DrakeMarshall

Burnt do u have a favorite kind of rock to turn into I don’t want to take u for granite

Look on the bright side, "everything" is really quite a lot of things surely it's not all bad addendum: Note that while Aman is obviously a sadist it doesn't rly change how we play this If we've exed 2 villagers then we've already lost, barring a timely block. There's nothing most of us can do abt it and therefore no value in contemplating that world any further. so we proceed with assuming we already killed at least 1 elim addendum 2: attack of the clones: Archer, TJ, I'm pretty sure y'all are V/V source: vibes sorry for voting you last loop TJ

No everything is ur fault

I'd say flipping dead players but you're not even doing that this game smh

cruel and unusual

Assuming Aman wouldn’t post the next turn if we had exed 2 villagers, we aren’t cooked We got at least one elim in the last 2 days, and Burnt is a second which doesn’t come as a surprise but it’s nice to have clarity on that goodnight

Oh, thank you. Ah. Yeah that's similar to my own set of inferences, just different wording. Guess we're all fairly mindmelded then "Burnt/Coco not E/E" is the inference you disagree with, then. You and most people it seems. I still think we do our due diligence and try to come up with plausible teams without Coco though. I mean, if v!Burnt, then I think Doc/Most are both evil. If e!Burnt, then I'd choose Doc. I think I've implied as much. Gosh I hope it really is Burnt/Coco/TwinStorm (I'd personally pick Stick as my fourth but that's a sudden death problem) You feel more village right now so that seems like the least objectionable answer but I'm too pessimistic to believe we've actually solved it edit: a bit nervous Burnt only leads by 1 vote and Bremen could mess with it but it's probably fine my vote's already on Burnt anyway

yeah... even though I think I'm probably wrong about stuff I do think PoE pretty strongly points to TwinStorm at this point edit: er, what as the reasoning for concluding 2 elims in that pool of 3? I don't recall anything like that but there's been a lot of posts it might've gotten lost in the noise

Yeah well me too, that's kinda the point Do we believe the elims 1) knew about the tie mechanics at this time, and more importantly 2) didn't feel threatened at all? Because my point isn't just that a tie existed, it was that the whole day felt highly lukewarm and shrug. And the votes were very stable, with Hael in the top 2 wagons for most of the cycle. You can reason ex post facto that the final tally was a tie and Hael would win it, but I don't think the elims knew what the final tally would be for most of the day. The elims had already intentionally committed to fewer kills, which raised the stakes on their winning L1. No matter how I slice it, I think they'd have cared more if Hael was an elim, and we wouldn't have had such a low tempo day. I will also note that Hoid Slayer (replaced by TwinStorm) was the one who tied up Hael and TUM after someone else had voted TUM. I still don't think the elims could see the future, so I think this a legitimate unpairing interaction. And I find bussing less likely on that first loop, due to the aforementioned raised stakes on winning the first loop. So I am not very inclined to accept an elim team with both TwinStorm and Hael in it. Even if we set aside the fact that padding an elim team theory with the least active suspects (for whom there are relatively few reasons both for and against) probably isn't the right answer. To the best of my knowledge, Hael is just village. Sorry. With respect, this is not the way to get me to reconsider my PoE. Try again. I know that sounds snarky but it's a genuine request if you're village: come up with a better explanation of the facts, that doesn't involve you being evil, because I don't think this is it. I suppose I'm still just surprised there wasn't any pivot attempt. I think the elims would still have options in this world. Coco could try to push you. Or Burnt could insist that resolving in Burnt/Mist took precedence and I think I actually would've village read her slightly more for it. None of that happened. I'm actually very willing to entertain the possibility that Coco/Burnt is E/E. Or heck I think Coco could still be evil even if Burnt is village, although Burnt/Coco pairing makes some sense. I'm just not willing to bank on that fact, when the above casts what is imo pretty reasonable doubt on it. I don't trust anyone saying we should proceed on the assumption that Coco was evil. That's not a good way to approach a flipless game. I dunno. Burnt/Coco/TwinStorm kinda feels too easy. We should probably make sure we aren't totally fumbling it in the world where Coco is in fact evil, but I think most of our energy this cycle should go towards figuring out how to avoid losing if Coco was village.

