Orlok Tsubodai

All PMs have now been sent. You are quite correct - the Inquisitor must have a dead misting to convert someone.

Day One: Titles are Overrated Dear __________ You may have disliked the kidnapping that you have no doubt experienced, but we expect you to easily overcome such an issue. We hope you enjoy the experience that is being provided to you by the Lord Tekiel, and his infinite amount of boxings. They’re obviously not actually infinite, but they might as well be at this point, considering the place you’re in. Now, some of you might be waiting for me to describe the kind of area you’re in, although I have no idea why I would do such a thing. You have eyes of your own, why don’t you use them? I shouldn’t have to spoonfeed you on all the details of whatever might be happening, otherwise you’ve already failed the test. You might also be expecting Lord Tekiel to speak to you, but why would he speak to some lowlife outsiders? That was a bit rude, sorry. Sometimes I forget that you outsiders think you’re better than anyone in Fadrex, as if that was even possible. Anyway, I have a few things that I must do now, like setting up one of you to die at some point tonight. Have Fun! Sincerely, The Court Fool (PS, if you think this letter is too short, then I’ll have you know that your Outsider opinion doesn’t matter anyway) Long Game 32 has begun! You have 48 hours to decide who to lynch. PMs are now open. Player list:

I had great fun playing this game, so first would like to thank Wyrm for running a game with such an interesting concept. I think the largest mistake for the village was not forcing partnerclaiming. Although the thread seemed to settle on the idea of two eliminators, the potential for there to be three was mooted. With the decision to avoid a lynch on D1, the village gave themselves essentially one day of useful information to analyse (D2), before the D3 lynch-or-lose. If, however, we'd had to partnerclaim, the information generated in the two night cycles would have been useable in the D3 lynch. I also think that tying night players to day players would have increased their incentives to post - lurking, and not doing so would become suspicious. Finally, there would likely have been useful information generated from observing those who opposed partner-claiming. I think Wyrm has already covered effectively why a D1 lynch is sensible. A night kill, although something to discuss, is far more useful when discussed in context of the previous day's lynch. Without that context, the village starts D2 with almost as little information as D1, but with a player already dead. We're a wonderful community, and I can definitely understand that people don't like dying D1 or N1. Speaking as the player with (last I checked) the highest number of recorded C1-2 deaths, it's not fun dying early, and when it's frequent, reduces investment in games. In a game like this, though, without a D1 lynch generating material for the night players to discuss, and without a lynch of their own, many night players were unable to do anything N1 anyway. In terms of enjoyment for all players, I think a D1 lynch would have been justified by increasing the usefulness of the remaining night players in N1. As an eliminator team, we have been lucky this game. Aman's limited ability to communicate during the day dramatically reduced discussion, of which he is normally a key driver. Sart's lynch on D2, though, was a remarkably lucky break for us. Not only were Sart and El advocating partner reveals, which, as I've already described was a serious threat to us, but El had a very reasonable chance at catching me. Not only does she know me well, but we were both exchanging notes on every single post made through the game when we could talk in night cycles. By the time N1 ended, I'd provided her with my analysis of more than 60 posts, even with a relatively quiet night cycle. (For context, there were 198 posts by players in C1 of the AG, and 125 in LG31). She had a lot of material to analyse, and was already paranoid of me by the time I died. With another cycle's analysis, I am reasonably confident that she'd have caught me by the end of N2, had she been alive, and would likely have been able to demand partner claims after having done so, for the D3 lynch. @Arraenae, apologies for your N1 death. We killed you because you had opposed partner claiming, and in the 5 minutes before the cycle ended in which time I had to make a decision as to who to kill, I decided it might be worth seeing if we could get the village to believe we were worried about your opposition to partner claiming. @Amanuensis, you died because I was worried about the level of exposure I had to you (with El dead, you had spoken to me more than any other villager), and because on N1, I speculated that the village might be role-heavy to make up for the lack of time in the game. At this point, I hadn't factored in the advantages derived from having a cleared partner with which to discuss the game, but was concerned that you'd perceive it as my having seen roles in the game. @STINK, I'm afraid you died on a whim, nothing more. Something I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on, from anyone, is the challenges an eliminator faces in reducing information in the game. I see games as a race between the village to increase the information available to them, and the eliminators seeking to reduce village numbers. It makes strategic sense for the eliminators to try to curtail information generation as much as possible. However, I believe there is a responsibility for eliminators to pursue this in a balanced manner. Taken to an extreme, the eliminators could play a very sound strategic game by removing all the vocal players as soon as they could, and lurking. I have a problem with this approach for a number of reasons. Firstly, it discourages activity, and players must weigh up the enjoyment they derive from analysing and engaging in a game against the materially increased likelihood of death high activity brings. Secondly, it normalises inactivity, which I think everyone can agree is something bad for the community, whatever our thoughts on the contribution crusade. Inactivity is certainly sometimes not avoidable. I've gone inactive in a few occasions, including after a death in the family, and starting a new job, whilst being in the middle of a serious argument with a friend. It's not something to encourage, though, and I think LG31 and this game have been much healthier for their higher activity. The strategy of minimising information would also lead to frequent targeting of the same few players in the early game, which diminishes their involvement and investment in our community, and reduces the fun everyone has in games, through there being less to get involved in. I think that as an eliminator team this game, we could have done better through attempting to increase discussion during the night turns, which were relatively quiet. Although I made a significant post in N1, timing forced it to be at the end of the night, and out-of-game circumstances precluded me from making a second substantive post in N2. Overall, I hugely enjoyed this game, and would like to thank Wyrm once again for the effort he put into running it, and everyone who played for contributing to the fun.

