Devotary of Spontaneity

It also kills a lot of villagers, which detracts from the 10 villagers:2 elim lives ratio we would have with a D1-2-3 lynch of the Inquisitor. Killing five villagers and the Inquisitor today would end up with LyLo by D5, I think. Since vote manipulation is somewhat difficult to track and we know that there is no elim vote manipulation at this time, it may be worth seeing how many of them we have. With the vote previously 3:2 against Drake, I'm going to switch over to Rath for previous reasons and for potentially evil self-preservation. This puts 3 votes on Rath and 2 for Drake. This will probably be my last post of the cycle.

Why would people who read the rules carefully be more likely to oppose a D1 lynch? I do remember your early voting strategy from LG56, but this is specifically about opinions on whether a D1 lynch is useful with only one elim, and other people had recently expressed views that more closely aligned with current behaviour. A null result was enough to put a temporary vote on you. Rath is another main target, though he was apparently convinced that a lynch today would be helpful. A final vote will be happening fairly soon. It's true that my word probably shouldn't be taken, but I did remember from when this game was in development that Inquisitors aren't inherently outed by scans unless they spike themselves multiple times, and say that Seeker scans are only definitive in the early cycles.

It's slightly better than this, as lynching the Inquisitor has a chance of destroying an iron/atium spike while Lurcher protections and Thug extra lives will slow down casualty rates. 1-1 during the day can still be a win even with a two vote minimum, but we can't count on that especially with the zinc spike potentially floating around. In the best case scenario, we can double-lynch the Inquisitor and a convert if a Seeker uncovers both. The conclusion that we get more mislynches by killing someday today seems right. With inactives in purple and those who expressed continued misunderstanding of the rules despite posts indicating the correct mechanics in orange, we have: 1. Furamirionind, as A Character 2. Cicada, as Ada 3. Xinoehp512, as Demmanu 4. DrakeMarshmallow, as Tersin Forrelken 5. Stick 6. CadCom, as Tom 7. Rathmaskal, as Rath the Rapper 8. Shanerockes 9. Butt Ad Venture, as Cornelius Steel 10. Devotary of Spontaneity, as Moud 11. Amanuensis, as Octun Renaud 12. Sart, as Sari 13. Snipexe None of the highlighted people should be removed from consideration; inactivity is unrelated to alignment and I remember Stick in particular having no shame in feigning confusion, but I don't think I'll vote for any of them today. Fascinatingly enough, all but one of the other uncoloured players opposed a D1 lynch. Sart in general though has supported D1 lynches in recent conversion games. Aman has opposed the chance for a D1 lynch on a converter to essentially end the game. In this game, even with a successful D1 lynch, we'll end up having one elim with two lives against ten villagers by the time the Inquisitor dies, which is not an assured victory. Waiting until a conversion happens gives worst case an elim with three lives versus eight villagers even with a successful D3-4-5 lynch. Rath had somewhat shifted opinions from more opposed in LG51 to more supportive in LG54. Shanerockes has some precedent of not wanting to lynch people early. I can't find any of Drake's recent views on the subject, but I might not be looking hard enough. Cicada obviously has no history. Since there are now two votes on Rath, I will put a vote on Drake out of the shortlist. This may well change if I have time to reevaluate.

The Inquisitor does have two extra lives, so we can't win before a conversion happens. In total, the elims have up to 6 lives plus one for every convert we kill, which is going to be a pain to chew through without any night kills. We can reduce that number by lynching the Inquisitor and randomly destroying the iron or atium spike, but the opportunity to do so might quickly vanish. @Lumgol, @Coop772, does Seeking happen before spiking? If not, any Seeker scans in the first two nights that show a metal proves that person isn't the Inquisitor. Technically the Inquisitor could forgo a convert and spike themselves, but otherwise a Seeker scan on Nights 3/4? would also clear someone. It's almost counterproductive to lynch a convert before the Inquisitor dies, and there isn't any way for the Seeker to announce their results secretly, but I still feel it's worthwhile for a Seeker to reveal if someone is associated with multiple metals. Even if the elims make Steel a priority, there's only a 50% chance of bypassing a Lurcher's protection. It doesn't look like the Inquisitor needs to kill a misting to charge a spike. The Lurcher can self-protect. If the Coinshot could redirect the elim kill, this would mean nobody would ever die at night. As it stands, the Coinshot can only redirect night metallic actions. I don't think it's useful to redirect steel unless the 50% odds are calculated separately. Other targets are iron, tin, bronze, and atium. Since this will generally interfere with village actions, it's not too helpful unless there's a convert with one of those metals. Tin seems to work on non-allomantic actions as well. A Seeker can see all metals someone is associated with, so anyone with two or more metals is assured to be evil.

