DrakeMarshall

Hm... Y'know, I'm probably dead anyway, but I'm still more sure of my own alignment then that of Araris, so I'll add my vote on them I guess. I'm going to read up on Araris though, if I get time. Araris isn't really on my radar very much, and I feel I should get a concrete opinion on him if I'm voting... Also, Wilson, does that mean that if we manage to kill the convert this cycle, the inquisitor will at least temporarily be unable to kill? I think I understand in that case why the inquisitor would be willing to give up steel. We aren't likely to root out the first convert this early, and the inquisitor will probably get more converts... Seems like a decent price for inquisitor to pay. Chances are, it doesn't cost them anything.

Hm... So a few comments. First, you might be right about no eliminators being involved in the bandwagon... Which would be interesting. I agree that Kipper is ending up pretty neutral. Can't tell much about him. I suspect I know why Jondesu is taking the stance he is. I probably wouldn't suspect him for it, even though it is something a spiked might want to do. Also Wilson, I do hope you have a reliable way to survive, because you claimed soother and all... The attack may not come next cycle, but I'd bet one comes in the next few cycles... Also your post indicates that the inquisitor could have chosen to give up a different power and get 2 kills a cycle. I'm really wondering why they didn't do that... The only reason I can think of is that the other uber metals the inquisitor has might be somehow better then a kill. But that seems odd. Twice as many kills is a massive advantage. It's been suggested that the inquisitor felt 2 kills a cycle would end the game too fast and be boring. That idea has merit, only why kill Aman then? If the inquisitor cared more about fun then winning, wouldn't they let Aman live?

...and goodmorning. Bandwagon is still in full force it seems. Unsurprising. I've thought about it and I'm actually pretty sure Wilson is village. She's still wrong about all this, but probably honest about it. I'm pretty sure someone in this bandwagon is one of our two elims (very likely the convert, I doubt inquisitor would risk itself), but nobody is really properly standing out to me. I'll probably accuse one of you later, but for now, no vote. Also, if my read of the rules is accurate, an inquisitor can survive a lynch. I'll just say it now, don't expect the same from me. If I survive you should obviously lynch me again, because I just claimed I don't have pewter, and so I'd be lying if I survived. I don't expect I'll be posting again this game. So, again, good luck. Y'alls will soon see that you are dead wrong. You've made a grave mistake. But hey, it's your funeral. *runs away cackling at all his terrible, terrible puns* (you aren't actually making a very critical mistake; I won't even give the inquisitor a conversion so its chill. I'm just making bad puns here, disregard the actual statements )

Meh, sure, I'll comment. Just because I'd enjoy proving you wrong doesn't mean I'm going to do a bad job serving my faction. The village is hurt by every mislynch. In the least, it is critical that a lynch by C3 should actually be informative. If I don't defend myself, you don't get any information. And anyway, hasn't defending myself ultimately improved the quality of the challenge? Now I have people claiming with much more confidence that certain things about me are elim-y. So, yes. You can "call my bluff." We'll see if there's backfiring soon enough I think. ...And another post by Wilson. I suppose I really ought to reply to this as well before I sleep. To the first paragraph, I think you are missing my point. You made several accusations against me. When I made counterarguments about the majority of them, you admitted that they are "not alignment indicative." So you basically claimed that most of the accusations you initially made were actually insubstantial. By your own words, I am almost forced to conclude that you knowingly used details that do not indicate alignment to persuade people to vote on me. To the second paragraph, the fact that I didn't know that it only required 1 should probably tell you enough as it is. Sure, maybe I was just pretending not to know. Or maybe not. You overestimate my subtlety if you really think that. You ever heard of Occam's razor? To the third paragraph, I'm pretty sure the few cycles before you voting on me your voting and general activity was pretty minimal. I could be wrong about that. Honestly, it wouldn't much change my point. You've mostly kept attention off of you and then suddenly thrown your weight behind a bandwagon. For what its worth, in this case, you seem to be putting yourself on the line to get me lynched a little more then you did last time. That implies to me you probably aren't actually spiked (on the other hand, last time I didn't accuse you in retaliation until it was too late, so maybe you're willingness to argue this more boldly is explained by that, and you are still suspect). But it does strike me as a bit odd how quickly this bandwagon took off, based on an accusation I'm having a rather hard time seeing as substantial. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if one of the people who hopped aboard the bandwagon was our convert. Goodnight, for real this time. And good luck... I've done the best I can to make this lynch informative for you, in the least. Try not to waste it.