Ok. We've had a serious dearth of activity on night turns recently. Part of this is my fault - beyond making a my views clear on Elenion's strategy, I didn't say anything else last night turn. Part of this is that I've had far longer days at work this week, and been distracted with life, but again, I should have been more active. I will read through the thread once more, and work out questions, but in the spirit of driving conversation before I finish: @Straw, @STINK, @Ecthelion III, @Figberts, @phattemer, @randuir. What are your thoughts on Elenion's plan, partner reveals, the lynch, or anything else? @randuir, you were an active player in LG31, and I thought your analysis was excellent - it would be welcome now. @Ecthelion III, you've been very quiet recently. @STINK, are you still playing? Are you lurking deliberately, or just uninvested?

One was attempted, but with the change to British Summer Time from GMT the day the game starts, it adds confusion.

Rule clarifications: 1. Unsnapped begin the game as vanilla villagers. Each cycle, they have a chance of snapping into their powers, which is raised significantly in a cycle where the Inquisitor has converted a Misting. 2. This is a rerun of LG2, and rules clarifications for LG2 are almost certain to apply here. Player list: 1. Arinian - Alrin 2. Hemalurgic Headshot - Quinn 3. Jondesu - Remart 4. Elenion - Roger Elariel 5. Drake Marshall - Serray 6. Darkness Ascendant - The Phantom Stranger 7. Randuir - Magister Agemtsar 8. Magestar - David Agemtsar 9. Herowannabe - Herwynbe 10. Yitzi2 - Garshin 11. Metacognition 12. Silverblade5 - Ryth 13: Arraenae - Rhea 14. TheMightyLopen - Sidon 15. little wilson - Willie Klara 16. Droughtbringer - You 17. Iamspartacus - Astrid the Bold 18. Ornstein - Winkleton 19. Araris Valerian - Wol 20. Dalinar Kholin - Lebochevkowski 21. OmeGaster - Rieyun 22. Kipper - Elenion 23. Sart - Gaetan 24. Bugsy - Jelwynd 25. Figberts - Quond 26. Mark IV - The Follower 27. Manukos - Reval 28. Aonar Faileas - Vana Izenry 29. Ecthelion - Amnar 30. Amanuensis - Mykal

Dear ________ You have been invited to Fadrex, by the will of Lord Tekiel. And to refuse such an offer would be unprecedented. So First, I shall inform you that anyone reading this letter has a certain quality that we find extraordinary, and we wish to only grow your potential. Whether that be the will to survive these turbulent times, or a certain affinity for anything pointed, we have considered everything. However, we cannot accept everyone that has been invited, so we must first run a simple entrance test. Anyone that passes this test will be allowed in to Fadrex, and if you fail the test, well, we won’t have to worry about that. You will find enclosed within the letter all the information that you need to know before the test starts. We hope to see you next week. Sincerely, The Court Fool Roles: THUG: Our Scientists have a theory that the less intelligent you are, the stronger the body. They’re very keen to examine your dead body. Presuming you can actually survive the first attack. TINEYE: You know when everyone is silent and there’s that one guy that always talks? Well, we’re looking for you. At least you get others talking, ya know? But when you’re dead, everyone will go back to being lovely and silent. SMOKER: You hate people. Every night, you’ll take someone in so that you don’t hate yourself every night, but someone else. You can also go out and socialise with people, but who would do that? SEEKER: You stalk everyone, with no exceptions. You’ll find everything, metals or lack of metals. You can even notice if someone has spikes in their eyes! Isn’t that impressive? COINSHOT: You love to murder people. That’s all we need to know. LURCHER: You love to hug and protect people. Bit of a weird one, but we’ll give it a go. SOOTHER: You hate it when people interrupt your book reading. They’ve usually got a fair point though, like who even reads Sanderson books? Luckily, you can make people shut up. RIOTER: You love to debate, especially about politics. Is Lord Tekiel the best? After you talk to them, no-one would say no. However, no-one really trusts your opinion on the matter anymore. UNSNAPPED: We think you might be able to do something, but you also could not do anything. I’m betting on not doing anything, though. REGULAR CREW MEMBER: Everyone likes to compare themselves to others to make them feel better. You? You’re just the only one that can’t feel better. INQUISITOR: Ooooh! Shiny! Oh, and I guess you can give other people shiny things. Can’t live without shinies though, right? Cosmetic Roles: These are additional roles that players can take on at their own discretion. They do not affect the game play in any way other than to modify how the player posts. If you come up with your own role, feel free to suggest it. There is no penalty for not using one. These are here for your enjoyment, not to be a deterrent. High Imperial - Wasing the wanting of speaking in High Imperial. You must use it at least somewhere in your posts. Note: you do not have to use it for every sentence and you still need to be mostly intelligible. Survivor Priest - Kelsier wasn't just a famous crew leader for you. Perhaps you were in Luthadel during the riots. Perhaps you saw him come back. Regardless, you're a believer and must make reference to the Survivor or the Survivor religion in each post. Cassanova - Good looks are such a curse; one you know all too well. While you didn't ask for it, to you, it's obvious that you are the best looking person ever and you won't let anyone forget it. In every post, you need to remind everyone of what a heartbreaker you are. The Jaist - Somehow, somewhere, you heard about Jaism and knew it to be perfect for you. Now that the Lord Ruler is gone, you've taken up the mantle of this lost religion and in Jaist fashion, you frequently mention your faith. You must end your posts with "Praise the Ja." The Feruchemist - You’re secretly a Feruchemist, and you’re not really sure what all the metals are used for in Allomancy. But when you’re surrounded by Mistings, you just have to play along. In every post, you must mention how confused you are at all this Allomancy stuff. ---------------------------- And that's Game (3)2! Please state the name of your character and how you’re preparing for the test! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask either here or in a PM! Let the Chaos Test begin! All credit to my esteemed co-GM, Stink, for the role descriptions and setting, and a great many thanks to Meta for allowing us to rerun his game. I've always found rereading LG2 fascinating, and hope it's enjoyable for everyone to play! The game will begin in 168 hours time, next Sunday, at 11pm British Summer Time. Quick Links:

