Kynedath

It was a mistake on my part. That's all. As to voting outside the abstainers, if you are village, sure, you have reason to vote for the abstainers since for you there are only two possibilities and one or both of them is an elim. However, for the rest of us not in the abstainers, the odds favour voting outside of that group of people just because of the numbers. People can choose to trust you, that's what posting is for. However there is no irrefutable proof that you are village and I cannot exempt you from the statistic. I do try to analyze and gather enough information to make an informed decision and vote for people I am suspicious of, but my skills lie mostly in math and statistics. In no way am I saying that we should avoid lynching inside the abstainers, I am saying that statistically there is a higher likelihood of catching an eliminator by voting for people outside of the Abstainers.

Okay @Elenion you're right. It's cycle 2, not cycle 3. I made a mistake and misread the thread. I apologize. However, the fact that it is cycle 2 only strengthens my point that the map could've been with a villager. At the time, we knew that the map had been stolen. The map at that point could not have been used since the sneak had just taken it from the pile. We did not know the identity of the sneak, yet you automatically assumed that it was an elim. I contested that because there was literally no proof that the sneak was an elim, it could also have been village. Now, the reason I misread the thread (because you're probably going to accuse me of making that mistake because I'm an eliminator) is because I was searching for the exact post that you were mentioning and I had to literally trawl through the whole thread until I found where Orlok claimed and then the next time that I posted about the topic you mentioned. Somewhere in that process, I mistook cycle 2 for cycle 3 and used info based on cycle 3 for my argument.

Okay, just give me a storming minute to figure out what you're actually accusing me of then!

Okay, I don't think that we should be voting on the abstainers any more (thanks Len for joining me with the term) since the odds don't support it. There are 11 players remaining. The assumption is that there are 3,4, or 5 eliminators left. 3 elims is the best case scenario. That would be 3 elims, 8 villagers, 3 turns with two village deaths a turn until the elims win. Fortunately, we have four suspects remaining in the D1 abstainers, with one who has been confirmed as the thief, leaving three. Even if we mislynch as much as possible, we still are guaranteed another turn after that. 4 elims would leave 7 village, two village deaths a turn would result in two more cycles. This leaves one more turn of lynching a villager until it's crunch time and we can't make any more mistakes. 5 elims is the worst case scenario. It leaves 6 village and if we mislynch this turn, we lose. Considering the odds, there is a 1/3 to 1/4 chance (if you include Orlok, but he's basically been confirmed as a thief since eternum was the one who scanned him, and unless they were both eliminators (highly unlikely considering the elims probably would have scrambled for items the same as the rest of the players and wouldn't have had two of their players do nothing) then Orlok will not be an eliminator) of catching an elim in the D1 Abstainers by randomly lynching. Comparing that to the 2/7, 3/7 and 4/7 chances of finding them in the other 8 players. So again, if we lynch in the D1 abstainers, it's basically a 1/3 chance or 33.3%. If we lynch outside of the D1 Abstainers, the minimum probability is 2/7 or 28.6% and the highest is 4/7 or 57.1%. On average voting outside will give us a 3/7 or 42.9% chance of catching an eliminator. I think that this is what Monster was trying to say earlier, but I think it bears repeating that our focus should no longer be on Monster, BR, and Eternum. This also raises my suspicion of Elenion since he is keeping his vote there instead of advocating for analysis outside until his very last post. Even then, he did not take his vote off of BR. That raises even more red flags after Orlok stated that he would try to kill them tonight. By the same logic, I do not trust BR. She as well is keeping her votes to an abstainer. I don't want to vote on her not only because of the low chance of finding someone in the D1 Abstainers, but also because Orlok has said that he will attempt to kill her tonight. I'm inclined to trust Orlok. He's given me an honest vibe from the very beginning, especially when he volunteered to handicap himself for what he considered a balanced game. Steeldancer is another one who I feel is acting suspiciously. There are a lot of instances where his posts just seem . . . off. Especially for someone who has played SE for as long as he has, I feel like he wouldn't have normally made the error of scanning Orlok when he knew that he wanted his bribe. Initially, he seemed village to me because of his passionate posts about his ideas (still don't know exactly what those were) but it could've just been a ploy to create confusion. Those three are the ones I feel are the most evil, or an elim team of three, they'd be my bet, but I would probably look at their connections to other players to find the other one after seeing their alignments, because I am completely convinced that one or more of them are eliminators. Concerning Len's post saying his analysis implicated me, I'm not going to lie, it confused me. Not like "I'm confused as to why this would implicate me" but as in "what are the point's you're trying to make here?" If you can clarify your major points against me, maybe I could defend against them a bit better. At this point, the only thing I can clearly see is your 8th point. I assume you're talking about this? If alv took the map, he couldn't use it. He then passed it off to someone, we still don't all know who. The above post was made during the third cycle. The map wasn't able to be used for the previous two turns. Alv had passed it off, so someone new then had it. There were more villagers than there were elims, so probability stated that a villager had it at that point. Considering that it still hasn't been used, I would think that either Orlok or an eliminator has it. Orlok could be working towards his thief goal and Steel claimed that Orlok stole from him last night, meaning that he could have it and not be using it. Elims would profit from not having more items in the pile since it hinders the village from finding them or protecting themselves. I used logic that I no longer apply to the situation, that's why I said it could be a villager.

