Devotary of Spontaneity

If Drake uses the ledger today, that's evidence he had one. Supposedly, Bard scanned Striker C2, and Striker then used the ledger C3 on Drake. @Young Bard, did you start with the ledger or did somebody use it to scan you C1? It's not strictly impossible that all three are evil and just passing the ledger around to each other; they wouldn't be outed as elims unless one of them was lynched and possibly not even then as the lynch results would be argued with. Most of the cases where Striker is evil requires the elims to senselessly kill teammate Lum though, which would be overly ruthless even in the interest of clearing a wide swath of the elim team. We don't know anything about Bard's alignment, except giving up a ledger to a villager could easily come back to do far more harm than the benefit of soft clearing one person. @A Joe in the Bush, can you confirm that search warrants still don't steal boxings? Elbereth was one of the three people who voted for Alvron, so anyone who wanted to bribe a vote off of Alvron, then kill the bribee would have to choose between Elandera, Elbereth, and Striker. That does presume the briber was around to see all the votes though, as the lynch on Alv switched around quite a lot. Assuming the dagger wielder is evil(Alv, according to Hael and hopefully to be confirmed by Snip), their twin motivations would be not killing a teammate and making sure the boxings didn't end up in a villager's hands. That suggests Elbereth was village, but is strikingly unhelpful in determining alignments of the other two. Elbereth was under less suspicion than Elandera, while Striker had gotten Lum lynched and claimed, but not yet confirmed, to have been scanned in turn. I'm pretty sure bribing someone to choose their item target goes in the redirect slot of the OOA, not the bribe slot. At least, I can't think of anything else redirects would be referring to. That means item claimants are susceptible to having their actions retargeted. If, say, we have two people with whiskey claim(one person to protect Drake, one person to protect whoever Drake plans to scan), four boxings and a dagger ensures that one or the other dies. Having that happen still gives us useful information, as the cost of item redirects is pretty steep. With PMs gone, it's probably better to have some coordination even if it's really obvious. On a side note, do you mean that Drake is the only person that you know has a ledger? There should be three ledgers, two as a starting item and one in the shop. If one ledger is for sale and Drake has another, there would be a third ledger out there somewhere.

Stealing, the most recent vote tally, we had Alvron (3): Elandera, Elbereth, StrikerEZ Ark1002 (3): Alvron, Arraenae, Furamirionind Arraenae (1): RayOfSunshine xxGaea (1): Fifth Scholar little wilson (1): Araris Valerian Bard(1): DrakeMarshmallow It seems that Elbereth and Ark both had their votes moved to Wilson. One of those players is dead, and the other arrested. That would certainly be a major coincidence if that happened by chance. More likely, whoever killed Elbereth knew that she would be bribed, and since she was bribed to the wrong constable while saving Alvron from the lynch, the dagger wielder is quite plausibly evil. @Snipexe, I note that your dagger ended up in the marketplace. @Alvron, you claimed to possess a dagger that somebody passed you. Anyone else is willing to claim previous ownership of either dagger currently for sale. Looks like Hael(and now Bard) covered all of this. Alvron being the one to bribe El and then kill her is possible, if he was not in fact willing to be lynched. 0 I thought search warrants weren't supposed to steal boxings anymore? Also, it helps to type up your hammer vote well in advance of when you plan on posting. It's a bit harder on mobile, but having multiple tabs open to the same page can help in viewing new posts without losing your saved vote.

Well, at least we're keeping a running vote tally! It seems like we're fine with a tie between Ark and Alv? If Drake retracts, we guarantee that one of the two will die even if someone tries a bribe. It seems that Drake won't be retracting though, and will be taking credit/responsibility if Rae is lynched. @DrakeMarshmallow, has your suspicion of Rae increased since you original vote? I seem to have forgotten if I heard about Snip having a ledger. @Young Bard, did you mean Striker instead of Snip?

@Haelbarde, I'm not seeing an actual retraction there. A 3-3 tie, as opposed to a 4-4 tie, between Ark and Alv does limit the possibility of an incorrect alignment flip, but also opens up bribery options.

Ark(4): Hael, Fura, Alv, Rae Alv(3): Elbereth, Elandera, Striker Rae(2): Drake, Ray Wilson(1): ArarisGaea(1): Fifth I am extremely confused as to why this had to happen so close to rollover, but it certainly seems somebody and perhaps multiple people are willing to let this lynch go to a tie. There's not a lot of boxings to go around for the people lynched, so killing multiple people isn't likely to make anybody any richer. Perhaps I should stop adapting this part of the post to everything that's happening. Why is Ark being voted on all of a sudden? Is this about revenge for Burnt's death, or honest suspicion that Ark is evil?