Analysis to follow, but I thought it important that I get my thoughts on this out quickly. @Elenion, I vehemently disagree with this idea. I have two major reasons for doing so. The first of these is the potential for a mayor to arise. If we, as a village, start directing actions through consensus, including clearing players, then I see it as ridiculously easy for a cleared villager, or group of villagers, to start directing actions, and casting suspicion on players who don't comply. My second point leads on from this. You remove all autonomy of action from night players. It doesn't matter if they're directed by a cleared mayor, or by the village as a whole. Their right to make their own choices, to play the game as they want to, has been removed, with a threat of death should they not comply. Night players have restricted actions in the game anyway, with half the time available to discuss, and no lynch available to them. If we follow your lead, we would make the use of night players little more than PMing each other. I want to play a game where I can make my own choices, and can win or lose based on my interactions with others, and actions I choose to do. I don't want to play a game where I win, but do so because we removed the fun for half the players. These games are not about winning, or losing, but about building a community, and helping everyone enjoy themselves. It may be a strategically sensible move, Elenion, but it is not one that I will support. I hope that other players, and particularly day players, realise the impact this strategy would have on the game, and on their partners.

Right. I'm really quite time pressured writing this, having just spent the last 3.5 hours actually looking through the thread. Forgive any typos, and understand that my questions are rushed. @Drake Marshall, early in D1 you talk about wanting everyone to post to generate information and discussion, and then say you may vote for the contribution crusade. Do you not see a vote for the crusade as minimising information we draw from the lynch? This seems inconsistent to me. @TheMightyLopen, I got a good read on your first post (although I might be biased, given my antipathy to the crusade) on everything but your question about eliminators having a kill, which I've marked as potentially trying to make it seem like you're ignorant - thoughts? @Drake Marshall, I approve of your desire to avoid the game getting off to a slow start. @Arinian, you list off a set of suspicions your partner has, but then don't vote on any of them. What are your reasons for disagreeing with your partner? @Bartimaeus, I'd still like to see a justification for your day one vote on Elenion. @Arinian, acknowledging that there's a difference between voting on and lynching a player (my above question stands despite your view), I'm minded to say I disagree on your advocacy of no lynch on D1. The lynch is a great driver of information gathering, and without it we're left with little for N1 players to actually discuss. @Elenion, commendable as it is, why the sudden change of heart on bandwagoning? You haven't historically waited for evidence before voting. Why now? @Hemalurgic_Headshot, you say you don't think Bard is an eliminator, go on to suggest that he might well be a blatantly obvious one, and then that he's subtle enough to advocate voting to encourage bandwagoning. Which is it? @Jondesu, it's a bit of a stretch to say that you can't imagine a reason for claiming Aman as a partner, isn't it? It kept Aman and Bart alive, for one. @Drake Marshall, you say Bart's claim is too obvious for an eliminator, but vote on him regardless. Why? Assuming he's telling the truth, as you seem to, what would your justification be for voting on a village Aman? @Elenion, you warn against bandwagoning (again, a good change of heart, if unexpected), but then claim your vote was entirely retaliatory - again, on Aman, and don't remove it. Do you actually believe your earlier claim about votes needing to be evidence based, then? Running out of time... @_Stick_, your claim to tie the votes because two villagers will die anyway at night only really holds water if the lynch targets were all village - why so confident? @Jondesu, why is Bart claiming an Aman partner an effective way to gain trust? If he were lying, Aman would have refuted it less than ten hours later. Holding your vote here seems like an excuse to bandwagon on Aman. @Magestar, again, the suggestion that Bart is pulling a gambit false-claiming Aman as his partner seems contrived. Aman would have no reason not to refute it very shortly after. @Drake Marshall, would you explain your vote on Lopen further? It seems contrived. @Jondesu, your retraction seems genuine to me. @Drake Marshall, you say your vote is staying where it is because you have little evidence elsewhere? Is lynching Aman (who we don't know at this stage wouldn't be driving discussion) on these grounds really sensible? @STINK, why not start a discussion yourself? @Arraenae, similarly, if you're so happy to talk, why aren't you starting a discussion beyond waiting. @Figberts, what's the value in repeating the same request for Aman to speak that's been made by both Rae and Ecthelion? @randuir, glad you called out Drake. Do you think Headshot's statistics are useful, of just something to hide behind? Why do you think Rae would lie about her conversation with Aman when he could so easily contradict her? @Manukos, why do you agree with Randuir on Drake? @Amanuensis, beautiful RP, good to have Bart's claim confirmed. This is rushed, and there is more I'd ask if I had the time. Apologies, all.