Ok well here are some thoughts - There are at least 3 elims in Burnt, Mist, Coco, Doc, Hael, TwinStorm - There is at least one elim in Burnt/Mist - Burnt and Mist aren’t E/E - Burnt is more sus than Mist - Hael looks village from D3A - Burnt and Coco look unpaired, as pairing them implies that the elims had zero thread control yesterday - Burnt and Doc look unpaired, because Doc put the Burnt wagon in the lead during L2 and kept his vote there until the end of the turn All of these are sensible inferences to me but they cannot all be true. They are contradictory. Any coherent worldview involves deciding which one(s) of these things is actually wrong. Some of you have already taken clearly defined stances on these issues, but I think it’s worth enumerating the reasonable options. The first 2 absolutely must be true. so to me it’s really which of the remaining 5 statements do we decide is bad “Burnt and Mist aren’t E/E” saying they are E/E feels like elim propaganda to me tbh but if we allow that to be true then the elim team can be Burnt / Mist / TwinStorm ”Burnt is more sus than Mist” There are reasons Mist is suspicious, I think. I just happen to think Burnt is more suspicious. If this is wrong, then the elim team could be Mist / Coco / Doc or Mist / Coco / TwinStorm or Mist / TwinStorm / Doc “Hael looks village from D3A” I still think he does. Plus it’s like what Archer said, padding out your team with less active players is not the answer. But if Hael is evil, then we could have Burnt / Hael / TwinStorm “Burnt and Coco look unpaired” If we think it was an E/E pair of wagons yesterday and the elims rolled over, then it could be Burnt / Coco / TwinStorm ”Burnt and Doc look unpaired” If Doc did a little bussing or if Divergent is also evil, we can have Burnt / Doc / TwinStorm this is the one I think it is. note that TwinStorm literally has to be evil unless multiple of these inferences are wrong. (edit: unless the elim team is specifically Mist / Coco / Doc and only that elim team) Though there are many more worlds where more than one of the inferences are incorrect. And I think it’s decently likely this is the case, it would just take way too long to talk about all those worlds. Most of them seem individually very unlikely even if the net probability of all them combined might be high.

I wish I was absolutely certain I’m more just at a point where this is the gamble I’m most willing to do I actually think discussing Burnt v Mistfallen is still worthwhile until the end of the day …even though the second place decision is also quite relevant and should also receive some attention. This is what’s tricky about trying to coordinate first and second on the same day

Can confirm this is the correct solve

One thing I’m considering is that the optimal way for elims to win a loop is with 1 elim in the dead doc. If the elims are risky (and their L1 strat somewhat indicates they are) then maybe they don’t defend quite as hard the first time one of them comes under fire. Either people village read them for not being defensive, or that teammate got voted out but they kind of wanted a dead teammate anyways. It does mean you’re confident or at least willing to take risks about the future days, bc you cannot afford to lose a second vote without losing the loop. But considering some people thought throwing a loop could make sense, taking that calculated risk might make even more sense. or maybe I’m just confbiasing who knows lol

> if we assume Doc is village, then Doc is not evil with Burnt

Then maybe Ash buys Mask of Truth which is fully useless to them. Or maybe Ash buys the Mask of Stone just to deny it to the elims, then puts it on do it can’t be stolen. Just seems like a plan with a lot of steps and no guaranteed payoff. Not saying it couldn’t be the goal, but I’m not entirely satisfied with the explanation. Same honestly it’s rly too bad you killed him Well when there was Burnt/Divergent wagons that one time, Doc was voting Divergent in a pretty close vote That’s probably what people mean by them being unpaired? I do think it’s an unpairing interaction but I’m also lowkey still suspicious of Burnt/Doc anyway

this is slander I mean, I want Burnt/TJ to be true because that'd mean my main pushes this game have been on point but I acknowledge that our loss last loop means that just statistically speaking TJ is more likely to be village, since at most 1 elim was in that dead doc There's also part of me that says suggesting we vote off of Burnt/Mist is something a villager initially suggests (kind of brazen for most elims), but an elim opportunistically agrees with (edit: in this world Stick sticks out like a sore thumb, pun intended ). Maybe this intuition is wrong if we think the elim team is full of powerwolves. (Or maybe Coco really was evil, it's possible, I just have my doubts. Especially because that would mean there was no significant pushback yesterday against two wagons on wealthy elims, and I find that hard to explain away. But it remains possible the elims have been playing more passively in the thread this entire time and we've just lost multiple loops to friendly fire.) I'm kind of all over the place in terms of who I think the 4th elim is. Maybe it's TJ, maybe it's Stick, maybe it's you. Probably 1 of those 3 is where I'm at with it right now. I haven't been prioritizing figuring it out much. I assume they were most likely in the dead doc, but it'd sure be convenient if they weren't and our suspect pool of 6 is actually mostly elims. edit: If we didn't have Burnt/Mistfallen + the suspect pool of 6 survivors from last loop, all of which needs resolution, I'd probably be down to try voting Stick today for the good of science. I think I would prefer it over TJ actually. Don't want to get too distracted though. We can get our 2 elims needed to win the loop from the suspect pool of 6, and even win the sudden death by picking off the third. I kinda don't think we will succeed in doing all that, but it's probably our best path to victory right now. edit2: There's a cursed world where we do our job too well and kill all 3 elims during loop 4, and have to kill the final one if we're going to have a chance in the sudden death. It's possible the elims will even force this outcome with an NK during loop 4. It's also possible the elims will pretend to do that and actually kill a villager in the suspect pool. The sudden death rules are somewhat unusual. Honestly if we even make it to sudden death I'll be happy though.

