Amanuensis

No problem. But wait. Did I miss a player? I thought Ecth made 18... *combs thread again* yeah. Ecth makes 18, since Silverblade5 dropped out.

Since I haven't seen a player list yet, I went ahead and made one. Arinian (Arvian) Manukos (Whiler) Bartimaeus (Bart) phattemer (Seixa) DroughtBringer (Groot) Hemalurgic_Headshot (HARVEY) Jondesu (Thorot) Elenion (Brandir Sebarial) Sart (Sart) Arraenae (Neiha Solam) Straw (Dave Davenport) Figberts (Hak) _Stick_ (Stick) Magestar (Enoemos) Ecthelion III (Amnar the Watcher) Drake Marshall (Mestow) Randuir (Battadin) TheMightyLopen (Revali) @Manukos and @Ecthelion III, any chance you two have come up with character names, yet? Considering there are over 16 hours left in for sign ups, I'm not sure how many more players will join. @Wyrmhero, if one more player, or three, or five decide sign up, I will volunteer to even out the numbers, that way there doesn't have to be a player working alone. Otherwise I'll just take a link to the spec doc. If you do end up with an odd number, my character will be simply known as The Soulcaster. I won't say much about him, since I would like him to make his debut in another Roshar game if I don't end up in this one. But if I do, I will warn everyone now that my posts will be in-character only. For those who played MR19, my involvement in the game will be very similar to that, although due to personality differences, The Soulcaster will not "play" the same as Berilen Leiken did. For those of you who find it inconvenient to switch back to the first page to check, here's the countdown timer to the game's beginning. EDIT: For some reason Manukos PM'd me his character name, so I filled it in. Here's the quote:

Of course, Bart (can I call you Bart?) thank you for responding. It's nice to know a little about the player's lives, since otherwise you're just an ominous name viewing the thread occasionally, at which I can only guess the most sinister of motives... hope to see you get the chance for some free time soon, so I can hear your thoughts on the game and get to know you

I was waiting for that ninja'd edit But yeah. Considering Ecth was Skaa, it makes sense that they didn't want to risk attacking me yet, in case I was Preservation, like Ecth suggested. Hence why he posted what he did. The Skaa probably hoped Ruin would try killing me for them, which thankfully he didn't. Which means they might try converting me tonight, or just kill me outright. Either way, I don't expect to survive past N3, unless I get converted. If I do survive that long, I welcome Ruin to kill me.

Fair enough. I might join you, but I'll hold off for now. I want to see who other players want to lynch first, since I don't want to affect how other players think too much, like I did with the previous lynch. And yeah. Sadly, that's how these games tend to work. Not a lot of elim teams are willing to let the big talkers survive for long, in the interest of victory, which is why it's important that everyone maintains a decent level of activity and independence. Ah, yes. I figured someone would bring it up. Just didn't expect it to be you. A distinct possibility. I wish I could cite me explaining last turn why Ecth was the player I was most suspicious of being a Skaa, but it's not like I haven't cast suspicion on teammates in past games, or even bused them entirely. I would argue that the last time I did that, I did it to STINK, who was genuinely upset by it, and since then I have made a self-vow to only resort to those sort of tactics in an emergency / or if an ally explicitly states they're okay with me going against them, publicly. But I don't expect that argument to hold much weight, as it's really just hearsay. A potential explanation, but not really mutually exclusive to the following two. In fact, it kind of goes hand in hand with point three, which I'll address in a second. If my guesses were really bad, it makes sense a kind of sense to leave me alive, as I'll be able to lead the village astray. This is dangerous, however, because I have been known to revisit my opinions of players after new evidence is presented, which can affect my trust or suspicion of them significantly, and I also thing long term rather than short, so I don't always let the eliminators know if I'm onto them until I'm sure. Plus, there's the fact that I was right on the money about Ecth being Skaa. I'm actually surprised they didn't attack me for that reason, as if he was still alive, he'd be the first player I vote for, next to Joe. This is probably the answer you're looking for. Now that I believe Kelsier has burned his Steel, I would be willing to bet he intends to use one of his less important metals to convert me tonight. If it works, great. If it doesn't, the Skaa can just use their group kill on me the next turn. This is something that even Joe himself said he would do, if he were one of them. I find it interesting that you didn't bring up the 5th possibility: that they suspected I had protection. Thing is, the only type of protection I could have from the Skaa kill last night was if I was Preservation or a Thug. Lurchers only protect from Coinshots (which is something I only just now realized, when looking over the rules. This means there's a chance the Skaa have an Iron Misting, rather than one of the potential roles I listed before) and if I was an Iron Ferring, I would have been vulnerable last night, due to me needing to store a charge. Considering neither Rand or myself caught that earlier (he was the one who initially suggested that protection roles watch over me, towards the end of the previous turn), I can't help but find it interesting that you didn't mention it. If Alvron was in this game, I'd almost think you two were Skaa buddies

No worries. There's still over 46 hours left in the turn, so no rush. Just want to see you participate a little bit more than yesterday. Thought so. Thank you very much, El. So yeah, I would guess the Skaa to have Kelsier, a Brass Misting, and maybe a Steel or Tin Ferring left, if they began with four players.