I'm here, but am shattered. I've had a long and somewhat stressful day at work, so won't be able to give this as much time as I'd hoped today. The main point I'd like to make is the importance of discussions, and of our not getting side-tracked with bandwagons or lynches of inactives. We have eleven players, and with two deaths a cycle, that means we don't have long at all to get information. I'd like to see every player offer thoughts on the game, and on other players. I promise to get my own up before this cycle concludes.

Right. With so little time left in the cycle, I should probably explain myself. I think there is a reasonable chance I die to a vigilante tonight, and would not blame them for killing me. My reasons for not responding previously this cycle are threefold. I was asleep when the cycle went up, having had a long day at work, and four hours sleep after my analysis the night before. When I woke up, I was deeply embarrassed, frustrated, and angry at myself. I've put a lot of effort and energy into this game - many, many hours of analysis, and was wrong. @Hemalurgic_Headshot, I am sorry for tunnelling on you. This evening, I've had a nightmarish day at work, and have had very little time between getting home and eating. Some thoughts on the game, albeit brief: Talking is incredibly important. Aman has put a lot of effort into the game, which is really impressive, but needs to be challenged and supported. It would be a real shame for the game to turn into an Aman-directed mayorship, however right he may be. I would also ask that people do consider the possibility that Aman is evil, especially as the game goes on, with the potential for conversions. Yes, it's intimidating to challenge him (and I suggest that if anyone does, they make sure they do a better job than I did, which probably means not trying to do so after a day of work and 7-8 hours of analysis. That tends to limit one's ability to structure coherent arguments. This game could be over very soon. Please, please be active. I spoke 48 hours ago about the balance of information and players - two pendulums, if you will. Village lives could swing very heavily by the end of tonight, and not in our favour. I don't think information has been swinging our way fast enough. If anyone is looking for an explanation of my actions, I would ask them to look through a lens of information. My actions throughout this game have been driven by trying to create discussion. My questions on D1 were not an attempt to hide, but to draw something out of a bandwagon. My accusations of Aman, despite knowing I had a tenuous argument, were because I thought stating them regardless was the best way to create a discussion, and to actually put some pressure on Aman, who has otherwise focused almost without check on other players. I have learnt a lot from doing analysis this game. In AG3, I had the benefit of eight cycles of information before I started, which gave me a lot more to work with. This game, I had less than two cycles, which made my methodology far more susceptible to reliance upon singular anomalous events, rather than patterns. I have also revised my "alignment" column. Whilst originally intended to consider each post's impact on a player's alignment in isolation, time pressure whilst analysing, an eagerness to be right after finding something anomalous led me to use it as a general sense of a player over the game so far. This has led to tunnelling this game, and is something I will make a conscious effort to deal with in future games. Thank you all for the opportunity to play this game, and I'm sorry for wasting last cycles lynch. I remain somewhat embarrassed at the state of my analysis this game.

@Jondesu, merely because Mage's comments on D1 lead me to think that editing in a summons prevents it from working.

@Jondesu, I apologise for the brevity of this response. I'll try to get more detailed thoughts out later, but am running on 4 hours sleep, and have only recently got back from a stressful and extended time at work. Essentially, the point I'd make in response is that I didn't switch to Headshot. I've been advocating his death since D1, and voted for him in my main post of this cycle. It is entirely possible that I'm wrong about Aman, and it's certainly true that I was tunnelling. I've been wary of him this game, as I've had a sense that he's been flooding the thread with analysis to avoid anyone being able to analyse him. Before my post, Aman's being a villager was entirely undisputed, despite no one actually having analysed what he was saying, and I sought to generate discussion and thoughts on him, rather than spending this cycle on what I thought was a fairly clear case for lynching Headshot. Focusing on Aman has forced him to defend his own actions, and has generated far more information than the previous 24 hours, which were spent with the total output being little more than Aman exhorting activity. @Amanuensis, thank you for the explanation of the screenshot. That does alleviate some of my concern. I'll address your substantive points once I've eaten, but the one I can remember seeing earlier is sufficiently important that I want to put particular emphasis on it. You asked me whether I thought Headshot would need another player to write his post for him to defend himself against his accusations, being unable to do so himself. @Hemalurgic_Headshot, I did not mean this, and am deeply sorry if you feel like that. I think another player wrote the post because it seems, to me, to be absolutely impossible that any one of us could forget that we've never played a type of game, and it's more plausible, I think, that a player thought it would be a sound defence of Headshot having imperfect information of his game history than it is for Headshot to decide to lie about it himself in order to decrease suspicion.

Right, having had a little more time to reflect, this morning, I think it's clear that the evidence against Aman is far, far thinner than that against Headshot. It is very possible that I'm wrong about Aman - I did make a mistake in my analysis last night, with regards to Elenion's withdrawal of his vote from Phattemer making Aman the second vote on the lynch, and will spend greater time thinking about Aman tonight - I'll ensure I get revised thoughts up before rollover, in case I die, after which they're likely to be of interest. I do think, though, that Headshot is guilty, and am confident in my analysis of Headshot. I would again point out to @Amanuensis that he hasn't addressed why I would pursue a lynch against Headshot if I were evil, and neither has he offered his own opinions on my points against Headshot, which I think would be of interest to see. @Amanuensis, do you agree with my analysis of Headshot, and if not, why not? If you do, then I'd like to see your explanation of why you still think I'm evil. I am perfectly fallible, and apologise if I am wrong on Aman. That said, I still think that there is a fair likelihood that I am not, and his ignoring my argument against Headshot do corroborate my view, slightly. After I die, whether to the lynch today, or tonight, I would ask that you do lynch Aman the next cycle. Giving him a turn to find a skaa to prove he's not evil is sadly not brilliant proof - Kelsier has an opportunity to convert, tonight, which gives Aman the opportunity to bus a newly converted player, if he is evil. I'll be at work, and unable to respond until my evening (GMT). I think that there is a real danger that discussion isn't carried out on Headshot. His alignment will tell us a great deal about the alignment of both Aman and myself, and in my view, will remove a clear eliminator. As such, I would ask that in addition to offering opinions on Aman and myself, everyone also considers my argument against Headshot, which I think we can all agree, is materially stronger.