I was trying to hit Shift+Enter to paste in the votes on Alv after Elandera's retraction, and hit Control+Enter instead. Here is the actual vote tally. Rae(2): Drake, RayFura(2): Fura, ElanderaWilson(2): Araris, Alv Alv(1): StrikerGaea(1): FifthShqueeves(1): Elandera Ray(1): Hael

Rae(2): Drake, Ray Fura(2): Fura, Elandera Wilson(2): Araris, Alv Gaea(1): Fifth Shqueeves(1): Elandera Looks like the lynch has turned into quite a mess, with a decent likelihood of multiple deaths. Edit: Why is the keyboard shortcut so easy to do accidentally? Actual thoughts coming soon, but I don't think I'll be voting for Fura.

Glacior studiously ignored the petty bickering of the gubernatorial candidates. Perhaps one of them would become Governor. An eminently dangerous position to put oneself in, judging from what happened to the previous Governor. Poison might be too much to hope for should anyone so elevated fall afoul of jealous ex-colleagues. Glacior had no intention of becoming Governor even if his physical safety could be assured, far too many critical eyes were watching the holder of that title. A Senator acting in the interests of his own House could be ignored, a Governor doing the same thing would be questioned. Of far more concern then the squabbles of the ambitious was the wanton abuse of privacy exhibited since a skaa dared murder one of their betters. Senator Cinco had been foolish to keep her real ledgers in her local residence, but Senator Uno should not have had the authority to order a peer's house ransacked. Now, Senator Ninoirim had decided it was within his right to order his pet Leecher to assault persons of much higher status. Glacior deeply urged to put a few coins in the back of the Leecher's skull, but he had been instructed by his Lord to keep a low profile. A lone Rioter should be enough to convince the Leecher that disrespecting the powerful was a mistake. A mislynch of a constable ensures that we'll never be able to get rid of the corrupt constable, which is the main reason not to pursue that lynch without a better idea of whether Gaea or Wilson is the corrupt one.

It was roughly 15 hours ago, shortly before Fura voiced suspicion of Striker.

Should have actually read the rules, I guess. That would make it easier for the elims to dump items onto lynch victims to destroy them if the market were closed, or allow the lynch victim time to pass along their own items. That's usually why item passing is after the lynch, to ensure that lynched players can't pass along their items indefinitely. If @StrikerEZ was actually the one to initiate the PM chain, he should be able to explain. Probable reasons include wanting backup for his claim and attempting to suss out elims who weren't willing to pass along the information(village!Striker only). I wanted to see whether Lumgol would take responsibility for bribing Fifth or claim the scan results were completely fabricated before casting a vote. It appears she has gone with the latter. Fifth probably won't come back, and Lum's vote is presumably going to stick except perhaps if Striker reveals that someone else claimed to use the ledger. If Araris retracts we can get away with a 15% chance of a false alignment reveal. If Lum is evil though, the elims might well use bribes to save her. Four votes(20% fail) ensures Lum's death for one bribe, six votes(30% fail) for two bribes, etc. Bribes from Striker to Lum might help, but only if those are accounted for ahead of time. Striker(3): Fifth, Araris, Lum Lum(3): Striker, Drake, DevotarySnip(2): Alv, HaelArk(1): SnipGaea(1): Rae Wilson(1): Ark

At the end of D2, you said Rand claimed to you 30 minutes previously while Rath switched his vote 42 minutes prior, which I thought might have been overlapping time frames. This is important because Spiked!Randuir would not have wanted to claim Mistborn if it wasn't an emergency. Before Rath's vote switch, there was no particular reason to worry. Your vote tied it up 2-2 between Bard and Rand, with singular votes on three other people, which needn't have resulted in a Randuir lynch. Randuir claiming a role that 1.) he couldn't prove and 2.) might make him a good Seeker target seems unnecessarily risky in this scenario, even if he only told one person.

I believed Randuir's Mistborn claim, as did everyone else at the time. I did not expect him to be pulling a gambit that would guarantee his lynch D3 when the lynch was still subject to change. @Doc12, to confirm, did Randuir claim Mistborn to you before or after Rath switched his vote over to Rand? Was this the time that you(according to Fifth) claimed roleless to Randuir? And why did you want someone to Seek you if it likely wouldn't provide any useful information?

