wants to be the medium, nod I don’t think he’d run the risk of removal through acting in a chaotic manner. This, I think, is the strongest reason we have for keeping @STINK as our medium. We can be pretty certain that he has no ulterior motive, and will act as neutral. If we replace Stink as our medium, we run the risk of the vote being influenced by the eliminators, and so will have a greater likelihood of a medium far less friendly to the village. On which note, Stink, to help keep Stink as our medium. @Drake Marshall, it’s apparent from this post that unlike Stink, you hadn’t been planning on a run at medium before the game started. I’m slightly suspicious of players attempting to benefit from a counter-bandwagon to Stink - it would be. Very sensible place for an eliminator to sit. What do you think would make you a better medium than Stink? Mea maxima culpa, @Drake Marshall. I looked through MR23, and couldn't find you having done this personally. I suspect I linked you to it following Alv’s public frustration with my actions, when you, as a member of his doc, had been doing the very same thing, to a yet greater degree. Regardless, I am sorry for accusing you of this statement, and so make a public apology. @TheMightyLopen, in case you’re still under the impression set out in the first paragraph, I think we win if the Forest’s eliminators win, so don’t need to catch the Gillitie infiltrators in the Court before that happens (although relying on that is clearly not a sound option ). On meetings, I think it varies by stage in the game. This early, we’re hardly going to end the game in the Woods’ eliminators’ favour. Equally, lynching their most confirmed villager (not that I think someone of that nature exists at this stage (although I do have yet to analyse the Woods thread)), both sets a precedent that such a thing is good form, meaning we’re at risk of the same happening if our numbers fall beyond those in their thread, and dramatically reduces the information we have available for the D3 lynch in the Court thread. Given we didn’t have a D1 lynch, I’d be minded to support a lynch of a Court player, so that we can build momentum and connections, and so catch our own eliminators. I’d call attention to @TheMightyLopen's post, addressing @Drake Marshall’s interest in the test. Whilst I think this is tenuous, it’s worth including given Drake’s earlier attempt to become the counter-bandwagon to Stink. At this stage of my analysis, I think Drake represents my largest suspicion right now. @STINK, care to explain this? @Drake Marshall, what makes you think that everyone switching wouldn’t be a boring choice? Why the continued insistence on this strategy? It strikes me as a way to ensure a reduced number of villagers in the Court thread, more than anything else, which clearly is of benefit to the eliminators. @Drake Marshall, this assumes that we would all prefer to win in a boring manner than play an interesting game. I’d rather have fun, and a challenging game trying to catch up, even if I lose, than guarantee myself a win by jumping thread. Why do you play SE? Is it to be able to say “I’ve won x% of games”, or to enjoy yourself, and try to improve as a player? @Clanky, firstly I hope your workload becomes more manageable. Would you explain why chaos is a good thing, or something we should be aiming towards? If you’d enjoy it, and are advocating it for that reason alone, go ahead, but given I think it harms our village, I’d be interested in exploring your reasoning here. Right. Ecthelion’s first post makes much more sense, now. Thanks, @BrightnessRadiant @Drake Marshall, this appears rather incongruous with your earlier posts. Why the change of change of heart? Alternatively, why are you advocating people taking the test, whilst not planning on doing so yourself? That strikes me as somewhat suspicious. @TheMightyLopen, I'm somewhat surprised by this sentiment. You know full well the value of lynch discussion, and LG35 stands as testimony to the amount of lynch discussion that can be generated in even the last fraction of a cycle. @Drake Marshall, I hadn’t noticed this from you last cycle, but what exactly do you hope to gain from a contribution crusade lynch? It was halfway through D1, and wouldn’t generate any information at all. In conjunction with the other posts I’ve highlighted above, I can’t help but think this might be an attempt to ensure a villager dies D1, without generating discussion. Overall, I believe a lynch of a Court member will be of far greater use to us than attempting to lynch a Woods villager, as I think we're at risk of a lack of information going into D3, which will eave us in a similar position to a normal D1 lynch, which clearly isn't a great position to be in. I think that Drake is my largest suspect, for the reasons set out in the multiquote above. I think he's acted inconsistently, pushed a course of action that benefits the eliminators, whilst then maintaining that he wouldn't take the test himself, he's advocated a contribution crusade lynch, which I think ensures a likely village death without creating information, and tried to get himself at the spearhead of a counter-bandwagon for the position of medium. I'm now typing in a rush, as my flight will take off shortly, but suggests that everyone reads the multiquote for greater context.

