DrakeMarshall

Hmmm... New cycle then. So, Wilson, you were protected. Good job. Securing protection against the various threats can be important in this game. But, about all those assassination targets... It seems strange. None of them seemed to be publicly suspect, and the two that died were villagers. So... I'm guessing eliminators hired at least one of those assassins, possibly more. That doesn't tell us much... I guess it might imply that at least some of the eliminators are well-funded, but statistically that was already quite probable, looking at the social class distribution. As for the 3 cases of insanity... A sabotage and two field/lodging related rolls I guess. Anyways, goodnight. I was mostly waiting to see what this writeup would reveal.

I think I have solved the mystery of the seventeenth shard... The in-cosmere seventeenth shard is actually a bunch of Sanderfans that found their way into the cosmere novels and are searching the cosmere relentlessly for a chance to meet Hoid. Since Hoid is the ultimate troll, he is running away from them.

Seeing as those votes appear to be primarily meant to elicit a response from the ones voted on, we should probably tag them. @queensteph @Cluny the Scourge

Not really, but if it looks like someone might be, best to be sure whether they are or aren't. And where are you getting 16%? It looks to me like the insanity roll on someone staying at the mews but with no additional modifiers is 1d10 + 2. You go insane if that roll is >= 12. That only happens at 10+2 which is a 10% probability of occurring. EDIT: Ninja'd by Wilson

And you go insane if you roll a 12, and the base roll is only 10. So you only get 10% from staying in the mews. It is possible Sart was mistaken about his numbers (or that I am mistaken about them but I obviously do not believe that I am ), which is why I asked for clarification from Sart.

Interesting, so you just admitted to being involved in an arcane field, correct?

Lol why do I keep missing that? So that could have roleblocked someone, yes. And if naming is indeed responsible for the roleblock, it makes perfect sense that the namer hasn't come forward, since they can already unilaterally kill the skindancer using the name of the wind.

Or I suppose they might just quietly arrange for the skindancer's assassination. But in terms of not wanting to reveal one's role... If one used physicking to roleblock a skindancer, but didn't want to reveal that they were a physicker, couldn't they just come forward but lie and say they used nahlrout? I agree that someone may have reasons to keep it a secret, but I would still guess that a roleblocker would most like come forward, unless they are rich enough to afford an assassin or they have a killing power like naming. Also, if someone did roleblock using naming, wouldn't it say a name was used in the writeup?

If the sabotage was a result of roleblock, I get the feeling that the roleblocker would have spoken up by now (or maybe they aren't online yet). We'll j have to wait and see if anyone comes forward, but I don't think it was a roleblock, seeing as nobody has said they roleblocked anyone else yet. So I'd guess that if expulsion isn't a likely cause, probably the target the elims hit was protected, in one of the ways Alv/Wilson listed. EDIT: Or the attacker could have been roleblocked independent from another player, if they stayed at ankers.

I know I am capable of adding opinions in thread... Speaking of which... Another possible explanation for why there was no sabotage has occurred to me. It is, I think, somewhat ironic that I am the one to bring this possibility up... But what if a sabotage failed because the saboteur got expelled this cycle, and targeted someone who isn't at Imre?

I'm not asking you to justify the vote. You already did last turn. I'm not terribly offended. Being expelled, however, I really don't have to bother defending myself to you anymore. So I won't. Too much work.

Interesting... Well I don't have to pay tuition anymore I guess? Also: It appears you've already managed to expel me by casting a vote in the last four minutes of the turn. I'll just say that I have no intention at all of bothering to defend myself against whatever you want to bring up. Also good job PK. I'm still pretty sure PK was sabotaged, so I'd hazard a guess that he can be trusted. Seeing as it is probable that his alignment is known though, he might just end up being sabotaged again.

*throws jubilee* But seriously. I really am sorry for going after you like that. But I wasn't going to tolerate a vote on me that doesn't have a reason behind it (and I would at least like to think that I wouldn't tolerate such a vote on another person, either). I very briefly considered keeping one of my votes on you, for trying to cast an unsupported vote... But that actually would be quite rude. My stated reason for accusing you no longer applies. I am removing both my votes from you, STINK STINK. I'll still be watching you I imagine, but then, I intend to be watching everyone.

