Amanuensis

I'm trying to fight the urge to say I told you so, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a little vindicated about my stance on not lynching anyone yesterday On a serious note, it's very unfortunate we lost our Mistborn already. If there's no Coinshot like we've speculated, and if there's no other Mistborn (which I'm fairly confident about, given the strength of the role), then we're going to have to rely on lynches alone, going forward. Even so, I would like to discuss who a potential Villigante should target, if we want them to target anyone at all. Generally I would support them going after the other lynch candidate, but I really don't agree with the reasons presented about Drake and I'm reading him as Village independently anyway. Since I didn't previously realize that it's two cycles of consistent inactivity to get people filtered out, I actually wouldn't be opposed to a Villagante taking out some of the players who aren't participating. Xino in particular comes to mind if only because in response to my prodding, the only thing he posted was a greeting and a bunch of emojis. That said, I don't think N1 is an appropriate time for a Villagante to start killing, so I'd rather them abstain for now. What are other people's thoughts on the matter? Ventyl seems fine so far, though I'm not entirely sure where Fura's 100% * 99% village read comes from. Regardless, they are new and should be left be for at least another two cycles after this one. I do harbor suspicion of those who were present at turn over and chose not to act. I agree with the assessment that it was a V/V lynch, which means eliminators would have no problem leaving things be. I find that a lot more likely than Drake being evil and people not wanting to vote for Ark to prevent suspicion falling on their heads for saving him. I can indeed confirm. I promise I'll reply again soon. I'm visiting a friend on the Croatian coast for the next few days, so my activity may be sporadic. Mostly quoting this to say that I'm mostly on the same page, Stick. Fura is someone I want to take a closer look going forward. In the event that I die tonight, I hope people will examine those who were present at the end of the turn and did nothing. Between the three, I think Fura's oddities this game may be an example of Too Wolfy to be Wolf. Furthermore, my knee jerk reaction to Rath pointing out Devotary and Fura alongside him is that he's not trying to hide and thus more likely a villager. But if I analyze that further, it's probably NAI since an eliminator would likely be more conscious of that fact and bring it up anyway. I still haven't looked into Devotary like I said I would yesterday, and I'm sorry about that. I'll do my best to examine their posts and inform the thread of my findings before this turn ends.

I intend to respond to this further in depth, but just so everyone knows I will be busy the next few hours and not be able to respond properly as a result. But before I do, can you point out which parts you read as defensive, Lum? I'm curious because I actually have felt really calm and rational about this situation

