Salmon Meerkat

I’m prefacing this post with the acknowledgement this serves as a break in my usual playstyle. Previous breaks have been isolated to sickness or distraction – it turns out that being in class doesn’t really facilitate awareness of keeping my typing style the way it was and I was too tired to bother going back to fix it to be consistent. I don’t think it’s worth tanking the drop in clarity to do this in my usual playstyle so I will put in the effort of cleaning up the post. Any resemblances to the distinctive posting style of a particular SE player are purely intentional I assure you. I. D1: The Original Trilogy II. State of Lion's Reads III. Lurkers and Inactives IV. Do Not Read This That's it from me, I think. Not going to be around for rollover, so best effort basis. I need to and would like to vote but my brain is shutting down and I feel like I'm not in the best position to handle this rollover now because my head is murdering me and it's hard to think in this state. Everyone has a limit, I've hit mine. Sorry guys :/ I'm just going to crash. Tired Lion is tired.

gaiz- ig hasn't voted think its parasitic on my count & i registered saff on pearl when shld be other way round.

axl i like ur style but when u say this i start to sideeye u 2 i dt think i think u r wrng bt somehow just somehow

cld i ask how many of these teams have araris on them just out of curiosity

how so?

On the off-chance El and Fifth don't accept a retraction entitled Ocho: Scarlet Octopus. As far as I can tell, the current state of the votes is: That gives us a tie for the lead trains. Way too close at the moment since we have four primary trains, and four secondary trains, and unless I am mistaken, we're currently around nine hours to rollover. That's way too many options for vote manip to play with since the secondary-primary train gap is basically a single vote. I don't feel like I'm going to be able to make it to rollover with how tired I am, although I still have a bit of time left in me. @Coral Swan - Please appreciate this because I cut my longpost short just to add this for you.

Except that I've mentioned I currently read Cham as light Village and I'm not interested in info lynching Cham just to secure the point - I prefer to lynch people I suspect. I can be persuaded into an info lynch between two suspects but a info lynch on a light Village read makes no sense to me, I also mentioned below I felt that I was committed to Swan-Cham not E/E on the basis of their interactions. This is partly on me as it was very early in the morning, thoughts were sloshing out in my head, and I should have spelled it out better, but in a single thesis statement: Does that help? I agree it doesn't matter now though because I've missed Swan's vote (and actually discovered I missed another Vulture vote as well) which drastically changes the situation and makes the point a moot one. Beagle voted Coral Swan for this choice 12 minutes after the halfway mark into the cycle. If it was near end of cycle, I'd be more convinced, but I feel that's sufficiently early that E Swan could've just done it rather than set up an odd situation he wouldn't profit from. We agree on a V swan read for now though. I recall most strongly making this argument for why I don't think the "Swan is Evil teammates with Hyena and therefore is refusing to vote Hyena" works. I had this argument with Cham in thread D1. In short, my argument is that Swan had every means of voting Hyena without having to suffer negative externalities. He had no reason to refrain from doing so. Otherwise, as I've mentioned elsewhere in PMs that I'm concerned I've been staring at the D1 so much the connections are starting to become dubious to me, so I'm afraid you'll have to ID something to me before I can mention it. Anyway, if you don't read Cham V, and you don't read Swan V, then this point obviously won't be convincing to you, but as I laid out in the post, I think there's some reason to read Swan V and Cham V. (Reads list pending as I'm trying to make my thoughts readable rather than the ravings of a kel slowly going mad.) Claiming that putting Gorilla on the side-train doesn't matter seems disingenuous and I'm struggling to work out if this is my old cognitive biases as a player flaring up again because I get twitchy and start suspecting nefarity when players start misrepresenting or skewing arguments and I've been told by many better players that I need to work on that (thank you M'Hael and Meta.) I'm not sure why you think that's irrelevant since the side-train ended up becoming the main train. It's worth looking at the point that the side-train evolved into a serious contender for the main train, because we want to ask if that's hostile activity or not, what was the instigation, do the reasons and motivations hold up with their actions, or do we think there's something more sinister at work. To put it another way, if we want to scrutinise the Gorilla-Crocodile-Iguana tie that killed a regular Villager, then we want to look at movements onto the train and in particular, movements that progress the train or bring it into serious contention. The usual MO to looking for Elims at the end of a hotly contested Day is to look for strange movements onto a train. I've been trying to do that for D1, and that's when the Ocho movement popped to me because I missed Swan's ninja vote. It's an awkward admission as I've just realised that Albatross said something in our PM that I should have construed as him being a returning player but I didn't pick up on it - specifically he said that he heard the claim crowd is more common nowadays. I think I must have picked up the new player impression from the thread mentions and his engagement with meta because if I'd paid closer attention, that word should've been a tell to me.