Moud has been fleeing from the Inquisitors for months now and had finally had enough of running. This group of people were utterly doomed, but would presumably put up a better fight than one individual on their own. At the very least, if the Inquisitor had to fight all of them, there probably wouldn't be time for excessive suffering before their inevitable death.

If we'd bribed pretty much anyone other than you to vote for Drake, we would have been able to kill you. I don't make very good choices when under time pressure, and I felt it would be better to pretend the elims weren't interested in saving Rae by not moving Fifth's vote. We didn't think there would be any village vote manipulation, having somehow forgotten that Fifth likely wouldn't have seen you retract your vote. I wouldn't have had any boxings if Joe had let us bribe multiple people in one turn, but as it turned out you would have gotten a mere three boxings for killing me.

If Fifth's bribe didn't go through, Venture's might have, which would have caused you to die. Having upwards of thirty boxings suddenly appear in the store could have been quite a game changer, especially as there would still have been three elims still alive had the coin flip favoured us. How did you know Rae was evil? And did you think I was a villager?

If Striker hadn't wanted to use the ledger, he wouldn't have announced that there was one in his possession. Once he claimed to have one, he was obligated to use it. Once again, we come to the closing hours of the cycle with a flimsy lynch. It also doesn't look like the governor vote is going to go through. Crossing out the minimal actives/those who haven't shown up for a while leaves a fairly short list. Eliminating Drake, Fura, and I pares it down to a shortlist of six players. ArraenaeElanderaFifth ScholarSnipexeStrikerEZYoung Bard We haven't gotten a scan of Bard, but Kidpen going for Bard over Fifth at 3-1-1 helps my opinion of village!Bard. If Bard is village, Striker has to be as well. ArraenaeElanderaFifth ScholarSnipexe With Ark presumably being a villager and the fact that if Snip was part of Alv's dagger passing conspiracy it would be foolish to use a dagger known to be Snip's, I'm going to avoid voting on Snip at this time. Taking a stand on principle and willingly accepting a lynch also strikes me as village. Of the three remaining players, two of them have votes. Rae solidified lynches on Lum and Kidpen that ensured that one bribe wouldn't be enough to save either of them. An elim!Rae could have done that knowing that no bribery was going to happen, as both Lum especially wouldn't have lasted long had she been saved with vote manipulation. Kidpen might have managed to survive unscathed assuming the elims didn't direct Fura's ledger to him. Rae also almost managed to kill Alv C3, which is a point in her favour if Alv is evil, and more neutral if he's village. Rae obviously has a better opinion of Elandera than I do. I'm not seeing them both be evil though. Also, @Arraenae, the ledger currently in the market is the one Striker used on Lum, and somehow nobody has bought it yet. Being a consistent voice to lynch Gaea and having been bribed could be either a villager who picked correctly or an elim who didn't particularly care if the corrupt constable died/knew there were plans to protect Gaea. The main thing in Fifth's favour is that he probably would be spending more effort on this game were it his first time starting as an elim. The main evidence against him is the vote for Bard and Kidpen choosing to lynch Bard over Fifth when the latter would probably have been easier to kill I've explained the main reasons I'm suspicious of Elandera, so that's where I'm going to put my vote for now. Still, I'd like to have a lynch today, so I might switch if it seems nobody will have at least two votes. Fifth(1): Fura Rae(1): Fifth Elandera(1): Devotary

As part of a suspicion on Elandera, I looked back at cycle 3 to see what was happening with that lynch, and why Elbereth was killed that cycle. Striker had claimed a ledger by that point, and Alv was around to see Striker's final vote, so he should have been a better target than either Elbereth or Elandera for elim!Alv. Village!Alv telling the truth would have had no reason to attack either Elandera or Striker. Elandera started the vote for Alv, but the only people that could be protecting are Rae and Fura. Given that you knew about it, I'm guessing you signed off on Elandera's attempt to steal from Striker C3. What was that supposed to accomplish? In the end, most of what I have against Elandera is voting for Bard over Kidpen and being in a position to know that bribery wouldn't save him. Other than that, nothing major. Araris was pretty persistent in going after Wilson, but he's apparently not going to be around much for awhile. We never did find out why Fifth's vote was moved from Gaea to Joe and he did put on the third vote for Bard. That's why the daggers are only worth using on people whose alignment flip would tell us nothing because they haven't interacted with anyone. There aren't many players who meet that description, and it is true that killing anybody risks having those daggers go up for sale.