I believe we have played games in the past, though I don't have any recollection of such an occurrence. That said, what you're saying makes sense, and I don't believe we are in disagreement on that topic. As I said I want people to vote if they have a reason. What I'm advising against is votes for the sake of voting, whether it be poke votes or sheeping. I don't think anyone genuinely feels any kind of danger from poke votes, usually people end up responding with some kind of joke or simply vote back (also known as the OMG U STINK [as in the insult, not the player). As for sheeping, whenever a villager does it, it gives eliminators the opportunity to do the same exact thing (thus increasing the number of suspects we have) or the opportunity to do more, which will immediately put them in a higher standing than a villager. What you describe here is a perfectly reasonable way to follow someone else's vote. I don't really consider that bandwagoning, since the definition of bandwagoning is following other people for the sake of fitting in. In my perfect world, everyone has their own internally formed opinions, and with civility and understanding presents this ideas calmly with the hopes of finding something the majority can agree on. Since no one person can ever see everything, it's important for everyone to give their opinions on well... everyone this game. Although I know how it feels to be Aonar, for example, and see most of my thoughts expressed by others already, I think it never hurts to add on to those conversations with details like how you came about reaching the same confusion, or even playing a little devil's advocate with yourself to see if you're jumping the gun. Like with Rath. I saw the same thing Mrake noticed, and I let it be because I wanted to see who else would bring it up. Depending on how it was brought up, how Rath answered, how the first voter responded back, and everyone else who weighed in on the situation, it gives us a lot of information to work with. While it could have been a sign of Rath having more knowledge than the rest of us, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and even posted to highlight Rath's response, which Mrake seemed to miss. Likewise, Mrake could have seen an opportunity to form a reasonable D1 lynch from an eliminator's perspective. I honestly considered joining his vote for more pressure, but then I saw Rath post again and it made me realize it was a dead lead. The fact that Mrake dropped it so quick to makes me think him and I are of a like mind as well. And when I say like mind, I don't necessarily mean we have the same opinions and thought processes. It's more that I believe we are tackling the game like we are trying to solve it. And I can see you're doing that too, which is why I think the three of us are fairly likely villagers. No apologies necessary friend. I love this community because of all the mafia forums out there, I know we are all civil and mature enough that I don't take more decisive wording as insulting. I know that my sheer confidence as a player often bleeds into the way I write and can make me feel standoffish or rude, and I hope people know that's never my intent as well. In my earlier days it was a problem and I've made a real effort to do better. And I think in some ways I over compensate by being too nice or lenient. On the subject of well... this subject, I disagree that it's circular or views can never change. It's helped me reach my village read of you, after all, and especially for newer players like Ventyl, it can help them understand how players go about things. I also believe that hashing this out between each other will help you reach a village read of me as well. I also believe that if I were an eliminator, I wouldn't have brought this up at all, let alone with the follow up of "I know this is an unpopular opinion, but..." To clarify further, eliminators would always prefer a mislynch to no lynch, and they'd also rather avoid controversial topics that bring attention to themselves, as I have done. Could I manage it if I were evil? Probably. But I don't think it would be my first instinct. Realistically, flips are very important in games where there's no way we can determine a person's alignment 100% otherwise. And I want to remind you that at no point I advocated people not voicing suspicions and voting on them. I just think the village would have a greater advantage if we didn't kill one of our own this turn. After all, we don't know the kandras abilities, whether or not there's coinshots, or who the Mistborn is and if they'd be willing to start burning Steel immediately. If the stars don't align right, we could theoretically lose 3-5 villagers in the first cycle. Which, in a world where there are 4 eliminators, we could end up as 10 - 4 if not worse by tomorrow, as opposed to 11+. I'm a bit of a gambling man myself but when it comes to gambling, I don't go for high risk, high reward. I contemplate, I calculate, and I make sure that I'm utterly convinced that my choice is the right one or at least not one I will regret. And to do that I need more information, not less, which is why I'd be content to let this lynch slide. For the record, my intention was never to convince others not to lynch today. More so express my stance on it, and explain why I'll very likely abstain from voting today, barring any extreme circumstances. I addressed the similar mind thing earlier. I tend to read people more so on how they reach their conclusions. Bludgeoning is great, like you're doing with me. It should provide the other players with enough content to form their own opinions of both you and I. And if I'm right that you're not an eliminator too, that's a wonderful thing. It means that going forward the village will be able to focus on the eliminators while they have to spend two nights getting rid of us. You stated it elsewhere, but I think this is a playstyle / philosophy dispute, and not an alignment related one. Only I hold the opinion - as stated above - that an eliminator would rather snag an easy lynch than advocate for a more peaceful resolution of today's events. Since no one was really up for the lynch at the time I posted that, and I was struggling to find any reason for me personally to vote for someone / go on the offensive, I personally figured it wouldn't be a poor option to consider. Another thing is the problems you're highlighting with not lynching today is that it's temporary. It's just one turn, and while one turn can produce a lot of content, I hold the belief that the first turn is more likely to produce negative results for the village than positive. Even in the scenario where we kill an eliminator, I think the village loses more than it gains. As you said, keeping people around a tad bit longer does not guarantee they produce meaningful content, but I feel that lynching someone this early absolutely ensures that person won't be able to produce meaningful content. Through my eyes a "maybe" is better than a "no." This paragraph is probably something I can't agree with. I don't think the eliminators benefit much, if at all, of a no lynch today. Not unless it meant saving one of their lives, which no one was in danger of at the time, or even still is now. I also don't believe that it means only a select few get to decide who dies. On night turns I always try to openly discuss who everyone prefers would get Coinshot, if a Coinshot exists. Of course there's no guarantee Coinshots will listen, but that provides content itself while simultaneously allowing the majority to point another kill in the right direction. If a Coinshot is willing to follow through, it's 100% possible to turn their kill into a night lynch. If they aren't willing, then we have plenty of stuff to analyze and discuss on the next day, leading into the next lynch. I also disagree that D2 would be just as uninformed as D1. Information gathering roles and even seeing who the eliminators target first gives the village a much better advantage than a relatively blind lynch today. Really it's your use of "only" that makes me wary of your approach. I believe there's plenty of different avenues of approach we can take this game. It's just a matter of people maximizing their individual effort and, if possible, working together. Also no worries on seeming callous. You're perspective is valid and probably the most common when it comes to these games. Which actually just increases my desire to combat it, at least a little, because it may open people up to new ideas they wouldn't consider otherwise, or at the very least get them thinking in greater depth about their stances on players and the act of killing itself. I think you noticing the analogy without my prompting shows that you have at least some subconscious doubts about me being an elim. And on that note, I think I'll end this post here and let you determine whether or not you think I'm a good lynch candidate for today. In the mean time, I'm going to take a quick shower and, when I return, look into Devotary myself to see if your lingering suspicions there might be a sign of something amiss, as well as post my official stance on Rath, which I've already spoken of briefly in PMs.