Still working on fixing my analysis, going through the rest of the N1 actual longposts, and going back to this thread, and trying to integrate/tidy up my reads list and intervene/respond at certain junctures of this debate. I see Swan's ninja vote and must have missed it when scanning the paragraph - I really should try to modify Drake's tallybot (after asking for permission) maybe: I usually seem to be taken by surprise by such votes when tracking. First, Ocho, with my apologies, and thanks to Heron for catching that post from Swan. I've passed the Swan-Ocho interaction and while it's worth commenting on, Ocho doesn't come off looking bad or sticking out at this point in the voting. Personal view on the Coinshot claim: Last night: "I have 9 problems pages on the D1 thread and this isn't one of them" Today: <ok.png> Assess unlikely that actual Coinshot would claim Assess unlikely that actual Coinshot would have such a strong read D2 on player with aggressive ISO & placed a lethal vote on Mauve Crocodile who flipped village to claim what is usually considered a power role Such a claim should be suspicious in and of itself to V!Falcon and should balance a Village read Phishing MO consistent with 0.9 confidence player ID read of Falcon - assess likely V!Falcon is phishing for reactions (what reactions did you gain from this, and how has this helped your reads?), assess possibility E!Falcon could be trying to prompt reaction from actual Coinshot but seems a bit paranoid as I feel the real Coinshot isn't going to react overtly just because Falcon claimed to have a claim, but perhaps E!Falcon imagines a V!Coinshot would think this person is an imposter and try to find out who that person is because they're probably Evil, and so that might be an avenue to trawl for responses Not impossible actual Coinshot did in fact claim (I'm looking at you, rampant claimers to Maili in AG2) in which case the damage has been done, and there's nothing I can do that immediately makes the situation better so I am going back to fix my analysis and do the many things I can do on my free weekend.

Can I trouble you to give me the page ref number? Would like to catch maybe half an hour's more sleep and I want to be able to flag in my notes where I have to go through again. Thanks for the catch — I brought this up to the thread precisely because I was starting to feel as though the alignment chain was too long to make sense. Edited to add: It's fine I got up and switched the com on. Have the page / number ref now, will redo, cheers!

