Archer

I was looking at the roles list where there's three red roles. I was assuming that the elims would all have red roles, but I'm thinking they probably don't. We have to have a Forsaken, but the others don't need to be included. If an elim does have them, they're in a tight spot because no roles are duplicated in this game. When we mass claim, we'll be able to identify the evil person from it, if they have a red role. It's less of an issue in a larger game, but in one this small, I think they'll need the ability to blend in. I also think they'll need poison ability to survive, unless the GM is counting on us friendly firing each other to achieve the same result. Tbh that's not a bad assumption. :P.

So basically if you publicly name an elim and they have poisoning power, they can block it. Not ideal. Makes me think e!posioner is probably on the table to avoid an early clutch shot ruining the test run. That seems right. Inevitably this means the dragon won't claim until C3, but then you've succeeded at perpetuating the game that long. They're just so nice to look at :3. OH wow that would be a game breaking strat I hope they don't do that To correct my own bad assumption, we're probably either looking at e!Forsaken with e!Dragon or e!unaligned role. The second elim being just an evil vanilla would be too vulnerable too a mass roleclaim clear out. Not all the red roles have to be in play. In fact, they it's highly unlikely that even two will be.

Despite what I said last night, I think you shouldn't be so hasty to use the ability. You're the best defence we have against the Forsaken fake claiming Dragon to make exing them unappealing. So long as you have your kill, we can theoretically test Dragons without risking the game. I'm choosing to believe Dragons only come in pairs, meaning if we get a Dragon claim, we'll need the village one to chime in. That'll clear Ravens. Do we not have a way to unpoison someone?? GM, what's the OOA on Veteran kill versus the exe? Fool being 2nd to no vote does trigger the ability, I confirmed that earlier. I think Fool should consider trying to trigger asap

Is it possible there's only one in play? I assumed they came paired, if included. I'm also thinking we should cause as much villager death as possible through roles. Fool and Veteran clear options from the board without using the exe. (Veteran should aim for an elim, but if they fail I see it as advantageous too.) Getting over the hurdle of hitting the Forsaken by C3 is our number on priority, and we should go all in to achieve it by reducing our suspect pool.

New strategy just dropped: put one vote on everyone at the start of every Day. That triggers this request, forcing a Dragon claim. I don't think revealing the village dragon has any downsides? If we get two dragon claimants it becomes a 50/50 proposition, which is better than our standard odds of hitting an elim. More likely outcome is they don't claim, taking that mechanism off the board, assuming this request has teeth.

We have a deadline of C3 to exe the Forsaken, but if we exe two villagers, we lose. That means we should skip one exe to maximize our information collection opportunities. We shouldn't predetermine which exe that'll be, to maintain our leverage. I see no point in role claiming until D1, but will encourage information sharing then. This vote means nothing, but we might as well make use of our time by starting this dance: Ravens You're pro-early bloodshed?

Shame on whoever you're talking about! Shame!

/ in as Bladdar, a man in need of a bathroom break If you require an odd number, leave me out. I probably shouldn't be playing anyway with the schedule I have

Turns out I'm busy later Aeoryi Raveness

Side note on the JNV discussion, they did feel bad for sussing me two games ago for trying to play a conservative C1, and I think that guilt has carried through to this game. Technically NAI since either alignment of them isn't eager to murder me. Could be an elim with guilt issues knowing they're acting in bad faith, could be a villager with meta considerations about who to kill today. I have a new SK suspect I'll sheep Aeoryi's vote Raveness Aeoryi