@Amanuensis, it's 6:40am, and I'll answer your posts more substantively later, when I can. For now, let me clarify. I meant to say Szeth, not Bart when discussing your auppprt for an inactive today, which you did indicate a degree of support for - "Fair enough. I might join you, but I'll hold off for now". Similarly, for the sale of clarity, I would point to my saying you were the third vote on Elenion as a typo. I thought were instead the third vote on Phattemer.. This I will admit is wrong, and a conclusion drawn from spending too long starting at a screen. You may safely ignore the conjecture on 3rd voting. On sleep, Aman, that's really interesting. You see, the thread was posted a time midnight my time, and at 8:38am, I have a screenshot that showed you'd been active seven hours ago, meaning you'd been active at least 30 minutes after my post, which I attach. Why are you now saying you were not active at that time? Finally, what are your thoughts on Headshot. I think he's pretty uncontroversially evil. I admit, I may well be wrong on you, but with a game as short as I believe it to be, did not want to preclude me from posting my suspicions. I do find it suspicious that you don't mention my points against Headshot once - I presume you must believe him to be innocent, rather than throwing him under the bus. How do you then explain his slip ups, and actions?

@Hemalurgic_Headshot, I'm afraid I'm not going to excuse the slip. I see no way that real life could cause you, or "your mind" as you put it, to forget that you'd only played Long Games. Once again, you seek to brush off accusations as immaterial. On the second point you make, your argument is essentially that the skaa would seek to convert either Aman or myself, because we've been the most active, and Aman has already said he's not a skaa, therefore I must be. 1) I believe that there is a strong chance that Aman is skaa at the moment, and regardless, predicating your argument on our trusting Aman's claim hardly sets it up with a firm foundation. 2) More saliently, we saw four attack attempts last night. I am very hopeful that one of them was Kelsier, because if not this game will be over by the end of the week. Assuming it was Kelsier, the skaa have not yet been able to make a conversion. 3) I'm not sure how my being "outgoing (do you mean active?) means I'm likely to have been a skaa since the beginning. I've sought throughout to generate discussion, which is exactly the opposite of what I'd want to do if I sought to deny the village information. Headshot, your post screams of desperation to me, and your logic is not sound. I think it serves as useful corroboration, however, of my analysis. Your association with Aman in the above post is also interesting, and I hope that the rest of the village takes more of it.