@A Joe in the Bush, I somewhat hope you're referring to Aonar? I don't think I'd have managed to miss being a GM instead of a player...

@Ecthelion III, what exactly do you hope to gain from a "contribution crusade" lynch on Shqueeves? I'm an immense supporter of including people in our game, and encouraging activity, but think that PMing him when PMs go up, in three hours time, is far better than lynching a new member of our community. Shqueeves has played two games here so far - what sort of message do you want to send him about our community? The contribution crusade is now (thankfully) about being inclusive, and helping players, and lynching a new player with this reasoning is the opposite of being inclusive, and is something I will play no part in.

Stink made clear that he wanted the position of medium well before the game began. I don't think that his requesting to be medium is remotely alignment indicative. Stink is quite capable of a position of responsibility - he's a moderator on the site, and I think he'll ensure a level of levity consistent with Aonar and Joe running the game.

Given you're asking for our vote, Drake, might I challenge the experience you provide? I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with a degree of scrutiny, given you run for public office on such a platform. In MR23, you claim to have been the spokesman for the Parshendi, and that we should consider this a useful qualification for the position of medium. In MR23, in thread, you took a vocal position advocating peace, and declaring yourself committed to the unaligned win. You claimed to want to out the Voidbringers, and questioned my honour when I openly admitted to thinking the Sons win was the only plausible win for the Alethi, and so supported it. Whilst maintaining this view in thread, and even before this, you made this statement in the Parshendi doc: How would you reconcile your run for medium with a previously established tendency towards claiming honour in thread whilst acting contrary to your claim behind the scenes?

Absolutely not. STINK. Getting on an early flight today, and then seeing Wilson in Utah with El this weekend. I expect my activity will be diminished somewhat until Monday.

Actually, @Flash, I think Stink deserves credit for very well executed deception. Both Stink and I were targeting specific behaviours - I was trying to draw just enough suspicion to make it look like I was trying to draw suspicion, and so be considered Truthless rather than evil. Stink was, as the Truthless, playing an eliminator acting as Truthless, trying to make it look like he'd failed, and so drawing votes. I thought Stink pulled this off spectacularly, and it's certainly something far beyond merely being a troll. @TheMightyLopen, I'd like to commend you for your assistance, which was much appreciated. More seriously, you're an excellent person, and I felt awful manipulating you. I made it clear several times in our PM that your best move was to out me to the thread as having revealed Stink, and get me eliminator killed, going a cycle without a village death, but instead of doing so, you came up with suggestions for how I could win as a Truthless, even if the village had lost.

Two thoughts here: Stink is either the Truthless, or is acting so erratically that he wants us to think he's the Truthless. I'm pretty certain that it's the latter. A Truthless would know that acting like an eliminator makes it look obvious that they're Truthless, and so would seek to avoid it. An eliminator, on the other hand, wants to act like a Truthless trying to get themselves lynched, hoping that we think there's just enough of a likelihood to think he is Truthless to fear voting for him.

Stink. I haven't really been on form this game, but really? How do you know that Lopen and Sart are good? I'm of the view that Stink's been trolling us - he's confident that the game is secure, so is causing trouble, and relying on people worrying about obvious eliminators, when we really should have lynched him a couple of cycles ago.

I get the feeling that they're trolling you, Winter.