I'm still tentative to take my vote off of Len. They seem a lot more suspicious to me than any of the D1 abstainers (still hoping it'll catch on).

Okay, I have some suspicions forming, but I'm not entirely sure how to pursue them. On the one hand, we have at least one guaranteed elim in the small pool of those who took no item on day 1. I think it's smart to follow that, but I'm also seeing some evidence that indicates that Elenion is an eliminator as well. First off, in the first cycle, Elenion was on near the very beginning to encourage players participating, poking at a couple inactives. However, near the middle of the cycle, they disappeared completely. They didn't come back on to discuss any of the major developments going on between Orlok, Steel and Mac, then posted fifth of sixth on cycle two. This could have been their own schedule, but it's also something that I feel an elim would do. Stay under the radar while doing the normal stuff that people do on Day 1 which is to encourage lurkers to stop lurking. In and of itself, not much, but enough to make me scratch my head for a brief moment. Elenion jumped right onto the idea that the village should search in the group that didn't take an item (we need a new name for them, I'll call them the D1 abstainers). It's a great idea with valid points, but he was also pushing a vote on Orlok with what I consider weak arguments. He also showed a slight trust towards budgie through the entire ordeal based on a claim that any elim could have made. Even before Budgie had made that claim, Elenion had stated that analyzing them and eternum was most likely a dead end. This behaviour makes me wonder if Elenion has been trying to prolong our search within the D1 abstainers, seeing how long they can keep the village from searching the rest of us. Going back through their posts, I noticed that once the vote was secure on Alv, Elenion stopped pushing for any of his points and started posting mainly vote-counts. Once Orlok claimed being the thief, Elenion takes it as fact. There was no hesitation for him to trust the word of someone who still had the possibility of being an elim. This would make sense if they were an eliminator themselves since they already knew that Orlok wasn't an elim themselves. In a later post, they state that they were somewhat suspicious for a moment that Orlok was an elim covering for elim!Eternum. They fail to take a decsive stance on the subject after that which, considering their playstyle before, is something that set off a couple alarms. Before that, they were stating their opinions very clearly and taking a definitive stance, but I think that maybe they had made a mistake by assuming everyone else would take Orlok's word and this was them covering it up quickly. After that, as a bandwagon was forming on Jon, Elenion tried again to keep the village searching the D1 abstainers, trying to refute analysis on a valid suspect and prolonging the time spent on six specific people. I know that there is an elim, maybe two in the D1 abstainers, but I don't believe that if we have a solid read on someone we are suspicious of, we shouldn't pursue it because they aren't a part of a specific group that has an elim hiding in it somewhere. This, along with Orlok's and MonsterMetroid's arguments, is why I am placing my vote on Elenion until I am convinced that there is a better target based on evidence rather than just being a part of the D1 abstainers.