I apologise for the tardiness of this post, for it covering a number of topics, and for its length. The first thing I’d like to address is the lynching of an inactive this cycle. Before doing so, it is important to cover time pressure this game. We have very few players. We started with 17, and have 13 alive. By the end of this cycle, we could plausibly have 9 alive, if there is a lynch, a Ruin kill, a skaa kill and a vigilante kill. I don't think that the skaa will have started with more than three players. Starting with four, with a potential D1 conversion, night kill and successful lynch would allow them to have five players of fifteen on D2, and a village of nine facing six other players, including at least two kills, which I think would be incredibly broken. That tangent allows us to assume 2 current eliminators with what I consider a fair degree of confidence. Whilst this might sound like a significant lead for the village (10-2-1 at the moment), with the current rate of deaths, it could be 6-2-1 by next cycle, or even 5-3-1 with a conversion. With Szeth inactive, and unlikely to return,and Bart and Straw both currently busy with real life, there exists a plausible scenario where the skaa are tied in number with the active village by the beginning of D3. Now, this is a worst case scenario, assuming every kill hits a villager, that we mislynch, and that all three players affected by activity are village. It's unlikely that this is the case, but it's certainly more likely that disengaged players are village than eliminators. This leads on to today’s lynch, and the proposal that we lynch an inactive. I see SE games as a race between the eliminators and the village. The eliminators start with a significant information and coordination advantage, but at a significant disadvantage in the number of players on their side. The village have an advantage in numbers, and a significant disadvantage in information and coordination. The village need to equal the eliminators’ information before the eliminators can equal the village in numbers. In this game, with four deaths a cycle, a conversion, and a low starting number of players, numbers will equal very quickly. As such, the village do not have much time at all to increase their information. Lynching an inactive gives us no information, or very, very little, when compared to the lynch of an active player. I am firmly of the view that we cannot afford to not have a heated and divisive lynch today. I am suspicious of Aman for agreeing to the idea of lynching Bartimaeus today, despite the number of attacks last night, and despite the fact that we got very little information from the last cycle’s lynch. You've clearly spent hours thinking about the game, and the speed of the game was raised as a concern on D1. Why do you think we can afford to waste today’s lynch? Next on my list of topics to discuss is last cycle’s lynch on Phattemer. I am, frankly, disappointed. I’ve discussed the time pressure we face, and it was not a valuable use of our time. Instead of challenging multiple players, and watching who stepped in to defend them, we gained but a few things from this lynch. We observed that Stick and myself didn't get involved in the bandwagon. We watched Headshot’s vote, his withdrawal when challenged, and his asking whether he should put the vote back on. We also were able to observe the order in which people voted for Phattemer. I am disappointed in those who voted after Randuir. By my count, there was always at least a 3 point lead on Phattemer after this point. Vote manipulation was not a credible worry. Votes here were either to avoid standing out, or because people didn't want to go to the effort of thinking independently. More interesting, thought, to me is Aman’s vote. By his own admission, mafia statistics show that the third to fifth voters in a bandwagon are more likely to be eliminators. He also says that were he an eliminator, it would amuse him to have voted then, despite the statistics being raised, in order to “spike” the statistics. At the time of Aman’s vote, he was the third vote on Elenion. Aman plays at a level above nearly all of us. He has a vast amount of experience, a sharp mind, and a lot of time. Knowing him, I think he'd be very amused to call raise the points about his desire to spike statistics whilst actually doing so. It's circumstantial evidence at best, but it's there. Aman raises the point that Stick has a tendency to avoid getting involved in main lynches when she’s evil. I don't believe Stick to be a skaa, but I think she may well be Ruin. Not only does this fit with Aman’s analysis, it justifies that analysis if Aman is evil, which I do suspect, and most interestingly to me, ties in with a PM I spied on last night, from Joe to Stick. In this PM, Joe indicated that he was suspicious of her. After a response, he said he was much less suspicious that she were skaa, and then asked if she was Ruin. After a two hour delay, which I take to indicate that there was a response, he concluded the PM chain by saying “Don’t worry, I won't tell”. I think that this, along with her behaviour, which as Aman said is consistent with her not being village, implies a reasonable chance that Stick is Ruin. On my own abstention from the bandwagon, I think those players who know me are aware of my vehement dislike of bandwagoning, and my frequent arguments against them. I spent the cycle trying first to create discussion on the contribution crusade, and then on trying to create conversation by challenging players on assertions they'd made, in an attempt to make up for the lack of discussion generated by the bandwagon. I have already addressed Headshot’s actions, and will do so again in my analysis of his actions as a player, but the summary here is that I think he’s far too worried about how he’s perceived, and I think that his withdrawing his vote after being challenged (along with his post immediately after N1 began) serves as strong evidence of this. At this point, I think it worth discussing my thoughts on Ruin. I suspect my view on this matter will be controversial, but I will offer it nevertheless. Ruin cannot win with the village, and the village cannot win with Ruin. Ruin is not incentivised to just target the skaa, for doing so may allow the village to win before it can find Preservation. Ruin will be whittling down the village numbers. Any indication that they will go after inactives seems like wishful thinking to me. They will want to target players who could plausibly be Preservation, and I don't think any of us think that Preservation is really likely to be an inactive player. As set out above, I believe Ruin to be Stick. However, if Ruin has claimed to anyone, and I’m wrong, I'd strongly advocate that they tell the thread of Ruin’s real identity, and that we remove Ruin, either through vigilante kill or the lynch. Doing so removes a significant element of danger to the village in the late game, and a source of an unaccountable kill, slowing the rate of decline of village numbers. Another topic I'd like to address is to briefly answer Arinian’s thoughts on me. He's quite right - asking questions would be an excellent place for an eliminator to hide without committing. However, and my reason for doing so, it also drives discussion, and gets people to put views out in the open. I have been taking notes on players, and you’ll find my thoughts on players below, but last cycle I felt the bandwagon necessitated challenging, and so tried to draw explanations for players on why they were voting in it, as well as making players explain or defend ideas of theirs. The last point I'd like to make before moving into analyses of players is to discuss the half-skaa briefly. I do not think there will be many of them. As I've noted before, this is a small game. With too many half skaa, the potential for the eliminator team to grow becomes destabilising very quickly. The payoff from a successful conversion is immense - I would expect it to require a significant amount of dedication for Kelsier to succeed. I also don't think that Aman is likely to be a half skaa. Firstly, I think that he may well be full blooded skaa, but let's ignore that for now. If Aman is half skaa, the game has the potential to swing monumentally. He is, by some significant margin, the most active player of all those who signed up. He's got a reputation for being incredibly effective as a player, and for being exceptionally difficult to catch as an eliminator. He is indisputably the best target for a conversion, and if he's a player capable of being converted, then the village would lose their best player, after having had a couple of cycles with which to he has gained trust, making it even more difficult to catch him. From a balance perspective, I don't think half-skaa!Aman makes any sense. I will move on, now, to analysis of players. Once again, I’ll start with Headshot. I firmly believe Headshot is evil. I've explained that his vote on Phattemer was entirely hypocritical, which to me means that he can't really have believed his reasons in voting for the lynch. I called him out on his call for a clear lynch decision to be made eight hours before the cycle ended, on day one. His response was that his concern was ridiculous. This marks the second time he brushed off an accusation made at him, without engaging in it - the first being his original acknowledgement that he had no defence of his hypocrisy. Other than the vote and retraction, I would point out something particularly interesting in his response to my N1 post. He justified your initial agreement with Mage without elaborating by saying that he’d “forgotten the pacing of a Long Game is much slower. I was ready for things to progress, get information etc”. He hasn’t played anything other than Long Games. He’s played AG3 and LG30. To me, this tells me that he was advised by someone else in the creation of his response to my post, or that someone else wrote it for him. I can't see there being a defence to this argument - one doesn't simply forget that they haven't played anything but Long Games. The second player I'm suspicious of, which I've already made clear, is Aman. My suspicion of Aman comes from a number of sources. I've already set out above that I think he’s aware of the damage the lynch of an inactive would do today, and yet he announced support for lynching Szeth. I discussed the circumstantial evidence arising from his ironic mention of the bandwagon statistics. Randuir and I, in C1, pointed out that he used a narrative device to cast suspicion on Joe without engaging in an outright attack on him. Aman denied doing so, but I think it’s worth bearing in mind, and taking Aman’s words with a pinch of salt. I would also point to Aman’s U-turn on Headshot. In C1, when Headshot was under relatively little suspicion, Aman said he was suspicious of Headshot, due to his backing out of the vote. After I made a post attacking Headshot, and Elenion supported this suspicion, Aman became a staunch defender of his, casting suspicion on Elenion in a recent post for being suspicious of Headshot himself. Aman focused the discussion on D1 on the lynch of a relatively inactive player, limiting the information we could get from a lynch. After I expressed concern as to the bandwagon, he encouraged it to form further, calling for every other player to give their views on Phattemer, setting the parameters of the conversation very tightly. Finally, Aman had been online shortly after rollover, without posting, in a timeframe that fits with advising Headshot’s rebuttal of my post (see the comments on Headshot referring to Long Games as different without having played anything else himself). I apologise for the length of this post. I hope I've dealt with the salient issues of the game, and that the remaining players will engage in discussion on the points I've raised, and particularly on Headshot and Aman, rather than allow the lynch to be wasted on an inactive. I will set out my thoughts on the rest of the players tomorrow, I think, unless I muster the energy to continue tonight. I've been working on analysis of this game for 8 hours, today, so may just get some sleep.

