Orlok Tsubodai

C1 Interrogative Readthrough: Starting off by quoting my post of yesterday, as I don't think everything I asked there was answered: Striker: this is basically what I have been thinking for doing the fang early hmmm Illwei and I agreeing at the start of a game? more likely than you would think. @StrikerEZ, I don't see where in your twice stated logic you actually agree with Illwei - what about her argument for an early use of the fang did you actually support? If you take whether or not the fang goes off as a given, when do you think it would actually be most useful to us? Striker replied before the end of last cycle with the following: I don't understand how you got that I take the fang going off as a given. My argument has basically been this whole time that if we wait too long to use it, it won't go off at all. And I liked what Illwei said. Literally just that whole post I quoted. @StrikerEZ, I think there was a clarity issue in my question, for which I apologise. My question was of two parts. 1) What of Illwei's argument did you actually agree with? Your own argument, as you've now restated, was that the fang might not go off at all, but I don't see that being the point she made at all? 2) This was perhaps poorly phrased. What I was trying to ask was "if we make the assumption that we can get the fang to go off whenever we want (If you take the fang going off as a given), when do you think we'd get most value from it? I think the thinking behind this is interesting, particularly given your position on the early use of the fang. Still interested in your now hypothetical answer. Thaidakar: @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, in what way does being randomly chaotic help the village at all? I know I fall at one end of the spectrum in how I tend to play SE, but how is being random and chaotic actually playing the game at all? It doesn't allow us to gain any information about you, it doesn't contribute in helping us read other players, and doesn't appear to involve you solving the game yourself. In the interest of getting solvable information from you, who are the three players you're most suspicious of, and who are you the least suspicious of? @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, although I note that you did later offer suspicions of Stick, Archer, and Bort, I'm interested in your updated answer to this, in light of the D1 lynch. @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, which reasons, from which players? Also still want this answered. Xinoehp: @xinoehp512, what drove putting Bort and JNV into your Good Bucket? @xinoehp512, same question. TJ: Something feels off about this, but I don't know what :P. I think there's too much elim strategizing here, that it looks like it's from an elim perspective? I'm not sure I agree with you about this bit feeling off, @|TJ| - I think a significant part of the information we get from the fang is who is chosen, in addition to that flip itself, which requires us to model the eliminators' decision making process. What are your current views on Archer? To which you responded: For clarity, this is all referencing this post from Archer: I think, reading Archer's post again, that you've picked a particularly uncharitable reading of it. My own reading of Archer's logic is: Elims aware fang will go off, so <1> they'll plan for it. As such, the fang will only hurt the elims if <2> something unexpected happens, and the fact they've planned for it leaves them exposed. I don't think this is a particularly controversial read, nor too convoluted to arrive at, even if set out slightly backwards. @|TJ|, the same question again - where are you now on Archer? I did not realize Araris had 4 votes. I don't remember anything he posted or any of the reasoning of votes on him. If there's a bus, I think this is likely. Given Araris was an eliminator, do you think there was a bus? Moving on to the posts I didn't get to last cycle. Fewer of these, because there's a lot on Araris, which I'll come to separately: Xinoehp: I can't believe I've done this. Araris goes in the Bad Bucket for now. Look, I only put about five seconds of thought into each of these. If I tried to force myself to go any more in depth it never would have gotten done at all. @xinoehp512, accepting that you didn't provide explanation for any other read, can you explain what your decision making process was on putting Araris in your "bad bucket"? Matrim's Dice: There’s a lot of things we can give pause to because he’s done it before but they’re also just suspicious which makes it hard to read him :P. I think his activity has been less than ever before, which is potentially e indicative. Hard to say when he’s never been elim. I asked about Thaid’s opinion on the Fang debate- his answer suggested to me that he didn’t want it to be used at all and was trying to cover that up with siding with later-rather-than-sooner, if that makes sense. Like he said C2 would be good, and C3 would be good, and also C4, and when I pointed out that C4 would likely be too late he didn’t say anything. It was an answer to me that didn’t fit with what I expected based on his playstyle and seemed like he’d really just rather not use it. I don’t think Stick should die today. v!Stick is definitely an asset to us and the reasons against her, while somewhat valid, I don’t think are enough. I’ve thought about this for awhile and think I’d rather wait for more evidence before voting her. @Matrim's Dice, what did you expect based on Thaidakar's playstyle? I'm not convinced that his answer does allow us to conclude that he didn't want the fang to go off - in my own first post I argued for a delayed fang: Thaidakar's answer being reflective of the later-lynch arguments in thread doesn't contravene my own model of him. I think there are good reasons to pressure Thaidakar, but don't think him not backing a D1 fang is one of them. On which: Bort: Re this vote count: @Bort, your previous posts focused on the fang (which I'll address in a moment). With nothing previously stated on voting intention or either Stick or Thaidakar, what abiut Stick and Thaidakar drove your read that Stick was more likely a villager than Thaidakar? Your first post of the cycle was this one: Reading back over this, it very much does look like you're suggesting that rather than the fang being additional to the lynch, we forgo the lynch to use the fang. This would: 1) Lose us any information from a D1 lynch, essentially putting us in D2 as a new D1, but with one fewer eliminator, and; 2) Minimise the information we got from the use of the fang itself. Bort, why did you propose a strategy that would so heavily minimise our useable information? The Araris Lynch: This post from Araris (about 24 hours before the cycle ended) is the trigger point: @Archer is the first player to express suspicion of Araris, here: I hadn't clocked that exing an elim means they don't get to stay in the elim doc, whereas fanging one does. Good point. That makes Bort's language look worse to me. Giving you a pass, Araris, on knowing the quirks of the elim rules well because you came up with the mechanic. But I don't like your switch from Mat to Striker here. Striker is has a reputation for being catchable by their reads lists, but it's weird that you talked about Mat and Striker being similarly suspicious while making the move from one to another. I also think the trade off of a guaranteed extra advisor vs extended thread control from having an extra vote/voice isn't all that significant. When evil, I usually dump by best ideas in the doc C1 and then it's mostly a matter of executing them, which doesn't require my continued presence. Having a strong opinion that one approach is better than the other seems odd. Araris pushes back, and Archer further articulates his suspicion of Araris: I was not, but I was making an argument that you're suspicious for the way you moved from Mat to Striker. Mostly because I was surprised you slid from stab vote you felt good about to person you felt slightly more good about, instead of sticking to the stab. @StrikerEZ, who was voted on by Araris, is the first vote on Araris: Araris later moves on to Stick: Which appears to drive Stick's immediate response expressing her own willingness to vote on Araris (now about two hours before the end of the cycle): Matrim expresses his own willingness to lynch Araris: It is ideal if we never need to use it, because that would mean we get an elim today, but that wasn’t what it seemed like Thaid was implying to me. It also isn’t a reason not to use it, it’s not as if using the Fang successfully harms us in any way. Not using the Fang can harm us if we are just misexeing. About Stick, do note that I never said that I village read her :P. Though we’re mindmelding so much rn that I can’t decide if I should, or if it’s a pocket attempt >> I do think her exe shouldn’t happen today. Also would be fine with Araris but it looks like Thaid’s picked up some votes which makes me nervous since the reason I’m voting him is something only I saw. I would have thought other people would be more hesitant to join me. Village points to TJ for not voting Thaid? To which Stick responds five minutes later with a vote on Araris: Followed a minute later by Archer (and given the length of his post, I think that it must have been started before Stick's own vote): Matrim votes on Araris five minutes after Archer: Striker's post is a minute later than Matrim's, and is quite interesting: Before his edit, the vote count would have been: Stick (4): TJ, Orlok, Thaid, Araris Araris (3): Striker, Stick, Archer Thaid (3): Bort, Xino, Matrim Which is the context in which we should read: With pressure building on Araris, Striker suggests that he was going to switch to Thaidakar, but now wants to secure the exe on Stick. @StrikerEZ, why were you looking for a way off voting for Araris at this point? Why did Matrim's vote change your mind? At this point I post my thoughts on the first half of the cycle, as part of which I'd reevaluated Stick, and retract on her, taking the vote count to: Stick (3): TJ, Thaid, Araris Araris (4): Striker, Stick, Archer, Mat Thaid (2): Bort, Xino Striker then gets the vote count wrong: But keeps his vote on Araris. @|TJ| keeps his vote on Stick, and suggests that Araris may be being bussed: I think overall, Archer, Stick, and Matrim come out of C1 hard-cleared for me. Striker is more interesting. He was voted on by Araris, and was the first vote for Araris, and left his vote on Araris despite a close lynch. This post: Does make me worry that Striker's initial vote was distancing - this looks entirely like it could be seeking a way off Araris, but then finding his vote pinned by Matrim - even if Striker retracts after Matrim's post, Araris would have a 50% chance of being lynched, which would leave Striker looking very exposed. On balance, I think his actions are more likely to come from a villager. Mild-moderate v!Striker, but much more open to reevaluation here than on Archer, Stick or Matrim. I'll address C2 when I've had a break.