It's actually something that troubles me about my current read Intuitively I dislike Gorilla's behaviour in the current thread, and find it somewhat shady. And I think some of Gorilla's votes are weird. My issue with my current analysis is that if I assign moderate or light credence to Cham being Village, I seem to be reasonably committed to: Swan being Village (moderate commitment, with some assumptions on Elim behaviour built in) Gorilla possibly being Village (again, given some assumptions on Elim behaviour) Ocho being weird and possibly Evil To be sure, this appears as far as I can tell to be internally consistent. But I don't like counterintuitive results, and I think that if my gut dislikes the player's behaviour and my current analysis suggests they might be Village, then I need to sit down and look at whether I've made a wrong assumption or a bad inference. Essentially, there are always two choices. When reasoning commits you to a conclusion, you can accept the reasoning and conclusion as correct, or you can decide the conclusion has to be wrong, in which case something has gone wrong with the logic. Which is one reason why I want to get the entire analysis thread up at once, so more eyes can look at it and see how my reasoning process works because I'm tired, been working late nights, and I'm going in paranoia spirals by this point I'm very tempted to jettison the conclusion because my gut cannot agree with a light Village read on Gorilla and I don't even feel happy putting them in null. I think the reasons behind Gorilla's votes are often at the very least weird, and I'm trying to decide if I think they are weird in an Evil way, or just weird in a 'people do be like that' way. With that being said: Ocho being Evil might suggest Cham is Evil too (so it is compatible) because Ocho makes that counterintuitive (by Ocho's own stated desires/lights) move to pull off the Cham-Swan tie, so we have Ocho/Swan not E/E because Ocho damns Swan and lightly endangers Gorilla to save Cham. But I think it's compatible with E Gorilla as well - light distancing, did not expect train to take off, maybe had vote manip in pocket, and Ocho really couldn't make it back in time so just parked and assumed teammates would make sure everything was okay. But I don't weight that as being more likely, no, since it requires more assumptions to be baked in to make sense. So I don't think Ocho's alignment is necessarily tightly connected to Gorilla's - if I were to compare them, I think the connection to Swan's and to Cham's is stronger. Let me give you a snapshot of the problem. I'm somewhat committed to Cham being Village (hence light Village read) - I have about a 0.9 credence in Cham's player identity based off Cham's linguistic behaviour (decent match for player), demonstration of knowledge in personal interactions that specific player would have, chronology a match for player's; moreover, chronology in this player's case should be considered distinctive or uniquely identifying, weakly corroborated by thread behaviour and thread reactions, moderately corroborated by onshard and historical offshard interactions (to be clear, using previous onshard and offshard interactions as a baseline, this player behaves consistently within accepted parameters), and displays strong familiarity with the player I'm impersonating. So this is a fairly robust evidential basis - I'm willing to accept I could be wrong, but for comparison, I'm 0.95 certain about Vulture and about Hyena. Cham's behaviour deviates from the player identity's Elim meta. Player identity has previously a tendency to be sensitive to/bow to thread pressure when Evil. Cham seems to be pushing own views in disputes with players instead of giving in and I read interactions with Swan, arguments with me and with Axl as instances in which Cham sticks to own guns despite having been the leading train for a decent chunk of D1. Link here for the start of the section with Cham. Just read the exchange, all the way to with Axl. It's possible that E!Cham felt more relaxed knowing his team had vote manip to save him, so this is a defeasible line of argument, but I am not too convinced as I think it's reasonable for an Elim team to not want to prematurely reveal their capabilities to the Village if they don't have to. Also, another place this argument could fail is, obviously, if I am mistaken about my ID read on Cham, or Cham has changed his Evil meta since. I stand by my view that there was very little response to Cham's train dominating. I take Scorp's point that maybe there wasn't that much pressure until late in the cycle, or that the Elims were playing splinter-train tactics instead, so let's look at potential splinter-trains that arise in response to Cham pressure: These are single-vote trains that emerge after Cham train becomes dominant, between my vote first going on Cham and to the point I left the Cham train for the second time, going onto Gorilla. Main problem with these splinter trains is they're all passive, or that's my read of them. Splinter trains suggest Elims trying to start other trains to offload votes or entice Villagers to help outcompete the existing dominant train. But Axl, Swan, Beagle, and Ostrich mostly just drop votes and go. They don't interact with other players, not in the context of trying to solicit votes onto their trains. Swan is more active in thread but I don't see too much investment in calling an airstrike on Melon Dingo. I think that's where I agree with Falcon about the cycle temperature - we really see more collective bargaining and attempts to sway people towards the end where the three way tie is involved. But I'm currently on p7 of D1 in my analysis so I can't say anything about that point yet and probably have more Gorilla-Iguana analysis to do too." Moreover, Swan and Cham don't seem very E/E to me because Cham ends up creating a Cham/Swan/Gorilla three-way tie with about nine hours to go to rollover. Again, we can postulate that the Elim team had vote manip, but vote manip still requires some control of the vote landscape and the ability not to hit Smokers (which, to be fair, may not be as significant a risk.) It also requires a decent risk appetite because with nine hours or so to rollover, the Village can run away with the tie and potentially require more overt Elim intervention. My point is: what is gained by creating a situation of potentially two Elim endangerment? If you already think Cham/Gorilla are E/E, that's even worse, because then Cham decides nine hours to go that he wants to create a three-way-tie between Elims. I'll grant that a two vote margin is not necessarily the worst, but the Cham train has been sticky so far. There's no reason to introduce further Elims to the fire with potential Village getting carried away or vote manips. True, they could be trying to distance, but alongside volatility, they pay the price of tipping their hand where vote manip is concerned. Note also that there's a point in time where Swan moves onto Cham to be the fourth vote on Cham, so E/E really seems weird in that context: I should probably be spoiler formatting this or something sorry guys I'm done in I'll format the analysis post properly. Tentatively think Penguin and Swan not E/E - Penguin moves off Cham later on and Swan moved on (recall I'm only up to p7 of D1 at this point in time) so there's a net vote change of zero because Penguin goes back to Hyena like a homing missile. I feel like that's counterproductive unless I suppose E Swan and E Penguin didn't care, just wanted to find somewhere to park their votes. Penguin's vote could certainly look like a flight off a bad train, but if Penguin is fleeing a bad train, why does Swan get on? Cham was already in the lead, and on the assumption Penguin/Swan are E/E, they can control Penguin's vote, Ocho and Mauve didn't seem like they were moving. No real impetus, and being the fourth vote on a train you know is bad can be a bit bold. (Not impossible though - perhaps Swan hoped to blend in with the others? But then on this line of thought, Ocho-Penguin-Swan unlikely to be all E/E/E, (which also commits us to Cham-Ocho-Penguin-Swan not E/E/E/E) unless it was a refuge in audacity tactic - lynch one Elim on the Cham train if it comes to it and then the rest are softcleared by pushing the line of reasoning that Elims don't cluster. I don't know how I would evaluate this - I feel like three Elims beggar belief with Swan's and Penguin's movements but I can't say it's logically impossible either. Gorilla. Oh, God, Gorilla. So many problems with Gorilla where do I start. Suppose, for the moment, we accept V!Cham. Suppose we also for the moment accept V!Swan. We end up in trouble. Because this is what happens prior to Ocho moving off Cam: Gorilla goes onto Swan and ties Swan off with Cham. Which. Whut. If Gorilla is an Elim, and this is with around five hours to rollover, Gorilla just tied off two trains that...are both V anyway so Gorilla has no reason to be invested. (Recall we are supposing for now that Cham is V and Swan is V.) Late movers onto trains who cause ties, even if the tie is broken later, tend to be seen as sus. Particularly if the trains are dominating and could potentially lead to a mislynch. It could be that Gorilla was preparing to implicate Cham on a flip, seeing the amount of attention Cham drew for most of the cycle, so I guess E!Gorilla could work with V!Cam and V!Swan. But another natural interpretation is that something has gone wrong with the reasoning process and Cham is E and E!Gorilla was acting to save Cham - after a lot of apathy (from everyone) towards Cham being in the lead. But then, as Swan points out: Ocho going onto Gorilla is a problem. I don't think it necessarily overtly endangers Gorilla, could've been distancing, and I need to check whether Ocho made it back in time to change their vote or did not, but parking your vote on your teammate and trusting to a razor thin margin while you go off is...sort of risky. And seems to suggest that Ocho and Gorilla likely don't share alignments. Short of it is I feel I need to finish processing the rest of the D1 to feel more confident - and probably get some sleep (w00ts work database woes) but I'd like more eyes on things. I think as I currently stand, I am more committed to V!Cham than necessarily V!Gorilla, but my current Gorilla read is powerfully gut driven and I'm very aware of the 2 other pages of D1 I have to process and think through. I feel as though Ocho parking on Gorilla, ultimately, was safe, but I suppose the reasoning behind Ocho/Gorilla not E/E is that Ocho could've parked somewhere else but chose Gorilla. Things I need to get done at some point: <Finish D1, finalise current state of reads, go read what everyone else has said about D1 (yes sorry I'm behind the curve), catch up on this thread, and decide/integrate my reads on Ocho, Gorilla, Cham, and basically everyone with vote analysis.> Bit of a cop-out but I spent longer working on this than I'd like and I didn't even realise I can now hear a rooster and I need sleep >> Edited to add: @Saffron Iguana - Not in a state to answer your questions now and I feel a decent answer needs me to actually unpack the Iguana-Mauve-Gorilla trifecta and at p7, I haven't reached it yet. I haven't determined where I stand on you either. In general, this is probably the big analysis push I'm doing because things align well for me on a weekend and the work + study week can be more busy so just gonna do what a meerkat can do.