Striker(2): Fifth, Araris Snip(2): Alv, Hael Bard(1): Drake Ark(1): Snip Gaea(1): Rae To be clear, do you mean Snipexe every time you say Xino? Two possibilities also doesn't mean 50-50, and I wouldn't put it past a village Ark to kill someone C1. If that's the case, we learn nothing about Snipexe's alignment for having received a dagger. It's definitely helpful to be assured of player alignments. Having a 15-20% chance of a wrong alignment might actually be worse than the complete lack of alignment reveal from a dagger kill. Lynching someone targeted by a ledger, or someone involved in a bribe scandal, or a dagger possessor, could all easily backfire and end up driving mislynches. I'm not sure why the elims would want to get rid of whiskey, as they can just pass it among themselves to guard against village dagger attack. The elims wanting to get rid of ledgers makes sense, but as ledger use goes before the lynch it's also pretty easy for the elims to hoard ledgers with or without the market. I would think that closing the market would make it more difficult to get rid of boxings, unless the program with Gaea passing out boxings to those who vote for the lynch victim goes away if Gaea is lynched. I'm not sure when item passing happens, but it usually goes after the lynch so the elims couldn't ditch them onto the lynch victim. What do you think is the best way to determine whether Gaea or Wilson is evil? The obvious solution is to lynch people who voted for one of the two, e.g. Fifth flipping village would make me think Gaea is more likely to be corrupt while an elim Fifth makes Wilson a better target, but the alignment uncertainty of lynch victims means one data point isn't enough to make a clear judgement. I would be wary of assuming lack of opposition means the target is village, especially as it's still a fairly close lynch and we have six hours until rollover. Ignoring a lynch on a teammate until much closer to rollover is a valid strategy for the elims precisely because there's a tendency for villagers to back off a lynch that seems too easy. That certainly doesn't mean Striker is evil, but he's not in enough danger that there would be a coordinated elim effort to save him if he was. ltem disappearing definitely would happen with a broken market as people get lynched. We'll probably only be losing warrants and daggers that way as the other two can be ditched if the owner is about to be lynched, but I can definitely see a case where someone isn't around for rollover and misses the lynch train on them. There are also certain items that the elims would throw away rather than let them fall into village hands.

Ark isn't the only other person who is part of the Alleyverse. Kidpen is one of the people nominally in charge, and a quick post scan shows that Drake and Venture, and perhaps others, have posted in the Alleyverse section. However, if Burnt's killer is a villager, I don't see any good reason for them not to claim other than the fear of summary execution and I would be more likely to believe the killer is a villager if they took responsibility for their actions.

A survivor will help whichever team is winning at the time, in the interests of finishing the game as quickly as possible. If we do a good job of getting rid of elims, a survivor is essentially a villager. If we have a difficult time finding the elims, the survivor will try to finish off the remaining villagers. I'd say this slightly favours the village, as a formerly village survivor wouldn't know who the elims are and thus wouldn't be able to coordinate with them even if they intended to hurt the village. I doubt a survivor would be made from an elim, as then we get in a situation where the survivor could theoretically just out the entire elim team. A formerly evil survivor might just end up voting purely at random so as not to abuse their information. Any sort of survivor will be eager to kill people, and will feel no shame for ordering everyone killed if they get to 50 boxings. @Furamirionind, the survivor's win condition is to survive to the end without being arrested. Joe(6): Striker, Bard, Lum, Elandera, Rae, KidpenGaea(4): Fifth, Drake, Fura, DevotaryWilson(2): Araris, Ark The surge of votes on Joe don't seem like something the elims would leave alone if Joe was evil, true. Ignoring culpability, I would rather shut down PMs than the market, though it seems others have differing opinions on this matter. I would be willing to lynch either Gaea or Wilson this cycle. Since the votes are tied between the latter, it would seem my best chance of making either of those lynches happen is if I switch my vote from Wilson to Gaea.