Leave it to El and DA to get creative with these last two write ups. I know this isn't the first comic that's been made for one of these games, but nonetheless, great job DA! I didn't see it coming, so I'm sure you can imagine the grin on my face when I logged in and saw it. Next post you make, consider it upvoted already. For a second cycle, this is exceptionally informative. Four kills simultaneously occurring means four different attackers. Looking at them, I believe that Mage and Rand were attacked by the Skaa and Kelsier, while Mage was simultaneously attacked by a Coinshot, and Ecth was attacked by Ruin. I am very happy that Ecth was killed, because as I stated the previous turn, he was the player I was most suspicious of. If I had to guess, his accusation of me being Preservation caught Ruin's attention, maybe because he thought that Ecth was the real Preservation trying to push his attention elsewhere, or because he was convinced by my deduction that Ecth made that comment as a way to remove a Noble!Aman from the game. An alternative explanation is that the Coinshot and Ruin attacked Ecth and Rand while the Skaa/Kelsier doubletapped Mage, but I doubt that's the case unless Mage received a PM from a Skaa and claimed self-protection, which is very unlikely. Also, as a player who has been on an eliminator team where we had a one-time extra kill (LG17), I vividly recall the mindset we had at the time, which was to use the power immediately to get rid of an extra player, just in case the player with the ability was killed sooner rather than later. Considering Ecth had the power to store extra-lives, that also corroborates my theory that one of the kills was a village Coinshot. Granted that with Ruin in play, some way for one of the Skaa to defend themselves would certainly be helpful, but something as versatile as a Gold Ferring suggests that there might be more opportunities for him to die than what's normally expected. As for the villagers, we've so far had a Zinc Ferring (a lookout, which honestly I think is too weak on it's own, and also might be why Phatt was trying to arrange contact with a kandra), an Iron Ferring (a player with a one-in-two-cycle night kill immunity, which like the Gold Ferring, suggests the presence of a higher-number-than-average kills) and a Copper Misting (a smoker, to protect himself and one other player from being scanned or their votes being manipulated). If I had to guess, Rand's role makes me think that in addition to Kelsier, the Skaa might have a Zinc, Brass, or Bronze Misting. If I had to guess, it would be a Brass, but it depends a bit on this question I'm about to ask. @Elbereth / @Darkness Ascendant / @Conquestor, does a Brass Misting choose any vote to double, or can they only double their own? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but I just want to make sure before I make a wrong assumption. We're not off to a bad start so far. We have 13 players left, of which I would guess there's Kelsier and a Skaa Brass Misting, with a potential for one more. Working with my assumption that one of the kills was Kelsier using Steel, we can narrow down Kelsier to one of the more active players. There's a chance they were just being precautionary, but also a chance that they were facing some form of scrutiny already, and would prefer to get the one-time kill out of the way. With that in mind, I would reason that either Joe or Elenion is Kelsier. Disregarding that last consideration, Jondesu is also a possibility, as well as Arinian and Orlok. I have a tentative innocent gut read on Arinian, though, and I still believe that Orlok is a Noble as well, although I still exercise a small amount of paranoia. I personally consider Ruin confirmed, which means Preservation is in the game as well. In retrospect, with both of those powerful, Noble aligned roles, I'm thinking that there's a better chance that the Skaa have a fourth player, to begin with, which may also explain why Kelsier went with burning steel first, rather than spend one of his less useful abilities in an attempt to convert a player. With Ecth's loss, I expect that Kelsier will start doing just that, probably starting with Copper, Bronze or Tin. @Hemalurgic_Headshot, I think we have enough information to work with that we don't need to resort to your vote-for-an-inactive plan just yet, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Anything stand out to you, knowing what you do, now? @Bartimaeus, I tagged you last turn saying that I would suggest voting for you, since you're the least active of all the players, discounting @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, who hasn't logged into the website in almost a week. Please tell me what I can do to help get you active in this game. Likewise, @Straw and @Silverblade5. A lot has happened. Do you have more to say? I'd tag the rest of the players, but I trust that they'll chime in on their own without me prodding them.

Fair. I'd rather kandra make PMs with other players anyway, as I have nothing worthwhile to say to them that I wouldn't just put in the thread. I would love a PM with Ruin, though... proceeds to tap spike impatiently. Good to hear. I look forward to welcoming the baby bird into this brave, new world. That, or watching you feed it my entrails from the Cognitive Realm.

Man. All these "kandra PMs" and I don't have one. Guess no one wants to plot with little ole Amanuensis but fair enough. Not having the information myself makes it harder for me to get a read on you, but I'll leave it at that, so long as you give the village something to work with next turn. Nesting on suspicions might seem like a great idea when things kick off, but it's a delicate situation to manage. Don't wait long enough and you risk the egg never hatching. Wait too long and you end up suffocating the critter. Was that a perfect analogy? No. But I think it got my point across.

I think I explained my perspective on Joe thoroughly enough in my megapost this turn. It wasn't something I could really bring up until I knew Phatt's alignment, so I left it unsaid during the day, which is what Orlok was poking at me to explain. The only reason I mentioned Joe at all in that original post was because I had just gone on writing my thoughts on what Jon's stance on Phatt meant, and it would have been odd if I didn't say something. That being said, you're right. Which subsequently increases my odds of death tonight, regardless of your alignment

Glad to see you're not letting a little suspicion discourage you . Even the players I don't say I'm suspicious of, or those who I decide to trust, I still have doubts about them until I see alignment confirmation from the GMs. For now, you're snugged comfortably in the middle of the yellow zone, so really you have nothing to fear. Not yet, at least.