Just one more thing before I head out from school and lose wifi, @Elenion it takes a turn to be able to use the map, so for all we know the sneak took it and is using it this turn.

This is such an interesting turn of events, I'm riveted! I personally like the plan of the thief holding the gun, I was nervous about it the whole time so far and didn't want to do anything about it in case I died, so that takes away a whole bunch of my stress. That being said, I think that the first cycle was probably the most telling for eliminators based on who took what. From here on out, there are going to be more and more people who use items rather than take them. After all, what is the point in taking items and not using them? Lies and deception is in the basic job description for an eliminator and I believe it will get easier for them to pull off those lies as the game progresses. I was planning on doing a little bit of analysis on the players I haven't commented on this cycle, but this kind of threw me off, so I'll have to get back to that once I get home in just under an hour from now.

I get a fairly strong village read from Orlok. The only points that I see against him are that he didn't take an item and that he benefited from the sudden bandwagons against Steeldancer and Mac. His arguments in cycle 1 were generally for the benefit of the village and his thoughts seemed very genuine to me. Alvron though . . . storms I hate trying to analyze you! Your cryptic speech and sudden vote on Mac make me suspicious of you, and you've done practically nothing to make me trust you. That being said, for you it's business as usual. I still think that it's odd you would only start to take things more seriously when Steel was in danger and a bandwagon formed. I agree that there are most likely two elims in the pool of players we are focusing on, but the others don't really set off any alarms. Orlok has the most controversy surrounding him, but I trust Alvron a lot less.

I also did, and apparently it was enough to change his view of the debacle as evidenced by his last post before roll-over.

Budgie and Eternum both posted last cycle. It was only a single post each however, and didn't really add anything to the conversation. It's always a possibility that inactives are eliminators trying to lie low, but other than that, they don't give us much of anything to work with. Both MonsterMetroid and BrightnessRadiant were fairly absent, but they both submitted reasons for being so. It would make sense for either of these two to be a traitor in my opinion. A small amount of contribution leads to a small amount of evidence to develop suspicions from, but they were both on enough to check a doc and put in actions. Orlok was going hard on the analysis of mine and Steeldancer's motives as well as a few others along the way. There is a plethora of reasons why Orlok posted the way he did, but I get strong village vibes from it. His analysis was useful and scrutinized valid points. Alv played crazy for the first bit, but then turned serious later on. What struck me was how he joined in serious discussion when Steeldancer was in danger of being lynched. There is a possibility that he was trying to save a teammate, but then why did he vote on someone with no votes on them already? Unless most of the others voting on Mac were also eliminators, which is a possibility, it would've been easier to vote on someone with votes already on them, wouldn't it? Another thing is that his reson for voting for Mac is pretty tenuous. Just an evil vibe and a change in playstyle. It was the people after him that accused Mac with sporadic voting that eventually changed the direction of the vote. I started this post wondering why Drake would be curious about Alv the most since things seemed pretty normal with him, but as I combed through last cycle's posts, I started to see why. In my opinion, Alv seems the most suspicious. I won't put a vote on him yet but I might when I see his response.

I meant that the info we got was the difference between the claims and the results.