Mmmm... You're going to make me post more defense? Fine then. Anyone of any alignment can say exactly that. Confident villagers with nothing to lose can (and do) say things like this. Eliminators who want to get villagers second-guessing themselves and potentially remove votes on them can also very easily say things exactly like that (and they have). Using the "You always mislynch me" excuse as a reason for your alignment is a ridiculous reason to give. See, eventually, a lynch will come along that isn't a mislynch, and if you use this exact reasoning every time you're up for the lynch, then that time when you're actually evil and you're up for the lynched, you'll do it again, guaranteed. So forgive me if these words mean nothing to me. The only way it would mean something is if a specific player or players have a habit of finding you suspicious when both parties are village. But it doesn't look like that's the case here. The same people might be involved to some degree or another, but they're not the reason for you being mislynched consistently. You don't know Maill because he's on a mission now, but whenever Maill and I were in a game and we were both village, I very frequently would cause his death because I found him suspicious. This happened more often than not, and it became a sort of running joke between us. In a case like that, one could easily go "Sigh. You did this same thing in these specific games, in which we were both village as well. If you're village this time, you might want to take a step back and look at the facts again." But anyway, you seem to take pride in the fact that your playstyle changes from game to game and people can't get a read on you. Which is fine. That's great. But you can't really be surprised, given that you so readily change from game to game, that people find different reasons to be suspicious of you. Because of this, you can't really say "You can't read me" because that's your entire point. You are intentionally making it hard to read you, so why even bring up the fact that people can't read you? It becomes non-alignment indicative at that point and therefore the point is moot. So... Basically this whole thing isn't alignment indicative. By your own admission that is what you are getting at here. And non-alignment indicative stuff isn't a reason to lynch someone. If you admit this isn't alignment indicative, why did you initially try to pass it off as one of your reasons to lynch me? Also, I'm not playing differently each game to try to get lynched, or to try to be unreadable. Which it seems like you might be implying. Frankly, I really am getting tired of mislynches (mind you, I'd still get a kick out of proving y'alls wrong ). I'm just really not putting any effort into keeping a consistent playstyle. I'd rather try different approaches and see how people react (otherwise how exactly do I improve?). I'm not stating you can't read me as a boast, I'm stating it as a fact. It's a little bit like the rule with Rae, I suspect. When Rae is innocent, they always seem suspicious. To multiple people, myself included. It can be, yes. But I would actually say that it depends on both the playstyle change and the person exhibiting that change. People learn as they play and make mistakes, and playstyles naturally shift as you play more. That's just a fact. Not only this, but there are also players who are like you and mix up their playstyle from game-to-game, never reusing a previous one exactly as they have in the past. Consistently inconsistent. With those players, a playstyle shift is non-alignment indicative. Then you have the players who are cognizant of how they play as village and can mimic their village playstyle with a fair bit of accuracy. With those players, looking for a playstyle shift will get you nowhere because there is no playstyle shift. So, sure, looking for shifts can help find eliminators. But you should rarely, if ever, lynch someone based solely on a playstyle shift, though it does depend on the exact shift and the amount of evidence you've accrued to support the shift being a tell. Playstyle changes, in and of themselves, are not alignment-indicative. And none of this is alignment indicative either, again by your admission. Again, this just means you can't use your playstyle as a reasoning for your alignment because it's not alignment-indicative. If you wanted it to be, you wouldn't be consistently inconsistent. I don't care how consistently inconsistent players played in past games where they village. I care how they are playing now, because that's all that matters. ...Or this, it looks like. I don't think anyone was saying that. Even when I pointed out that your words were contradictory back on Night 1, I wasn't saying I found you suspicious. On the contrary, I was nearly certain you were a Rioter, and were therefore not the Inquisitor. Contradicting yourself is merely a reason to look at a person closer, to decide if the contradiction is of malicious intent or not. That's all. It looks a lot like the major point of you're accusation is that I said we should look for inconsistency, but I myself am inconsistent. What is that, if not a contradiction? Is that not the basis of you're accusation? You would do well to state it more clearly if not. Preferably concisely. I understand and respect that you are providing details in your argument, but if you can't also sum up your argument to lynch me in a sentence or two, it isn't much of an argument. There's no "hypothetical" about it. The only question is if that's your motivation. Eliminators don't like being accused for incorrect reasons. They generally dislike false positives. If you are going to accuse them, have the facts right. This is based not only on my own personal experience of being an eliminator, but also on many other people I've talked to and on eliminator docs that I have read. False positives are annoying. No hypothetical needed. Um... No hypothetical about it? The hypothetical is that if I were an eliminator, maybe I overreacted because so-and-so. But that all is completely contingent upon me being an eliminator in the first place, which is utterly hypothetical. You are begging the question. You've set my being an eliminator as the premise, and unsurprisingly, reached the conclusion that I am an eliminator. Yes, there is a possible alternate reality in which these events are explained by me being an eliminator, but you need to go further than that. Why