wb bro unfortunately, my gut tells me i should b wary of u if i think u r who u r b/c u led me on a merry chase in a past life Azure Mouse, Scarlet Octopus At this point I'm on p.7 of my re-read through the D1 voting but it's clear I'm not flushing anyone out with an Azure Mouse vote, and I'm not very fond of Ocho's voting history. I am still committed to posting my full analysis, it's just going to take a bit longer than I expected as I'm still at p7 and trying to ascertain if I'm missing links in my current assessments/logic chains as some of my reads feel counterintuitive and I hope bringing my thoughts to the thread will result in greater clarity. But, about Ocho. My problem with Ocho in a nutshell: I've always said that talking is a free action, and I like to look at votes because voting shows where a player's priorities are. Vote situation before Ocho moves: After Ocho moves: What Ocho does: Vote stayed on Cham all game, moves off Cham around four and a half hours to rollover, and goes onto Gorilla, a sidetrain. This puts Swan in the lead and increases the Gorilla side-train into a secondary train. What Ocho says: Wants Cham dead, will vote Cham if back in time and people want Cham dead (because apparently people don't want Cham dead anymore despite Cham being tied on the leading train before Ocho moved!), and is a null on hyena and a null with some sus on Swan so the logical answer is to vote Gorilla. Because it makes so much sense to forgo a 50% chance of lynching your top suspect and 50% of lynching someone you are slightly sus of and turn that into 100% chance to lynch someone you are slightly sus of, 0% chance to vote top suspect, and something something Gorilla delenda est. I don't like Ocho. I do lean light Village on Cham now but this read is something I'm trying to summarise/spell out in the broader analysis post. I just wanted to throw this out there for discussion since Cham has featured, Ocho moves to Gorilla, one of the end trains, and also because Ochio's vote remained remarkably static for most of D1. There's probably more content I'm not interacting with because everyone talks too much and now I understand why poor Orlok went stark bloody mad in QF50 and the perfect is the enemy of the good so I want to get this out first while I work on everything else. Am I blatantly ignoring most of the thread? Yes. I can only handle one thread at a time, I am in my dotage, and D1 is threatening to end me I commit to playing catch up since thread engagement is faster for me as I don't do deep post analysis most of the time.