So, I'm seeing discussion about clowns, dogs, Jondesu voting for the GM, crazy stuff. The main points that I see are the map, the gun, and BrightnessRadiant's question about whether we should all just declare what we are trying to get from the stockpile (which I don't think has been answered yet). I'm fine with Joe taking the map, the more items available to us the better. The only thing that I am worried about is if Joe is an eliminator and won't use it to deprive the village of items, but at that point, he would just be outing himself as an elim to the village, so the chances of that are low. As for the gun, my opinion is that I'm not willing to risk my life for it. You guys go ahead, I plan on sticking around to catch the forgotten with my expert powers of analysis and statistics! The last point is more complicated. On one hand, it would give the village a ton of information, but the problem is that people are able to lie as much as they want, especially the eliminators. In the late game that would be catastrophic. The other thing is that it gives the elims info on the village as well. I'm personally against it, but again, I haven't seen really any discussion surrounding this topic.

While I do agree that interaction and discussion are integral parts of SE and do provide a wealth of entertainment, I disagree that my stance detracts from the overall experience and long-term pleasure of the game. I would contend that there is not in fact less information D2. Every post and every action tells us something, the post doesn't have to be a vote or something about a vote. For example, your post and mine both have information on our state of mind, style of 'interrogation', some insight into our motives, even our style of writing which can sometimes come into play. And I would also argue that throughout my, albeit limited, SE career, my stance has brought discussion onto the table without fail. Every time I try to stay out of it, someone puts a vote on me or disagrees with me. By taking this stance, I too am encouraging discussion, just by a different method. And you're right, having to defend yourself is exciting. But I find it far more exciting and engaging when the accuser has valid and logical points to defend against. I am having the time of my life defending against your arguments and debating with you, however you have far more experience with this than I do and you are able to create those arguments more quickly than I can. I find it difficult to find valid arguments as to why someone is acting suspiciously with as small an information pool as there is on day 1. As such, I can't create that engaging discussion unless I flat out accuse someone on absolutely no grounds whatsoever. Baseless accusations are simply tiring and frustrating to deal with. Trust me, I plan on voting, like I said, it's how we win the game. But I don't feel I have enough information to properly accuse someone of being guilty on the first cycle. I never have. If you want my commentary on everyone else in the game, then stop giving me such great arguments to defend from and giving me a reason to write these storming long paragraphs in my defense.

Alright, here we go again! This is the exact same stance I've taken on day 1 lynches as every other time I've played SE. Here is my reasoning. I do not like being a part of day 1 lynches because I have been lynched day 1 and I know what it feels like to be kicked out of a game that you're really excited about for absolutely no reason. I hate that feeling and I don't want to be a contributor to that. It's unfair and honestly I think that it's pretty mean. That being said, having had this argument MANY times before, I recognize that it is our main way of getting information. Lynching is how we win, I understand that. But I'd rather not do so f it makes someone feel terrible like day 1 lynching does. Therefore, I don't vote on day 1 as a general policy because of the way that it has no logic or reasoning behind it other than pure luck. The reason I encourage it without partaking is because I know it is necessary. It's almost like voting in an election IRL. If we all stopped, the election would be decided by like fifteen people, so instead of trying to convince others not to vote as well, I decide to let them us their own judgement on whether or not they vote, and whom they vote for. We're all capable of making those types of decisions, so rather than try to fight the gathering of information, I watch from the sidelines and don't partake in what I feel is unfair. It's how I've always done it, feel free to go back and check.

Myka sulked in the corner as he watched the rest of the crowd rage over the small pile of supplies left to them. That wasn't the most pressing matter on his mind, his plans were destroyed. He crumpled a paper in his right hand. It had contained the apology he had wanted to give to Lorissa. Now with this quarantine, his plans to escape were completely botched. He took a swig of his canteen water and looked around. The talk had just barely begun and nobody had said anything meaningful. Maybe he should start? "Look guys," he said at a normal volume, not caring who heard or responded "I don't want to just go and get someone 'eliminated' as the brass so politely called it, so lets not get too riled up over nothing, okay? We all want to go home, lets just keep our cool and figure this out logically." With that, Myka slumped back against the wall and tried to wipe some of the dirt off of his face, succeeding only in smearing it across his forehead. I've never been a fan of day 1 lynching, but I know that I can't deny that it is necessary. I'm going to refrain from voting today unless I see something that clearly looks suspicious or if I find some sort of hard proof that somebody is an eliminator. But until the second cycle, I don't want to kill someone for absolutely no reason.