is your explanation more likely than mine? I'm just going to reiterate that a D1 lynch was actually a good idea. Yes, you are 5x less likely to hit an eliminator D1... But if you do hit that eliminator, the game is all but won (not outright because of pewter, but basically won). Just like that. 1/5 the chances, but 5x the value... You're expected value remains unchanged. I said that D1 if you recall. As for spending my time telling people to vote instead of catching up and then voting... You seem to be assuming those two activities take the same amount of time. Posting a quick blurb about what's in front of me takes a lot less time then catching up on five pages of thread. Just because I posted over several hours, you think I had 100% of that time frame to devote to Sanderson Elimination? I most certainly did not. So... You are saying that if multiple vote manipulations happened, maybe there ends up no lynch? Okay, but there's only one inquisitor. Chances are, they can't vote manipulate multiple times in a cycle. So unless villagers wanted to screw up the lynch, what you are proposing is impossible. A lynch was all but certain, like I said. As for self-preservation... You think I'm not willing to risk myself? I assure you, I am. I've done it before (for that matter, what do you think pushing a D1 lynch even was? It's a risk taken to accomplish something). But to risk myself with zero return? That's just foolishness. Neither an eliminator nor a villager would risk themselves to get nothing done. I'll take you on your word for that, though it doesn't change my thoughts about it, since a person can be sleep-deprived, in bad health, annoyed, and also be an eliminator and over-react like that. A villager can as well. Your RL things are non-alignment indicative. Again, if this is all totally non-alignment indicative, why did you initially try to pass it off as a reason to lynch me? Yes, it is. I'm aware. It's actually not even a factor in my suspicions of you, for the sole reason that it is an IKYK and therefore trying to guess at it is useless. The only reason I even brought it up was because everyone up to that point had been suggesting that the Inquisitor killed Dalinar to place suspicion on you, and that's not necessarily what happened. There are other explanations for the Dalinar kill, but at the end of the day, we don't know why Dalinar died. He said so little. It could've been to place suspicion on you. It could've been because you're the Inquisitor and he was fixated on you. It could've been because he told the Inquisitor in a PM that he was a Misting. It could've been because he said so little so his death would give us no information on the Inquisitor. We don't know, so speculating in a way that actually affects a persons thoughts on different players is pointless. ...so basically more "non-alignment indicative" content, according to you. You've basically admitted that most of your initial argument was filler. Only it actually isn't completely non-alignment indicative. I still hold that it would be a pretty stupid move for me to kill Dalinar, if I were inquisitor. Leave him totally ignored and his vote is totally ignored, and I get to fly under the radar. Great. That means I was doing my job in that game, mimicking my village playstyle. Excellent. Thanks for the affirmation. Also, my laying low wasn't because of my alignment. It was because I said I wasn't going to devote as much time to the games, and I was making a distinct effort to force myself from spending too much time on that game despite my being evil in it. I guarantee that had I wanted to be active, I would've been active. My point isn't really your "laying low" but how you lay low, so I'll move on to the next part: You're right: this is my first vote this game. It's also only the third day of the game, and on the D1, I was against a lynch, and D2, I was busy. I missed over half of that day, and only got caught up about an hour or two before the cycle ended, and I could tell an inactive would be lynched and therefore there wasn't any point for me to get involved. It was too late to do anything, and I didn't feel the need to vote when Drought had a 5 vote lead. So yeah, I'm voting on cycle 3. How is that similar to AG3? In AG3, I'm pretty sure I voted in almost every single cycle. I didn't back-up DA's suspicions. DA's comments on you made me rethink my thoughts on you, and I had more to add, so I did. I can't be blamed for any bandwagon and to say that the bandwagon afterwards is my fault is ludicrous. Can no one add their own thoughts to another person's suspicions without being seen as inherently suspicious for doing just that? I'm not in cahoots with DA. I'll look back on AG3 but I do not think you voted every cycle. I'm fairly certain you didn't vote the cycles before you voted on me, and definitely not a second vote in a bandwagon like the one you threw on me in AG3. I'm not claiming you are responsible for all the bandwagons under the sun, silly. That would indeed be ludicrous but it's very obvious I am not claiming that. I am claiming that you are responsible for two in particular, the one in AG3 and this one. Regardless of your alignment, I don't think you can deny that. Neither am I claiming you are in "cahoots with DA". In fact, if you read on, you see my read on DA is totally neutral. Is there any implication in my post that you are aligned with DA? I'm not saying this is the exact same set up as AG3. DA is probably innocent. But you still threw a suspicious second vote on me that made me flashback to AG3. It's for that exact reason that I would be a terrible convert right now. Because I'm expected to be converted. I'm also expected to be seeked (and I have it on reasonable authority that there is a Seeker in this game, or at least someone who claims to be a Seeker. Whether they are actually the Inquisitor or not remains to be seen). Converting me also has the added risk of not knowing my current role. If I'm regular, no worries for the Inquisitor, but if I'm a Misting, I guarantee you that I would've set up some way to confirm my ability to those who know my role (of which there would be multiple). Converting me is a huge risk. And as I said, I don't care to devote as much time to the games as I used to, so having me as the first (or second) convert wouldn't be as much of a boost as it would've 6 months ago. I'm not going to be on the doc strategizing every second of free time I have. I'm