Some mixture of preventing a bribe from getting a tied lynch, such a thing would likely have been an attempt to save Rath as he was the only other person who acquired more than one vote, and a selfish desire to acquire boxings. If we did want the game to end more quickly, using those daggers everyone is hoarding would accomplish that goal. The lack of alignment flip makes that strategically less useful; better suited to killing relative inactives who don't have much in the way of connections to other players, but such players tend to be village.

Bugsy, I suppose, if you're sure.

Rath(2): Fura, Drake Fifth(1): Rae Elandera(1): Striker Bugsy(1): Elandera And all of a sudden, there's a lynch on Rath. I would be willing to join the vote on Elandera, but it doesn't seem like that's happening? Anyone willing to explain why she's village in the next seven minutes? Edit: Updated vote tally

Well there are still fewer boxings available than there should be if four items were bought at three+ boxings apiece. That's certainly an anomaly, but not a particularly pressing one. With the two public ledgers almost prohibitively expensive, it may take a while for them be reintroduced back into Senate hands. I don't think you've made a post where you explained why everyone should be claiming. You did mention that even in the cases where claiming items leads to elim interference, such actions cost the elims warrants(to steal) or boxings(to redirect). Some claims are unavoidable, like ledgers after someone is scanned by one. Warrants are reasonably harmless to claim, as there's little point in the elims spending resources to redirect a warrant unless the owner has declared their intention to target a dagger wielding elim whose kill needs to go through. Claiming whiskey isn't terrible unless someone needs to be protected, but claiming daggers is a poor plan. In general though, I feel suggesting targets gets much of the benefit of claiming while making it difficult to tamper with item usage. Obviously this hasn't been working out super well if nobody ever bothered to protect you the last couple of cycles, and requiring the holder of an item to do something should be avoided not just because the elims can make requests of their own. Presumably, the elims would have known that forcing Fura to target Kidpen would result in Fura learning Kidpen's actual alignment, bribes notwithstanding. Since there's no way elim!Drake would lead a lynch on an elim teammate, the only possible way he's evil is if all four members of the chain are. I am thus happy to reprise my vote for Drake as Governor. If we can actually push this nomination through, I feel it would be valuable to release a Survivor. There have been enough elims lynched that a Survivor should want to finish the game as quickly as possible by flushing out the remaining elims, and there's most likely some valuable information in the jail doc. As to the reasoning for bribing the ledger to Kidpen, the main possibility is that the elims knew Kidpen had a high probability of being lynched and that getting scanned as evil wouldn't hurt his long term survival in any way. If Kidpen ended up needing a bribe to survive the lynch he probably would have died this cycle anyway unless Bard flipped evil, so letting Kidpen get scanned wouldn't be a huge setback if Bard died. The Kidpen lynch was fairly solid throughout the day, but it wasn't until Rae's vote ~20 minutes until rollover that even a bribe wouldn't have saved Kidpen. Still, an elim who assumed that Kidpen was going to be lynched either this cycle or the next would have some reason to redirect the ledger if their main goal was to prevent it from going to Bard or any other unarrested player. I would say an elim around after Bard's vote could have believed Kidpen's eventual lynch was assured, and definitely an elim around after Rae's vote. Ark did end up claiming the dagger that killed Burnt, so that's settled. I think if the elims had a choice between lynching elim!Kidpen or elim!Bard, they would have gone for the latter. Obviously this isn't true if the whole ledger chain is evil, but killing Bard without the use of bribes, or possibly a bribe switching a vote from Kidpen to Bard, would have allowed the elims to go after you, Drake, and Fura. Lynching Kidpen over Bard leaves Bard looking fairly village, until he gets scanned by a ledger in which case Kidpen died needlessly. Of course, the elims also would have preferred to lynch Bard in an elim!Kidpen, village!Bard situation.