Yeahhh, haha. We entered IKYK territory the second I posted it, which I'm okay with. I won't let it affect my judgement if you too much, so no need to worry. Really, I just wanted to see how you would react to that statement, and see what path you'd take from here. Regardless, I concluded my paragraph that the groupthink saying you're suspicious this early makes my gut think you're innocent, although there were a couple things that convinced me that you require further scrutiny. For now, @Ecthelion III and @A Joe in the Bush are my larger concerns, anyway.

There's statistics floating around that on forum mafia, eliminators tend to be the somewhere between the 3rd and 6th vote on a player during a bandwagon. It's been mentioned by a few players in the past, and as a result, a lot of players are wary of fitting that criteria when they're evil, so they'll either avoid bandwagons outright, or get involved later on (assuming they weren't the ones to start it off, which is rare, but also a possibility). So, when I said that I would consider messing with the statistics, that's what I meant. I'd find a way to twist that knowledge to my advantage, to prepare an argument against an unknowing villager or as a way to corroborate my own innocence. As you've proven by asking this question, you don't know about those statistics and therefore wouldn't have had a plan like that in mind when you voted there at the end. Hence why I think it was a spontaneous decision on your part, which makes me think you're more likely innocent than not: players tend to be more careful when they're evil. Also, thank you for responding. I hope to see more thoughts from you regarding other players in a similar vein to your statement on Rand. I too thought it was odd that he said that part about surviving, which is why I pointed it out. Earlier this turn I looked at the players and decided the four most likely candidates for the Skaa attack tonight, which included myself, Rand, and three others. When determining the percent, I then subtracted one as there's a decent chance one of those four is an eliminator, if not more, hence the aforementioned 25% chance I die tonight. It's probably higher now that I made that megapost, but El wouldn't answer when I asked what where the odds of me surviving long enough to use my power. For those wondering, I received a big, old PAFO card to that. As for your plan. I need to consider it more, but at first glance, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. The only tough part would be getting enough players on board. I've tried to organize villages in the past to execute similar things, like for example, having everyone not participating in the lynch to vote on random players with no votes so we can get an accurate guess to how many Soothers are in the games. But every time I've tried it's never worked out, so now I'm trying to just ask specific players question and mention the quiet ones as often as possible. That said, I would be willing to experiment tomorrow, starting with @Bartimaeus, since he's been the least active of all players so far.

Assuming you'll survive the night, eh?

Ah, right. I saw that, but it didn't register, since all the posts said (18 hours ago). I'm assuming those two ninja's were Len and Phatt's votes, then. So when you switched votes, it would have been 5 on Phatt to 3 on Len. That's reasonable if you consider vote manipulations, which you didn't mention, so that kinda makes me more suspicious of you. But I'll trust my instincts on you for now. And yeah... I'm a bit of a wind bag. I won't deny it. Speaking of, I think it's about time I get back to that final write up for LG30.