this is basically what I have been thinking for doing the fang early hmmm Illwei and I agreeing at the start of a game? more likely than you would think. @StrikerEZ, I don't see where in your twice stated logic you actually agree with Illwei - what about her argument for an early use of the fang did you actually support? If you take whether or not the fang goes off as a given, when do you think it would actually be most useful to us? @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, in what way does being randomly chaotic help the village at all? I know I fall at one end of the spectrum in how I tend to play SE, but how is being random and chaotic actually playing the game at all? It doesn't allow us to gain any information about you, it doesn't contribute in helping us read other players, and doesn't appear to involve you solving the game yourself. In the interest of getting solvable information from you, who are the three players you're most suspicious of, and who are you the least suspicious of? My own reading, @Archer, is that Bort treats the Fang as a "free" reveal of an eliminator. I agree with you entirely that lynching an eliminator is of much greater use to us than one from the fang, but don't think it's a straight up choice between them. If we're going to lynch an eliminator eventually, using the fang before we do gives us two lynched eliminators. If we assume 4 eliminators, as I think we're leaning to in our PM, then lynching randomly gives us a 28% chance of hitting an eliminator this cycle, a 33% chance of an eliminator next cycle (assuming a village lynch and a kill), and a 40% chance of hitting an eliminator C3 (assuming the same). The chances of missing an eliminator by voting randomly in C1, C2, and C3, given the above, are ((1-(4/14)*(1-4/12)*(1-4/10))=29% - meaning around a 70% chance that we don't get the "free" lynch from the fang, on top of the "earned" lynch of an eliminator, if we don't use it before the end of C3. I think the key takeaway here is that the fang isn't instead of a lynch. Just want to comment on this part. I have mixed feelings on language use for lynching - I remember noticing a trend of eliminators using specific terminology in one game where no one else was, but equally was responsible for the mislynch of Ripplegylf in one of my earliest games, because she confused the elim and village team names in a slightly unintuitive game, causing a great deal of stress. Not really sure what point I'm making here, except to remind the community of that. @xinoehp512, what drove putting Bort and JNV into your Good Bucket? Something feels off about this, but I don't know what :P. I think there's too much elim strategizing here, that it looks like it's from an elim perspective? I'm not sure I agree with you about this bit feeling off, @|TJ| - I think a significant part of the information we get from the fang is who is chosen, in addition to that flip itself, which requires us to model the eliminators' decision making process. What are your current views on Archer? @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, for what reasons? Why vote on Stick rather than one of Archer or Bort? @Illwei, curious as to whether you can give specifics on where you're getting this read from? @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, which reasons, from which players? Running out of time to comment, and will work through the rest of the thread after my call, probably after rollover, but get enough of a village gut read from this post to Stick from this to withdraw my initial vote.

@|TJ|, having sat on the other side of that, the early loss of Striker did cause Kas and I to panic, predominately about its impact on LyLo - much easier to get two of three players into the final three with a bus than two (or in our case, having to distance and pocket). Not sure the experience is directly applicable this game, but did want to address it for the record. (On reflection, I think this is further evidence for a four eliminator team - I don't think Kas would want to put anyone else through a guarantee of that stress, even if it were balanceable). Very much minded to agree with @_Stick_ that this misreading of the rules is more likely to come from a villager. Tentatively suspicious of Stick for how much she's downplaying it. Minded to say v!Illwei for the same misinterpretation. On the use of the fang, I think there are three options: 1) Using the fang on an early cycle (C1/2) guarantees that the fang will go off, but provides potentially very limited information as a result. 2) A mid-cycle use gives us much more to analyse. Somewhat obviously, but it isn't just connections between the fanged elim we can look at - who is chosen gives us at least as much, both on implied activity of the team, and knowing what the eliminators want us to conclude. 3) Saving the fang for near LyLo, making elim coordination much more difficult/potentially game throwing. I don't think this is necessarily C3, although we can potentially reach 6-4 by then, given veterans. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the fang will go off if we want it to. @StrikerEZ, when you say you want to see the mechanic used, am I right in thinking your concern is that we'll catch an elim before it goes off? My own preference is pretty firmly against a D1 fang - I think we throw away a lot of potential information, and a lot of uncertainty for the eliminator team if we use it today.

Beyond the arguments on the in game consequences made by Matrim and Kas, I would add from my perspective that my mid-game inactivity was driven by personal circumstances of a serious nature, and which I could not have anticipated intensifying in the manner they did. I am not proud of having had to disappear for the cycles I did, and do feel guilt at having let Kas down, and having made it harder for the village to catch me. I did return to pretty significant activity as soon as I was able to, spending a great many hours on the game from the end of C4 through C6, and would much have preferred this to have been my consistent activity throughout the game. The details of why I was absent can be found in the depths of the elim doc, but were sufficiently serious and pressing that I’d make the same decision again in a heartbeat.

Afternoon, Kas. To better address your argument, I first want to summarise what I think you’re saying: I’m trying to suggest that the “private variant” of your argument (Arg. 1) is logically flawed, and therefore that you are evil Arg. 1 is not flawed That I am also committed to the necessary assumption of Arg. 1 (A1). You are therefore right to hold e!Orlok from Arg. 1 Knowing this, I sought to conflate the “private variant” of your argument with the “public variant” (Arg. 2) I’m right that the core of Arg. 2 is: The timing of my vote was suspicious The vote itself was a deviation from v!Orlok’s historic behaviour Even though I’ve explained the deviation, the deviation itself remains suspicious I’m going to address these in turn. On 1, 2, I think you’re deliberately missing my point. I am not arguing that the logical structure of Arg. 1 is invalid. I am arguing that you assumed A1 before your own views permitted you to do so, and therefore that your reliance on the private variant of your argument cannot be your true motivation for pushing e!Orlok in C4. As above, I contend that you are the elim on the D1 Striker train, and that you have TMI about TUN, which you relied on to produce your process of elimination leading to me. I think this is a further demonstration that you’re not arguing in good faith. You (purport) to have A1 by assumption. If I am committed to A1, it is as C4, from: P7: Kas is evil P8: Kas voted on Striker C4: One of the voters on Striker was evil Addressing 6. is not so easily done by its subjective nature, but again I want to call out you arguing in bad faith (which again, I can’t see from v!Kas): I think it’s reaching to argue that I didn’t catch up on the thread because I used the term “skimming”. It absolutely was a skim, compared to my normal approach, and an hour for three pages is less than a minute per post. Would I have liked longer? Absolutely. I didn’t have longer, but I did have time to read the thread, and to make a judgement. I can’t prove that trying to catch up was a playstyle shift motivated by my wish to contribute more helpfully.. I can only note how quickly you rushed to assume my motivation was bussing, and that I think that comes from wanting to paint me as a ML target. I also think it worth circling back to your own vote on Striker. I don’t know your playstyle well enough to call out specifics, but I do want to quote the following from C2 (as you didn’t provide any D1 argument against Striker): These were a large part of my e!Kas read yesterday. @The Unknown Novel, I get a very, very clear read of Kas feeling a need to over-explain his vote. This, along with Striker’s own very clear equivocation and distancing from Kas: Are enough to make me conclude with confidence e!Kas, and I think are harder to explain than my wishing to engage in a more productive playstyle. I’m obviously not going to convince Kas of his own guilt, but @The Unknown Novel, please read Kas’ post, and the above, and at least consider a world of e!Kas.