We could confirm a Smoker by having a confirmed vote manipulator target their vote and see what happens, but seeing as how we don't seem to have any vote manipulators and the ability that permits this test also blocks Seeker scans, it's probably not worth it. In general, I think Smokers should be taking the action to turn off their coppercloud. Fifth publicly challenged me to claim something, and so I did. I gave my role to Fifth and Burnt, as two people I was reasonably sure were not the Inquisitor. There may well have been better people to choose, but it's too late for that. Removing claimed mistings, those who know mistings but didn't kill them, and Rath for making Randuir's Mistborn claim necessary on D2 gives a fairly short list. @Lumgol dies at the end of N5, but I can't say I particularly want that to happen. I've heard that the Inquisitor might be afraid of killing secret mistings, as that misting probably told someone else they were claiming as insurance. It's possible, and I can add those names back in at the bottom but the Inquisitor really does need a misting dead. Of the other kills, Burnt was attacked right after being killed in the other game.Not strictly evidence, and the two attacks were only separated by fourteen hours, but I feel it's less likely that the Inquisitor would have attacked Burnt if they were aware. 1. Haelbarde (Spar) 6. Lumgol (Teraval) 8. shanerockes (Bill) 12. BrightnessRadiant (TBA) Elandera (TBA) 18. STINK (Fonar Redacted) 9. Doc 16. Bard

1. I didn't bother to ask Straw, as I assumed Aman would be able to answer more quickly having played the last iteration of this game. 2. Lum has had a tendency to be overly aggressive as an elim up for the lynch, voting early on the main counter-lynch. It's entirely possible this habit has dissipated, but Inquisitor!Lum would have been particularly worried about a lynch that would effectively end the game instantly. Her voting for Aman rather than you made it seem less likely that this was the case. 3. There were six votes/retractions while I was typing that post, and I missed Aman's vote at the end with only a couple minutes left in the cycle. I was worried that I wouldn't have time to make a proper vote and the outcome was highly uncertain with the phantom vote that ended up counting. I'm still not sure why people were so opposed to the double lynch. I don't think I ever made any particular secret that I supported lynching someone alongside Aman. You and Lum may not have been ideal targets, but lynching either of you would at least given us a chance of catching the Inquisitor. 4. Supposing neither you nor Lum are the Inquisitor, the difference between lynching Aman and lynching him alongside one of you is effectively the difference between a no-lynch and a lynch on a villager. It's a tradeoff between killing a villager on one hand, and limiting information while avoiding the potential waste of a misting on the other. The people who supported the tie to some extent were Aman, Araris after changing his mind, Striker, Hael, and I. Hael and Striker did so rather neutrally. That doesn't leave a lot of possibilities open for a vocal Inquisitor. 5. I'm not sure where you got that I opposed lynching a misting D1, what was your reason to think that? 6. If a Mistborn had counterclaimed I would have voted for Randuir, but it was statistically unlikely that the few players around for rollover would be the Mistborn. I wasn't really thinking about the possibility of a convert Randuir, and assumed Inquisitor!Rand wouldn't do something so openly suicidal. I did indeed switch over to Striker, because if there had been a Spiked Soother around at the time, they would have been able to get a three way tie including the claimed Mistborn. 7. It took a bit for the scan results to get out because Doc asked me for the name of the person who shared the information with me, and I had to convince Doc that wasn't necessary unless the scan result turned out to be false. 8. I felt there was a negligible chance that Ark was a misting, seeing as how he openly claimed roleless at the beginning of N1 and Ark isn't usually the type to lie as a villager. The chances of him being the Inquisitor seemed higher than the chances he was a misting.

Your ledger isn't in the marketplace though. Striker's ledger is still there, but your ledger is supposed to be "The Great and Mighty Finder of Evildoers". I'm kind of confused as to why Gaea only has 11 boxings. At least four items(Whiskey: Comrade Vlad’s Vodacola, Warrant: Tearable, Dagger: Sticking Point, Dagger: JoinTheAlleyverse) were bought at a price of at least three boxings, so there should be at least 12 boxings available today plus whatever boxings Kidpen had at time of death. Your ledger being redirected to Kidpen and subsequently bought should have added another three boxings.