fairly minimalist in docs now, compared to my former activity. But my saying that doesn't help, because I'd say it regardless of it I'd been converted or not. Also, why can't we resolve this with Bronze? Let's say hypothetically that I were converted. The spike only has a 50% chance of taking. If it did, sure, I'd be a Smoker, and I could smoke myself, but a person who ends up smoked to a seek should be watched closer, particularly in this case. If the spike didn't take, then I'm wide open to a seeking. I see no reason why Bronze can't get involved in this. I'm not one single whit worried about a seek, because I can tell you exactly what it will find, and it won't be a Spiked anything. The spike doesn't have 100% chance to take? Huh. Didn't see that in the rules. You'd make a poor conversion target in general, but for copper it might well be worth it since you could evade seeking at that point. It's a gamble, but a worthwhile one. Still worth scanning you, since there's a 50% chance the eliminators don't have any access to copper, which means we'd get an accurate scan on you. But whether or not you are the elim, if that spike took, you are getting smoked tonight I'd guess. So we only have a 50/50 chance to get your alignment. Soother claim or no. Also, the fact that you are potentially scannable doesn't really give me much reason to not vote you. You clearly don't intend to wait for me to be scanned before voting, and I have no intention of waiting either. Unless a seeker wants to randomly scan one of us two and rely on the fact that the elims can only smoke one person at a time, if even that? I'll say in advance I'm roleless, so I'm basically indistinguishable from someone being smoked I'm afraid. But seeing as I may well be lynched this cycle, the scheme I propose isn't probably going to matter. I'm pretty sure Aonar isn't the Inquisitor, though he could've been converted last night. One of Aonar's biggest alignment tells is PM activity. He wasn't terribly active in the thread in LG28, but he was pretty active in PMs and out of the 3 people I was working with in PMs, he was by far the one I trusted most. He's been fairly active in PMs again this time around, and he was being helpful as well, hence why I rather think he's not the Inquisitor. But he hasn't had much of anything to say so far today in PMs (though I haven't tried to talk to him either) so yeah. May have been converted, but he just as easily might not have been. I don't know Aonar at all, so maybe you are right about the PM thing. But honestly, to me this seems like sort of an odd connection. And if you've ever voiced in a previous game that PM activity is a big tell for Aonar, it is no longer a useful tell at all. But you probably know that. I'm not saying I think Aonar is an inquisitor. Like I said, it is a very tentative guess. I'm probably wrong about it. But if I had to guess, I'd guess Aonar. And then you never voted. You've already brought this up earlier in the same post, and accordingly I've already addressed it in this post I'm writing right now, so I'm just going to move on. To me, it looked like you were voting on Ecth because you thought he was the Rioter and you didn't like him accusing you. Why vote on someone you think is a villager? I didn't vote on Ecth because I necessarily thought he was a Rioter. If you go back to where I voted, you'll see I voted on Ecth primarily because it felt weird that Ecth so quickly pinned the rioting on me. A secondary reason for the vote was to prove I'm not the rioter. I think it strange Randuir mentioned that, because denying it is the only thing you could do, no matter what. If you are the Rioter, the Inquisitor would kill you. If you aren't the Rioter, you can't claim Rioter because then the real Rioter would know you were lying and would tell someone about it. If you're village in that situation, you're casting suspicion on yourself needlessly, and if you're the Inquisitor in that situation, you've basically just revealed yourself to someone, and even if that person is killed, once they die and are revealed to have been telling the truth about being a Rioter, you're done-for. You denying it tells us nothing. I agree, it tells us nothing. Randuir was mistaken to use that point as an accusation. I don't fault him for it, because unlike you, Randuir hasn't later claimed that his point doesn't actually indicate alignment. Yes. In standard games, this is true. In this specific game, that's less true. Killing an eliminator is highly unlikely to happen in a D1 lynch in a game with only one starting eliminator. Getting information is also negligible, since, again, there's only one starting eliminator. The useful information you gain in D1 in a game like this is stuff that doesn't relate to D1 lynches. It's thoughts about other players, and opinions about different strategies and stuff that aren't strictly relevant to D1. In other games, D1 lynches can be used to get information through ties to other players, but that's not a factor here because there was only one eliminator. And since you're so intent that a D1 lynch was crucial in this game, I think I'll ask you at the end of the game what information one could've gleaned from this D1 lynch that would've been useful and relevant for later in the game. Have fun making something up, because if you're not the Inquisitor I highly highly doubt there's anything there. I think I've already covered this mate. It is mathematically equivalent to lynch someone D1 this game, and in other games. It seems like it all circles back to the fact that I didn't vote someone D1. I've already explained precisely why I did what I did. Maybe you feel your alternate reality is more likely, but if so, I hope you're okay with being proven wrong... If you really think it's 50/50 I'm an elim, I agree, you absolutely should lynch me. That's great odds on a lynch. But I think the odds are substantially worse than 50/50. All you've done is presented a possible reality given the current situation, in which I am an eliminator. Sure, that carries weight from you (whether you like it or not), but I don't see much substance here. At the end of the day, this is only gut talking. You can judge for yourself what gut is worth... I'm probably posting this too late in the cycle to even matter, but here you are. Goodnight. When I end up village next cycle, do me a favor and at least scan Wilson. And Aonar. Pick randomly between them or something.