As far as I can see, the only reasoning laid out is here: And here: I don't think it's particularly uncharitable to read your argument as: P1: One D1 vote was from an eliminator P2: The D1 votes on Striker were: Striker (8): Kasimir, Matrim's dice, Devotary, Ash, Amanuensis, Illwei, Bort, Orlok P3: Kas is not an eliminator C1: Orlok is an eliminator (from P1, P2, P3) P4: Orlok's vote was uncharacteristic, because he doesn't normally vote when he isn't caught up on the thread C2: Orlok is an eliminator (from P4) Looking at these in turn: P1 is an assumption. It isn't necessarily true, in that two eliminators can exist in the three players who didn't vote for Striker. It was even less necessarily true in C4, when you started pushing the e!Orlok narrative, when Experience was still alive, and considered suspicious by you. To be clear to @The Unknown Novel and @Mailliw73, I'm not suggesting that P1 is actually wrong, but that v!Kas cannot rely on it as an assumption without first clearing two of Archer, TUN, and Maill this cycle, or three of Archer, TUN, Maill, and Experience in cycle 4. In cycle 4, Kas voted on Experience, had a bad gut read on TUN, and was committed to reconsidering his village read of Mailliw. This cycle, Kas is suspicious of Mailliw, and clears TUN because of his vote on Orlok. Kas cannot rely on e!Orlok -> v!TUN without being able to conclude e!Orlok first. Kas cannot do this through P1, P2, P3 therefore C1 without circular logic, as he cannot know P1 without v!Archer + v!TUN, which relies on e!Orlok - and so on. If Kas holds v!TUN, he <A> either has to have another reason for e!Orlok, or <B> TMI about TUN. I'll come on to addressing P4, which addresses <A>, but would acknowledge that P1 might be a fair village assumption. However, assuming it, rather than proving it, takes us to: A1: One D1 vote was from an eliminator P5: The D1 votes on Striker were: Striker (8): Kasimir, Matrim's dice, Devotary, Ash, Amanuensis, Illwei, Bort, Orlok P6: Kas is not an eliminator C3: Orlok is an eliminator (from P5, P6) Essentially, Kas' argument here is "Orlok is an eliminator because I'm not". In this post, I intend to challenge P4 (that my vote makes me evil), but will go on in another post to try to show that P6 is untrue. Looking then at: P4: Orlok's vote was uncharacteristic, because he doesn't normally vote when he isn't caught up on the thread C2: Orlok is an eliminator (from P4) Which given the above seems to be Kas' entire argument, I'd first point you all to this post, which I haven't seen anyone actually reply to or even acknowledge: To specifically address Kas' points: 1) "Orlok's vote came extremely late on C1." Yes, it did, because as you note, and is obvious from this post, I was doing analysis on page one until 58 minutes before the end of the cycle. When, prior to that, would you have liked me to vote? The timing of my vote cannot be alignment indicative, because I could not have made it prior to having read the thread. 2) "Orlok wanted to gain Village cred and sent in a last minute vote on Striker" The timing of the vote, per my answer to 1), cannot be alignment indicative, so we have "Orlok wanted to gain Village cred and sent in a last minute vote on Striker." What makes my vote uniquely about getting village cred, over those of yourself, Devotary, Ashbringer, Illwei, or Bort? I don't see how announcing the vote pre-rollover ought to be seen as cred-seeking any more than placing it, as the vote (and so lynch of an eliminator) would show up in the write-up either way. (for the record, I posted having committed to getting through the thread pre-rollover, to give a summary of my thoughts. I stated how my thinking had evolved (or not) on TUA, I noted my dislike of Experience's vote on Ashbringer (which I further note was remarked upon in later cycles by players you read as village), and was explicit about the reasoning for my vote. To put it another way, your suspicion of me has to be either from the fact I voted, or from my posting about my vote pre-rollover. I do not understand how posting about the vote is elim!indicative. If we take that I'm caught up enough to vote, you have to be arguing that it would be better for me not to give my thoughts when I could than to give them. I think this is a rather weak argument - both because my thoughts are purer before gaining information from rollover, and because if I'm NKd I can't show how they developed at all. I don't think your suspicion can come from the vote itself, either. If it was possible for yourself, Matrim, Devotary, Ashbringer, Amanuensis, Illwei and Bort to look at the C1 thread and find Striker tonally suspicious, why is it uniquely elim indicative for me to come to the same (correct) conclusion. You have observed me identify Hyena, Gorilla, Archer and Stick as eliminators in AG8 and MR56, so you aren't making the (implausible) argument that my catching an eliminator isn't normal. Consequently, your sole rationale for my being an eliminator (and so clearing TUN, and all of the above), is that I stopped my post by post analysis and tried to catch up on the thread pre-rollover. @Mailliw73, @The Unknown Novel (not that I don't think reading the above is necessary - it's written for you), but to restate very clearly: The sole reason for Kas' suspicion of me is that I ceased post-by-post analysis to vote before the end of the cycle. To address that point: 1) It isn't a good thing that I'm not normally caught up in time to make an informed vote. It isn't helpful to the village that I can't contribute until later cycles. It makes me harder to analyse, and doesn't allow me to influence early lynches. I still think there's a place for it - I find it forces me to think in depth about each player, and helps me track progression, but it is not more useful to the village than having my thoughts be as current as they can be. 2) In the last few games I've played (AG8, MR56, LG83), I haven't voted C1 because I haven't been able to be current in time for the vote. In this game I had actually been able to devote time to the game on cycle one, and was actually around in the run up to rollover. I had time to catch up, and so did. In summary: Kas cannot rely on P1: One D1 vote was from an eliminator P2: The D1 votes on Striker were: Striker (8): Kasimir, Matrim's dice, Devotary, Ash, Amanuensis, Illwei, Bort, Orlok P3: Kas is not an eliminator C1: Orlok is an eliminator (from P1, P2, P3) To conclude I'm an eliminator, because P1 is impossible without knowledge of TUN's alignment. Kas claims to get TUN's alignment as an inference from e!Orlok, but his only way to conclude e!Orlok is from: P4: Orlok's vote was uncharacteristic, because he doesn't normally vote when he isn't caught up on the thread C2: Orlok is an eliminator (from P4) I've shown above that P4 cannot be because my vote was on Striker, or because I posted that I was voting for Striker before rollover. Consequently, Kas can only be concluding P4 from the fact I stopped post-by-post analysis to catch up and vote. I've demonstrated why this is not a credible belief for Kas to hold, and do not believe he does. I contend instead that: 1) Kas is an eliminator 2) Kas believed my vote could be spun as elim-indicative, and didn't truly think about it 3) Kas' arguments (as shown above) don't make sense because they're based on an incorrect premise, and TMI about TUN. Having, I hope, demonstrated that Kas is not arguing e!Orlok in good faith, I will now look at Kas' own posts to demonstrate further e!Kas.

I’ll write a longer post tomorrow, when not on strong painkillers, but in summary, absolutely committed to two of Kas, Archer, and TUA being evil. Leaning much more strongly towards Kas and Archer. @The Unknown Novel, as far as I can tell, Archer’s entire argument last cycle for e!Orlok was that my post at the end of C1 felt like a bus. I’d ask that you go back to C1, and read this post: And then this one, in context of the first of the two: The first post illustrates where I was with my thinking an hour before rollover. I had a village read on Ashbringer, mild suspicion of Experience and yourself, and was unsure on Archer. In my first post of the cycle I engaged with his suggestion on hidden voting, and had a weak gut village read, tempered by his second and third posts. I hadn’t reached any of Striker’s posts. As I said in the first of those posts, I was aware I was not going to catch up to the end of the cycle before rollover (on average, each post I consider in the tabular analysis I do takes 4 minutes), and so tried to read the rest of the thread in time to place a vote, and committed to doing so. My view has always been that D1 should maximise village information. I didn’t see anything further to give me a read of you, and whilst I disliked Experience voting on Ashbringer, did not think lynching Experience, even were he an option, would provide much useable information. As far as I could tell from the thread (and I don’t think I was the only one of this view at the time), both Archer and Striker were at risk of being lynched (I didn’t register the movement on Ashbringer at the time, but solidly read Ashbringer as village C1, so it wouldn’t have made a difference). Most of the C1 discussion was on one of Striker or Archer, so either lynch would have been information generating, hence putting them in my “shortlist”, following Ashbringer’s two vote pool, which was an idea I agreed with. I voted for Striker over Archer primarily for his defensive tone, and partly because I felt like Archer was fitting together in my head - I was confident I could solve him. I’d note that seven other players also felt like Striker was the better choice to lynch - and would ask why Archer and Kas singled my vote out particularly as bussing. Clearly voting Striker was a common conclusion, and it wasn’t a wrong conclusion. I did explain the above (albeit in less detail) in this post, but don’t think anyone ever engaged with it: In summary, @The Unknown Novel, I think we’re at LyLo, and that we need your vote. I intend to address and set out the case against Kas and Archer in greater detail tomorrow, but would ask that you look again at why they pushed e!Orlok in C4/C5. As I hope I’ve shown above, I don’t think they actually had an argument for e!Orlok that looked at my actions beyond a shallow glance, and instead were pushing me as an convenient lynch, without trying to solve me.

Understood. I die if you stay on Archer, as have moved to Ashbringer.

Responding to the above in order: Not sure what you mean by one statement? You did post, but I didn't have thoughts on what you posted. The suspicion of Ash was a question to you to confirm an inference I made. I state that I think you said you'd look at Kas, and didn't mention Experience because they've flipped, and so aren't a consideration this cycle. We can't be e/e because I don't think 4/11 is close to balanced, and there was a cycle in which we both were inactive, yet a kill was made. @Illwei, it looks like it's: Orlok: 3 (Archer, TUA, Ashbringer) Ashbringer: 1 (Maill) Archer: 2 (Orlok, Illwei) Fancy moving back to Ashbringer? Not comfortable accepting death with lylo next cycle, and know Ashbringer is more likely evil than I am, even if I prefer Archer/Kas

Archer: Orlok, Illwei Ashbringer: Mailliw (Illwei?) Orlok: Ashbringer, Archer Not sure where Kas has voted, nor whether @The Unknown Novel has voted? @Ashbringer, where are you presently on Archer?

