Amanuensis

Oh, I figured most people removed their positive public votes to avoid this problem, once Archer clarified a Top Child would die with their Extra Credit

Also, again, if you being paranoid of being NK'd C1 is your explanation for why you jumped to being defensive of getting exed, I'm not sure that makes sense from a V perspective. Especially if you think the best reason for you being NK'd is because you are consensus read V The optimal NKs are any Village Prefect

I'm not sure you are in the top 5 NKs tbh

Die from NK or exe? If you presume NK then I am helping you out if you are V and I am pushing against village consensus of you being V, then they might shoot elsewhere

Was it? I thought village consensus is that Hufflepuff is V/V? Just because I am warmed to the idea doesn't mean others are. Again, if I meant smallest I would say smallest I think this is why I'm confused I am one guy in a group of 17. I am not the village as a whole. I have no control of others reads, votes, or actions. What I can control is my words though, and some people in particular seem concerned with keeping me quiet when I buck against presumptions

Yes but I think subconsciously speaking, it's interesting that you immediately jump to a conclusion that assumes you die. I also think it's interesting that you are suspicious of me but pushing back like you know I'm village.

Smaller =/= Smallest Warming Up =/= Confident Me thinks the misty doth protest too much

Did I say we should exe a Hufflepuff? I would read the post again

Not a read on the players. Just a valid GM troll given the consensus D1 has been exe within Slytherin, and it's my impression that is the most beneficial situation to elims Like if I was GMing, I would seriously consider putting at least one elim in the 2 person House. Otherwise both players are soft cleared from the start Interesting. I have been saying V!Mist > V!Grass. Who said we should exe you? If anything I would rather us murder all of Gryffindor first This is what I would call a slip

ML = miss exe (L is an artifact from the original term). So any villager that gets exed. Bait just means they're placed within contention to give elims an easy out ED1T: I also should add that we'd probably be better off killing within a smaller faction first rather than the big one. If Gryffindor is V/V/E, then it's a 33% chance. If Slytherin is 6V2E, it's 25%. 7V1E makes that 12.5% chance 1 in Ravenclaw is also 25% but with less people to debate 1 in Hufflepuff is 50% I am also warming up to the idea that Hufflepuff is E/E or V/E

Bold of you to assume that's Plan A actually. Ed1t: Eh I'll just share this much as the Gryffinmole will have already reported at least this bit. I am using myself as ML bait instead of someone else. I would be happy with the outcome where I die before a v!Araris or v!TUM. I will also feels less guilt if I get one of them killed just to get exed myself later. Since people are suspicious of me, I would rather save myself the time / energy fighting it later on when it matters a lot more that we don't waste an exe on a villager. The benefit of living in spite of this gambit is that it would be insanely risky to intentionally encourage me to be in the top wagons. I hope that it might get people to back off and look somewhere helpful

Maybe it's my communication skills, but I am not suggesting everyone lies about everything, as that would be chaos. Some people are arguing that it's anti-town to keep a public record of votes. This is a false premise based on this game behaving different than standard mafia. I personally find that line of thought as anti-Town and will continue to suspect it accordingly. In a normal game, everyone votes publicly, which benefits the Village. In this game, everyone votes privately, which benefits whoever uses the mechanic best. The question is what do we do? Keep votes secret? No, this leaves us uncoordinated. Don't specify exact values, just list of suspicions and who you are likely to vote for? This is great as it means nothing is set in stone until the flip, so if elims are anywhere within the top three, they will need to react accordingly. How about saying your explicit values, being honest about some, and lying about others? This gives elims a false sense of security. I have already telegraphed I am going to be a chaos gremlin, and I have also told my House the details of my plan that I am willing to let the elims know, but not specific details in hopes of catching a leak without compromising my entire plan. This means I can only do so much with my own votes. However, if other villagers can think of a way to make elims think you're putting a -3 on a leading train but are actually giving them a +3 and the other wagon you suspect more a -3, we have a chance to catch them piling votes to save the actual elim that dies. Especially since elims will often hop on the village consensus This is also a C1 with 17 players. We have the numbers advantage and are not in danger of losing today or anytime soon. There is room for us to experiment and innovate. Just imagine a scenario where the elims comfortably believe only three villagers are in danger, only for the next cycle to reveal that a bunch of villagers mislead them and ended up voting out an elim. If an elim is not already in danger but gets exed, it just about guarantees no bussing had occurred, giving us a bunch of soft clears. Use your imagination! Be bold!

