Yitzi2

Also, is the statement about "a player was attacked, but survived" in addition to Metacognition, or instead? If in addition, do we know why some are identified who was attacked, and some are not? Also: In the last night, @Elenion posted (I'm not sure how to quote from a closed thread) "We could just Soothe Ecth the same turn as we scan him. If the Soothing goes through, then we know that the scan was good." I was under the impression that normal Smoking lets the seeker know that he was unable to determine what the player was. Was my impression inaccurate?

I'm a man, actually. Yitzi is short for Yitzhak, which is the name anglicized to Isaac. Garshin asked Herwynbe whether Herwynbe, being interested in what people did when there was nothing important happening, would be interested in what Garshin likes to do when there's nothing important happening. You know, even besides the snapping claim: If a seeker scans Ecth every so often, then either we'll be able to determine what he is, or force an enemy smoker to cover him full-time (and therefore not be available for other purposes, and also be easier for our rioters to find).

My gut says you're slightly more suspicious. However, now that it's been pointed out that the Inquisitor has better things to do than riot/soothe, I'm thinking maybe it is better not to bandwagon, so that a village rioter/soother can protect themselves. So randuir Herowannabe. (Why Herowannabe, you ask? Same reason Araris voted for Ecthelion. Garshin has asked Herwynbe a question twice, and still no answer.)

For future vote analyses, we should probably also note where conversions happen. How so? The Inquisitor can probably riot/soothe, and her confirmed action was after the Inquisitor gave up uber-steel. Speaking of which: Since the Inquisitor can probably riot/soothe, it's still probably in our interests to make sure that the vote winner is winning by enough that rioting/soothing won't affect it...and I certainly want to vote so that any rioters/soothers can (if they wish) determine that I am not smoking (assuming that the two enemy smokers don't target me), so I will vote for Randuir.

The fact that it was one-time makes it seem more likely to me that the other was the Mistborn.

Though with two coppercloud conversions, it's not very likely to show up "inquisitor".

For the record, I did vote and then retract it on day 2.

So does the Lurcher ability block the team kill the same way it does the Coinshot ability?

Or maybe it just means "now you have to rely on whatever your converts do have", e.g. if someone was converted using steel, or simply organizing the converts to arrange a lynch.

Isn't the convert fairly likely to get the role of the dead misting (i.e. smoker)? So how can that possibly give them a kill action? Something strange is going on...

"Same reason he's kidnapping all sorts of people, with no regard for whether they're nobility. My theory is that someone thinks he's being funny."

"Have you seen the situation we're in? If he's responsible for it..."

"If you figure out how to reach the bastard, I'm in. Though, there's bigger and worse things coming soon..." -------- As a side note: Why was Mykal labeled a smoker, but Lebochevkowski labeled a coppercloud? Aren't those two names for the same thing?

For all but the very beginning of this phase, I will be unable to post.

Wait, Drought voted for himself? Or did you just mistype for Hema?

Then I'll also move from Spartacus and to Drought.

This makes sense, but even so it's better to have a wasted lynch than a manipulat-able one. That said, what are everybody's feelings on moving our bandwagon to Drought instead? (It's more likely to be productive, and also better for the Crusade to vote on someone who could have participated but didn't.) We definitely want to move together or not at all.

To make vote manipulation even harder, I too will vote Spartacus.

Garshin looked at Hyrwynbe. Let's see if we can fight annoyingness with annoyingness. "You never answered my question. I asked whether you would like to hear about what I do, or used to do anyway, when I had nothing important going on."

Wouldn't that be masochism instead?

If we're concerned about super-tin, are even PMs safe?

I suspect that part of that was simply that I wasn't clear on my reasoning (I have attempted to clarify since then), and part of it was that I was in turn over-estimating the significance of someone else's flawed reasoning (I have since retracted my position).

Will you read what I actually said? My opinion at the time of that statement was based on reasons that I gave, namely the fact that Elenion accused Ecthelion of rioting due to something that was not unique to Ecthelion. My current opinion is "no vote". My future opinion may be based on an as-of-yet unstated opinion from someone else; it being the future, I can't know what will happen, and wanted to be clear that my position was malleable based on future considerations. How would you say "this is my current vote, but if someone gives a good reason to change it I probably will"?

A thought: Orlok said that the inquisitor gets one action (and can additionally convert). He didn't specify whether that's one action per day/night cycle, or one action per day and one action per night.

The fact that the Tears of Egdli only grow in one specific place is also very suggestive of a Shardpool.