Joe(4): Striker, Bard, Lumgol Gaea(2): Fifth, Drake Wilson(2): Araris, Ark Well if we wanted a three way tie between the constables, we have it. I'm not too sure this is actually a good idea, as any elim with three boxings to spare can take steps to protect the corrupt constable. Joe is currently in the lead by one vote, but any two of the three could be lynched with a single bribe. Joe is in the lead, but Lumgol might end up switching her vote. Whiskey and ledgers might turn out fine if Gaea dies, as both items can be ditched if their owner is about to be lynched. Daggers and search warrants might not turn out so well, but they're still difficult to lose accidentally. Since the elims can win without dagger kills, it's less intrinsically useful to lynch Gaea and purposefully shut down the dagger trade. It's probably still useful to limit the number of daggers flying around. If the choice of corrupt constable wasn't random, we're intended to: create a possibility for a neutral who will attempt to unbalance the game by favouring the winning faction, sabotage one of the game's most important mechanics, or severely limit PMs. It might be useful to have a survivor around if we arrest several elims without taking significant losses, but it will be difficult to determine whether that's the case if we don't lynch the corrupt constable. The village is undoubtedly collectively richer than the elims, but the elims are better able to concentrate wealth by bribing each other. Luckily, the recipients of such bribes will be noticeable, and its likely that if everyone with at least three boxings went for an item, the majority of items would end up in village hands. That's probably true in general, as anyone purchasing an item won't be getting those boxings back. I don't see any way to recover boxings from the constables, although I'm not sure I'm reading the rules correctly here(do we get the constable's boxings if we lynch them?), so killing Wilson effectively kills PMs. The second assumption that seems to be made is that the corrupt constable was not only picked deliberately, but was specifically chosen to have the most damaging effect on the village. There's no particular reason to believe this is true, but it's a possibility. None of the constables have a catastrophic effect if lynched, but Joe's death provides the most helpful result. I would say the market is more helpful to the village simply because most of the other boxing abilities are even more favourable to the elims, and the elims will be less willing to sacrifice boxings to a pool rather than to another player as compared to a villager. We have two ledgers and a third for purchase that can be used as a rough alignment scan, with everyone being scanned as non-corrupt being confirmed good to the player with the ledger. Anyone confirmed this way would be hampered by having PMs go down. In all, I don't have any clear reason to say whether mislynching Gaea or Wilson would be worse. I personally would favour having the market open rather than PMs as I feel the item passing mechanic is more interesting than being able to create PMs. If the corrupt constable was randomly selected, or if the GMs wanted to preserve the most unique mechanic, I would prefer to lynch Joe and Wilson. If the GMs wanted to make us suffer for lynching the corrupt constable, the targets are Wilson and Gaea. Let's see what happens in the next two and three quarters hours if I vote for Wilson. Lynching Joe allows the Governor to release someone from jail, while lynching Gaea shuts down the market. You appear to have it backwards. Additionally, if Joe dies a Governor can release a prisoner at any time; it doesn't have to be right away.

The easiest, and least interesting, way to prevent the elims from killing people with daggers is for everyone to put votes on a single target, such as one of the constables. Killing anyone would then force the elims to give up the dagger, or bribe someone to vote for the kill target. Lynching a bribed dagger wielder gets the weapon confiscated(and away from the elims), even if the elims decided to frame a villager. It may be that shutting down the black market is actually to our advantage, depending on how the Corrupt Senators' win condition works. @A Joe in the Bush, is it that the living Corrupt Senators have to outnumber the living 'honest' Senators, is it based on opposing numbers of living, unarrested Senators, or what? If it's just based on survival rather than jail status, then we can win by lynching Gaea and getting all (probably) four daggers confiscated by the constables, either by stabbing people without votes or by lynching dagger wielders. This could be in conjunction with the strategy of using unanimous bandwagons to deny the elims valid kill targets(the elims bribing multiple people is a possibility, but lynching one of them unanimously has a worst case of an elim dagger-wielder without any valid targets.) Of course, this all means that there's a good chance the elims don't actually need to kill anyone and can win by having the living, unarrested elims outnumber the living, unarrested villagers. Even if this strategy did work, we shouldn't force everyone to vote for the same person. Daggers are still more valuable to the elims between the safer passing and lack of alignment reveal, and anyone who votes for a dagger victim is automatically a suspect if there's few enough such voters, but if we're not going for universal dagger confiscation then lynching Gaea goes back to the possibility of corruption rather than a desire to shut down the market. For Governor, would you suggest lynching the ledger-user with as few votes as possible, or trusting that a scan of 'not-corrupt' is accurate? It's not impossible the elims would lie and risk two of their players to get the Governor role, although it's risky since we can just lynch the Governor or the supposed scanner, especially if we manage to get rid of the corrupt constable.