The vote is now 5-3, going on 6-3. A bribe wouldn't prevent Kidpen from dying, but could ensure that Bard goes down with him. I think the extra 5% chance of an incorrect flip is worth preventing that.

Where did you get the information that Bard knows a misting? I don't see him making any claims of the sort, so it would have to be in PM. Even if the Inquisitor did have Seeking powers and the Smoker wasn't put in the game to aid the Inquisitor as a teammate or fend off the Inquisitor's converts, the only Seeking that could have taken place is N2 as the Inquisitor has been alone every other night. Araris's death has reminded me that a Seeker scan of an unsnapped could be more helpful than the other two kinds of results, as it doesn't put a kill target on somebody and presumably means that player isn't the Inquisitor.

It seemed that Snip was more opposed to the idea of there being a moral imperative to vote for a governor than any desire to prevent Drake specifically from becoming a governor. I personally feel 'only a concerted effort will result in a governor' is more palatable than 'if you don't vote for this person, you're evil'. On that note, as we can always re-Governor as necessary and the likelihood of two village votes outweighs the extra 10% uncertainty if the ledger chain ends up being scanned as evil, I can add the 5/9th vote for Drake. We can't prove it false yet, we just diminish it's likelihood to minuscule credibility. The conspiracy requires the elims to start out with a dagger, Striker's ledger, Drake's three boxings to bribe Kidpen, and Bard's three boxings to buy another ledger. They would then have to bus Lum and foolishly allow the ledger to pass into the market. This cycle, they would have to use two boxings to divert your ledger into the path of their dagger. For the rest of the game, they would have to make sure that nobody in the chain ever got killed or scanned, which likely means buying both ledgers from the market and have an elim not involved in the chain scan Bard. That would be the sixth elim, along with Bard, Striker, Drake, Lum, and Alv/El. At any time, the entire chain could utterly collapse if the third ledger ever showed up and scanned one of its members. With 17 players still alive and unarrested, this would be a massive gamble and thus not grounds for a lynch when we have other methods of verification available. We can choke off this theory even further by having Fura's scan go through to the correct target while making sure Fura doesn't die. If Bard did flip evil, would that cause you to go after Striker, Drake, and/or Fura? The ledgers are a more accurate method of determining alignment than a lynch that gives at least a 10% chance of an incorrect flip. I don't really understand where the lynch on Kidpen came from, but I would vote there over Bard. There's 30 minutes left to make any other lynch viable.

Kidpen(4): Drake, Fura, Striker, Bard Bard(3): Elandera, Kidpen, Fifth Fifth(1): Araris Drake(4/9): Fura, Snip, Araris, Drake Drake's vote was hidden inside a rather long post. Kidpen happened to show up in the neutral/elim section of everyone who posted reads lists. It's unclear whether Elandera was included in Drake's list of people he trusted, but presumably Fura and Striker were. Bard then joined the vote. Less clear is why Kidpen showed up on all the elim lists, though voting for Joe C1 when both of the constable alternatives were still viable is certainly a point against him. So far as I can tell, the Bard lynch come from Araris's suspicion of the style of Bard's D1 vote. Elandera actually voted in that direction. Kidpen apparently had some suspicion, while Fifth just didn't want to vote for Kidpen. It seems unduly hasty to swing a lynch in Bard's direction, as he's a primary ledger target to close the scanned circle even if Fura wants to hold off on that. There aren't any votes for Snip currently. I would not say his taking a stand against immediately electing Drake as governor is indicative of guilt. If there actually was an elim conspiracy to funnel daggers towards Alvron, Snip might well have been a part of it, but there's no particular evidence beyond Alvron's claim. @Snipexe, why did you pass your dagger to Alvron?