I'm aware the above is a lot to read, but would ask that you all do (if only because it took a lot of effort to do). Apologies for increasing shorthand towards the end - have spent a long time reading through the game today, and writing up notes took much longer than anticipated. Summary: (Please do read my workings above) Believe in v!Illwei, v!Mailliw. Worried about consensus read of Kas, particularly with consistent ties to Archer throughout the game. Would bet on Striker/Archer/Kas team. Think Kas has equivocated throughout game, really unsure where such strong village reads on them come from. Will vote for Archer this cycle, but strongly encourage those of you with firm v!Kas to reconsider it. Edit: @Illwei @Ashbringer @Mailliw73 @The Unknown Novel

Ashbringer: Cycle One: 1) Places stab vote on Devotary 2) Need to have balance in use of hidden voting. Voting in secret can be useful, need to work out how. (Starting with conclusion, then looking for evidence (-)) 3) Wants to avoid C2 everyone justifying votes as random, suggests two votes to create some uncertainty (+) 4) Striker agrees with Ashbringer, doesn’t want Ashbringer lynched before Archer (-) 5) Ran the previous anon-voting game. Wants hidden voting to happen as there are possibilities with it 6) Striker expresses suspicion of Ashbringer 7) Says he is voting for Archer for villagery post re Striker 8) Suspicious of TUA for retaliatory voting, says he (Ashbringer) has a tendency to tunnel TUA 9) Thinks Archer should be lynched as Archer is tied to Ashbringer’s own alignment. E!Archer seems thought to mean e!Ashbringer (so has TMI and thinks v!Archer might help him?) 10) Wants to emphasise the independence of his idea re voting from Archer’s 11) May not vote, is confused (-) Voted on Striker Ashbringer C1 Conclusions: A much less positive C1 than I had been reading. Not e/e with Archer. Possible TMI. Dislike claim of confusion Ashbringer D1 reads: E!Archer, e?TUA Cycle Two: 1) Voted on Striker 5-10 minutes before end of cycle, in self-preservation 2) Gives exact time of vote 3) Will vote for Experience 4) Is willing to die for the village 5) Says he feels in an elim mindset. Is resigned to being lynched. 6) Doesn’t like feeling like he’s not being lynched just because of his willingness to die 7) Votes on Thaidakar in response to Thaid self-preservation vote Voted on Thaidakar Ashbringer C2 Conclusions: Tone and what he’s saying feels much more strongly villager-y than C1. Dislike Kas equivocating on Ashbringer’s resignation – read as very village to me. Ashbringer D2 reads: E!Experience Cycle Three: 1) Asks Archer who gave him (Ashbringer) support, notes only possible option from Thaid voters is Illwei 2) Looks at reads of dead players, calls out that both of those killed suspected Ashbringer 3) Gut leaning e!Illwei 4) Votes on Maill or Orlok as potential Devotary killers 5) Vote is on Maill, could be convinced to go JNV Voted on Maill Ashbringer C3 Conclusions: Consistent views within cycle Ashbringer D3 reads: E!Illwei, e!Maill, e!Orlok Cycle Four: 1) Ideas on Archer are tainted by Striker (don’t follow this) 2) Questions TUA on wallpost defence 3) Would be ok with TUA, Maill or Archer 4) Asks if Archer had a reason for not voting D1 Ashbringer C4 Conclusions: Significant shift in suspicions from C3 – what happened to Orlok/Illwei, where has suspicion of Archer come from? Ashbringer D4 reads: E!TUA, e!Maill, e!Archer Cycle Five: 1) Questions Kas’ willingness to let Orlok die 2) Asks everyone to give three most suspected players 3) Would rather not lynch Archer, is ok with lynching TUA, Maill, but prefers to lynch Orlok 4) Is voting for Orlok Ashbringer C5 Conclusions: Rationale for voting on me being? Change again re Archer. Ashbringer D5 reads: E!Orlok, e!Maill, e!TUA Overall: Nothing anywhere on Kas. Back and forth on Archer, don’t see e/e however based on early cycles. Consistently ok with lynching Mailliw. On balance, village Mailliw: Cycle One: 1) Gut elim read of Archer, read eased up (+) 2) Opposes forced thread transparency 3) “What is the point of the mechanic if not used” 4) Has gut suspicions, doesn’t want to share them D1 5) Is supported by Kas Voted on JNV Mailliw C1 Conclusions: Gut village read on point 4 Mailliw D1 reads: None explicit Cycle Two: 1) Thinks Experience’s vote on Ashbringer feels off (+) 2) In C1 was initially suspicious of Archer, backed off as read more of Archer’s style. Voted on JNV for bad vibes from first post. Would have switched to Experience if had time. Thought vote would be tighter (+ if true) 3) If there is a busser, thinks it is Ashbringer. Kas/Aman ring true. Hasn’t looked at Orlok’s tables. 4) Thinks elims may not have bussed if they thought there were fewer votes on Striker 5) Reiterates his belief that elims are more likely to be on other trains Voted on no one C2 Mailliw C2 Conclusions: Village read – agreed on #1 at the time. Mailliw D2 reads: V!Kasimir, v?Archer E!Experience, e?Ashbringer Cycle Three: 1) Thought he had voted on Experience, forgot to vote 2) Reads Orlok, Archer as village 3) Null on Kas/Illwei. E!Ashbringer. 4) Null on TUA, thinks e!Orlok would have made more of an effort 5) Suspects Ashbringer’s more following reasoning from Illwei. Thinks we need Ashbringer or Archer to flip for information 6) Thinks Devotary was killed because of her suspicion of Ash, wants an Ashbringer flip 7) Will vote on JNV, but would go back to Ashbringer Voted on Ashbringer Mailliw C3 Conclusions: Given 5, then v!Illwei? Consistent. Village read. Mailliw D3 reads: V!Orlok, v!Archer, implicit v!Illwei Null: Kas, Illwei, TUA e!Ashbringer Cycle Four: 1) Thinks Experience’s post and TUA’s long post read weirdly. On board with Archer 2) Agrees with Archer that TUA defensive 3) Illwei reads very villager Voted on Experience Mailliw C4 Conclusions: Nothing new. Consistent progression on Illwei Mailliw D4 reads: V!Archer, v!Illwei e!TUA Cycle Five: 1) Reads Illwei village on effort, how she’s pushing for reads, and tone 2) Ashbringer sus for D1 interactions with Striker 3) Archer still feels villager 4) Thinks Ashbringer must be the vote today 5) One of Kas/Illwei/Ashbringer has to be an eliminator Mailliw C5 Conclusions: Agree largely with #1. Disagree on 3, but consistent from Maill. Where has e!TUA read gone? Mailliw D5 reads: V!Illwei, v!Archer e!Ashbringer, e?Kas Overall: Strong village read on Mailliw. Tonal, consistent progression. Sensible vote suggestions. Illwei: Cycle One: 1) Thinks three eliminators 2) Doesn’t like secret votes, wants us to talk to minimise hiding eliminators 3) Doesn’t see anything wrong with vanilla game 4) Votes on Matrim for his read on Illwei (wary of pocketing? (+)) 5) Striker thinks Illwei makes good points, agrees with Illwei’s suspicion of Matrim 6) Striker thinks Illwei is working out the game rather than being performative (this was based on Illwei suggesting 3 elims. TMI from Striker?) 7) Mistook Aman’s summary of Striker’s reads as Aman’s own (+) 8) Is iffy on Archer, doesn’t think TUA has been villager-y Voted on Striker Illwei C1 Conclusions: Gut village from 2, 3, 4, 7. Illwei D1 reads: E?Archer, not v!TUA Cycle Two: 1) Doesn’t remember when she voted, but voted on Striker for his defensiveness and forced reads list 2) Calls attention to Archer’s interactions with Striker. Suspicious of Archer. 3) Won’t defend Ashbringer, but has a tonal village read on them. Thinks e!Ashbringer implies e/e/e Ashbringer/Archer/Striker Voted on Thaidakar Illwei C2 Conclusions: Where did vote on Thaid come from? Illwei D2 reads: E!Archer, e?Ashbringer Cycle Three: 1) Reads order: v – Kasimir, TUA, Archer, Ashbringer, Mailliw, Orlok – e 2) Thinks Devotary kill might imply no Striker bussers 3) Thinks eliminators amongst: Mailliw, Orlok, Bort, Ashbringer, TUA 4) Is pushing tiered commitments (+) 5) v!Archer, not necessarily v!Kas 6) Wants TUA or Ashbringer to flip, votes TUA 7) Questions Maill on why Orlok would increase effort 8) Suggests Archer has TMI re the time Striker bussing started 9) Doesn’t believe in v!Archer world, trying to sheep consensus 10) Thinks TUA has elim equity 11) e!Archer belief furthered by Archer’s move to e!Ashbringer 12) v!Kasimir Voted on JNV Illwei C3 Conclusions: Continued village read, nothing disruptive. Like way of thinking about Archer. Illwei D3 reads: (See above) V!Kasimir, v!Ashbringer, e!Archer, e!Orlok. Cycle Four: 1) Feels like Archer openwolfing. Calls out shading Aman, feeling of an agenda in his posts. 2) V!Kas. Looking into TUA, Experience, Archer 3) v!Ashbringer from overworrying about being tied to Archer 4) Archer can’t argue that his D1 was poor just because he didn’t vote Striker. Striker not necessarily a lost cause 5) Doesn’t want to commit effort to thinking about e!Archer yet, if v!consensus right on him 6) Thinks Archer and Experience look partnered 7) Is voting on Experience Voted for Experience Illwei C4 Conclusions: Like approach re Archer. Illwei D4 reads: V!Kasimir e?TUA, e?Experience, e!Archer Cycle Five: 1) Would have voted Archer if she had known Experience was voting Archer 2) One of Kas/Ashbringer is an eliminator. 1+ of Kas, Ashbringer, Archer 3) Votes for Archer 4) Asks Mailliw why he reads v!Illwei 5) Voting on one of Ashbringer, Archer or TUA today, probably not TUA Illwei C5 Conclusions: Consistent PoE, strong village tone. Obviously not e/e with Archer Illwei D5 reads: E!Archer, e?Kas, e?Ashbringer Overall: Comes across as solving, nothing to challenge village read. Like progression. Agree re Archer.