Well then. Shall we discuss this? When did I say that you were supposed to actually give Stick any information? If someone's trying to mine you for information, you totally shouldn't give them any... But throwing a vote on them at the first signs of information mining is an overreaction. I just don't think you have enough reason to be voting on Stick. And you definitely have none to have cast a vote on me, because so far you have completely refused to offer any kind of reason. Citation needed? You voted on me. I asked you what reason you could possibly have for it, and voted on you back until you explained why. You replied very quickly, but not in any meaningful way. Nor did you openly refuse to answer my question, you simply gave meaningless response. Does anyone dispute these events? If that isn't evasion of my question, I really don't know what is. See, I know that what you are saying is possible.... But there were like, 2 very short posts in the thread when you made that first post. Easily shorter then the writeup. I would be surprised if you did not actually read these. I could understand not reading those if you only had time to shoot off a quick post before you had to do something or go to sleep... But seeing as you posted again an hour later, it looks to me as if that wasn't the case. I'm not concerned at all with what is possible. Merely what is probable enough to be a concern. Which, if you do the math, is anywhere upwards of 25% probability. Since we have 22 living players and likely around 5 eliminators. But this is mostly a distraction. My main issue with you isn't your time frame of posting. Its the reasoning you provide for voting. So you are acknowledging that it isn't a serious vote to lynch me. And that your reasons for voting are quite inadequate. So why are you casting votes that you aren't serious about? In what world is that a good idea? Why exactly are you treating any vote, particularly the first vote in the turn, as "not serious"? This isn't a D1 poke vote anymore. Votes aren't meaningless things to be tossed every which way. Give me a proper reason, or remove the vote. If you do not offer a real reason for your vote or remove it, I will not stop accusing you. My apologies, Stick. Please forgive me. I shall refer to her as a she from now on. Again, I'm not saying you should actually answer probing questions. And definitely don't do it publicly. But no, I don't think what Stick was doing was alignment indicative. Villagers are allowed to ask probing questions too you know. Some information is as useful to a villager as it is to an eliminator, and not everyone chooses to quietly analyze and reach our own conclusions. Asking a somewhat probing question and then watching someone's reaction isn't a bad way to get a read on people, although I prefer to do that to people in PM, not public thread. Plus, it still looks to me like Stick may simply not have been considering the "probing" dimension to her posts. In a different light, I could see those posts to be honestly arguing that all fields are dangerous to eliminators. This version of events is indeed what Stick herself seems to be claiming to be correct. Do I completely trust stick? No. But I wouldn't seriously consider voting on her just this yet, either. You've already drawn more than enough attention to your field over the course of your game. I don't think discussing it additionally at this point really makes a difference. In it I am disagreeing with you. I am in fact disagreeing with you pointedly. But I do not believe I am doing so in a way that is rude to you personally. I'm not attacking you, I am only attacking your actions. You can either retract your actions, give a proper reason for them, or accept that I will continue to take issue with you. Yes, you're dead right. I was the one who accused you of treating votes like they don't matter. And it was because you voted on me. With literally no reasoning offered. If you dispute that you offered no reasoning, there's a REALLY simple way to clear this up. Just give me your reason. One of those votes wasn't barely reasoned, it simply wasn't reasoned at all. Do you dispute this? Again: If you dispute that you offered no reasoning, there's a REALLY simple way to clear this up. Just give me your reason. My issue really isn't that you are voting on me. My issue is the way that you voted on me. Wilson voted on me last cycle, and have I chosen to vote on her back? No. Because as much as I didn't appreciate the vote, she still offered solid reasons for doing it. I'm fine with you having fun. Please, have lots of fun with RP and witty comments and nearly anything else. Sky's the limit. But if your having fun involves voting on me, do you really think I'm not going to come after you? What makes you think that works? I tried to be chill about it mate. I ignored your first unreasoned vote last turn, and even said I was okay with it at the beginning of this turn. When you voted on me again, I initially just put a single vote on you and asked for an explanation, ready to take my one vote off when you gave it. I really don't like that this had to escalate. But I'm also not going to back down, now that it has.