This sounds super fun! Sign me up as Myka, a former actor turned soldier who enlisted to get away from the grief of his child's miscarriage, leaving his wife to fend for herself.

I feel I shouldn't be using Wilson's name for the purposes of my own character, so with the GM's approval I am going to change my RP name to Nils. The character will remain the same, just the name will change. Sorry if this causes any confusion.

Valens coughing up his drink brought the tiniest of smirks to Wilson's lips. Serves him right for trying to drown his feelings. There was no way to kill your feelings off completely, she knew that, but she figured he would too by now, seeing how many times they had been together. "I don't think I need to. Not yet at least. You should know as well as I do that soothers and rioters read people well. Remember back when we pulled that scam on the married couple and pretended to give them couples counseling? Their individual affairs were written all over their faces and they didn't even notice!" She had found it hilarious at the time, and she remembered how effective of a team her and Val were. Wilson's face turned from jovial reminiscing to somber. "But I do agree that their silence is disturbing. I'm surprised more people aren't jumping up and down at the chance to prove themselves to Breeze. I just think we can't be hasty and try to put any innocent lives on the line just yet. We need the crew intact for the next jobs."

Wilson looked up towards the man with the puppy dog eyes. Those eyes were why she had fallen for him in the first place. They were asking for her love. All she could do for eyes like those was let them down. She always let others down, she kept making excuses and weaving webs of lies just to keep from disappointing them. Wilson looked back to her whiskey, following the swirling motion of the liquid with her pupils, trying to think of an appropriate answer. She looked back to her former lover, answer stuck in her throat. She took a swig of ale to loosen it. "Look, Val, you don't want to ask that question, not right now, probably not ever. There are . . . reasons that keep us apart, things that made me leave you in the first place. If you want me to sleep with you, fine, you're a great looking guy, but WE can't be together. I can't love you." Every word stung, it was like trying to regurgitate rocks. Of course she still had feelings for him, but he would never understand. How could he? He was Valens, he didn't see problems, just what he wanted that lies beyond those problems. "Sit, have a drink. I'm just watching for suspicious behavior, so feel free to join me." With that, Wilson turned back towards the rest of the crowd, scanning the rest of the rioters and soothers, pondering their intentions, waiting for Val's response.

Ooo! Are we stealing each others' names? Can I sign up as Wilson?

Yeah, okay. Alvron.

Alvron. I agree with steeldancer, I don't see how your feud with Arinian is anything but a distraction. I also see that Arinian is trying to contribute by stating their suspicions, which make a lot of sense to me. At this point, I am suspicious of Drought, Alv and maybe one other person for the elims. Drought, it seems like your excuse was made after the fact to try and hide your motivations. It is somewhat flimsy. And Alv, I feel like you're trying specifically to derail the discussion.

Randuir. Who knows, maybe my first read was right.

Okay, so here is the thing. I'm going through all of my arguments against Rand and I am starting to come up with strong counter arguments against my own main points. Everything that I suspect him for could also very well be a good villager strategy. My main points were how he seemed to be suspicious of everyone but not vote on anyone. I figured that it could be him not wanting people to get a grudge against him or something. I never have time to analyze everyone, just those I'm suspicious of, so if someone stays off of my radar, I won't actually even notice the somewhat suspicious behavior of that person. But that could also be him trying to get a clearer picture of what is happening before he commits to anything. I also felt that he was calling out all the suspicious behavior of people who posted because he wanted to draw attention to our faults and not his own, but that is a stupid theory because that's what you have to do in these games. You call out suspicious action and I don't even know why I was trying to make that in and of itself suspicious behavior. My arguments don't hold up. Randuir