I'll admit, I think you came into my posts with your opinion already settled, and thus glossed over some details / made some incorrect assumptions. Like your first sentence, for example. This is what you said. And this is what I said. It seems that when I said "if people have a genuine reason to vote," you took that to mean "if you don't have a genuine reason to vote, don't." I think the first question you should be asking is what kind of votes constitute as genuine. Examples include Mrake's vote on Rath for the role-madness assumption, or even your vote on me (despite me personally thinking its silly). What matters in your case is that you're providing reasoning and making an argument. Which makes non-genuine votes something like poke votes, which I expressed my opinion on already, or bandwagon votes, where players don't think for themselves and instead sheep others. Let's keep in mind that in the very last game I played, I was barely paying attention at all and hadn't been in a game of SE for at least half a year if not longer, and yet I managed to vote on an eliminator almost immediately because they didn't vote genuinely. I noticed they poke voted the very last player not to post (me) toward the end of the first day, and that there was no real energy or teeth behind it, which suggested to me that the player wasn't interested in solving the game at all. Drive to solve, honestly, is probably the biggest indication of villagerness to me. If I see that people are putting real effort into their posts, in analyzing other players and forming arguments, than I'm more willing to believe they're village aligned. It is very difficult to craft that sort of thing as an eliminator, or at the very least to do it without any tells or evil intent bleeding through, which means if I see it, I'm going to put you into the "contemplate later" pile and focus more on the people who aren't doing anything to help the village. Also, as for this statement... Considering I've been out of the SE loop for a very long time and have no clue how more than half the players stand on these kinds of topics... then yes, I'm going to bring it up, because how can I play if I don't know the people I'm playing with? I just reread my posts and I can't find a point where I stated "the main value we garner from the lynch is the alignment flip." I do believe the most relevant statements I made to this subject were. This is almost exactly the same thing as... We are of the same mind, Fifth, which is why I think your vote is a bit silly. We both right here agree it's the discussion we need. And in my honest opinion, killing any player who only had a single turn of this game to interact with others, village or eliminator, net's the village practically nothing. The longer a person lives, the more they communicate with others, the more clues are left behind, the more chance they have to prove themselves, and in turn, the more time other people have to judge this player and make their opinions known. On the subject of friendly fire, ever since my participation in the MU Championships, I have consistently done my best to only vote on eliminators. Although I haven't kept track of the specifics, I know that my rate of success is pretty dang high. I'm not saying this to toot my own horn. I'm saying this so you understand my mindset. Every innocent life is precious. Sure this might just be a game, but that's the way I see it. Although it's a risk people sign up for, who honestly enjoys dying? I know I don't. And because I'm a naturally empathetic person, I have issues killing other people. "Do only onto others what you want done to yourself," right? While there's no hard feelings between factions (we're just doing our job), I still take this philosophy into account with every post I write and every action I take. Not to mention the fact that every villager we lynch diminishes our power and gives the eliminators a better chance to win. It's not about me being unwilling to accept risks. I just am unwilling to accept bad or uninformed risks. And most of the time, D1 lynches are exactly that. For what it's worth, this is most certainly a tunnel. Yourself and Mrake have proven yourselves enough to get sent to the probably-village, "contemplate later" pile. Even if you're on the wrong track (and that this particular track has made me your target), I can see you're wandering around in search of tracks. Not to mention you dove head first into one of the more controversial ones. More often than not, eliminators prefer the easy lynches this early. ED1T: Now can you tell me about your opinion on Devotary and Rath?