Any alteration to a message is doomed to failure when the contents are verifiable, as will be the case when Randuir dies. A false message results in the identities of everyone in the chain being revealed and ends up in a 1v1 standoff between at least one elim. Numbering the PM chain limits the Inquisitor's ability to stall via continuously passing the message on, as the person preceding them would ask where the message went. If pressed, the Inquisitor can't lie about their target because the person who contacted the Inquisitor can verify by PMing the supposed recipient, and the truth results in the sender asking the recipient for their number, either of which outs the Inquisitor. Experience is likely not the only reason Randuir was converted, though it might well have been a factor. It's possible Randuir was converted partially as a result of him being one of the most active players C1, but that doesn't fit with the fact that Randuir announced his activity was going to decline sharply unless the Inquisitor missed the last eight hours of N1. The fact that there are few players in this game that Randuir has been on an elim team with may have contributed.

We do now know that the Inquisitor was the type to convert Randuir, and decided to attack Fifth this past night. The end of D2 was rather messy, but I feel confident in saying that Rath is not the Inquisitor. Would Randuir have decided to make a Mistborn claim assuring his eventual demise if he had an Inquisitor around to help him survive the lynch? But if the Inquisitor wasn't around, he would have to trust that <40 minutes was enough for people to remove their votes. Voting on Araris may well have provoked a retaliatory vote, but their were plenty of people with one vote Randuir could have gone after instead of starting a new lynch.

I was definitely interpreting that part of the message as referring to the fact that it is necessary for at least one Tineye to be alive in order for PMs to be sent.

Unless the Inquisitor has a spike that allows them to choose what a seek reveals, as opposed to a spike that makes a seek return the result of roleless villager, Inquisitor!Rand would not be able to hide from a Seeker. How does the third Tineye message imply that Stink, specifically, is the Mistborn? Is there anything other than writing style? If Stink or somebody else other than Randuir actually is the Mistborn, it's probably best to claim in time to give Coinshots a chance to target Randuir and Lurchers/Seekers a chance not to target him.

Bard(2): Rari, DevoRari(2): Sart, StkrStkr(3): Rand, Ffth, Dc12 Hael(1): BardFfth(1): Snip Rand(1): Rath We're still one soothe away from a three way tie, and I suppose not everyone defending Bard can be evil. I can switch from Bard to Striker.

Rand(3): Ffth, Doc1, Rath Bard(2): Rari, Devo Rari(2): Sart, Stkr Hael(1): Bard Stkr(1): Rand Ffth(1): Snip This lynch is now looking less likely to result in multiple deaths, though it still has the potential to be tied and I think we should avoid that this cycle. There is of course a 50% chance the elims have a Soother, but even if that is the case they may want to hold off from using it. And now we have Randuir claiming Mistborn, which is unlikely to get a counterclaim in the next half-hour. Inquisitor!Rand probably could have gotten out of the lynch without claiming anything especially if their team has vote manipulation. That does leave the question of who a different lynch would be. I don't believe Araris is the Inquisitor, though I could see him doing something like pushing the lynch towards a three way tie last cycle if he were. Striker in his only elim game, did have a tendency to be very protective and make unexplained votes in order to counter a lynch on a teammate, and as Araris says the most likely candidates for that would be Rand and Bard. I'm also somewhat concerned by how easily votes have been slipping off the latter, so I will put my vote on Bard. I don't like how close this is coming to a tied lynch though. As Coinshots only get one chance to attack someone, they are less able to perform their role of cleaning up suspects who are bypassed by the lynch. It's probably not worthwhile to use up their only kill just because someone is inactive. Seekers though are more powerful than usual, and the Inquisitor will at some point have to give up a Spike that confounds Seeking, unless they die before then.

It wasn't a huge risk, sure, with an (arbitrary chance Straw didn't count BR's vote)*(arbitrary chance Lum -who I likely would have voted for over Fifth- isn't a misting) chance that we wouldn't have killed a misting. If Aman those two possibilities coincided though, we would only have one elim instead of the preferred two. You also know perfectly well that I don't vote early in the cycle regardless of alignment.

Having Aman survive the lynch would defeat the entire purpose of making sure a misting was lynched. Perhaps Fifth and/or Lum are mistings, but it's far from a guarantee.