Notes by player, by cycle: Notes focused on interactions with surviving players, became more about possible teams as I went on. Kasimir: Cycle One: 1) Votes on Archer, asks why randomness only C1 2) Striker likes Kas' thoughts on Archer, but is wary of Kas (equivocation? (-)) 3) Kas doesn't like D1 grand plans 4) Asks Archer to show his workings, retracts on Archer same post, moves to JNV 5) Archer does D1 grand plans whatever alignment, can't see this one coming from elim mindset (Kas v!reads Archer) 6) Does category analysis (alignment conclusions unclear (-)) 7) Is conflicted about Ashbringer voting on Archer. Is more supportive of Striker flip than Archer (+) 8) Default null read on Aman and Orlok Voted on Striker Kas C1 Conclusions: Dislike Striker's opinion of Kas. Dislike not being clear of conclusion of category analysis. Voted for Striker over Archer. Kas D1 reads: V!Archer Cycle Two: 1) Thinks Striker was bussed 2) At length justifies his own Striker vote (-) 3) Questions Archer downplaying odds of catching elims D1 4) Further justifies own Striker vote as YOLO, & for thoughts on Matrim. (Overexplaining?) 5) Claims C1 opinion was that he wouldn't lynch Archer, Orlok, Mailliw. Didn't care about lynching Illwei, TUA, Ashbringer 6) Wants to assess elim team disposition re bussing. Doesn't think there was an early bus 7) Village reads Archer 8) Thinks late bus entails elim pool of Illwei, Ashbringer, Orlok 9) Votes on Ashbringer as doesn't like how they're pushing Archer then backing off when questioned 10) Thinks Ashbringer willingness to die for village is gut village, but reads it as emotionally flat, so questions it (equivocation?) 11) Moves from Ashbringer to Thaidakar, at Aman's prompting 12) Moves back to Ashbringer as Thaidakar vote was emotionally based 13) Explains lack of mislynch guilt (-) Voted on Thaidakar Kas C2 Conclusions: Dislike sense of overexplaining. Kas D2 reads: V!Archer E!Ashbringer Elim pool of Illwei, Orlok, Ashbringer Cycle Three: 1) Leaning v!Ashbringer, from thread interaction (where did this come from?) 2) Thinks v!Archer due to C1, doesn’t see elim team allowing e!Striker and e!Archer up for lynch 3) Reiterates v!Ash, but as less strong than v!Archer 4) Thinks Elims amongst JNV, Illwei, TUA, Experience, Maill, Bort, Orlok 5) Village reads Maill and Bort. Votes on JNV 6) Questions Illwei on her doubt of v!Archer, but wants to hear Illwei out on it 7) Not e!Maill as e!Maill would have thread controlled away from Striker lynch 8) Thinks Illwei trying to protect Ashbringer 9) Is tempted to flip Ashbringer after they raised IKYK about elim killed players’ reads, & Illwei’s suggestion of their kill pattern. E!Ashbringer/kills motivated that way feels too obvious 10) Defends Illwei’s change of style 11) Reiterates defence of Maill 12) Illwei in null tier 13) Pushes JNV Voted on JNV Kas C3 Conclusions: Unclear on thought evolution on Ashbringer. Willing to defend Archer and Maill. Kas D3 reads: V!Archer, v!Mailliw v!Ashbringer? Uncertain about Illwei Elim pool Illwei, TUA, Maill, Orlok Cycle Four: 1) Defends Archer, acknowledges defence of Archer 2) Pushes e!Orlok on end of C1 post 3) Dislikes Experience’s end of C1 and C3, votes Experience 4) Thinks it would have been gutsy for e!Maill to be explicit about forgetting to vote Experience C2 at start of C3 Voted for Experience Kas C4 Conclusions: Committed to v!Archer. Further defence of Maill. Pushes e!Orlok Kas D4 reads: V!Archer, v!Maill e!Orlok Cycle Five: 1) Asks Ashbringer whether he really believes v!Orlok 2) Suspects e!Orlok 3) Thinks Illwei’s C3 felt village 4) Suggests possible four elim world (don’t believe this is credible) Kas C5 Conclusions: Pushing e!Orlok. Kas D5 reads: v!Illwei e!Orlok Overall: Kas believes Archer, Maill, Illwei, maybe Ashbringer are village, therefore Orlok/TUA elim team? Don’t see this as credible belief. There was a cycle where TUA and I were both inactive, and a kill occurred. Orlok/TUA e/e not possible. TUA: Cycle One: 1) Places retaliatory vote on Archer, whilst agreeing with him 2) Striker expresses suspicion of TUA 3) Striker says they’ll rethink suspicion of TUA when pressed on it 4) Says retaliatory vote on Archer was a joke 5) Might vote for Illwei, has no reads (not e/e with Illwei?) 6) Agrees with Archer’s idea of random voting as doesn’t want the game to be vanilla, but wants accountability (self-contradictory?) TUA C1 Conclusions: Dislike internal contradictions. Not e/e with Illwei. Striker distancing? More likely that Striker couldn’t explain suspicion. TUA D1 reads: None Cycle Two: No notes Cycle Three: No notes Cycle Four: 1) Forgot about the game 2) Thinks Kas described their playstyle well 3) Disagrees with Illwei about Striker having a similar approach to TUA and Ash (sus of Ashbringer?) 4) “Really dislikes Illwei”, would look at Kas if Illwei elim. Voted on Illwei TUA C4 Conclusions: Unsure where read is coming from. TUA D4 reads: E!Illwei, possibly e!Kas Cycle Five: No notes Overall: Consistent pushing Illwei, hasn’t given reasons. Very little to analyse. Could be e/e with anyone except Illwei/Orlok Archer: Cycle One: 1) Expresses view that we should introduce uncertainty in voting. Espouses broad suspicions and private trust lists (+/-) 2) Thinks Distribution 3/12, as hidden voting benefits eliminators, could be convinced of 4/11 (Why? If mechanic favours elims, why suggest more of it, why would 4/11 + elim favouring mechanic be balanced?) 3) Asks us not to compare him to historic!Archer. Jokes about Kas being elim. 4) Striker is suspicious of Archer, Archer is his preferred target (+) 5) Is happy to play voting straight from C2 (So why is C1 different?) 6) Is surprised that Striker supports JNV 7) Is voted on by Striker, after Striker questioned why there wasn’t a vote (+/-) 8) Striker reiterates suspicion of Archer 9) Is suspicious of Aman for directness of his attack on Striker (-) 10) Thinks Striker villagery for forgetting to vote (-) 11) Thinks TUA overreacting to pressure or poke voting back. 12) Is suspicious of Ashbringer for wanting an Archer flip Did not vote C1 Archer C1 Conclusions: Very much unsure. Do not see how it makes sense for Striker to go after Archer, and so must hold a reduced prior probability of e!Archer, but tempered by later Striker interactions. Move to Ashbringer late cycle possible if e/e with Striker, gut just don’t feel like that’s likely Archer D1 reads: E!TUA? e!Ashbringer? Cycle Two: 1) Mildly suspicious of Mailliw for checking thread close to rollover without posting 2) Thinks elims started bussing when Striker moved to Ashbringer 3) Says he should be lock village as voted for by Striker (-) 4) Doesn’t think Kas e/e with Striker 5) Doesn’t think Illwei e/e with Striker 6) Doesn’t think TUA elim 7) Mailliw could be e/e with Striker 8) Suggests Orlok bussed Striker 9) Votes on Ashbringer for interactions with Striker and vote on Archer 10) Heart said e!Striker was too easy 11) Willing to vote for Orlok Voted on Ashbringer Archer C2 Conclusions: Dislike calling out Orlok only. Feels surface level easy, without actually reading my posts. Unsure of view on Ashbringer – suggesting bussing started with Striker’s move to Ashbringer as Striker’s vote was distancing? Archer D2 reads: V!Kasimir, v!Illwei, v!TUA e?Maill e!Orlok, e!Ashbringer Cycle Three: 1) Thinks Devo flip odd 2) Voting again on Ashbringer 3) Also sees Illwei/Orlok as options (yet didn’t think Illwei e/e with Striker) 4) Kas in village core 5) Thinks Orlok and Ashbringer looked like they were bussing Striker 6) Thinks Illwei buying time by suggesting TUA as peripheral candidate 7) Clears Bort for voting pre-bussing time 8) If they (Archer) were e!, would have come out stronger against Striker for cred. 9) Feels Mailliw’s reads list was off Voted for JNV Archer C3 Conclusions: Inconsistency on Illwei – what made read change? Ties to Kas from other side. Dislike “If I were evil I’d have done x) Archer D3 reads: V!Kas, v!TUA E!Ashbringer, e!Orlok, e!Illwei, e?Mailliw Cycle Four: 1) Justifies JNV vote, thought JNV e/e with Illwei 2) Suspicious of Experience for C1 vote on Ashbringer 3) Asks TUA & Ashbringer whether they’d vote for Experience, Mailliw, or Illwei 4) Argues misplayed C1 if evil 5) Thinks TUA being overly defensive Voted for Experience Archer C4 Conclusions: Dislike vote on JNV for Illwei suspicion. Not sure where Illwei suspicion even came from, but Archer votes for JNV based on suspicion of a player he won’t vote for. E!Archer/e!Kas? Archer D4 reads: E!Illwei, e!Mailliw Cycle Five: 1) Votes on Illwei, thinks he is TWTBAW and Illwei should know that 2) Trusts Kas. Believes v!Ashbringer, v!TUA as no TUA counterwagon 3) Wants to vote for Maill, Illwei or Orlok Archer C5 Conclusions: Reasoning for Orlok is solely late post? Doesn’t appear to have read my tables or posts at all. Pushing e!Orlok w/Kas. Haven’t seen any argument for Maill or Illwei either. Archer D5 reads: V!Kas, v!Ashbringer, v!TUA e!Orlok, e!Illwei, e?Maill Overall: Consistently trusting Kas. Dislike how Archer is arriving at votes. Despite D1 & reduced likelihood of Striker, believe possible given later cycles. Posting as running out of time in cycle. Have notes handwritten, typing remainder up now.