Okay, I can see that, and I'm certainly not thrilled by Albatross's behaviour profile entirely separate from this claim business. I get that Coral Swan gets the genuine read, and I...genuinely don't. I agree it could be lingering paranoia from LG5 but I'm going through the thread again so I will see that eventually. You didn't need my permission but carry on anyway, I'm going back to analysis

The main positive read I have seen of Albatross is from Coral Swan. If you can show me where the other positive impressions come from, I'd appreciate it as I'm still catching up writing up my thoughts on page 3 (!) of D1 and I have a long way to go. I'd still weight down the possibility of a Village Lurcher because the Lurcher should be identifying trusts and likely targets, but I'd agree that's really at the mercy of the player meta. My current read of the situation is that a player who is lukewarm positive got shot and got protected. Furthermore, you are voting on Albatross - so you think Albatross is Evil. But I agree with Albatross's tactics, so I guess this commits you to the claim I'm Evil too because it seems your current basis for your vote is because Albatross thought it was okay to claim. So where does the agree to disagree come from? If the tactic is really so objectionable that it makes Albatross Evil, then I should be Evil too and you should be calling me out rather than telling me agree to disagree. I can't decide if this is an opportunistic vote or just one of those tactical clashes. Part of me thinks this feels like an opportunistic vote and part of me thinks you're invested enough in explaining why you think Albatross is a decent target for a protect that you probably are sincere. Edited to add: To be clear, We are talking about what happens if we assume that there is a Lurcher who protected Albatross. I would say lukewarm positive.

They're still left with three options. Two because Lurched really only applies if Albatross is Elim in which case they already know the answer. A 50% chance of hitting a V Lurcher isn't a bad one and while I have yet to decide how I feel about Albatross, this paints your current push in a more negative light. If the expected answer no matter what is Thug, then saying it or not saying it doesn't make a difference informationally to the Elim team because it's still 50% odds if Albatross is Village, and if Albatross isn't, then they already knew so Albatross wasn't saying anything new to the Elims. Edited to add: I want to sharpen this point a little. You say on D1: And yet you dismiss that there is valid reason for there to be a significant IKYK with regard to Thug claims because no matter what Albatross's alignment or role is, Albatross basically pretty much has to claim Thug. I'm trying to work out why your views on IKYK or fakeclaiming have shifted from D1. Either fakeclaiming is a good shield or it is not. Either the possibility of fakeclaiming is an ameliorative or it is not. Make up your mind.

I'm in an odd position here. I'm not really sure why Albatross would say he considered playing the IDK card. This feels to me like an attempt to play into the new player profile and I agree about the discrepancies in Albatross's awareness of terminology and apparent lack of knowledge of meta considerations. This is plausibly explained by being from a different site with different meta but eh. I'm always more paranoid of that player profile because my first Elim team specifically got me to play into that profile in order to lower suspicions. Though that doesn't seem to be working too well for Albatross. That being said, I'm still skimming and preparing for my analysis post, but I don't fully agree with this highlighted statement. Anyone capable of inference to the best explanation knows that Albatross has to be a Thug, a Lurcher, or Lurched. The rules of the game don't allow any other means of surviving a Coinshot kill. It is logical for Saffron Iguana to call out the oddity and to demand more information because it is very rare that players will be so full of trust N1 that a Lurcher will Lurch Albatross (of all options!) rather than themselves. It's not impossible, but the rarity of such circumstances obtaining makes it very rare and so somewhat of interest to the thread as a potential V Coinshot meets Evil Lurch. (That being said, I'm not sure why an Evil teammate would Lurch Albatross - I'm still working on my D1 reads but I feel certain that there ought to be more high-temperature members on the Elim team than Albatross. Albatross just hasn't attracted that much discursive heat unless there's something I'm missing or forgetting.) I think the exchange is too brief for me to have any strong feelings about it. I'm not really sure why Albatross feels the need to highlight he considered not being honest, but I've commented about that above, and perhaps that's what's got Penguin's dander up. Nevertheless, I don't think there's a strong reason to favour refusal to comment over being willing to explain survival in this context because there is just no significant difference between the two routes, and I'm concerned that Penguin seems to be wanting to suppress information more strongly than is warranted. It's not clear to me that publicly claiming the role doesn't exactly help the village in any way. I'd put it weakly positive to null. The cat is already out of the bag, as it were. And if Albatross is ever implicated in any metal action from here on out, we know he is a filthy liar. Moreover, the Elims already infer the existence of a Thug or a Lurcher just from Albatross's survival. And the logical thing to do whether Village or Elim is to claim Thug. If you are a Village Lurcher who self-protected, you don't want to be IDed for an Elim kill or manipulation because you will be a threat to them, so it is safer to claim Thug. In fact, since you are a Village Lurcher who self-protected, you want the Elims to think you are a Thug, and therefore not of interest. I have passed myself off as a Thug when surviving an attack before as a Lurcher for that exact reason. Since this was a Coinshot kill, an Elim who confessed to being a Lurcher would be seen as reckless and Evil, whereas an Elim who confessed to being Lurched would also be rightfully suspected. And as Maili once said, claiming Thug is easy as a go-to for a fake claim - the only way people can prove you wrong barring a confirmed truthful Seeker is to kill you, by which point you are too dead to care. Informational hygiene and opsec is important. But we can't fetishise it to the extent of hampering our picture of events. Telling your role because someone asked you in a PM isn't the same sort of context as telling your role because the Village wants to know what is going on with a Coinshot hit on you, or related reasons. I think it's stretching it to regard the latter with hostility, and I'm less wary of the vote on Albatross so much as the way you seem to be pushing for suppression. tldr; Albatross - odd profile and I am instinctively always wary of players who are consciously leaning into that new player profile for LG5 reasons Dislike Penguin's move to suppress - this isn't the same as claiming because Maili asked you nicely & if truthful, helps give us a better picture of last night Assess the claim to be weakly positive or null - at this stage of the game with no potential for a Seeker scan D1, the only expected answer is Thug. I feel like I've just wasted my time actually because this took more words than I wanted it to rip sorry back to my analysis