Alright... I've gone and re-read every post this cycle, and have some new thoughts to share. I'll iterate over all the relevant posts: Interestingly enough, I did have a PM with him, cycle 1, turn 2, where I mentioned the possibility of a role reveal. He guessed what field I would go into, and I informed him that his guess was my second choice, but nevertheless incorrect. He told me he was going into "several fields." He didn't tell me which ones, but I'd guess they were non-arcane fields if he was willing to risk filing EP in multiple fields. It is possible he told someone else this information, I'm not sure. Given that he was splitting his EP, and still elevated, I am betting he ended up advancing in a field that nobody else wanted. That is probably the field in which nobody got elevated this turn in, since PK went insane. I am inclined to guess that the eliminators did not know that PK was splitting his EP, because this information actually implies that PK's field wasn't a very critical one, if it was one nobody else even tried to elevate in. Stink's first post early in the cycle... I'm just going to point out that you post this an hour after you've actually read my post on the vote not hurting me. Now, this could mean that your vote on me wasn't quite so spontaneous as you appear to be making it out to be. It looks an awful lot like you actually had some time to think about it before you voted on me, and yet you are not explaining any of these thoughts. Indeed, you seem determined not to explain yourself, and later evade questioning on the matter. Now, maybe you simply don't care about this voting... But I think it would be something of a mistake for a villager not to care about voting. I'll mostly ignore all this, because I'm already voting on you anyway... But this does seem interesting to me. It's also a little odd that you tell everyone not to reveal their roles and then do so yourself, but I can live with that particular oddity. I can think of good enough reasons for a villager to behave like that. Like you said, linguistics isn't that much of a threat, at least compared to the obvious ones like naming. Cool graph. Like some folks already said though, I'm not sure it really contributes much. Well... I mean, it "contributes" in the sense that I guess the graphs are helpful. And helpfulness is good, so well done. But voicing opinions is also important, so please do that more often in the future. I personally think this would be a really weird tact for an eliminator to take, so I don't really suspect you for making graphs. But I would still like to hear from ya more. If you are still reluctant to stick your neck out and make an opinion when it is later in the game, I assure you that I will be more inclined to vote on you. Around now, Stick starts arguing that all the fields are equally useful. I would like to point out that each field has strengths and weaknesses, and that which field is best depends largely on the situation. I do totally agree with Stink that "I am not a skindancer" test is kind of stupid. I suspect there are better uses of that ability though... Huh, another basically flippant vote. Stick may have asked probing questions, but I don't think that's alignment indicative. Hell, he might not even have been trying to get information out of you, maybe he was genuinely arguing that every field can be dangerous to eliminators. Stick might have been overreacting when he said you had "no reason", but he really wasn't that far from the truth. I mean, I understand that voting isn't as important in this game as it is in most. But if we treat it like it means nothing at all... That's not a good plan. And posting two barely reasoned votes before anyone else casts a single vote? Potentially forcing those two people you voted on to in turn vote without proper reasoning, simply to prevent themselves from getting expelled? I don't much like the look of it. Tell you what, Stink. If votes don't matter, you shouldn't mind a second one. NOOOOOOO a bunch more stuff I had typed up just got deleted and rolled back to here. I shall attempt to reconstruct it. But seriously, those pop-up notifications are annoying 'cause if you accidentally click on one while working on a post, it can delete some or all of that post. And I had a lot typed... Anyway, time to reconstruct what was lost. I think I must be confused. Where does it say someone used a name? I don't see that... But I'm pretty sure that it was PK that got attacked not Hael. The RP of the writeup implies that someone actually drove PK to insanity, where Hael just cracked on his own. Now, unless Elbereth is seriously trolling us (which isn't impossible), I'm pretty sure PK was the one getting sabotaged. Also, I believe my revelation in this post about my PM with PK should very much imply an explanation for why nobody got elevated. Your theory that someone split EP is correct, but that someone was very probably PK, who also went insane. Sympathy's a good guess for what field it was. I'd bet it's an arcane field anyway. Huh. I hadn't really been thinking of namers as potential PM spies. I mean, would they really risk insanity just to spy on a PM? Unless calling on wind lets you spy on multiple messages at once, which is I suppose quite possible... Anyways, I should probably say. I'm pretty sure that if I resumed my accusation on you from last cycle, people would get mad. Also, I have more important and possibly more substantial accusations to make. Whoa... I guess I didn't really read this earlier. That is odd. Extorting a role reveal with a double vote? No offense, but what made you think that would fly? First, that is yet another weird thing about Arin's post. Publicly asking for someone to PM you sensitive information, after it is established that there is PM spying? To be honest, I have a hard time thinking even an eliminator would find such a request to be a good idea. Very much considering voting on Arin... Also, Noremac, you are using a candle in the archives?? If you get caught using an open flame in the archives instead of a sympathy lamp, you could get yourself banned for a very long time... If Alv is lodging at the golden pony right now I'd laugh so hard... Luck and Chance favor the ones who rig the odds And I do rather hope you did rig the odds, since you don't deserve to be brought on the horns just because of Arin's vote... When I read this it was at 912 It deleted a large response? I feel your pain... In fact, I just got rolled back to this point! Deletion number 3 for me... Fortunately I don't think I lost too much this time. Anyway, I think you're post was pretty reckless for either alignment. As such, it's hard to say it's strongly alignment indicative. But I really think that you should retract your votes off of Alv, if you are serious about defending yourself. I really don't see how Alv deserves those votes. I'm getting too lazy to pull up the actual quote, but I found Orlok's reveal about his field to be interesting. I'm surprised you are willing to reveal in such detail, but I suppose malfeasance ability might make people second-guess attacking you... Oh, and I don't really understand Sart's vote on Wilson, because he kept it on her after she answered his question... Still, given Wilson's retaliation and his social class, I'm guessing he might well be paying more than enough as it is for casting that vote, so I won't look too closely at it. Wow. This is one monster post. I'm going to tie it off and hit submit.