Stick at least at one point thought they were e/e, but yes it's not a very popular opinion. I really wanted to see a world where they were e/e since I did suspect Mistfallen a fair amount during the previous loop, but I don't think it's true because I don't think a reasonable elim team predicts ahead of time that we vote neither option we're given A potential concern could be that in a game where it seems the elims are quite active and confident in their position, that noise could be the elims themselves... Fair point. ...but if we're sold on the elims being more likely to be found in active and confident positions, "the accuser" is generally a more active and confident position than "the accused", no? That points back to Burnt, who proactively accused Mistfallen at the beginning of the day. Also, there was an active and confident push against voting Burnt despite those sentiments that her claim was fake: there was the successful push to vote Coco instead. also that was a response to the weakest of my 4 points imo smhh I guess the last AG might've trained us to be more willing to vote out seekers, though, huh. That might be part of why people were more willing to at least consider voting Burnt. I did notice that and honestly it was a minor point against Mistfallen, but I still come down on Burnt. ...as an aside I also think it's a clue that Mist and Burnt aren't teamed. In that world I think they quickly vote each other and play it up for drama. Forgetting to vote until someone else reminds you to do it doesn't feel very scripted, and I think yesterday must have been heavily scripted if we buy that Burnt/Mist is E/E. If I had a nickel for every time Archer pinged someone asking them to vote in self-preservation this game, I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.

Yay I didn't think that would work honestly sorry to be aggressive but I felt I needed to explain where I was at because it felt like the consensus was in a very different place I realize we won't all agree on Burnt v Mistfallen. which is unfortunate for the voting strats (both parties would prefer 1 of Burnt/Mistfallen in the lead with an impoverished suspect in 2nd place, but both parties would quite prefer not to have Burnt/Mistfallen both as the top 2 wagons) but also understandable Oh well, I guess I can always keep trying to sell people about Burnt v Mistfallen: I do think the main sticking point for anyone arguing Burnt is village is that then there's no good explanation for there being a kill at the end of last loop. Maybe it's a mistake to read into it that much, but it looks like every previous night kill or skipped kill has been pretty deliberate. I also kind of feel that a genuine scanner who caught an elim would come across as more excited about it, and try harder to get us to believe in them. From their point of view, they were just proven right by the game mechanics. They finally know exactly what the correct play is, and the only barrier is getting us to see it. In reality, Burnt accepted it immediately when we didn't believe her, and didn't volunteer any further information about her role to help us try to figure it out without prompting. Maybe my read is way off, but it doesn't feel like a village seeker claim to me at all. I also kind of think the fact that Burnt's truthfulness is even under question at all is a bit of a red flag honestly. My experience with other flipless games is that we usually still assume scans are real like 95% of the time. The fact that so many people's kneejerk response was "this is fake" says something, imo. Yeah yeah appeal to majority but still. I don't think the Burnt/Coco pairing is strong enough to bet the farm on. Yes, if we were certain evil!Burnt -> evil!Coco, then I guess we could afford to try flipping Mistfallen today, since we got Coco yesterday. We are not, and we cannot. Assuming you've hit an elim when there's no red flip wasn't a good idea on loops 1 or 2 and I think we ought to stop doing that.

What about this: we vote Burnt as train #1 with someone in Ash's pool as train #2. If Burnt is really invulnerable like you think, then you'll get exactly the outcome you want. Is that a decent compromise? At least for the people who believe that Burnt is evil? Yesterday it's "Burnt is probably evil, but we can't possibly vote her, because she can't possibly buy the Stone Mask" Today it's "Burnt is probably evil, but we can't possibly vote her, because she can't possibly not have bought the Stone Mask" In the most respectful way possible, this is nonsense and I will fight everyone to the death over it.

Yeah well I'm unreasonably confident Hael is village! which is ironic, because I'm the one who gave reasons for my read I'm sorry I'm being unnecessarily fighty but Mayor Ash may have awakened something demonic if you insist on doing a vote in <Hael, Twin> based on a dubious PoE will you at least consider respecting that Hael looks quite village from D3A and voting Twin instead?

Archer help, what do monks wear on their heads Well conveniently Aman told me I'm village so I must be confirmed right I mean, you don't know that. But I'm right, Trust Me Bro

Ash is village, but with all due respect, rule one of being a villager is that you'll sometimes have bad takes. I don't see a decent reason for Ash's assumption that only 1 of the 50 rupees club could be evil. I do think Burnt is evil for all the reasons stated yesterday. Finally, hill is village and I'm lowkey prepared to die on that Hael (...I meant what I said ). I'm voting Burnt, which is what I think we probably should've done yesterday. There's a very real danger here that Burnt has the Stone Mask despite the apparent levels of certainty people had yesterday that this wasn't possible, but I think we just bite the bullet and take that risk. I happen to think that the group of Stone Mask afforders contains multiple elims, so refusing to push them just because it's risky or a pain isn't a workable option from my point of view. Engineering the votes so that our top 2 wagons are both evil is a royal pain, don't get me wrong. But I guess we'll just have to try our best. Anyways, I figure there's a decent chance e!Doc has the Stone Mask and e!Burnt doesn't. Petition Alvron to intercede for us to the gods of luck and chance, maybe. I'm behind on backreading, so maybe my views will change. It has been known to happen before, rarely but this is currently how I feel about the game state.

Hey, Burnt, why’d you choose to track Mistfallen in particular anyways? I suppose there are worst things to spend the night talking about

I should do RP…

how’s the night going chat