i disagree we have 4 Tineye messages, 1 of whom claims 2 be Mistborn & i dont like the look of the ruin message we don't know what the tineye messages purposes/intended audience is & im not prepared 2 conclude that they r not mistborn trying 2 pass themselves off as tineyes my personal assessment is that mistborn is actually weaker than people think due to the randomness element + weighted metals distro im not sure i would put tineye b4 mistborn but i could easily see mistborn trying 2 pass themselves off as tineye in messaging we will get a better idea as more nights pass & message numbers fluctuate though of course tineyes cld also refuse 2 send in more messages 4 tineyes isn't implausible though it does entail pms are fairly secured i just don't feel the need 2 commit to it so soon since mistborn have a vested interest mistborn rand 4 metals so they can be annoying 2 rely on ag3 had 2 spiked mistborn & 1 thug & 1 lurcher & 1 smoker team + village had coinshot & no mistborn i m going to also be v wild & say - but more weakly - i am not sure i commit to v!coinshot just yet i don't feel i know enough about this game to want to make that assumption but my v coinshot credence is stronger than e coinshot but i don't feel it is strong enough - probably 0.7 certainty i just want to keep sense of gamestate fluid its d2 for warmmha's sake lion reads 2 me like low info kill MO + potential elims phishing in the dark 4 roles working out thought on albatross but i m sorry alb gets default sideeye from me on account of khas m working on my vote analysis now but in absentia Azure Mouse - how is the lurking elim game going =) Edit: I am a fool gone to my dotage. If we commit to Village Coinshot there is moderately high probability of Thug/Lurcher/Mistborn on the Elim team. Potential spiciness with no Lucher (LG74 had considered dropping the Lurcher for the Elim team) and maybe Mistborn/Thugs instead. If we commit to Evil Coinshot which I will agree is not my most intuitive read but this is Tyrian and this is El and I will be dead and further in my dotage before I do not expect some sort of fiendish nefarity in an AG Tyrian game distro - then we should be seeing way more padding in the Village I think. Two vanillas and however many Tineyes and at least two vote manips seems to make this a side or smaller possibility but I am not altogether going to fully dismiss it just yet. I think V/E Coinshot is a sideshow anyway as it detracts from today's task which is making sense of yesterday's lynch and trying to get an Elim this time but as it is clear I have never been able to see a discussion and just stay out of it.

i apologise in advance it has not been a good week 4 me to sit down and think through things & i have been pulled off this morning in search of a missing set of records & forced to conclude kamino does not exist in our archives friday is a good day 4 me tho & i expect 2 be able to commit to doing the deep read of the pre-rollover chaos before that i will firmly continue to refuse to comment as i want to be drawing my own conclusions & believe it is more helpful i do few points 2 interact w/ before i do: - this jumped out @ me b/c the absence of v seeker & presence of 2 elim seekers was unexpected 4 players in lg74 - only matters b/c ig cites it but seems unaware. i was not around to play lg74 either but i expect my statement can be corroborated by those who have. i have a weak playerread on ig that wavers but if true just makes this weirder b/c ig would not have played lg74 either yet ig is confidently asserting it as a basis which suggests ig must also have been familiar w/ that aspect of lg74 - little seeker manip happened in lg74 & only one i m aware of came from fifth (sorry bro i know) in getting the seeked lurcher to expose himself so the spiked could kill him spiked were claimshy that game - but it just seemed odder to me 2 ignore seeker right after mentioning it - mild disagree here - if i had a dollar 4 each time a player in this game has contacted me under the impression i m someone else i could buy myself a coffee and a cinnamon ice cream & my point is im getting read v strongly as a player who has a tendency to get overengaged in the game & u never effortclear on that basis b/c that player will do that regardless its his playstyle/character flaw he has never not here i stand - i m just gonna say this i think u have 2 be blind or within a v specific player demographic not 2 get an id read on vulture which tbf my weak id guess on ig would suggest this is true - u nvr effortclear vulture like this sorry not sorry this is vultures playstyle elim no elim & u dont effortclear players on the sole basis of doing something they do regardless of alignment - i don't know if it is a bad thing - my reaction 2 the effortclear read on me on the likely basis of who i m being taken 2 be was 'no u shld know better' but i can maybe squint see no interaction or little interaction in playhistory if i m correct which i may not be such that ig is not aware of this on vulture neither of these are sufficient & i dislike doing pointreads or even sole postreads of a player in isolation b/c i have a tendency to get caught up in disliking argumentative moves made so i have 2 stay noncommittal until i can get my vote analysis done which won't be immediately but firm commitment to doing at least first pass deepread b4 first half c2 Warmmha permitting have 2 say el & fifths repository included an e team w/ 3 vote manip - was v vm heavy and it never made it into lg74 but it is a build that exists + ag2 (3 soother 1 smoker 1 lurcher) not historically impossible + ag2 team blindsided village badly b/c meta bucked conventional team comp wisdom + made team solely of new(er) players + lopen idk if would say exceptionally small - i count 5 elims : 22 v slightly under but not exceptionally small & i reckon at least 4 players in this game would remember it excluding el & fifth