To start this post off, I want to apologize to @phattemer. Unfortunately, I've had to go back and add this second sentence in, because I ended up going onto a bit of a rant, so readers, beware. I always feel bad when I'm instrumental in the death of a player, especially when I don't have good reasons to be suspicious of them. In your case, I wasn't suspicious of you at all, only annoyed that you were making posts that claimed to advocate discussion while you avoided participating in it. At the time, I felt that instead of allowing focus to remain on the Contribution Crusade - which in my opinion is a tired, old discussion that tends to lead us nowhere, in a similar vein to whether or not the village should lynch on the first day or not - I wanted to address a specific problem that I have, both as a player and a GM, that I feel affects the games most significantly. In response to one of Mage's posts, I made the following statement: Emphasis mine. Considering you were Noble, I can't help but be disappointed. Although it was Day 1, you had plenty you could have responded to. In fact, you even addressed that in your third-to-last post, and yet you neither took the time to respond to even a fraction of it, nor did explain to us why you couldn't. If you turned out to be Skaa, I could have accepted your silence as you trying to avoid giving anything more away with your death, but clearly that's not what happened. If you had provided an excuse for why you weren't able to be very active in that period of time, I would take solace in the fact that you weren't avoiding responding out of carelessness. Because you didn't, now it looks like you just didn't care enough to trouble yourself, which bothers me. Why do we play Sanderson Elimination? No matter what an individual's answer is, I imagine it boils down to having fun. While some people may have different ideas of fun, I think this forum attracts a certain preference, or perhaps, a few. I won't go making generalizations about people, but I will try to explain my perspective. Me? I'm a long term thinker. My planning is meticulous, not spontaneous. Naturally I look for ways to maximize the length of the fun, not the strength of it. The reason for this is because I have seen many games drag on to a point where it's anything but fun. Either the players are left are too distracted or disinterested in continuing it, or they've gone to accept defeat. I've even been alive in one case, where I was an eliminator, and a village Nyali openly conceded the game, when she still had the chance to turn it around. As a GM, I've had to end my own game several Chapters early due to players not being able to commit to the game, which directly reduces the fun of the players who still wanted to continue participating, while also letting down all of the dead teammates who were at least counting on the survivors to pull a win. As both a player and a GM, that hurts. And that's something I don't want for this game, or any other. So, with you, Phatt, I saw more of an opportunity to make a statement for the good of Sanderson Elimination as a whole than I did to win this game. Having played with you in the past, I figured that chances are, you were a villager. I've been an eliminator with you once and you weren't necessarily more active, but I've also been a villager with you, or an eliminator against you, and in most cases it's been the same exact scenario. I would be lying if I wasn't biased against you as a result, and it's nothing to do with you as a person, but just because of the dangers it poses to the whole experience of the game. You're consistently low-active to in-active enough that without seeing evidence of interest, I expect you to not participate for long, or in any meaningful way. And that very thing hurts the game, because by leaving you alive, that gives the eliminators a comfortable buffer to work around. Take LG30, for example. They were still outnumbered by the village two-to-one, but because half of the villagers were no longer participating, it allowed them to pull a mass reveal and end the game early. As great as it was for RP, I still count that as a failure regarding the game. There were times I wished I could have intervened then, but knew I couldn't, because it would be overstepping my role as the Game Master. But since I'm a player here, I now have the opportunity to make my point. I find myself asking why you play Sanderson Elimination, and I can't figure out the answer. I've seen many players sign up for games only to bail after the game has started. I understand that real life happens, it's happened to me too, and that's the point of making that sort of thing clear. GMs can adjust balance accordingly, or the players can plan for it in advanced or simply work around it. You did not make a reason clear, nor did you make an effort, and in the end that's why I voted for you. That being said, I respect the way you handled things yesterday. You accepted there was information that could be learned from your death, and bowed out. I want to thank you for that. That said, I don't regret my vote, nor do I your death, because I wholeheartedly believe in the importance of participation, for the good and fun of everyone. All I want from you and from the other players is a little time and effort. If they can't handle it, then I honestly don't understand why they sign up, as it doesn't benefit themselves and ends up hurting others. This is where I end my rant. At the end of the previous turn, this was the vote tally: (0) Silverblade5: Elenion, (1) Magestar: Silverblade5, _Stick_, (0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, (10) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, randuir, Hemalurgic_Headshot, Arinian, Elenion, Jondesu, Magestar, phattemer, Droughtbringer, (1) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, Magestar, phattemer, That's a twelve players who ended the turn with an active vote, leaving five who did not participate in the lynch. They are as follows: Silverblade5, Straw, Hemalurgic_Headshot, Bartimaeus, and Szeth Son-Son Mallano. In the beginning of the game, @Silverblade5 poke voted Magestar, later retracted it, and as far as I recall, never posted again. I can't say for sure if he was active on the forums or not between then and the turn's conclusion, but I would be willing to be that he was. Regardless, previous games have shown me that this is not unusual for him as a villager, and I don't think I've ever seen him as an eliminator. As a result, like Phatt, I have no idea about his alignment, but would gladly vote on him for the exact same reasons I voted on Phatt, with the caveat that I would have no reason to want him dead if he gave the village more to work with. @Straw, likewise, only ever made one post, which was that a strict Contribution Crusade sends the wrong message to new players. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but he was prodded by another player (Jondesu, off the top of my head) for more on that, and never responded. So, consider my bias against Straw the same I have against Phatt and SB. If he's village, he's hurting us by not helping, and if he's an eliminator, he's doing that on top of plotting our loss. @Hemalurgic_Headshot has already received attention from players like Orlok. His responses this turn read genuine to me, even if the circumstance with his vote is suspect. I am currently of the opinion that he is village, since I believe that if he was an eliminator, he wouldn't have second guessed himself and retracted his vote. I acknowledge that my instincts on that could be wrong, and I accept the consequences if they are, but I'd be willing to take his side on the matter, barring future developments. @Bartimaeus posted at the very beginning of the game to confirm that he did not receive a role PM. Since then, he has not posted a thing, while I have caught him viewing the thread quite a few times. Is this evidence of him being evil? Definitely not. This exact same thing happened with a brand new player (Trellagist, I believe) in LG21, and he was lynched very early in the game, if not first. Trellagist turned out to be a villager, and if I'm not mistaken, the eliminators (of which I was one) allowed it to happen to bide time / get them closer to victory. So, Bart. Any chance I can urge you to post, either tonight or this following day turn? If you've read my rant above, you'll see how truly important to me, as well as the game, that you begin participating, even if it's just a little. Give your thoughts on what's happened so far. Ask questions if you're confused. Thoroughly consider things people have said and let us know who you suspect are good and who you think might be evil. It would mean a lot to me if you did, as this is my first time seeing you in a game, and I'm always happy to make new friends / eager to see some fresh blood. @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, I haven't seen you view the thread once. In fact, I just checked your profile, and you've been offline since Wednesday (nearly been a week). History has proven to me that means you won't be returning. Needless to say, that saddens me, but I will continue hoping you return and that you can begin participating as well. Of these five players, I don't have enough information on them to truly decide an alignment, besides HH, who I am leaning Noble. SB's second post claimed he had a good gut read on Elenion, but that isn't much to work with. It could be a genuine statement from a villager. It could also be a soft defense if the two are eliminators, although I'd guess that it's more likely SB trying to frame Elenion, if SB is a Skaa. Of the twelve players who did vote, one (Orlok) had voted on Elenion before the bandwagon on Phatt began, while one (Stick) other voted on Mage in the middle of it. As the lynch on Phatt formed, both players could be seen as attempting to distract it. Orlok was trying to encourage players not to bandwagon, while Stick was just uninterested in the lynch on Phatt and decided to vote on Mage for being non-committal. I can see Orlok's part in it both being an eliminator wanting to garner trust once the lynch on Phatt showed he was village, or him being a villager genuinely concerned with the little information we'd gain by dog-piling on him. Because he is among the more active players and I like to think I know him better than some others, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that it's the latter. As for Stick, the only comment I really have to make is that I get a sense she expected the results. I'm making a very general post about everyone right now, so if I decide it's worth investigating further, I'll begin dissecting all of her posts to see if I can pick apart the exact reasons why I think it. It's also worth mentioning that I've been an eliminator with her before, and in that game I don't remember her ever participating in the main lynch, choosing instead to vote for players who weren't receiving much attention, and therefore allowing her to skate