Hmmm.... And the suspicions strike again. So. I suppose I should defend myself or something. The main accusations on me are by DA, Wilson, Randuir, and Rae. Lets start with DA. First of all... As much as I disagree with basically everything else you said... Nice catch with the cipher. Could just be one of the red herrings... But still, I didn't see that. I don't really have time to crack it, but still. Nice job. Second. You're accusations on Arinian. To speak bluntly, I disagree with them, and you can't hardly say we are elim buddies because at the time I first declared I trusted Arin, no conversion had occured. You're accusation amounts to: 1. He's been telling jokes, which is uncharacteristic. Thing is, while that is a change, is that the kind of change that indicates alignment? I have doubts. This may marginally cast suspicion on him, but alone it isn't worth much. 2. He's changed his votes. I'm just going to say flat out, changing votes is not alignment indicative at all. It actually makes sense to change votes when there are new developments, and, indeed, an elim would be more likely to change votes rarely so as to fly under the radar. 3. He might be changing votes in response to the orders of elim friends. This makes no sense. There was no conversion at the time Arin was doing these things. Third, you're accusations of myself. Yes, I saved that for last. I'm not trying to distract you or make it seem like those things take priority, I just had other things to say. Now, onward. Amusingly, the first quote by me you cite is this one: I just want to start by saying that this challenge still stands. It's a shame to die in this game... But I'm a new player, and it is in my interest to ensure advantages that cut across multiple games. You still can't read me. Every game so far, the bandwagons made on me have been mislynches (the only time I was elim I was never bandwagoned, in fact in the cycle I died I got the people who initially most suspected me to vote on an innocent). Now, we can move on to the real accusations. Namely, these accusations are (or perhaps I should say accusation, not accusations): 1. I said we should look for inconsistency, then openly claimed I was being inconsistent. Now, I'll give you this. I suppose by my own previous reasoning, you should lynch me. That was kind of stupid of me. But you know what? I still stand by my initial statement. It is a good idea to look for changes in play styles across games. That's a good way to find elims. So... Why are my changes in play style exempt? Well, for one, I've actually tried to explain why I might be playing differently. Also, the ways in which I am different aren't particularly elim-y (a difference does not inherently suggest eliminator, but the nature of the difference may do so). Also. This is probably going to sound suspect or something, but... I'm basically consistently inconsistent. Look at how I changed from AG3 to LG30. I was village in both of 'em. But, at the end of the day... You are saying I am likely to be an inquisitor simply because I contradict myself? Villagers contradict themselves too, mate. Now, onward to Wilson's post. Ugh. This is going to be a monster post, isn't it? Still, I've learned the hard way, if you don't defend yourself while you have the chance, people assume the worst. I digress though. Back to Wilson's post. You're accusations are summarized I believe in these points (don't hesitate to correct me if I am not representing your argument correctly): 1. In the first paragraph you cite DA's arguments and say he might be on to something. I've addressed those separately. 2. Cycle 1, I say we need a lynch but refuse to cast a vote myself. Seems like something an eliminator would do, to make sure somebody dies but not get their hands dirty. 3. My defense of being accused to rioting seemed like an overreaction. Hypothetically, an eliminator would be annoyed at being accused for the wrong reasons. 4. Dalinar threw a senseless vote on me a little while ago. Possibly I'm using reverse psychology, killing Dalinar to gain trust by making it look like the elims are trying to cast suspicion on me. My defense: 2. I already told you the reasons I didn't vote. I didn't feel informed enough on the game to cast a vote. I was merely arguing against the notion I heard some people voicing (you included) that a D1 lynch is a bad idea. As for not wanting to get my hands dirty, being involved in a lynch... Would it surprise you to learn that villagers don't always want to get their hands dirty in a lynch, either? It doesn't serve the town if I needlessly attract suspicion and get myself killed (apparently I've done that anyway though XD). If I cast a vote without any good reasoning (and I had no good reasoning to offer), it puts me in danger. Yes, elims would want to preserve themselves, but so too would villagers. My death doesn't do the village any good. 3. Honestly, that's actually a pretty good point. But it's also ridiculously hypothetical. Yeah, maybe that's why I overreacted. But maybe I overreacted just because I was sleep deprived, in bad health, and generally annoyed at the world. If you want, I can ask the GM if I'm allowed to bluetext confirm the first two of those facts, but the second one was actually already confirmed in bluetext during signups. 4. This is IKYK. You can pick any number of iterations to go on this, and it will alternately implicate me as innocent or guilty. If I were an elim, wouldn't I just leave Dalinar alone? Killing him does nothing but draw attention to me. Why on earth would an elim want that kind of attention? If you follow the IKYK, it just becomes a coin toss on whether I'm elim or not. Anonymity is vastly preferable. Other comments: Wilson, I want to highlight something else here. You are reminding me a lot of AG3. I remember that game, you spent a lot of time lying low. Then, out of the blue, Wyrm throws a vote on me with zero reasoning. You quickly back it up, casting the first vote you had cast in several cycles. After you're weight was behind it, but someone else had started it, the bandwagon took off immediately, and I was speedily lynched without a single substantial accusation made. I remember this, because you're actions made a red flag to me. I made a post right before the cycle ended (which nobody ever bothered to read I suspect) where I said I thought it very likely you and Wyrm were elims. Why am I bringing all that up? Because you're doing the exact same thing right now, perhaps... I'll give you this, there's actually some good reasoning this time. But it's similar. To my knowledge, you haven't voted this entire game, and now you quickly back up DA's suspicions and a bandwagon immediately takes off. I don't like this. Oh, and also I'll say, you're a great target for conversion. I'd love to have you on my team. You're reputation is great at starting bandwagons, even if we discount the fact that you are genuinely quite good at this. Wilson, I predict you are a spiked coppercloud. If you guys want, you can lynch me, but when you know my alignment for sure maybe you'll come back to this and consider targetting Wilson. Unfortunately, we can't resolve this with bronze, because the conversion was copper. As for DA... My read on him is pretty neutral. Honestly, his grounds for accusing me are pretty solid, which makes me suspect he is village. The only thing out of ordinary is that he is being uncharacteristically active/helpful, but, frankly, I would never vote on someone for that. Even if it meant he was eliminator, I do not want a precedent of killing people for being active or helpful. If I had to guess, I'd say the inquisitor was Aonar, simply because Aonar keeps dodging suspicions so smoothly. But that is a very tentative guess, and I'm probably wrong about it. Now. On to the next post! That would be the one made by Randuir: You're argument seem to be summed up by these points (again, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you): 1. At the beginning, you claim that it is "odd" that I've advocated a D1 lynch and that I've advocated looking for changes in playstyle. I'll just say, I can't really see how either of these two things is odd. I gave solid reasons why a D1 lynch really was in our interest. And looking at changes in play style simply is a strategy to find elims. If you feel it isn't an effective one, and disagree, I don't know if that's a reason to suspect me. 2. I was reluctant to vote on Ecth, but still did, so my reluctance wasn't worth much. You later say you don't think this in of itself indicates alignment, because you believe I am unlikely to manipulate the tone of my posts in this way. I agree. 3. I denied being a rioter, even though I thought the rioter was likely village. You express confusion as to why I'd try so hard to say I'm not the rioter if I was so sure the rioter was village. Perhaps I can clarify why: I'm not a rioter. That's basically all there is to it. Yeah, it might be to my advantage at this point to claim rioter, but it simply isn't my role. I'm not going to lie to village. 4. I advocated a D1 lynch but found a conversion to be unfortunate. So... You are saying that everyone who voted D1 should be happy about conversions? Just because a D1 lynch means a possible conversion? You know, there are other reasons to lynch someone D1 then to allow a conversion. Lots of them. Like, maybe, killing elims, or getting information from a D1 lynch. Frankly, those are the most obvious reasons anyone ever advocates a D1 lynch. Risking a conversion is a necessary evil. I do not understand at all how you conclude that I should be happy about a conversion, just because I advocated a D1 lynch. And finally, Rae's post. Your point seem to be that I claimed I would vote to prove I'm not a rioter, but if I were a rioter I could just not use my powers that cycle. You are right about this, but unless the real rioter wants to refrain from using their powers every cycle just to make me look bad (or a soother wants to soothe me every cycle), I can have a reasonable expectation that my vote will prove me to not be a rioter. Also, even if I were a rioter (and I assure you I'm not), that shouldn't matter, since evidence implies that the rioter is a villager. So... I'm done I guess. Making posts like this is annoying. I don't particularly enjoy having to argue against y'alls. Still, I've learned the hard way that such posts are necessary to stay alive sometimes. I hope I've covered all the points you've raised against me.