tyvm ilu too <3 i appreciate there is an extensive literature on tyrian variants w/ a subsection dedicated to the excavation of metacognian utterances on the properties of smoking and the kasimirian codicil on riot interactions w/ smoking & i want u 2 know i greatly appreciate the work u & fifth put into making this cursed bramblepatch of absolute suffering watered by the tears of stray gms into a set of moderately easy to understand rules =P

Ok Mr massive-iso-condemning-croc

reading is a fun exercise ive found =P notice the scenario i removed was the scenario where the Rioter or Soother hits a player who did not vote: >edit there is a very fun quote w/ this ruling i include 4 ur edification only b/c i think it is very poetic edit2: pls note this is from a previous iteration of tyrian i make no claims that i have received this image from the gms but it is a very lovely line & it gives me joy

This is true of the diachronic accusation but it is also true that Penguin seems to have a synchronic accusation that your readslist is set up to be vague. In a way, Penguin's diachronic accusation is directly dependent on the synchronic accusation since the accusation that your readslist is meant to set up for future easy retraction (i.e. the diachronic accusation) only has teeth if the claim that you have baked indecision and a lot of retraction room into your readslist obtains, i.e. the synchronic accusation. @Chartreuse Penguin Please help me understand your dispute as I try to solidify my views/reads of the interactions of D1. At this point I am leaning towards it being a typical D1 squabble - dependent on my read of the other main trains and pre-rollover voting, I could see this as being a potential instance of splinter-train tactics instead. (Note that if I am committed to Hyena's train being splinter-train, I am committed IMO to E!Penguin, V!Hyena, and likely E!Cham or E!someone in the main three, depending on the exact vote chronology.) >Edit: This means I am likely committed to E!Iguana or E!Gorilla, but more likely E!Cham, as I could see splinter-train tactics being simply stowaway tactics instead.

I think that's a slightly disingenuous presentation of Penguin's claim, actually, but that's a two-way problem. Penguin's beef seems to me to not just be the readslist (which as you point out, is done by both Villagers and Elims (hello Elhokar!)) but the fact that your readslist is done as a toneread list: I read this as being a different emphasis: Penguin is accusing your readslist of being non-committal. Being non-committal could indeed be a Villager trait, as I have more or less been the thread king of indecision, but it could also be an Elim trait, and a readslist that comes across as extremely non-committal is one I could reasonably see a player going, "If you are this hedgy, then it looks like you are posting this readslist just to gain easy Village credit by appearing to put in effort to engage with the game." That is a good place for an Elim to try to coast by and so a good place to apply pressure to. I think Penguin is also pushing you a bit hard for a toneread I don't share. I generally expect D1 reads to be more gut-based, especially since I'm not much of a post-reader - if anything, the claim to have begun the readslist before is what draws my attention because it seems very superfluous. That is a very long way to say "quod scripsi scripsi" or "yes, and everyone does it" but I also think it is missing the point of contention; that being said, I lean towards "early D1 gut reads are understandable" as my take on the situation. i certainly hope ur experience will net us more elims in the days to come =) i look forward to hearing what views u have formed of the end of the day voting

yes, that's what i picked up - u mentioned u began working on it before u found ur alignment, but then u say about 90% was done after knowing ur alignment it's only logical: u couldn't have done an informative readslist pre-alignment w/out knowing ur alignment whether village or elim if about 90% was done after knowing ur alignment, y tell us u began it before u found ur alignment? what's the point of calling attention to that? deflection? >edit to be clear im saying tt if u had to do about 90% of it after u know ur alignment and kept 10%, telling us u started it before just seems potentially deflecting or weird - ur not really indebted to the list u began so y call attention to that when explaining/defending your list of reads