Did we ever find out which ledger Bard had? Was it one he started with, or one he bought from the store? Evidence suggests it's the latter, as there's no particular reason Bard wouldn't have used a ledger if he started with one. You couldn't be attacked as only Drake knew you were going to be the target. This cycle would be the point where elim!Drake attacks village!you, yet this would be a foolish plan as merely passing you a whiskey would prevent you from dying and allow you to scan Bard and catch three elims. Redirecting your ledger target and then killing them would be a far more effective strategy. It's still best to make sure you're actually protected by a whiskey though. If your ledger target does end up dead, somebody will buy the ledger currently in the shop and (if they're a villager) use it to scan Bard, so even this last plan, and the 'all four of you are evil' scenario, would only work if the elims have been sitting on a dagger this whole time, have sufficient money to do all this bribing with enough left to redirect an item and buy a specific item(the ledger) from the store, and have an as-yet-uninvolved elim to 'scan' Bard as village. At this point, we're in major tinfoil territory as opposed to the far simpler option of Drake and Fura being villagers, and probably Striker/Bard with them. Up until last cycle, there was only ever one dagger available for sale, and Haelbarde bought it. Last cycle, there were two daggers that nobody bothered to go for. Bribes are expensive though, and there may have been a money shortage. If village!Alvron was involved in a dagger-passing conspiracy with the elims, it's unclear that he was willing to exploit it in the village's favour. Alvron at some point told Hael about receiving Snip's dagger. As Hael claimed to have a dagger but didn't pass it on, Alvron would have known that Hael was either a villager or the elims had no intention of actually honouring the deal. Killing Snip would have threatened the deal, but Hael apparently wasn't told that Alvron had reason to believe anyone passing him daggers was evil. I'm probably just confusing myself here; Snip and Hael should be better able to explain this. To be fair, most of your argument for not lynching Joe was based on a serious misunderstanding about how the survivor role worked. @Kidpen evidently read that section of the rules more thoroughly. There were arguments for not lynching constables that Kidpen appears to have missed, though notably the two main people who argued against a constable lynch (Drake and Striker) turned around and failed to hammer Gaea. Kidpen never mentioned which constable he might have supported a lynch on, though it's probably too late to ask. We never did get Kidpen's opinion on Alvron's claims, and it isn't too late to ask.

Ray claimed roleless in thread during N1. There isn't too much value in the Seeker sharing results in thread at this point, if they've given their results to some misting. A Seeker claiming someone is hard-cleared tells the Inquisitor that player is a misting, which could be necessary if that misting is about to be lynched for suspicion but dangerous otherwise, while a null result of roleless villager tells the Inquisitor not to attack that person while not providing incredibly helpful information. Having two players know the scan results should ensure that they can't be disappeared with a night kill. If another conversion happens, only two people knowing is precarious, but we're not at that point yet.

Doc (2): Hael, Fifth Ray (3): Doc, Araris, Devotary Lumgol (1): ElanderaDevotary (1): SartBard (1): Rath 14 players left, and currently two claimed vanillas are up for the lynch. Let's see. If Doc was the Inquisitor, he could have easily said that Randuir claimed after Rath's vote, which wouldn't have dug Doc into this hole. I think I'll let Doc survive this cycle and vote for Ray.

Did you or did you not have the two boxings you earlier claimed to have possessed last cycle? How many boxings do you have currently, and how many did you have last cycle? Deciding, or at least heavily suggesting, who Drake should scan will go a long way towards closing off any possibility of the elims passing the ledger around. So we want to find someone who was opposed to as many of Striker, Drake, Bard as possible. Honestly, that's probably either you or Fifth. Although, why couldn't elim!Drake scan a villager and then tell the truth? Just because it loses a ledger?

Hmm. Snipexe claiming misting is a bit abrupt, but also guarantees Inquisitor!Snipexe's death if he does end up being Seeked, which seems . We've had what claims to be two successful lurches in a row and no particular reason to believe either target is lying as the Inquisitor had more important things to do than attack themselves. I suppose we could have a PM chain with one Lurcher taking credit for both or two Lurchers choosing a random number to identify themselves and taking credit for one, but that risks the Lurcher(s)' identities to some extent. So Randuir offers a role swap, you agree and suggest that you're roleless, leave, and then you checked an hour later to see if Randuir actually made a claim? I'm guessing he did not claim Thug!Mistborn at this time? I guess Randuir claiming what he did is less risky if he had reason to believe you weren't a Seeker, and that you wouldn't share the information. I still think this is an odd thing for Randuir to do, but I'm feeling less confident that you are the Inquisitor. Randuir using a false claim to try and get out of the lynch at a time when Randuir and Bard were tied in votes makes me feel better about Bard not being the Inquisitor. Actual vote coming soon.