Granted. The Joker agrees to leave Roshar and resume terrorizing earth. However, as he is still the one granting your wish, he gets revenge on you for banishing him from the nightwatcher's position. He creates a steel inquisitor in his own likeness (joker's face, but with spikes), and sicks it on you. It has full compounding abilities. I wish for 1,000 biochromatic breaths.

You want me to vote? Working on it. I'll vote tomorrow morning. Right now I'll say that for reasons I can't quite verbalize I'm getting an odd read on Aonar. I was also tempted to vote on you for trying to prod me for a vote, but I restrained myself because the sentiment of encouraging voter participation is a very good one. Honestly, this game is going to get easier once I get to know more of you... I know some of you don't believe in examining players' past styles, but in my opinion it's very hard to make headway without knowing how someone plays the game. It's very hard to judge how eliminator-y someone is behaving unless you have a good comparison point for their normal behavior. Some people always seem a little suspicious no matter what, and some people never seem suspicious, even when they are elim, unless you look really really closely.

It is probable the role of the snapped is the same as the converted: smoker. It'd be nice to have confirmation on that, I agree. But we can for now assume that the snapped misting is a smoker. Also, if you don't mind, what is the reasoning for that vote you just threw? It looks like you're saying you have a list of people you suspect maybe, which is well and good, but it's still nice to announce why you suspect people. Unless your vote is just a poke vote?