under the radar. If that trend continues in this game, I would cite that as one of her eliminator tells. Unfortunately just by stating this publicly, she's now aware of it and could turn it on it's head, which is why I usually prefer to keep that information to myself until I can build a solid enough case, but considering that I have no way to protect myself this game, I doubt I'll be able to gather enough evidence. In contrast to all this, enough people have expressed suspicion of her already, which my gut is saying she's not a Skaa. I'll have to look closer at everyone who's expressed suspicion of her before I take a stance either way. That leaves ten players who voted for Phatt. Nine if you subtract Phatt himself, and eight if I take away myself. Ecthelion III, A Joe in a Bush, randuir, Arinian, Elenion, Jondesu, Magestar, and Droughtbringer. It's a long list, which means there's a lot I could say, so I'm going to try my best to keep this as terse as possible. I am suspicious of Ecth. The two times I've seen him as an eliminator (LG26 and LG30) he wasn't very... public, for lack of a better term. He's only posted twice (three times if you count this turn's post about the timer, which I don't) which makes me think he's holding thoughts in reserve and that he's busy plotting elsewhere. The few thoughts he has posted were light, but confrontational. He also never responded to my @message asking if he reconsidered his thoughts about Phatt after seeing the bangwagon form, which gives me the feeling he was avoiding it because he didn't want a good situation for the Skaa to turn itself around. Additionally, he picked apart one small portion of one of my many posts to make me look like I was Preservation trying to avoid being targeted by Ruin. As a villager, why point that out? Preservation is confirmed Noble, and all Nobles should want to protect his identity. On the other side of the fence, whether he was right or wrong, it would publicly put the thought in Ruin's head, making me a viable target to be attacked by him. Whether or not I actually am Preservation, the Skaa would benefit from Ruin killing me, as that allows them to place their kill elsewhere. A combination of these factors has put Ecth at the top of my suspicion list. As for Joe, I've been minorly suspicious of him since his first real post. The big one, where he quoted a bunch of people. It wasn't any big thing, but it was his response to my posts that threw me off. To quote him, he said "My vote on Phatt was ninja'd by 9 hours. +2 for this post, because he's hitting on all the ideas Villagers should be hitting on." The fact that my vote on Phatt was ninja'd by him doesn't mean a lot to me. Whether it's a lie or not, it doesn't really matter. It's the second half where he basically praises what I said. My gut reaction to that comment was that he was buttering me up. Could it have been genuine? Sure. Heck, I hope it is, because if I'm not hitting on all the ideas a Villager should be hitting on, then I'm doing my job wrong, regardless of what my actual alignment is. Thing is, this sounds more to me like he knows my alignment. The only way he could know that would be if he was a Skaa. If that's the case, then there's two ways he could handle me. Kill me ASAP, or try letting me live and get on my good side. It isn't a lot to go on, but the last time I was set against an eliminator Joe, I figured out he was an eliminator for similar reasons, and now that I know Phatt is a villager, that leaves the possibility open that Joe isn't. So yeah, I'd place him on my suspicion list right below Ecth. Next is Rand. Honestly, he's a tricky one. I watched how he operated as an eliminator in LG30, and he was a pretty convincing "villager." As the game went on, there were a small things I think I would have picked up on, but given I had more information than the players, that might not be true. Looking over his posts this game, there's very few reasons why I could see him being evil. Really it's just the timing of his vote, and the fact that his suspicions almost seem too clean. His first post says he's only suspicious of Stick for asking about Kandra, and that he has a good read on Orlok, Joe and I, and good gut reads on Mage and Len. If Rand is a Skaa, I would think that one of those four players is as well, but likely no more than that. He later goes on to agree that HH's vote on Phatt is odd (as HH admits to bandwagoning), which makes me think that Rand is going for an easy target, given the fact others were expressing suspicion of HH, on top of the fact that I'm belueve HH is Noble. I'm not sure where I'd place him on my suspicion list quite yet, but I'll figure it out by the time I conclude this post. Already gave my opinion of HH, so that brings me to Arinian. I'd be lying if I didn't say that it was hard for me to get a solid read on him, given that english isn't his first language. But I worked pretty closely with him in QF21, and he doesn't seem too much different than he did then. For now, my gut is telling me village, but really I need more posts from him before I can take a firm stance one way or another. I will note publicly that he was a villager in LG30 and considerably more involved in the discussion, but since this game just began, I can't figure out if he's just holding back or building up. I talked about Elenion a bit yesterday. I'm fully aware that I was the one who really directed the lynch away from him, but that doesn't mean I don't think there's a chance he is evil. From the start, he's been consistent with his support of the Contribution Crusade, which isn't a bad thing, but as Orlok pointed out, there were some flaws. At the very least he was consistent with his stance throughout the turn and his vote ended up on the person it should, if he was ascribing to his beliefs. That being said, his posts this turn don't sit as well with me. Considering my village gut lean on HH, I get the sense that he's exaggerating the cause of HH's vote retraction and reconsideration, with hopes that HH can end up the next lynch target. Also, his comment about bandwagoning almost feels like a defense of his own vote on Phatt, even if he doesn't word it that way outright. Overall I would place Elenion somewhere in the exact middle of my suspicions list. Where it goes from there will depend a lot on his future participation, and how he responds to the following question. @Elenion, in your last post of the day, you said "And since no other solid targets have appeared, although I admit that I have a couple people I'll be watching carefully." Can you be less vague about this? Exactly who are you watching carefully, and why? Annnd I just got ninja'd by Jondesu. Great, since he's next on the list of people for me to look at. Of all the players who's posts I've looked at so far, he's got the most, so this paragraph might be a bit longer. Let's see... something to note, he seems to mention inactivity affecting the elims, which is weird because since he's been here, I don't think there's been a game where the eliminators suffered from a bad case of inactivity. Not a reason to accuse him, but if he is a Skaa, it's possible one or more of his fellow Skaa are inactive this game. Oh, good. One of his posts was all RP, and another was a short response to Rand about how I hadn't posted yet. Hm. He accuses Len of giving role advice to gain trust, then goes on to recommend that players follow the advice others had presented already, or to follow their instincts. Seems almost hypocritical, but I don't know if that's alignment indicative yet. I am not a fan of him throwing shade on Len over the role advice, though, but I gave my shpeel on that yesterday already. He ended up voting on Phatt despite him not liking bandwagons, and honestly didn't really explain why. Yes, he said Phatt's contradiction was causing the "back of Remart's neck to prickle" but his vote was the 7th, versus Len who had only 3. So @Jondesu, why did you end up voting on Phatt, there, when there was a 3-vote gap already? Also, your first post this turn said you were leaning Skaa on Rand, but your new post just said you're leaning village, albeit wary. What changed between the two posts? Answer that, and I'll probably be able to put you in a firmer place on my trust/suspicion list. I'm starting to get fatigued, so I'm going to keep my pieces on Mage and Drought short. Mage's involvement in the earlier discussion of yesterday give me a good read, mostly because of how serious he appeared to be taking the subject. His defense of Phatt in the beginning made me think he might be evil, and either trying to protect a teammate or trying to get good credit if Phatt turned out a Noble. Looking back, I see more that he was, like me, trying to give the guy a chance to explain himself and potentially shift things to a player he was suspicious of. In the end, Phatt proved that he couldn't be bothered, so he changed sides, and for that reason I think he actually is a villager, as otherwise I'd expect him to have just left his vote on Len. That being said, @Magestar, considering the lynch was a basically a done deal after Jondesu's vote, what was your rationale in changing your vote from Len to Phatt? What was running through your head then? That leaves only Drought, who, looking back, wasn't really active at all. Four posts, all with minimal content. First was just an "I'm here," second was him neither supporting or opposing the Contribution Crusade. Really, he was just neutral about the whole thing, saying "we should still lynch inactives" but "shouldn't focus on just the inactives." He then proceeds to basically be inactive, not posting until the last two hours of the game, immediately after Phatt votes for himself, just to vote on Phatt because he "doesn't enjoy when players vote on themselves." Overall, nothing very alignment indicative, except that it wasn't until things were already set in stone that he got involved, and that he literally voted on Phatt moments after Phatt said "I suggest looking to the 3rd-5th votes." I would think that an eliminator would be less likely to vote on a villager in this circumstance. I would probably do what Drought did if I was evil, if only to spite the statistics. As for Drought, I don't think he'd act the revolutionary, so this was more likely a spontaneus decision. Regardless, I won't let him off the hook, because he hasn't been much more active than Phatt was, or other players like them. So, @DroughtBringer, consider this me formally requesting you to be more involved in the game from this point forward. I know you're capable of it, I've seen you do it. If you're a villager, I hope I can appeal to you by saying we need you. If you're not... well, what's the fun in winning if you just play the role of spectator? Well, that just about covers my thoughts on everybody. Happy, @OrlokTsubodai? I'm not sure how useful a color-coded trust list would be, but I still might work on one, just later. This post took me a few hours to write and I would like to take a break.