So is it elim sided in regular games when villagers publicly vote? I would argue no, it's village sided to keep a public record. The advantage we have here as villagers is we can mislead the elims by saying we vote one way and vote another Elims, on the other hand, are better incentivised to publicize their accurate votes to minimize scrutiny ED1T: Last point is that litigating votes a cycle later wastes time in the later cycle that could be better spent justifying votes that cycle.

TY for your service o7 (9-17) Araris: Vergrass (2), TUM (1-3), Wahr (1-3), Mist (3), TJ (1-3), coco (1-3), (6-10) Aman: Vergrass (1), TUM (1-3), Mist (2), Twin (1), coco (1-3), (4-8) TUM: Twin (2), Araris (1-3), coco (1-3), (4-6) Wahr: Twin (3), Araris (1-3), (4-6) Twin: Aman (3), Wahr (1-3), (3-7) coco: Araris (1-3), Doc (1-3), Mist (1), (2-6) Hopper: Doc (1-3), TJ (1-3), (2-6) Doc: TUM (1-3), Wahr (1-3), (1-3) Vergrass: Doc (1-3),

Well if you find better utility for it, feel free, but I would appreciate keeping your -1 if you don't find a better option for it. I doubt my plan is going to work as well as I hope it will, but if it does it'll be epic

Ah, yeah. I think it's a flavor misnomer, given we are technically voting individuals rather than Houses.

Ah. I figured they were votes like any other game in that every cycle we're making new picks based on better information. I believe that is what Archer will confirm

@Archer is this true? I just combed the rules and didn't see that votes accumulate rather than reset per cycle

You know what they say. Great minds and all that I want to justify raising my read of you due to mind meld, however, I will settle for a V/E or V/V pairing Shush you're ruining my master plan! (7-17) Araris: Vergrass (2), TUM (1-3), Wahr (1-3), Mist (1-3), TJ (1-3), coco (1-3), (5-11) TUM: Twin (2), Araris (1-3), Mist (1-3), coco (1-3), (5-11) Aman: Vergrass (1), TUM (1-3), Mist (1-3), Twin (1), coco (1-3), (4-6) Wahr: Twin (3), Araris (1-3), (4-6) Twin: Aman (3), Wahr (1-3), (2-6) Hopper: Doc (1-3), TJ (1-3), (2-6) Doc: TUM (1-3), Wahr (1-3), (2-6) coco: Araris (1-3), Doc (1-3), (1-3) Vergrass: Doc (1-3),

I believe this is accurate to public claims. Only the top three are in the danger zone currently, however positive votes on any of those players could lower them. (8-20) Araris: Vergrass (2), Doc (1-3), TUM (1-3), Wahr (1-3), Mist (1-3), TJ (1-3), coco (1-3), (6-14) TUM: Twin (2), Doc (1-3), Araris (1-3), Mist (1-3), coco (1-3), (5-11) Aman: Vergrass (1), TUM (1-3), Mist (1-3), Twin (1), coco (1-3), (4-6) Wahr: Twin (3), Araris (1-3), (4-6) Twin: Aman (3), Wahr (1-3), (2-6) Hopper: Doc (1-3), TJ (1-3), (2-6) Doc: TUM (1-3), Wahr (1-3), (1-3) coco: Araris (1-3), (1-3) TJ: Doc (1-3), I am personally sad that negative self-voting is off the table would have been a fun reveal next cycle if I helped flip myself. Though it seems talking is the most reliable way to get myself killed ED1T: Oh, for the Neutral dynamic, lighter yellow is lean good, darker yellow is lean evil, middle yellow is pure shrug ED2T: @|TJ| save your positive vote for someone who can benefit from it, please and thank you o7 I want to be in the top three. This goes for anyone else that considered giving me +X votes @The Unknown Medallion @Through the Living Mist do me a favor and give me the -3s or -2s but not the -1s. I have a plan

Okay so I am no longer going to +3 Mist then and will suggest we do not discuss positive votes ED1T: Also for anyone who does plan on giving me positive votes, I don't want any higher than +1. I'd prefer not casting a single spell this game besides Protego, so Extra Credit is not useful for me, and Owl Mail will be better off in another's hands

Well I hope your vibedar gets fixed eventually I do feel obviously village but then again, I always feel that way when village, so probably just a me problem

For what it's worth I am mostly saying that if it's just my votes and reasons on you making you feel off about my slot, I would consider if a Villager could reasonably reach the same conclusion

I appreciate this post o7 it helps me read your slot better FWIW, assuming v!Aman, the only alignment I know is my own, so not sure why you'd get special treatment from my solving

Honestly you can put negatives on me. I don't mind any of the penalties. I was actually going to leave the game last minute but I liked the characters too much so decided to aim for a short run. I would always prefer soaking an NK but I am trying to not get mad when I get ML'd anymore