Granted. The relationship ends suddenly when you try to take a picture with her, and Shalash attacks you to prevent her likeness being captured. In the end she drives you raving insane with her lightweaving. I believe what doesn't kill you makes you... Stranger. I'm sorry. I had to keep up the references, especially since the nightwatcher is still technically replaced and so the bane reflects it... I wish for something that is worth the costs.

Is that the story... Sometimes I remember differently. If I'm going to have a past, I'd prefer it be multiple choice! But anyway, my point is, that must have made for something of a bad day...

I've been looking forward to this write up for some time. It does not disappoint I think. I'm typing this up on my phone right now so I'll keep the comments to a minimum... I have a lot I could say though. This was an interesting game. I'll maybe do a more detailed post later. It seems my streak of losing SE games remains unbroken from the first one I played. But, hell, these games are fun in great part for the RP. If I just wanted to play and win a mafia game I'd play town of Salem. I'm going to go read the elim doc now... Well played, elim team. I look forward to future games.

Well that went dark... why so serious?

Wait I got two votes? Lolz... Cool. Not that either of them particularly mattered. And... Anyone see any vote manips? I'm not seeing any obvious ones. Guess that means it doesn't prove I'm not a rioter. Ah well, there's always next cycle. Anyways... Stating the obvious, but there's going to be a conversion tonight. Or, perhaps I should say a conversion is extremely likely. I'd bet most people playing inquisitor would convert at least one person. So... Prepare to deal with a new elim next cycle I guess? I'm not sure I have any leads I see worth discussing at the moment. On the bright side, if my read of the rules is correct, it means a roleless village player will snap and become a misting. So this isn't a total loss for the village.

Right then... Kipper. Lamspartacus. Droughtbringer.

Granted. The nightwatcher takes away all your coordination. It is now challenging to move around at a normal speed without falling or hurting yourself. Using your abilities would prove... Dangerous. I wish to replace the nightwatcher.

Hm... Fine, I'll break the tie. I don't like tied votes (possibly because it seems that whenever I'm in a tied vote, they always screw me over ). So... The choice is between a lurker and a full inactive. I'd guess the lurker is slightly more likely to be elim (although Drought notably hasn't really defended himself yet), but I'd also bet that an inactive is slightly less likely to have a misting role. Obviously, there are cases when people have important roles and still go inactive. But it is slightly less common. So I'll throw my vote on Iamspartacus to break the tie, I guess. And, yes. I change my votes a lot. Get used to it. Before now a tie didn't exist, so I think changing my mind is perfectly justified.

Potentially not. But it's substantially better than posting in the main thread. Super tin may be in this game, or may not. Also, can someone link me to the source of all this super metals business? I see no reference to it in the ruleset of LG2... Protecting yourself from emotional allomancy?

Who says I can't calculate negative values sometimes?

Hm... You are right on all of this... Except one thing, which you probably know... But I'll still say it, since I didn't see it in your post. Don't publicly discuss who you think is a good conversion candidate. If we conclude so-and-so is totally getting converted this cycle, the inquisitor just won't convert them. Talk about it in PM maybe, but wait until next cycle (by then the inquisitor will probably have converted someone) to discuss publicly who you think is a candidate.