For sure. I'll start heavily analyzing yesterday with what I know now and begin working on compiling all of my thoughts soon. Just need to eat breakfast first. I'm not sure how long it will take me, but even if I have to cut it short, I'll make sure it's all posted before this turn ends, given I've reasoned there's a 25% chance I get killed tonight.

I'm not. But thanks for painting a target on my back (0) Silverblade5: Elenion, (1) Magestar: Silverblade5, _Stick_, (0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, (10) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, randuir, Hemalurgic_Headshot, Arinian, Elenion, Jondesu, Magestar, phattemer, Droughtbringer, (1) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, Magestar, phattemer,

I'm not suspicious because you voted on Phatt. The reason you caught my eye was unrelated. I was just also suspicious of Phatt at the time, so if it turned out he was an elim, it would make it unlikely you were too, being the third vote. However, given the general consensus of this lynch, I suspect that Phatt may indeed be a villager, and someone after me is an eliminator taking advantage of that. More than likely, it'll be Joe, Rand or HH, since they were the ones who really solidified the vote. HH is interesting because he ended up retracting as soon as someone mentioned the bandwagon forming. Vote Tally (0) Silverblade5: Elenion, (1) Magestar: Silverblade5, _Stick_, (0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, (8) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, randuir, Hemalurgic_Headshot, Arinian, Elenion, Jondesu, Magestar, (2) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, Magestar, phattemer,