Which is unironically a general village tell when used right. I know you won't take my word for it but I've talked about it before. Elims are much more self conscious about having trackable progressions than villagers. And yet I had one of the lowest on D2. Aman had more than me, Kas has more than me, Ash has more than me. And people were When I say Archer was openwolfing, this is what I mean: <1> Elim perpective slip: Only thinks about Elims not liking randomness when it also contributes to there being potentially no cohesive exe. <2> Next pick is an inactive. <3> Implied knowledge of when Elims started bussing. <4> Openly admits to not voting strictly for Village cred. <5> Annoyance over Aman asking to be killed for OOG reasons, elims having to choose between being nice and playing their game Not to mention the C1 Striker interactions. <6> Anyone wondering why Striker didn't vote in his first post? My opinion? He entered into a thread without votes, not knowing where he should put his. He marked a teammate as someone who was the most suspicious on his list but didn't want to vote until he knew where people's opinions were. Because that easily he could have boosted votes on Archer. the absolute easiest thing to do there is vote archer for his opinion. I don't think people would have found that overly suspicious- in isolation it's just NAI. Now we have Archer's responses. <7> this is in response to Aman's post. He starts by trying to discredit Aman. He shouldn't be remotely pocketed by Striker right now, with Striker gunning for him. He should be questioning how a difference in opinion makes himself an elim. but here he is, trying to discredit Aman. Not voting-that's too direct, but shading him. relates it to a villager's post, so that's actually a good look for him, but not good enough seeing how JNV was mostly consensus suspicious at this point. <8> Archer then says this ^^ about striker going "whoops i forgot to vote". not only is that not a villagery thing to say, but Archer then goes on to semi-shade archer for putting his vote in red text, calling it "unnecessary." And like Kas goes on to point out: JNV, Kas, and I all used red on our thread votes before Striker did. So why only point out how Striker did? If Kas is village which I think is likely then that is potential TMI where he called out striker for doing something other people also did. If I'm confbiasing then I'm confbiasing on something. But where? Because I don't think it's in the Archer-> Striker interactions. I don't While I am at Kas being village right now, I think that if Archer is an Elim then Ash is more likely village because of how Ash approached the Archer connection and how much Ash took to heart the Archer connection that Striker gave. And if Ash and Kas are both village, it means that the Thaid train on D2 was completely pure. which makes sense if Archer is an Elim, seeing how he commented on how he has used Thaid as an easy misexe in the past. Ash's supposed confusion at the end of the cycle is theoretically villagery as well. <1> @Illwei, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here - that Archer has an elim perspective because he isn't considering the impact of randomness on a cohesive exe? <2> From what I've seen skimming the thread, there appears to be a consensus that my end of D1 post was suspicious. I've explained my thought process, which I stand by, but can very much see why the eliminators would see me as an easy mislynch. <3> As far as I can see, Bort was either the third or fourth public vote on Striker. I think you're reading of this as an elim slip - and it might be, but a more charitable reading is that Archer thinks bussing would happen after that point. I need to think on this point - Archer made comments D1 about the impact of a D1 elim death on their team, which has bearing on when Archer thinks bussing might have begun. <4> This feels relevant here. Running out of time before a meeting, but of note: 1) Is worried about e!Striker 2) Per <4> thought they were a lynch contender, alongside Striker 3) Didn't feel under pressure of being lynched enough to vote for Striker Not sure what the implications of this are, will come back to this point in a couple of hours <5> Counterpoint - would e!Archer express that displeasure in thread? <6> Can see your point, but my own read of Striker's post was that they made a set of assumptions contingent on Archer's flip. My own thoughts are that it's either e!Striker pushing for a mislynch of v!Archer (hence no vote), or e!Striker pushing for a bus of e!Archer, hoping to flip others on the back of it. Not sure why there wasn't a vote in the latter case <7> Fair <8> Also fair Running out of time. Need to spend more time thinking about all the above.

The post below? Am I right, then, in thinking you voted on Ashbringer because Aman suggested he might want to vote on him, without providing even his own reasoning? What made you trust Aman so blindly? Doing so now.

Cycle Post Player Summary Vote Retractions Thoughts AI (perceived) Notable connections One 26 Ashbringer Public voting worked in QF52 to keep votes in line. Elims never pressured enough to need to lie about votes. N/A N/A Would elims feel pressure to lie, or pressure to explain, their votes? NAI None One 27 Amanuensis Asks for thoughts on Archer's random voting suggestion. Comments on TUA voting on Archer, notes it as retaliatory N/A N/A Known villager. Clearly thought responses to Archer's post are alignment indicative. Known village Questioning TUA One 28 Illwei Doesn't see what's wrong with it being a vanilla game. Doesn't think trackable votes are bad. Thinks without intentions, players will not feel any pressure N/A N/A Agree - or think this comes from village mindset Mild village None One 29 Ashbringer Says "you're welcome" to Aman N/A N/A Misinterpretation (Obviously) not e/e with Aman Is confused by Aman One 30 Amanuensis Corrects Ashbringer N/A N/A None None None One 31 Matrim's Dice Doesn't have a problem with Ashbringer's two vote suggestion, but doesn't want to see it at lylo. Thinks it's 3/12. Doesn't have a problem with vanilla game. Leans village on Illwei, village on Archer for disagreeing with his starting suggestion, wants to lean elim on Experience for vote on Archer, but thinks e!Experience might have picked a better reason to vote on Archer. Poke voting Mailliw Mailliw N/A Known villager. Disagree with reasoning for clearing Archer/Experience. Agree with take on Illwei Known village Voting on Mailliw One 32 Amanuensis Votes on Thaidakar, provides vote count Thaidakar N/A Poke vote Known village Votes on Thaidakar One 33 JNV RP. Thinks we should be clear about who we are voting for, if mismatch on voting vote for liars. Sees no reason why randomness helps village. Thinks eliminators losing C1 elim doesn't hurt much because there aren't connections. Doesn't think Ashbringer's idea better. Votes for Archer. Archer N/A Known villager, think post comes from pretty surface level consideration of mechanics - I think this reads as village. Known village Votes on Archer One 34 Illwei Votes on Matrim for village reading Illwei Matrim's Dice N/A I also got tonal village read from Illwei's post Matrim quoted. Illwei suspecting TMI from Matrim Very mild village Votes on Matrim One 35 Matrim's Dice Says village read on Illwei was for taking view contrary to mood of the thread and sticking to it N/A N/A Don't think v read should come from Illwei being contrary - I get it as tonal Known village Village read on Illwei One 36 StrikerEZ Notes in RP form. Agrees with Kasimir that Archer's suggestion of randomness doesn't make sense. Echoes Kas. Suggests TMI from Matrim re Archer. Thinks TUA overreacted to Archer's vote. Thinks Devotary not elim. Agrees with JNV's thoughts on Archer, would want to vote with them for Archer in future. Cannot get over Archer's initial suggestion. Thinks in thread accountability important. Thinks Archer's change of mind a sign of an elim backtracking. Agrees with Experience about accountability. Finds what Ashbringer said agreeable. Doesn't understand why they have been defending Archer. Wants to flip Archer before looking at Ashbringer. Wants more from Thaidakar. Agrees with what Aman has said. Strongly agres with Illwei. N/A N/A Known eliminator. Village reads or agrees with Kas, Devotary, JNV, Experience, Ashbringer, Illwei. Elim reads Archer. Thinks Matrim has TMI about Archer, and that TUA overreacted. C1. Under no pressure to bus Archer. Think Archer is Striker's genuine preferred mislynch. Other reads predicated on Archer flip - Matrim and Ashbringer. Reads on Matrim/Ashbringer suggest predicated on e!flip from Archer. Fabricated reads, but what does Striker do in case of v!flip? Summary - reads list makes more sense if attempting to bus Archer, but do not believe this to be the case - no vote on Archer, level of focus seems to be ML attempt. Known elim See posts One 37 Mailliw Initial read of Archer was that post felt elim, read eased as went on. Thinks it's fine not to share vote with thread. Doesn't want to be pushed by consensus. N/A N/A Very similar to my own reading of Archer at this point Mild village Easing of initial e!Archer read One 38 Archer Is fine with Ashbringer's suggestion of offering two votes. Explains logic behind random voting further. Is fine with playing voting straight C2. Works through C1 implications of C1 elim lynch, concludes less bad thann had initially thought. Surprised by Stiker expressing suspicion of Archer N/A N/A Not sure is thinking through distributed votes properly, but seems genuine in belief - all reads as predicated on genuine belief of elim confusion. Think workign through D1 lynch of elim in that manner less likely if Striker bussing. Read of post as neutral, think moderate village from Striker Surprised by Striker One 39 Amanuensis Translates Striker's notes. Votes on Striker. Villager reads Maill. Striker N/A Sets out good argument for voting on Striker. Known villager Known village First vote on Striker One 40 Ashbringer Joke N/A N/A NAI NAI None One 41 Lotus GM GM GM GM GM GM One 42 Mailliw Asks what the point is of hidden votes if not used. If Lotus put it in game should use it N/A N/A Reasonable view, in keeping with historic Mailliw NAI None One 43 Amanuensis Is on same page as Maill, thinks we should maximise in thread vote discussion N/A N/A Known villager Known village None One 44 Ashbringer Identifies that elim random votes can be non-random as can coordinate, and that we can get information from this N/A N/A Agree very very strongly. Critical insight, key to argument for random voting Village None One 45 StrikerEZ Responds to Aman. Is very defensive. Reiterates suspicion of TUA. Wasn't trying to tie Archer to Ashbringer. Can't read Thaidakar. Questions Aman's suspicion of Illwei. Votes on Archer Archer N/A Known elim. V defensive. Knows under suspicion, but reads consistent. Known elim See post One 46 Amanuensis Replies to Striker. Questions Striker's suspicion of TUA. Suspicious of Illwei N/A N/A Known villager Known village Suspicious of Striker, Illwei One 47 Kasimir Multiquote. Not sold on mismatched votes being prima facie evil. Asks Archer to spell out reasons for changing mind on hidden voting. Doesn't see substantive difference between suggestions of Archer and Ashbringer. Worries that having a pool dilutes pressure. Leaning Null+ on Archer, retracts. Votes on JNV, asks if they have reconsidered on Archer. Calls out Striker for thinking it odd that Mat backtracked - thinks reevaluation normal and good, says Maill did so. JNV Archer Thinking about implications of voting. Reevaluating. Calls out Striker for not doing so - but doesn't engage in substantive of Striker's post or with Aman's suspicion of Striker. Distancing? Very mild evil Votes on JNV One 48 Mailliw Thinks everyone should share suspicions in thread. Doesn't have any more than gut suspicions, wants to try not sharing them for first cycle. Is glad that Kas doesn't read their desire to use hidden voting as AI. Asks Kas what he reevaluated N/A N/A Contradicts self, but acknowledges it. Gut village read Gut mild village None One 49 Kasimir Says Maill reevaluated read of Archer N/A N/A So thinks v!Maill? NAI Thinks v!Maill One 50 Matrim's Dice Thinks Striker's analysis of him feels fabricated. Disagrees with Archer about villagersd wanting to self-pres. Votes on Striker StrikerEZ N/A Known villager. Known village Votes on Striker Would have liked to make it further before rollover, but will carry on. Summary from the second tranche: I can't see Striker's reads post as a bus of Archer. Pretty willing to commit to v!Archer. P2 only strengthens my D1 village read of Ashbringer. Also willing to commit to v!Ashbringer. I mentioned this (although not clearly) at the end of D1. Reading on in depth just reinforced my read of v!Ashbringer. @Experience (Experience), why did you vote for Ashbringer toward the very end of D1?