Oh Lord Mistborn, what have I done.

Probably best to avoid talking about ongoing games, yeah. There's been lot of examples in the past though. I think the biggest issues with no D1 lynch is that it makes D2 essentially a D1 lynch since there's not much info after N1. But I usually run my games without a D1 lynch anyway, and I don't think it throws balance out of whack. I'd rather give every player some leeway cause A: Villagers get more time to prove their Villagers and B: Eliminators get more time to leave unintentional clues. And honestly, every time I've seen a D1 lynch land on an elim it ends up being a problem itself. Very hard to tell if it's sheer luck, a bus, or what. And they almost never leave anything useful to analyze behind. But then again, I'm also the type of eliminator who avoids killing actives unless they have a really important role to get rid of. So my opinions may be weird

I am amazed at how thoroughly that quote box was messed up. I'm guessing you're on your phone I would rather give everyone a free turn to get into the swing of things, personally, but I'm on the more left wing / liberal side of the lynching political parties and I know a lot of people don't see eye to eye. The Catch 22 is that we need votes and pressure from them to get the ball rolling, D1 included. So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. Don't worry, you're now an honorable mention as well ED1T: (1) Walin: Ark1002, (1) Ark1002: Ventyl, (1) Devotary of Spontaneity: Fifth Scholar, (1) Sart: Furamirionind,

Okay so, actual count. (5) Amanuensis (6 if you count this post) (4) Aonar (all in one post!) (3) Fifth Scholar (glad to see another chronic emoji abuser) (2) _Stick_ (surprised this is so low with her post count tbh) (1) Lumgol (so far she's got 1 per post! Keep it up Lum!) (1) StrikerEZ (doesn't really count since he's the GM, but honorable mention) You think? Personally I don't think this post is enough to qualify for activity, but glad to know you're alive. Got any thoughts on the game?

So I'm trying to force myself to keep active until I die, and a part of that is keeping track of post counts for each player each turn. So far @Lumgol only has one, while @Araris Valerian, @Sart, @Walin, @Aonar, @Straw, and @xinoehp512 have yet to post once. If you don't meet your 2 post quota soon, you can expect more posts of me tagging you just as a friendly warning. Also, vote count! (1) Walin: Ark1002, (1) Fifth Scholar: Furamirionind, (1) Ark1002: Ventyl, (1) Devotary of Spontaneity: Fifth Scholar, And... basically nothing has changed, other than Mrake's unvote on me and his vote/unvote on Rath. So, unpopular opinion, buttt... Considering that lynches aren't mandatory, I wouldn't be opposed to skipping the lynch today, if I'm honest. This stage in the game I always prefer removing inactives, but with the inactivity filter in place, it's probably not necessary for the endstate of the game. Note: when I say skipping the lynch, I mostly mean finishing it. People should be voting and analyzing even when we have little to no info. ALSO YAY AONAR POSTED ED1T: Starting another count for my chart. This time it's going to be people who use the emoji. So far Aonar is in the lead with 4! And all in one post, no less!