I'll sign up as Locke Tekiel. I have missed SE games recently.

@Amanuensis, I don't have any PMs either - you're not the only one people don't want to talk to... Thank you for your explanation. I've been sick this evening, so won't be able to post. >>. I want to apologise to everyone for this - I've been promising thoughts for a while, but have cleared my schedule for tomorrow evening, so will post then, if I'm alive. If I'm not well enough to post tomorrow evening, I won't be at work, so should have plenty of time to struggle through with with a post.

@Hemalurgic_Headshot, I'm on a lunch break, now, and can't spare much time, so will address your response in detail when I have the time to do so properly. For now, though, I'd like to emphasise the point that everyone is capable of analysis. We all know that Aman can be terrifying, but who really wants the game to turn into a variant of follow the cop, where we let Aman direct us? Everyone can contribute something useful, and additional perspectives help everyone. @Amanuensis, you have been online at least twice since rollover, and promised thoughts on Phattemer's lynch, and on Joe. Would you share these with us?

@Hemalurgic_Headshot, your participation in the lynch is hardly the only reason for suspecting you. Working through your posts so far this game: You've agreed with Mage, and said that there's no information, so will wait to place your vote. This is precisely what we lynched Phattemer for doing, which clearly isn't to say that you must be lynched for the same reasons, but is interesting on the basis that you appear a little hypocritical in doing so. When agreeing with Mage, you didn't explain why, or offer thoughts, which came across to me a little like you were trying to hide. I've previously drawn attention to your next substantive post, in which you commended Joe's picking apart the cycle, and said that it was "interesting" that he considered you suspicious, before placing the vote on Phatt. When I pointed this out, later, you acknowledged that my points were true, and said you didn't think you should be voted on, and that it was a matter of perspective. I'm afraid this doesn't qualify as a defence, to me. Would you care to actually justify your actions, rather than brushing them to the side? In the same post, you worry about a lack of clarity in the lynch, about 8 hours before roll-over. Not only is it day one, with clarity in who we should vote for on day one always being non-existent, it also appears to me that you're advocating shutting down discussion here. A lack of clarity would mean multiple contenders, and a greater amount of information generated. Prior to this post, you say that you'd predicted you'd be accused because of participating in a bandwagon. You then remove a vote from Phatt "because he hasn't defended himself". To me, it feels like you're changing your opinion because you're under pressure, which makes me wonder whether your opinion was anything other than fabricated anyway. Your next post is taking pride in being a bandwagoner. I have this marked down as non-indicative, but wanted to call it out anyway. Bandwagoning, as a playstyle, reduces information available, shuts down communication, and celebrating it, to me, is akin to celebrating an inability to think critically or independently. More importantly, though, your next suspicious post is one in which you ask whether you should vote on Phattemer. Why on earth should your vote not be your own, unless you're worried about your own opinion seeming suspicious? A post setting out thoughts on the rest of what has been said, and responding to those who answered my questions will follow tomorrow, but it is late, now, and I need to sleep.

Sadly, I won't be able to get my post finished before rollover, but wanted to put on the record that I think Phattemer is likely a villager, and that I'm suspicious of Headshot, with reasons to follow once my post is done.