Voting on someone because they made graphs? Also I need to look back on Arinian's posts and see what it is people are finding problematic. One moment...

Indeed! Here I was thinking I was a carbon based life form! Shows what I know...

So incredibly and mindblowingly complex that simple minds like myself are finding it utterly incomprehensible... Still, thanks for a prompt response I guess.

Hmmmm so I'll make RP posts later when I get home. But for now: Okay by me... But last cycle you did that... I very much got the impression you did so because I myself said I would find it acceptable to spread the votes a little more. So you voted on me. Fair enough. But if that was indeed the reason last cycle (do please correct me if I misunderstood)... It no longer exists this cycle. It isn't valid to say that your vote didn't hurt me so you better do it again. Stink, please tell me. What is your reasoning here? (speaking of spreading votes )

...and, new cycle! Anyway, surprise bandwagon on me last cycle in the last few hours while I was offline, so thanks for that. On the bright side, through some stroke of great luck, it barely affected me. I only even lost a single elevation point. Seeing how lucky I got, I'm finding it hard to particularly take issue with your voting on me in the first place. Particularly STINK, because he was literally following my suggestion. In terms of defending myself? I'm not even quite sure what I'm being accused of. Voting on burnt? I'm pretty sure I said why I was doing that, even as I acknowledged that I could be wrong. People have been voted up for an outright kill on less grounds then the whole burnt thing, shaky as it was. Gotta say though, if you were serious when you said that if Burnt isn't a skindancer, I probably am... You might be more crazy than PK or Hael. And some other developments this new turn it looks like. Mercs took their first victim, but DA was dropping out anyway... And, judging by the writeup, I'm guessing Hael went insane from an unlucky insanity role and an arcane field, and and PK got sabotaged. I'm guessing they pick PK because he got elevated... Odd that they don't pick someone both wealthy and elevated, since such a player is simply more powerful and thus more a threat. Also, yay, I got elevated. I want to get at least Re'lar in this... ...and I'm going to go to bed now. Goodnight. See you all in a few hours.

Hmmm... Not too much changed since last night. Personally I'd be okay if we spread votes a little for burnt's sake, but I'm not retracting or redistributing mine. So... See y'alls next turn I guess.

I think the relevant point in Wilson's argument is that a bodyguard is actually just as good as a gram for your stated purposes. But a gram might be preferable for an eliminator's purposes. I'll admit, I'm not very sure about your guilt. Before you actually made your defense, I was still quite aware that getting a gram might simply seem like the best course of action. I mean, in truth, the simple fact that the gram costs more might make actually it look better to you, even though practically speaking it really isn't superior to a bodyguard. People with a lot of money tend to gravitate towards the most expensive item, even when in a utilitarian sense it isn't any better than much cheaper alternatives, and I don't see why a game is any exception to that pattern. So, yeah. You could totally be innocent. I understand that. I'm not going to retract my vote tonight though. I believe the gram purchase is odd enough that I am willing to vote on you. I should be online before rollover tomorrow, in case some critical new development requires me to change my vote. But yeah. Oh, also, Wilson. As much as you are making good points, it hasn't completely escaped my notice that you are basically trying to get a sabotage-immune person lynched. Now, given your thought process, it really doesn't seem like you are doing it for evil motives. And, plus, I am also voting on Burnt. But I'll at least voice the fact of it. In the unlikely chance that you are actually doing it to be evil, I don't want it to go completely under the radar

Hmmm... In that case I can see why a villager who didn't care about money might buy a gram. But a bodyguard still looks like a better choice, so I'll keep the vote up. I'm less certain about it though.