Right now I'm down to you, Bald, and Aman(?) as my suspect list. (Opinion on Araris depends on C2 performance.) I don't really see why I should trust you. And getting rid of you solves my two ravens issue. Side note-Neil ISO might undermine my initial read of them being bold. Willing to reconsider since they said they'd sit back. I may not be a psychology expert, but my trick of doing the job badly so you feel compelled to correct it has worked pretty well for me so far :P. xD yeah ill hold off on my thoughts for a biiiit yeah i mean. im gonna state that i fully dont know anypony here's meta but in general im decent at reading into those sorts of claims? dgmw ive met my fair share of people who fly with audacity there but meh- i ahve a bit more though, but lemme get to that later in this message ^^ ( and xD gl then king actually. good point. i was kinda throwing that name out bc i remembered them doing *something* notably when i posted that, but then realized there wasnt much from him. i think i just remembered him being nice whoops ravens/archer not e/e expz ah yeah that makes a lot of sense. i'd generally feel more swayed to see reaction testing as v indicative rather than anything else, but the elims needing to weed out the sk makes that harder to gauge as well (er, i suppose sk could also want reactions but. what a sk wants reactions for is a lot more nuanced than an e or a t. my gripe with this, and thus my earlier squinting, is i read your prior comments as a soft defense of archer, and a lack of a read on such a contriversial member read moreso partnered, but the other quoted post makes me think this is less likely. but i didnt want to air such a gripe so early as it was mentioned you're a likely n1 kill... lol. i dont like the hedge in this fwiw. i can get not trusting a persons reasoning for a claimed reaction test, but you can also reap the rewards of said reaction test. consider a t/sk!archer as opposed to a e!archer world. if you assume archer is uninformed, then you should be looking for the informed in response to his reaction test, or whos trying to push sus onto him. if you think archer is informed, who is defending him? i think theres a lot you can get out of things like this even if you dont know what alignment archer is by the responses to him. but also with devo, youre unsure on, but you just kinda parse it off as "interesting" which is baffling to just... comment on and disregard? oh good,. its kinda confusing here ^^ im only known by/played with stick on this site fwiw; aeoryi i saw inned on a game im helping host but otherwise have no experience with ^^ anyway; why do you think that an v!player would be less likely to respond? would you not assume an e!player would rather avoid a rt? though ig this gets to wifom territory now. you say that e!you would respond to a test like this, which brings up 2 questions 1. do you think that your playstyle is similar/common to the general playstyle of this site? 2. how would you describe e!you to react to this, assuming someone else posted the exact reaction test there? for araris/kas: wdym in their metas? like just in general you think their reactions are NAI? for me: xD, its easy to capitalize on as wolf when someone pulls this stuff in maf gg pubs; i kinda generalized that this website is a bit more methodical in how yall do things here. gth id say ppl who *would* call for your death are more likely to be elimers, but the fact you have a meta of doing this kinda muddies those waters. for past participle/ravenclaw: can you detail more how their indecisiveness makes your read more neutral here, especially while calling out kas/devo for their caution? i dislike their response the most tbqh for devo: this i understand most actually- i think as v! youd be more compelled to find an AI reasoning than convention reasoning. for bald: can you explain more on this, given youve put the least thought here for the bald and still placed your vote there? aeoryi: im ngl i kinda buy your reasoning wrt a sk!aeoryi, esp with the comments to raveness... otherwise im kinda shrug though, i dont rlly wanna vote aeoryi d1 for kinda nebulous reasons. which actually. Speaking of jobs done poorly, speed run of Neil responses: When I see a reaction test, I feel obliged to respond because I'm a control freak as an elim. I'm projecting. No, my playstyle isn't generalizable. E!me commits to one stark view of the rt, see previous LG for an example of Drake calling me out for that. Araris and Kas have predictable habits. Araris does a stab votes the first reason he sees to vote someone-claims to reconsider-actually reconsiders in the first round that's fairly low impact. Kas self excludes from rts, but can be caught starting to analyze them if not forewarned. Both players followed this pattern. Araris would do it regardless of alignment, Kas I think showed his village hand by doing so. Participle held two beliefs at once - that I'm evil and neutral, which is convoluted. Elims would adopt a simpler belief imo. Misread Bald's sarcasm as genuine. Ignore that. Although I'm curious where they've gone to. Aeoryi has started doing predictable chaos (*always* self voting) which I find ungenuine. But it's NAI. What's acc stand for @neil the beguiled

jokes on you I don't know what bucket strat means I think my v!Neil read comes more from the thought that if you've just migrated and gotten elim, do you not sit back a little at least? Even if your team gave you the green light, I feel like you'd be more anxious about being visible. Also Neil has felt like a helpful contributor so I trust him

Wake up, babe, a new SK suspect just dropped! If Aman isn't the SK, their play so far has been Ignoring Neil's questions for now because that requires a keyboard and some time to respond to. I spent last night trying to decide why Araris was pinging my gut and I think it's just because his playstyle feels disingenuous when you're on the receiving end of it. Araris stabs then doubles down. I can't remember the last time he reconsidered mid cycle and actually changed his mind. So I think I'm reading too much into something inconsequential. I've also decided I like the mindset that led to Aeoryi's Archer!Brandon theory. The problem is their inflated sense of personal danger means they might have done the math and realized if the wagon on me fails because of a Brandon claim, they're suddenly on the chopping block with too little time to react. But I don't think e!Aeoryi articulates the Brandon theory in thread, so I'm reading them as village. Bald Raveness