Again, I want to apologise for not having had capacity yet. I’m committed to catching up today. I intend to finish a post by post of cycle one, and to at least have notes on the rest by the end of today.

Apologies for not being around this cycle. Serious issues in my personal life have re-emerged, and left me without sleep or mental capacity today. In response to some of what has been said about my own vote: I placed my vote at the very end of the cycle. I did this because I’m aware that my playstyle leaves me behind, and it was the first cycle one I’ve been semi-current on since returning, so wanted to make an effort to vote. I was not, however, up to date with the thread properly. At the point I began a quick read of the thread, knowing I wouldn’t catch up in time, I had Experience and TUA as my least trusted players. I didn’t see anything warranting a concerted effort to lynch them from my post-page one skim, and beyond that, it seemed like most of the discussion was on Archer and Striker - and my skim suggested that they were both contenders for the lynch. I would have supported one of them dying on policy grounds, purely for C2 information, and judged Striker to be the better vote than Archer, who I felt I was forming more of a read on. I will continue my D1 analysis, but my level of engagement will sadly be subject to things getting slightly better in my personal life.

I've read through the thread. On initial skim, nothing major on TUA, gut dislike of Experience voting on Ashbringer, but haven't properly re-assessed Ashbringer from page one. No worthwhile information from either. Vote feels like a choice between Archer and Striker - and the lynch of either will provide more information than that of anyone else. As far as I can tell, suspicion of Striker is tonal, and of Archer for their first post. Will vote on one of the two of them.

Cycle Post Player Summary Vote Retractions Thoughts AI (perceived) Notable connections One 1 Lotus GM GM GM GM GM GM One 2 Amanuensis Smiley face in cowboy hat N/A N/A None None None One 3 Thaidakar RP N/A N/A None None None One 4 Experience "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" N/A N/A Don't understand it None None One 5 Araris IM post IM IM IM IM IM One 6 Matrim Will be afk for an hour but is present N/A N/A Necessary to say? Why? Unsure None One 7 Ashbringer Is going to test something. Has placed a stab vote on Devotary, will not retract until analysis or RP done Devotary N/A What are they testing? Stab votes not a new concept. Testing impact of invisibility of retractions? Watch for future votes Very mild village for willingness to retract on RP Vote on Devotary One 8 Archer Randomness is infuriating as an eliminator - or having a poor sense of whether they're in danger. Suggests everyone keep suspicions broad & trust private, so elims can't rely on village mix to get to D2. Asks for thoughts. Suggests everyone place a truly random vote as a placeholder, will place his on Kas, Matrim, or TUA. Makes bad pun. Says mobile easier as don't need to red text votes. Kas, Matrim, or TUA N/A Thoughts on two levels - tactical, and alignment indicative. From gameplay perspective: random voting likely to create relatively even distribution of votes. Not convinced it increases the threat to the eliminators, as any villager they vote on is just as likely to have pre-existing votes. Random voting within pools short term disadvantageous (in that village cannot coordinate, so random votes within pools truly random, indiciating lower "true" than "threatened" vote) whereas eliminators can do so - and so increase likelihood of killing villager. Over medium term, this provides information - with clouded voting, patterns of voting together suggest coordination, as does being on "winning" vote train each time. Only provides this information if village "random" votes within pools truly random - otherwise can be explained away as "gave three options to obfuscate my vote, but really was more suspicious of player xyz". Is information from coordination worth reduced clarity on player's suspicions? Crux of decision we need to make. At first reading of post, instinct was very strongly against this - personal preference is maximum clear information to assess. Now less certain - intrugued by analysis potential. Alignment indicative? Post made eighteen minutes after thread went live. Suggests time to write it, not necessarily time to consider implications in depth post-start of game. Considered beforehand? I think AI depends on depth of consideration of suggestion. At surface level, random voting aids eliminators - easier to hide, reduced "accessible" information. I went into game expecting to play voting entirely straight - red voting in thread, with consistent vote in my PM. I was planning to do the same if evil - whilst I assessed obfuscated voting beneficial to elims, couldn't see an angle or strong argument against consistency. For Archer to make argument allowing reduced information reads surface level evil, but if so indicates high risk appetite. Overall, depends on depth of thought of consequences (influenced by time of post, pre-consideration, historic gameplay), on short term advantage to elims, and on risk appetite. Unsure. Mild village. Based on MR56, assess within e!Archer's risk appetite. However, I think post reads as from village mindset. Unwilling to commit strongly. Suggested strategy volatile, potential to significantly advantage elims. Voting on one of Kas, Matrim, or TUA One 9 Amanuensis Ships Shallan with Kaladin. Asks Experience what he meant by his post. Emoji expressing thinking about Ashbringer's experiment. Says we're playing an MU certified mountainous game with distribution. N/A N/A Expressing similar thoughts to myself re Experience and Ashbringer, if interpreting "yyyyyyyyy?" and the emoji correctly. NAI None One 10 Experience Replies to Archer's post suggesting vote randomness. Suggests they might vote randomly between Archer, Archer, and Archer. Explains earlier post as RP character sleeping. Possibly Archer N/A Can't tell if joking about Archer, assuminmg suspicion. Think suspicion is valid take on Archer's post. Very mild village Possible vote on Archer One 11 Kasimir Votes on Archer. Engages with idea, asks why randomness and private trust lists shouldn't be repeated beyond C1. Asks Aman what a moutainous game is Archer N/A Fair question. Doesn't engage in depth with coordination consequences of obfuscation of votes. NAI. Consistent with expected initial assessment from Kas. Votes on Archer One 12 Devotary RP. Notes QF52 had the same setup and elim victory, asks Archer whether playing QF52 changed his initial opinion that obfuscated votes favoured the elims N/A N/A Enjoyed the RP. Skimmed QF52, which looks like it had limited PMs. Archer was village in QF52, note that I read them as pretty suspicious on skim of thread until flip. Asking for information on Archer's position, but gives no view of her own Very mild village Questions Archer One 13 Archer Asks Aman for his distribution guess. Thinks hidden votes benefit elims more than village, so thinks 3/12, but could be convinced of 4/11 N/A N/A Aman's distribution guess 3/12, per a google of MU mountainous games. Think 4/11 with mechanically advantaged eliminators is implausible , and obviously so- parity guaranteed after C3. If believes hidden votes benefit elims, why suggest it above - reevaluate depth of thinking. Why suggest implausible distro? Mild evil None One 14 Thaidakar Misses Archer's awful pun N/A N/A Lucky man NAI None One 15 Devotary Spells out to Thaidakar Archer's Salamander joke N/A N/A None NAI None One 16 Thaidakar Thanks Devotary N/A N/A None NAI Possible less likely e/e with Devotary One 17 Experience Asks whether it benefits the village to keep voting secret, thinks some of out best information could be gained from inconsistencies in voting. Says will probably do that at some point, but it could be useful. Asks for thoughts. N/A N/A Internally inconsistent, evidently so. Gut read of evil. Makes sensible point re playing voting straight - but don't think this is AI. Possible read as making sensible argument, but providing room to manoeuvre. If evil, why so self-evidently evil? Gut elim, reevaluate. Dislike that read appears so easy. None One 18 Ashbringer We need to strike a balance on anonymous voting. Last time, eventually all votes matched the thread, which made it vanilla. So voting in sectret can be helpful, need to figure out how. Says balance also necessary with random voting. Notes that random voting allows consideration of whether elim votes are truly random, suggests that becomes a three gods problem. N/A N/A Dislike assuming hidden voting useful just because it's in the game. Vanilla isn't necessarily bad, particularly if hidden voting deemed disadvantageous - unless we're explicitly playing suboptimally to use the mechanic. Takes random voting as helpful to start - not sure thoughts on this, worth noting. Mild evil - dislike willingness to obfuscate information without strong rationale, which Ashbringer doesn't provide Supports Archer's proposal, doesn't provide depth of thought One 19 Amanuensis Explains mountainous games. Doesn't think hidden votes is enough to push game to 4/11. Doesn't like C1 distro guessing. Asks Devo whether Archer was v or e in QF52. N/A N/A Implicit from "pushing to" that sees hidden votes as beneficial to village? Unsure None One 20 Archer Thinking has shifted since QF52, QF52!Archer inexperienced. Suggests Kas' vote in his elim meta. Randomness C1 but not onward justifiable as C1 a shot in the dark. N/A N/A Understand evaluation of thinking. Dislike handwaving of why. Think Kas is in Kas meta. Strongly dislike all C1 strategies that separate C1 - don't think randomness in C1 voting + elim kill put sus in any stronger a position C2 - and so C1 must be a cycle in which actual discussion occurs. Mild evil Kas in elim meta One 21 Matrim Replies to Archer, says not knowing others' stances is infuriating to village. Likes Archer's explanation for it just being C1. Thinks we should try for an elim flip today N/A N/A Like mindset thoughts on Archer's suggestion come from Gut mild village Disagrees with Archer One 22 TUA Placing a retaliatory vote on Archer, agrees with Archer's suggestion Archer N/A Very odd. Self contradictory - if agrees, then why not act following logic - makes single, explicit, non-random vote. Less likely e/e with Archer. Mild evil Votes on Archer, agrees with Archer One 23 Ashbringer Responds to Archer's C1 randomness. Says we want to avoid everyone C2 claiming C1 vote was random - too easy for elims to hide. Going random and secret to start, but if has reason to trust Devotary, will move it from them. Suggests everyone vote for two players in thread, pick which one is real Possibly Devotary? N/A Very much like two-player suggestion. Allows uncertainty and coordination conclusions whilst forcing reads. Moderate village Possible vote on Devotary One 24 Devotary Replies to Aman, says Archer was v in QF52. In QF52, Archer supported coloured votes. Whatever village did din't work. N/A N/A Not providing own assessment of Archer, or anyone else. Unsure Talks about Archer One 25 Illwei If distro balanced, elim team of three. Thinks hidden votes are elim sided. Doesn't like secret votes. Too easy for elims to push players over the line if not discussed. N/A N/A If so, thoughts on those who have argued for secret votes? Agree at gut level with view, however. Very mild village None Likely won't finish this before the end of the cycle, so will swap to being current on thread to make informed vote. Summary up to end of page one is: Kasimir NAI Consistent with expectations Matrim Gut mild village Like mindset assessing Archer TUA Mild evil Self contradictory, actions don't match claimed views Devotary Unsure Like asking for information re Archer, dislike not providing own assessment JNV N/A No posts Archer Unsure Read first post assuming depth of thought, likely influenced by skim of later posts. Do not like post #13. Less likely post #8 came from v!Archer Experience Mild evil Gut, feels like making village post but justifying later changes to approach. Striker N/A No posts Ashbringer Moderate village Based entirely on two-player voting suggestion. Feels very much like a village suggestion. Mailliw N/A No posts Thaidakar NAI Nothing AI to assess Amanuensis Unsure Some shared views, no strong positions explicit Illwei Very mild village Gut based on phrasing of argument on hidden votes Bort N/A No posts Orlok N/A N/A Edit 1: Posted before I was ready, will edit in thoughts in next five minutes Edit 2: Thoughts completed