Another divergence in the paths of wishing! Only one way to fix it... Commence insulting wish granting!!! Granted. Your many mistakes in life are perfectly timed so as to provide other people the maximum entertainment. Granted. You casually meet Brandon Sanderson. Since Sanderson is still in his right mind when you meet him, he finds you intolerably obnoxious, and you never see him again. I wish for an awakened abacus.

Hm... So. Some things. First of all I just noticed the tin message in the writeup. Tells me a few things. First, that they probably aren't a new player, talking about "new blood" and "old blood." Second, there's a code in there, which I haven't the patience to crack right now. You're wrong about the important role bit, but you're quite right that my playstyle has changed. If its any excuse, the past few days I was sleep deprived and still recovering from the flu. I'm sorry if I've been... Less then cordial. To be honest, my playstyle changes kind of a lot. Part of that is I have mood swings, part of that is that I'm experimenting with different approaches since I'm still sorta new to the game. Mmm... To speak bluntly, I really don't get why a coinshot would have killed Aman. Maybe after a cycle of Aman living, if it looked like the inquisitor had taken the challenge... Then I might suspect Aman a bit. But a village coinshot attacking him on the cycle of that challenge? That would be an order of magnitude above simple inexperience. It occurs to me that you might have actually been the hypothetical village coinshot in your story, and you are merely trying to explain yourself. It has also occurred to me that your theory might just be a more heinous case of fillerposting than what you've accused Arinian of. And, speaking of that, Arinian is actually probably the person I most trust in this game. You may not like the idea of reasoning off people's previous play styles... But in my experience, that's actually one of the more effective modes of analysis. And Arinian is playing his normal self, to the hilt. So, hm... I don't really need to vote on Ecth, but I do need to vote on someone this cycle, I think... And it wouldn't be worth much, to call you out and then not put my voting behind my words. So, even though my suspicions on you are not strong... Kipper, I'm voting on you. I am open to being persuaded to remove my vote. Finally! I'll start off some RP, hm? Lets join the funeral procession! Serray bowed her head in reverence to the dead. She hadn't known the woman who died. For that matter, she didn't know any of these people. Stupid... Ising thinking the invitation of Tekiel might spell the changing in fortunes... Ising wrong. She, like the other... Members of the test... Were locked in this estate. She didn't like the look of all those coffins neatly lined up, either. All empty but one (soon to be two). Perfectly counted. One for each of them. "Wasing Tekiel... Tekiel, the hell you playing at?" she spoke to herself under her breath. Perhaps it was time to escape this place and leave it behind.

I don't think Aman would have gotten himself killed just to prove that the inquisitor wasn't vote manipulating (if the inquisitor is indeed limited to one action per cycle). I'm not sure it would make much sense for Aman to make his challenge a trick unless he was also able to secretly arrange for a lurcher to protect him. All evidence seems to indicate that Aman was being 100% honest in his challenge.

Hm... So you are saying I'm being inconsistent? Guilty as charged. People are not consistent. Particularly villagers who aren't thinking very hard about how their actions may look to other people. Still not a rioter, and you'd think at this point if I were I'd have PMed one of you people. This is kind of silly. I'm not "fixated" on Ecth, either... I simply find something odd in Ecth's pinning it on me, and I've also been called out for not voting. Two birds with one stone and all that. Unless you care to give me a better voting option? I wasn't going to say it, but trust me, I was thinking it

I'm dodging the question? I suspect the question is somewhat irrelevant, if everyone is so sure the rioter is a villager. But fine. Perhaps I can answer this question. To no fault of Wilson's or your own, it appears you've ignored the original post I made last night on that matter. So I'll reiterate: It was apparent last cycle that there was going to be a lynch. The voting requirements were fulfilled. At that point, what bearing does my advocating a lynch have on my voting? Honestly, I could probably just stop there. But I don't feel like stopping, so, onwards. So, beyond that, my vote would have only mattered to steer the lynch one way or another. And yet. I had read basically none of the many posts in that cycle. I really wasn't informed enough to cast a vote, so why should I be steering the vote? So I made comments on the posts I saw right in front of me in the last few hours of the cycle, and let that be that. Honestly... If I'd thrown a vote on someone last second in the previous cycle, without proper reasoning that comes from actually reading the thread, do you seriously think I wouldn't have gotten called out for that by someone? It seems now that when I exercise restraint, I am still called out... Doesn't much matter what I do then. Which, I suppose is fine. Maybe after a few more mislynches, y'alls will realize you can't read me. Which, independent of my alignment in any particular game, is useful. Want to call my bluff? Lynch me. I dare you. I may be dead, but I'll also be proven right. And trust me, that matters much more to me