Hmmmm.... Good catch. You're right. Can't be Steph. And if bodyguard really is two shots... Now that is odd. I didn't know that... It could still of coarse be a mistake. Maybe Burnt simply made a bad purchase as a villager. But I agree that it doesn't make very much logical sense, to purchase a gram if you only wanted to protect yourself. And I highly doubt that a villager would honestly want to give away a gram (unless they were an artificer and could make more, but then why buy one in the first place?). But one thing about your accusation doesn't really line up to me. If Burnt was buying a gram to protect her eliminator buddies, why not just buy two bodyguards instead? I know you can't transfer ownership of a bodyguard after you purchase it, but you can purchase one on behalf of someone else. It seems that two non-transferrable protective powers is better then one transferable one, even for an eliminator. And yet... 2 bodyguards is definitely a better deal for a villager, because that nets you 4 protections against sabotages where a gram only nets you 2 protections against sabotages. But an eliminator doesn't care about sabotage protection. They want protection from actual kills. And a bodyguard is only 1-shot protection for a kill, not a 2-shot. Which makes the gram a much more attractive option for an eliminator. A gram, like 2 body guards, can ultimately block 2 kills. But it's transferable, and also 1 talent cheaper than 2 bodyguards. Which makes a gram a good idea for an eliminator to buy, but a bad idea for a villager to buy. I think the case is strong enough to vote Burnt Burnt.

So... More discussion on Steph. I believe the voting thing the first cycle isn't terribly indicative, personally. Maybe it seems a bit off, but it looks like it could easily be an honest mistake. I think you guys are looking so hard to see if people are acting logically, and they aren't always going to do what you would have done in their place. They're going to be confused sometimes. I don't think Steph's vote on Wilson really crowded out anyone who actually needed a tuition reduction, and I don't really see the eliminators casting a vote like that. If the eliminators didn't have one of their own in the voting pool, they probably wouldn't have voted and hoped it got more villagers a lashing. If they did have one or more team members at risk, they probably would have placed a vote somewhere it would actually matter, not on someone who already said they were at the Golden Pony. I really think Steph was honestly mistaken about the rules surrounding the Golden Pony. Which I can understand, because I really didn't understand the rules about the Golden Pony during the first turn either. On the other hand. I find Wilson's revelation about the gram quite interesting. I believe it is indeed correct that only a Vintish noble could have bought one this early (unless there isn't any announcement when people win pipes, but I'm pretty sure there is one). Now, I can see some really good reasons for members of either team to buy a gram quickly. A village would like a gram because it is a 2-shot protection from sabotage, which seems very useful (and a gram is better talents-per-protection value than 2 body guards or 2 bloodless, if you have the money to burn). Plus a gram additionally keeps you safe from other villagers mistakenly using kill actions on you, which is also pretty useful for a villager. An eliminator would probably have even better reasons to buy a gram. First of all, there are the reasons Wilson listed. You gain a transferable protection from things like assassins, which gives the eliminator team security. Second, you keep everyone else from getting access to a gram. Provided you have the money for it, an eliminator might as well keep a gram out of village hands. And a Vintish noble definitely has the money. So... I'd say buying a gram so early in the game might be marginally suspicious, simply because it seems like the benefits for eliminators are slightly greater then the benefits for villagers. I would hesitate to vote on someone on those grounds, but I'd definitely be watching them. But... More to the point... Steph denied having purchased the gram. That claim is really quite easy to validate. So I'm interested to hear... @Burnt Spaghetti, can you confirm that you bought the gram, or are you also going to deny buying it? I doubt an eliminator would be so careless to lie about something so obviously easy to test, but it's worth a shot. If Burnt can confirm that Steph is telling the truth, I personally wouldn't see much reason to continue suspecting Steph.