It wouldn't be a poke vote because I'd be voting on him for not participating. A single post wouldn't be enough to alleviate it, just like my vote on Phatt now. I want more than an "I'm here" or "I'm waiting for information" before I remove my votes. I have no qualms with lynching people that aren't being helpful towards the game, because they're the last ones the eliminators will remove if they are villagers, and they could very easily just be eliminators not wanting to get involved to keep suspicion off themselves. It doesn't make me suspicious at all, personally. For one, Len's first post talks about how there's a fair number of newer players this game. Providing role advice, no matter who it comes from, is useful for those who are generally unfamiliar with these types of games. So, by immediately declaring it suspicious for someone to give advice, no one's going to want to do it in the future either as a villager or an eliminator. Which is why, personally, I think posts like that need to not be used for alignment considerations at all. What should happen is people read each suggestion and, if any of them in particular seem misleading or unhelpful, make that clear (as Joe did), or if you have any better suggestions, they should add onto what was already stated. So long as no one inherently trusts or distrusts someone for making a post like that, it doesn't matter. Hence why I said it isn't alignment indicative (for either side). And I definitely don't agree that a discussion focused on Phattemer is limited use. Unless you know something I don't, there's a potential that he's an eliminator. In which case he is, getting every players opinion on him and seeing who attempts to divert the lynch away from him is extremely informative. Likewise, if he is innocent, there will be some eliminators who would likely defend him without making a significant effort to stop the lynch, in a way to earn credit. We could then see who attempts to point fingers on other players. While I by no means don't think there should ever be one player under the spotlight at a time, I think you're underestimating what can be learned when every single players participates on every matter. As for that last bit. I am not trying to get additional suspicion cast on Joe. If I was, I would have explained my thoughts regarding him. As evidenced by the fact four different players have voted for the same player as me after I made a case about them, it's clear that I'm much more effective when I explain my reasoning. If I wanted Joe to be in the spotlight, I would put him there myself. The few times I have played mind games with people, they were never very subtle. That being said, I AM suspicious of Joe. But some of that suspicion hinges on other players opinions of Phatt, and what Phatt's alignment is. Vote Tally (0) Silverblade5: Elenion, (1) Magestar: Silverblade5, _Stick_, (0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, (5) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, randuir, Hemalurgic_Headshot, Arinian, (2) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, Magestar,

Interesting. So, you don't agree with the lynch on phatt, because you've had fallible logic in the past. In my opinion, the two scenarios are very different, as your "slip ups" always occurred while you were actively participating in the game, where phatt is being very passive. He's made two posts, no more than a few short sentences, and both involved him advocating discussion without making any effort to contribute. It's less the fallacy and more the principle of the matter that is keeping my vote on him, which is why I said I would remove it if he puts himself out there more. So, inherently, I think it's odd that you are voting for a player who is contributing to discussion only because his tone feels different to you. Yes, it's day one, and therefore we don't have much evidence to work with. But we can at least use the lynch to make an important statement and set the tone for the game. You yourself has mentioned how inactivity has had a large impact on the last few. If the active players don't make a significant effort to nudge the more quiet ones into the spotlight, then we're never going to make progress on this subject. Vote Tally (0) Silverblade5: Elenion, (0) Magestar: Silverblade5, (0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, (4) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, randuir, (2) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, Magestar,

Completely missed that. Thanks. Which means deliberately tying votes to kill an inactive along with a suspicious player is off the table, thus if it becomes necessary, getting rid of them will either require the Skaa to use their group kill (unlikely), Coinshot spending one of his Vials (inefficient), or Ruin doing the Nobles a favor (assuming we don't lynch them, which I'd rather not do). I would prefer the first, but unless a tiny pool of specific players are eliminators, I doubt that's going to happen, so... whispers into Spike... Ruin, if you're listening, I ask that around Cycle 3, you start removing players who are inactive first, followed by those barely participating. There seem to be no limits to your kills, and this will help you narrow down candidates for Preservation. You should also keep in mind you have to kill the Skaa to win, too, therefore using your kills on players not helping find them makes fulfilling that half of your win con much easier.

How about we all just agree to not go inactive, or at the very least, warn the thread with a message like "If I don't appear online by [insert time here], kill me, preferably with a night kill as to not waste the village's time." This would solve the problem of lynching inactives fairly easily. Fair enough. I will note your stance on phatt as neutral with a potential for defense, with a subnote that this is Day 1 and you have a tendency with being reluctant to lynch people this early, with an postnote that I might be remembering wrong and that I need to revisit previous games to confirm. I myself have made role advice from both sides. For a time, it was something I did at the beginning of every game, most notably LG24, in which I was evil and gained the trust of a majority of the village and took out nearly all of their protective roles in a single night by having them target me. So yeah, I would say we should not view that advice as something indicative of alignment. It's better to focus on things like player's opinions of each others, their attempts to kill and save them, as well as role claims and how they fit into the greater picture of the game. So, with that in mind. Ten hours has passed since I placed my vote on and so far only Jondesu has responded to the fallacies I have pointed at regarding Phatt (never mind, just got a notification from Joe, let me go read that.) Okay, now that makes Phatt in the lead with three votes, and so far only four players have commented on it. @phattemer, I know there's not much of a defense you can really muster this early, but do you have any thoughts you can contribute? In particular I would like to see your thoughts on other players. @Elenion, @Silverblade5, @Arinian, @Straw, @Hemalurgic_Headshot, @Bartimaeus, @Magestar, @DroughtBringer, @randuir, @_Stick_, @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, @OrlokTsubodai: what are your thoughts on Phatt, the players voting on him, and each other? @Ecthelion III, do you still want to keep your vote on phatt now that two other players have voted for him as well? Also, since this was something that caught my attention as soon as the sign ups were posted, do we want to test out what happens if we have a tie vote? The rules state the results are "blah blah blah" which is not very informative. Do we think that information is worth obtaining earlier rather than later? If so, how would you all like to go about arranging a tie? I would end this post with me publicly declaring my read on Joe like I did with Jon, but I'm going to keep that in my pocket for now, since there's a bit more to process, and I want to see more players react to the lynch on Phatt, first. Vote Tally (0) Silverblade5: Elenion, (0) Magestar: Silverblade5, (0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, (3) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, (1) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai,