I feel like I'm getting a blanket pass for being gambity OR not gambity, but I'll take it. Ideal scenario for me. Feels villagey to give up a mix opportunity based on that. My apologies, I'll keep that in mind going forward! If your convention game is saying Cohesion and Tension, that's interesting because mine is named something similar. There's a way to potentially break Mat's game by assuming he didn't match e-e pairs in convention game groups, and we could look into that by mass claiming the pairs, but I'm not sure I want to go there since the partner guessing rule was an unvetted addition. Feels wrong to exploit it. TKN did! Okay no he was being sarcastic apparently. Your response claims what you think a villager would do, and you've done that. I feel like you aren't leaving room for the usefulness of even an obvious trap, which is that it makes people get in their own heads. Possibly a blind spot for you because that's what you're doing? People have been keeping their posts short, thankfully Aeoryi coming in with the ninja to make me regret saying that :P. Aeoryi, who do you think is the SK?

"PLAYER who's a platypus!"

If it's not Ookla the Bald, I'm going to riot How did you miss me claiming neutral, I did it IN ALL CAPS "A platypus?"

I didn’t get a SK counter-claim, but I think this has run its course. Obviously it was a lie (sorry, TKN. Should have made me hold an iron horseshoe). Reaction recap, loosely ordered from n>v>e!: -Ashbringer: no comment. -JNV: no comment. -Raveness: no comment. I couldn’t have made my claim more unmissable, but Ash and JNV fit the profile of people who did. Curious why Raveness didn’t comment on it. E!me would feel compelled to respond to the test, even knowing it was a test, so my instinctive read for ignoring it is village. -Araris: stab votes me for claiming SK. -Kas: calls it a NAI reaction test These reactions are within their metas. It was very funny watching Kas try not to ruin the test but then commenting on it anyway. Araris’ is less organic, but it’s NAI for him. -Neil: village read for “joking”. The innocent new guy play is to believe the SK claim, not disbelieve it and ascribe a village read for it. Caveated by them being known by fellow players. -Ookla the Past Participle: Playing both sides, I’m either neutral or I’m evil. Technically, this is the most scummy response. But it also reads as genuinely indecisive, and that overrides my suspicion. -Devo: village read based on assumed fakeclaim because of convention game They pinged my gut last night. I had to read between the lines to figure out what Devo was thinking. But I’ve decided that that’s a villagey look for them because e!they is intentional enough with their wording to avoid misunderstandings. An unforced error from e!they would be surprising, as would a weird take on a straightforward test. -Ookla the Bald: believes neutral claim Really? -Ookla the Resolute: Doesn’t believe it for a second. You can tell because they ask Raveness what their neutral tell is, Raveness if they’re the SK. My working theory was they’re the real SK (chaos = neutral). Refusal to engage with and believe my claim followed by obsession with the topic points that way. That theory can hold the vote on me as being neutral pettiness (if you’re going to vote someone, vote the guy claiming your job). Otherwise it’s a weird (opportunistic) turn that I'm inclined to suspect. My theorized elim reaction was that they wouldn’t 1/ believe my claim AND 2/ advocate for my death. No sense killing off your first-half ally. I don’t think enough people took me seriously for that to come into play. If I were to call people out for being cautious, Kas, Devo, and the no comments tripped that wire. Ookla the Bald

E!Devo though? I feel like they'd consciously avoid being wrong when evil. So running with limited information is a bold look for them

That confused me for a while too, but I think it's based on them hard-assuming that my convention game wincon is to claim serial killer. I think it's still a stretch to assign a read based on that, but it's also a bad assumption to make and I think villagers are more prone to those. Until proven wrong, I'm using this as your village tell

I was asking Devo to clarify their post anyway, so I threw it in as a lil bonus. No one believes I'm a serial killer (except maybe PastParticple).

@Ookla thePresentParticiple could you clarify if you think I'm lying or if you're conflating neutral and evil? I don't understand this point. Also, I told you I'm n, why are you leaning v

I'm sorry was I being too subtle "I AM THE REASON SEASON 5 OF THE PODCAST DEVELOPED BY THIS AMERICAN LIFE AND THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS CANCELLED. I AM THE SERIAL KILLER."

Trying to give yourself a nickname? :P. Hi, I'm Archer, by the way. The Ookla thing is temporary. "It's true! I murdered a box of corn flakes today. I am a cereal killer!"

"Hey guys, someone at this convention taught me a verbal order that causes the voice assistant on your phone to break. I started on the Apple one, but it works on androids and other types too! "What I'm saying is I've become a Siri et al. killer. "Seriously. Last time I was in this position I got C2ed because I didn't claim so I'm just cutting to the chase here."

"Has anyone seen Brandon? I have ideas for his castle that I want to show him! If anyone bumps into him, let him know Archer has some really cool sketches to share!!"