I'm continuing past Archer's first post, and have skimmed the thread, but shortly have a long meeting, and want to break my mental block on posting, so: Cycle Post Player Summary Vote Retractions Thoughts AI (perceived) Notable connections One 1 Lotus GM GM GM GM GM GM One 2 Amanuensis Smiley face in cowboy hat N/A N/A None None None One 3 Thaidakar RP N/A N/A None None None One 4 Experience "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" N/A N/A Don't understand it None None One 5 Araris IM post IM IM IM IM IM One 6 Matrim Will be afk for an hour but is present N/A N/A Necessary to say? Why? Unsure None One 7 Ashbringer Is going to test something. Has placed a stab vote on Devotary, will not retract until analysis or RP done Devotary N/A What are they testing? Stab votes not a new concept. Testing impact of invisibility of retractions? Watch for future votes Very mild village for willingness to retract on RP Vote on Devotary One 8 Archer Randomness is infuriating as an eliminator - or having a poor sense of whether they're in danger. Suggests everyone keep suspicions broad & trust private, so elims can't rely on village mix to get to D2. Asks for thoughts. Suggests everyone place a truly random vote as a placeholder, will place his on Kas, Matrim, or TUA. Makes bad pun. Says mobile easier as don't need to red text votes. Kas, Matrim, or TUA N/A Thoughts on two levels - tactical, and alignment indicative. From gameplay perspective: random voting likely to create relatively even distribution of votes. Not convinced it increases the threat to the eliminators, as any villager they vote on is just as likely to have pre-existing votes. Random voting within pools short term disadvantageous (in that village cannot coordinate, so random votes within pools truly random, indiciating lower "true" than "threatened" vote) whereas eliminators can do so - and so increase likelihood of killing villager. Over medium term, this provides information - with clouded voting, patterns of voting together suggest coordination, as does being on "winning" vote train each time. Only provides this information if village "random" votes within pools truly random - otherwise can be explained away as "gave three options to obfuscate my vote, but really was more suspicious of player xyz". Is information from coordination worth reduced clarity on player's suspicions? Crux of decision we need to make. At first reading of post, instinct was very strongly against this - personal preference is maximum clear information to assess. Now less certain - intrugued by analysis potential. Alignment indicative? Post made eighteen minutes after thread went live. Suggests time to write it, not necessarily time to consider implications in depth post-start of game. Considered beforehand? I think AI depends on depth of consideration of suggestion. At surface level, random voting aids eliminators - easier to hide, reduced "accessible" information. I went into game expecting to play voting entirely straight - red voting in thread, with consistent vote in my PM. I was planning to do the same if evil - whilst I assessed obfuscated voting beneficial to elims, couldn't see an angle or strong argument against consistency. For Archer to make argument allowing reduced information reads surface level evil, but if so indicates high risk appetite. Overall, depends on depth of thought of consequences (influenced by time of post, pre-consideration, historic gameplay), on short term advantage to elims, and on risk appetite. Unsure. Mild village. Based on MR56, assess within e!Archer's risk appetite. However, I think post reads as from village mindset. Unwilling to commit strongly. Suggested strategy volatile, potential to significantly advantage elims. Voting on one of Kas, Matrim, or TUA

I’d like to sign up, if it’s ok to do so without committing to RPing?

I’ve been hoping to get back to this for a while, and keep promising myself I’ll work up the energy to do so. Unfortunately, I’ve had an extraordinarily difficult and draining week, and haven’t yet. Although I suppose this is a post, @StrikerEZ, please replace me if you do have a pinch hitter. Otherwise, all I can say is that I continue to want to catch up, and that I’ll continue to try to do so.

Well, this gives me a stay on my need to be caught up in time to make an informed vote this cycle. Bort

I can see the logic here, although would obviously prefer (if we accept it) to vote off you rather than I. If we’re committed to trusting Devotary (despite this), and I think we have been since we the end of Cycle 4, I’d prefer to vote off Szeth, and have Devotary choose which of us she kills tonight. I don’t know why there wasn’t a kill, though, which tells me that we’re missing something, possibly about Devotary. One explanation would be that TUA protected Szeth, thinking that that would take it to a 2v2 today, even if Szeth didn’t kill, whilst hoping Szeth returned before the end of the cycle, and taking the whittling down of the village to the lynch as a free move. I was expecting Szeth to die tonight, and with Araris lynched scanned TUA. TUA didn’t protect Szeth, however. So why not make the kill? I return to my point about feeling like we’re missing something again. Edit: to be clear, TUA visited no one.