For the record, Villager Bucks (TM) aren't really quantifiable. It's just a joke I decided I would roll with for the game. But for Fifth's response, I shall award him yet another Villager Buck (TM). I would expect villagers to be more inherently suspicious of it / go out of the way to analyze it, even if a little. Drake is a really cool dude! I hope I'll get to play with him again soon. ... I had the same knee jerk reaction as you, if I'm honest, but I decided to let it lie to see if anyone else noticed. I'm not mistaken, he expanded on the why when replying to Stick. Yeah, it was this one. I can see a villager coming to this conclusion, but I do agree it's a dangerous assumption to make. Because I haven't played games recently / been very active in the last one I was in, I'm unsure if role-madness has been more common or less. So again, I could see a villager assuming there are no roleless. Not a bad lead though. And as I typed this, Rath has responded. Let me see what he's got to say. Ah. He just pointed out the same thing.

Emphasis is mine. Just going to respond to the bolded bits. We don't know anything about the kandra other than their win condition, sadly. They need to be the last man standing which admittedly worries me about what powers they have in store. At the very least this isn't an anonymous game so we can count on no body switching! (Also I'm not the kandra though I kind of wish I was. Seems fun). Basically Thug's can use their ability once a cycle. If they use it during the day, it will save them from the lynch. If they use it at night, it will protect them from night kills. It doesn't run out until they would die, however, so they can use the ability every night until it's spent. What I was proposing is that if you're a Village Thug who is about to get lynched, especially early on in the game, it's best not to save yourself. There's no alignment scanning in this game, which means the only way we can know someone is good or evil for certain is by lynching. Losing out on a whole turn of information is the opposite of ideal, except maybe towards the end of the game if it gets to the point where numbers are very close. Besides the kandra, I don't think there's more secrets in the game. I believe the point of the allomancy-specification is that Hazekiller's will not be able to block elim kills. ED1T: Oh dang I got 1337 upvotes! Gotta screenshot this rep title.

Hey Mrake. Have I ever told you that you remind me of an old friend, Drake? Since Fifth already responded to your role commentary, I don't really have much to add. But I do want to say is I didn't even consider Hazekillers being more useful for eliminators over villagers. Considering your post was the 2nd in the game and within the first hour of the game starting, I'm willing to bet this is a genuine discovery on your part rather than a deliberate misdirection. So in other words, Mrake just earned two whole bills of my patented Villager Bucks (TM). I was about to ask if we can make PMs during the day or night, but instead of being lazy I just looked myself. So here's a big ole REMINDER: Every player can only make 1 PM every turn, but they CAN be group PMs. Considering that Tineye's have the ability to see who has PM's with who, please be very mindful of who you reach out to and how much you share in the thread about the contents of said PMs. If the elims have one, this could put some good roles in danger. As for Village Tineyes, don't forget to use this ability even if it seems a little underwhelming. If someone knows that I only had one PM with Mrake, for example, and I died fairly early on in the game with an important role, it could be indication that I claimed to him and he killed me for it. While not every situation will be as cut and dry, every piece of information the village has to determine the elims, the better. That all said, please do your best to keep being a village Tineye a secret. More likely than not, the elims would prefer to eliminate PMs entirely. Now, for the question addressed to me. It's too early for me to have any suspicions. Only thing I can say with a relative degree of certainty is, that based on the 20% rule, we're dealing with either 3 or 4 elims and 1 kandra (serial killer). Since 17 is closer to 15 than 20, it's probably reasonable to assume 3 elims + SK. As always, however, I personally will treat this game as the worst scenario (4 elims) so that way I don't get caught off guard, while advising other villagers to keep this in mind as well. Mostly just wanted to say I agree with your assessment of the kill roles. Also very curious how the kandra works. Part of me wants to kill them ASAP to find out. The other part wants them to live for a bit so they can really experience their role the way it was meant to. Tangent aside, Devotary. Have yourself a Villager Buck (TM) for your effort. Just responding to the bits between the ellipsis. ... First off, I'm personally not a fan of poke votes. I don't find that they really accomplish anything, as they're more akin to a person shouting into the void than them actively trying to solve a crime. Since it's the beginning I'll naturally give people some leeway with their votes. I just am not willing to encourage it ... Honestly should have just quoted Ventyl's post, since all I wanted to do was add my own welcome aboard. But anyway, @Ventyl, I'm very glad to have you join us and I look forward to getting to know you as a person and player! ... I'm pretty sure the Kandra was stated to have secret abilities somewhere. Can't remember the exact wording but... yeah, no way they don't have something going for them. I think you might have read Devotary's post wrong tbh. That last paragraph threw me off a bit, but after reading it the third time I think they're saying that if a Mistborn exists, they are certainly not an eliminator. Oh wait nvm that second sentence is... hm. I think the point is they don't want Thugs to survive lynches. If that's the case, can we maybe agree that no Village Thug should use their ability during the day? I don't think last minute wagons is the answer either and... hm. Yeah sorry Devotary, I won't vote on you but I'd like that Villager Buck (TM) back Fifth, here. You can have it ED1T: Missed the most important thing. Vote count! (1) Walin: Ark1002, (1) Amanuensis: MrakeDarshall, (1) Fifth Scholar: Furamirionind, (1) Ark1002: Ventyl, (1) Devotary of Spontaneity: Fifth Scholar, ED2T: Been waiting for someone else to post so I could prod those who haven't yet posted. Since I've only seen @Sart and @Aonar reading this thread since, I'll just go ahead and edit it in. @Araris Valerian, @Rathmaskal, @Walin, @Straw, @_Stick_, @Snipexe, @xinoehp512. The game has begun. Please do your best to post at least 2 times every turn. We shouldall be trying to avoid any deaths via inactivity filter, so going forward I'll consider it a part of my responsibility to reach out and get people involved if they're having trouble keeping up.