Well, I don't think I actually made a point about it not being likely to happen on D1, but I'm glad you admit some amount of fault in the initial logic. That being said, the inherent problem with bandwagons is players not thinking for themselves, in my opinion, not a stall in discussion. Besides, I'd rather see a bandwagon than a bunch of poke votes and no votes any day, as bandwagons have a lot more potential to reveal useful information. Additionally, I'd argue that the problem you're addressing isn't the bandwagons, but the fact players would rather wait around for information than actively pursue it. It really isn't too different than a game of follow the cop if we all just wait around for answers, except it's even more likely the elims will be able to take advantage of our silence if there's no genuine reason for it, therefore I think that's the issue worth addressing. I'm also glad you responded as fast as you did (I'm assuming it's because of the mention, though I will record it here and now that between the time I posted and the time Phatt did, I only saw one player, Straw, viewing the thread. Thus if phatt turns out an eliminator, it might be possible Straw saw the vote and gave his teammate a heads up). Regardless, I am going to keep my vote on you, mostly because that's the second time you've advocated more discussion without making a significant effort to help perpetuate it.

I'm here (kind of). I'm actually feeling under the weather (not from drinking this time, I promise), so my head's not in the right place right now to make progress on the LG30 finale in a way I think it deserves. While lying in bed hating life, I've also been binge reading Worm, because like an analogy I made on the discord channel we have for Worm readers, the story is a lot like a bag of potato chips in that it's very easy to tell yourself "just one more chip" (chapter) and next thing you know you're halfway through the bag (book) and you've no longer the self-control to stop. That said, I'm not sure how much analysis I can contribute right now, let alone if it would even be helpful. I will say that right now, on the first day, the Contribution Crusade isn't worth being implemented yet. I don't feel up to thoroughly explaining my perspective on it, but I will say that I feel we need more evidence of inactivity than a lack of posting in 24 hours to make any accurate judgments on a player's involvement in the game, and whether or not they should be removed solely for that reason. If someone's gone for several turns, sure, but I believe we all deserve a little slack. As for the rest that's been discussed... poke votes. I don't like them, mostly because of their inefficiency. I don't believe they accomplish much, as voting is most useful when it applies genuine pressure on the target, or when it forces bystanders to advocate or oppose the death of the target. Even a player deciding to remain neutral or not comment on it at all can be telling. So, in the spirit of that... Pauses to quickly look over the previous votes... Elenion voted for both SB and phatt for CC reasons, so nothing particular to read from that until we know his alignment. If he's a villager, than he'd just be genuinely poke voting. If he's an eliminator, then, well, there could be a lot of motives, but honestly if he died today, there'd be not enough interactions between him and other players to analyze what his intent was, exactly. So not very useful in the long run. I haven't yet read his role advice so I can't say for sure if there's some underlying intent there. I'll probably attempt that later, when my head is in a better place. Regardless, as much as I agree with Orlok's arguments regarding the Contribution Crusade, I don't feel like voting for Len is worth it. For now my gut is saying he's village, anyway, not that gut isn't infallible, or that I've really thought too hard on this. SB's vote on Magestar is a pure poke vote. Same conclusion as with Len's. Unlike Len, though, I would vote for him because he hasn't done much else to participate since, if anything at all (off the top of my head). Already said my piece on Orlok's vote, really. I see why he voted for Len and I can agree with it. Need some sparks to ignite a fire. But while my gut is also telling me Orlok is a villager, it doesn't mean I feel the need to follow his lead. Magestar. Hm. His participation in the discussion gives me good vibes, too. So at the very least, I will cross him off my list of people to suspect. For now. I'm glad that Ecth pointed out the fallacy in one of phatt's statements, though I don't think he made as big deal out of it as it deserves. So I'll go ahead and quote the exact post now, and accompany it with a vote of my own. Phattemer. Can you explain to me exactly how waiting to vote = encouraging discussion? It's not like voting on someone causes other players not to respond, and it also doesn't help discussion if that sentence is all you say before you disappear. Your actions don't match your implied desires, and that confuses me. @phattemer Vote Tally (0) Silverblade5: Elenion, (1) Magestar: Silverblade5, (2) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, (1) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, It should also be noted that Jondesu retracted a vote for Drought, though he never put Drought's name in red, only '@mentioned' him with a "I'll poke vote you in the name of the Contribution Crusade." Which reminds me. Not going to talk as much about this as I should, but given that most games, the players who would bring up this sort of thing are dead by the time it's relevant, please make sure you constantly check back through old turns every time new information is revealed. I've seen games recently where villagers could discover the identities of the eliminators fairly easily if they just revisited old discussions (and even just tallies) with the knowledge of a player's alignment. I'm not saying any of these votes are particularly important, but there's always a potential there is. I will try to RP at some point in this game, as I have a few ideas regarding Neer, but I won't make any promises I can't keep. At least until I finish the LG30 finale. EDIT: Leave it to me to write a post this long when I started it off trying to be terse >>