An awful lot has happened since my last substantive post, and I preemptively apologise for the length of this post. I'll try to keep things clear, for ease of following my comments and arguments. I’m writing this on google docs, and may well insert quotes at a later point. I'll work through the thread, and then offer comments on the themes of discussion. @Elenion, I don't want to be rude, but take issue with your claim that “some” lynches need to be based on evidence. I think that there are very few circumstances in which generating a discussion based on evidence isn't useful, and to me, it sounds like your view is that these ought to be given equal weight to bandwagoning on inactivity? @Arinianyou said that you were suspicious of Stick because she doesn't look suspicious. Would you care to expound on this? There are a lot of players so far that you haven't mentioned as being suspicious - why call Stick out? @A Joe in the Bush, I agree that your criticism of @Elenion'a role advice is warranted, and would also highlight Elenion’s views on thugs. I may be misinterpreting him, but it seems to me that he thinks thugs should claim when up for the lynch, and that they should expect a lynch to dissipate when they do so. This, to me, is a ridiculous view. Not only are we unable to verify that they are indeed a thug, allowing anyone who cared to claim a “get out of jail free” card, but more importantly, being a thug is not remotely indicative of being good. If we leave suspicious players be based on it taking longer to lynch them, we go into the late game with potential evil players capable of taking two lunches to kill, and so only delaying the problem. @Ecthelion III rightly identifies @phattemer's strange ways of generating discussion, but ignores both @_Stick_, who had said the same thing yet earlier in the thread than Phattemer, and @Hemalurgic_Headshot, who had also advocated discussion by waiting to vote… Why did you single out Phattemer? @Amanuensis, firstly, I'd like to offer my best wishes that you recover swiftly, and sympathy for your Worm induced distraction. You say I'm your first post that you'd consider a vote on Silverblade for not doing anything. Is this materially different to a poke vote? @phattemer's argument that he delayed voting to avoid a bandwagon forming is, to me, a weak argument. Two votes hardly make a bandwagon, and increasing pressure on a player increases their motivation to defend themselves, whilst doing nothing, as has been pointed out, adds nothing to discussion. His claim that he'd like kandra to contact him strikes me as desperation. Whether that's holding an important village role or trying to convey the sense that he has an important village role isn't yet apparent. I agree wholeheartedly with Aman’s warning that the game would turn into a “follow the cop” if we all wait for answers, although think that a consensus is present in the thread that doing so is a poor strategy. I think his argument regarding Straw is very weak, and am a little surprised he brought it up. It's far more likely to be coincidental than Straw informing Phat that he needed to respond. @Silverblade5, you said you agree with Phattemer’s role advice. Which parts did you particularly agree with, and what do you think about his advice to Tineyes and Thugs? @DroughtBringer made a post that I see as inherently contradictory. He says we should lynch inactives as we might get lucky, but that they may also be a distraction. Do you support lynching them or not? @A Joe in the Bush, Stick did exactly the same thing as Phattemer. Is there a particular reason for voting on Phattemer rather than Stick or Headshot? I'm not sure I agree with you regarding stockpiling of metals. Although it does limit supplies for the eliminators, it also results in a lot of village firepower being at risk, reliant on a single player’s survival. What's the value in saying what you did about the Lord Ruler? If you're right, you increase the likelihood of the Lord Ruler becoming a mayor, which is something I think we can all agree should be opposed. @Amanuensis, I agree completely regarding your assessment that role advice isn't alignment indicative, and indeed, it makes me suspicious, being a safe and uncontroversial place to appear helpful. I would ask, though, whether there is any value in claiming you have a read on Joe that you're not prepared to reveal. The conversation has been focused on Phattemer, and is of limited use. Creating a second strand of conversation would increase the information we could draw from the lynch. My other thought is that you're trying to get additional suspicion cast on Joe, and if so, why not mention that you're suspicious of him? It strikes me as a way to try to direct conversation whilst potentially avoiding the consequences of putting an opinion out there. @Magestar, you say that things Elenion has said have thrown you off. Which particular things has he said that have done so? @randuir, you vote for Phatt as he's the most suspicious player, but other players have done exactly the same thing. What makes Phattemer more suspicious than Stick or Headshot? Aman, you recently said it was “odd” that Magestar is voting for a player based on their tone feeling different. Is this but an observation, or are you suspicious of Magestar, now? If so, why didn't you say so? @Hemalurgic_Headshot, your recent post, to me, makes me very suspicious of you. You note that it is “interesting” that Joe called said he was suspicious of you, attempt to justify calling for discussion whilst not perpetuating it, and then vote on Phattemer for doing exactly the same thing you did. If he warrants a vote, don't you? @Arinian, similarly, you say that Phattemer’s actions are not indicative of alignment, as although they're suspicious, many other players have done the same thing. How do you reconcile this view with voting for Phattemer immediately after? I'm going to post this now, and edit in the posts that have occurred since starting this analysis as soon as I can.

I'm working through the thread, and have a larger post to follow once I've eaten lunch, but for now would like to head off this theme of voting for Phatt because of "bandwagons" or not having "any other leads". I will elaborate shortly, but have never seen "bandwagons" as a defensible reason for a vote, shutting down discussion as they do. Arinian, perhaps by voting on another player, or asking them questions, you might gain other leads?

Encouraging activity is good, yes. A "strict contribution crusade" to me implies more than just a few players encouraging activity. I read it as a concerted effort to focus on placing votes for players who haven't been active. I do not mean that we need to focus on "grilling the actives faster". I think that, particularly if the vigilante kills are used, this game has the potential to be very short. In a normal game, the village has a lot of time to gather information, and swing the information advantage away from the eliminators to allow informed analysis to take place. In this game, we're under much greater time pressure to generate that information, and so I argue that we should focus on having discussions about occurrences in the game, and thoughts on players' actions and arguments. Devoting material energy to discussing the crusade diminishes our ability to gather information in a reasonable space of time. Rather than pokevoting players, and asking them a question whilst doing so (which is a marked improvement from just a vote), I would suggest that we instead try to engage players in the game as part of our regular conversations. In the spirit of this, @DroughtBringer, @Ecthelion III, what are your thoughts on the discussion Mage and I have been having?