@StrikerEZ I've finally turned my name back to what it should be if you'd kindly readjust it in the player list.

Well of Ascension or Hero of Ages foreshadowed Harmony eventually becoming Discord, I believe. EDIT: The Final Empire, actually. Chapter 8's epigraph.

We have no reason to kill Vin, right? She can turn to our side? Or am I misremembering things.

Sign me up as Detective Wilco Renaud, one of the most senior officers in his department, and the closest to retirement. Too decrepit with age and a lifetime of injuries on the job, he primarily works from his desk, which is covered with pictures drawn by his beloved grandson, most of which are images of the famous children's book character, Wumpus.

Speaking of these two. Straw is pretty much cleared while Coop is still up in the air, right? IIRC the day Rae was lynched, Coop was the other target, and Devotary/Rath's votes appeared to protect him?

Well I know who's vote I'm soothing the rest of the game

I don't know what a Hazekiller does exactly (look at me, not reading the rules) but I guess you can give 1 time roles or something? Have you used it at all?

(3) _Stick_: dvnts, Lumgol, Furamirionind, (1) Mailliw73: Mailliw73, Interesting. I don't really see a point in killing Vin at all though. Given Kelsier's existence, it seems feasible for you two to win with us? Maybe? I prefer "fulfill our duty as villagers" over "get rid of you", since it makes things less personal. Terminology aside, we gotta start somewhere. ED1T: Also isn't the last elim obviously Coop?

Ooooo Very happy to see my gut and patented people-who-vote-straw-are-evul assumptions validated. TY very much Stick. Sorry that we kinda need to lynch you now and stuff. ED1T: (1) _Stick_: dvnts, ED2T: To make everyone's lives easier going forward, if future voters can end their posts with a vote count like I did above, I will love you forever Also going to bed now. Good day / night peoples

Hm... Nope. Not there.

I got rid of Straw's vote on Stick, yeah ED1T: Oh yeah. Somebody stole all the vowels in my name, so if anyone knows where they went that'd be great.

Yay I actually Soothed a vote this game. I'm not completely useless

InZane plot twist: I'm an eliminator using this opportunity to get on the Mistborn's good side. No one would ever suspect me. Bwahahaha. Also sorry Rath, I just didn't see your vote. My bad. (6) _Stick_: Furamirionind, Hemalurgic_Headshot, Rathmaskal, Straw, Lumgol, Devotary of Spontaneity, (4) Devotary of Spontaneity: Adavantos, Mailliw73, Elandera, _Stick_,