fragmented meerkat thoughts: i have also got a light id read of scorp - if my id read is correct then this is standard behaviour for scorp; if my id read isn't correct, it looks a bit worse for scorp - either way, this implies to me i need to look more closely at the voting context closer to rollover more later for me, what's tonally odd is how self-conscious or defensive scorp is when voting: devo has been known to do this sort of last minute vote intervention with commentary & im not unsympathetic as i have a tendency to think aloud into the thread & pms, but the more i look at it, the more i feel the Heron comparison is appropriate here because of how self-conscious (and almost defensive) the commentary is. considering ties still kill in this game unlike past tyrian games, that's a lot of handwringing for what isn't exactly awful especially if u really find the state of the votes so objectionable that being said, both devo (village) and striker/heron (evil) display some amount of handwringing here (from the same game iguana cites - ty iguana it was a good read) but my view is the historical comparison only goes so far - it does illuminate what i regard as a tonal oddity & a sign to go back and deepread scorp et al & to try to figure out how i read the last voteswaps of the cycle falcon - i m confused y u mention tt u think iguana is village & u also rec iguana to be coinshot y do u want to infokill someone u say u think is village (b/c it surely can't be a suspicion kill) hyena - gws & tc, looking forward 2 hearing frm u this jumps out @ me a bit b/c im trying 2 understand what falcon is saying - y is swan of concern when swan had 2 votes @ that point in the cycle? i get the unease w/ cycle quietness given ties & i am a bit confused at why the lack of pushback is startling b/c in a cycle w/ a 3 way (near 5 way) & vote manip, i feel like quietness implies either vote was sufficiently diluted (1/3 odds not bad odds & again, possibility of dilution to 1/5 per candidate), no elims were threatened (of concern yes) or behind-the-scenes vote manip i'm of the view good coinshot targets should be secondary lynch: this allows the benefit of discussion & requires elims to be proactive if they want to influence the kill but sometimes coinshot gonna coinshot: with that being said i would agree with going after a suspect in the <iguana, gorilla, cham> pool - we want as clear sight of the D1 lynch situation as we can get & so i agree with vulture on this note

Loenthal had come that was the word someone had tried to kill the lord and Kellehrt had never held much with lords, he paid his taxes, as his father had, and his father’s father you relied on these things, on taxes, on obligation, and some had been whispering that Loenthal would save them from the koloss and the saboteurs or that the Ja would, praise be unto him and Kellehrt shook his head but said nothing because Loenthal had been there the day his father broke, and Loenthal had been there the day his father was executed, the day they bound him and brought him to the village square his mother had written of it, Kellehrt hadn’t been there, he was making nails in Luthadel then and disappointment was dripping off every word in her letters what do you want of me, he wanted to ask her, but part of him felt shame that that man was his father and part of him felt shame that he hadn’t been there and part of him feared the same blood that ran in his veins and sometimes he dreamed he was there, listening to the contempt of the villagers of Tyrian Falls, listening to the mockery and the stones as his father was brought to die and he had to die, Kellehrt understood that, understood that even men like his father, who made nails and fireplace grates and pokers and horsehoes and sickles and all the tools and implements that the villagers of Tyrian Falls had ever needed, could go deeply wrong could do deeds so terrible that even now staring at the greylight as evening fell his father came back to his mind again, the way he’d whispered (his mother said) of ruin to come only the ruin had come from inside, from his father you are not your father, said Warmmha, and Kellehrt had to believe him, had to strive for something better, like the girl caught in the fires of Luthadel as the mobs grew closer to the shop in Ironside, in the Stacks, as fellow skaa rampaged through the city slashing burning looting shouting and other skaa ran from them in fear because the nobles never did because why would nobles have anything to fear and he certainly hadn’t seen fear in Loenthal’s eyes when he demanded an explanation sometimes, Wark shrugged, there is no explanation i don’t like that, he said, everything should have an explanation because his father’s actions were a question, forever a question, and no one, not even Loenthal, had been interested in why and sometimes it seemed he and his mother were the only ones to keep asking sometimes people do terrible things, Wark continued, as though he was talking about cutting the queue to buy baywraps, as though he wasn’t talking about slaughter or murder or arson or the thousand awful things he saw everyday in the Luthadel watch, things that put the shadows in his eyes there hadn’t been shadows in his fathers eyes and Kellehrt wonders if doing the deed breaks you or if you have to be broken for the shadows to reach into you he’d distrusted Riggs when they spoke, saw the slashes of tattoos around his eyes, the way Riggs always rolled dice as though measuring him, asking Kellehrt what it would take for him to be willing to condemn another man to death, as though the shadow of the noose lurked behind his words Warmmha, he didn’t want that, didn’t want the shadow of death lurking like the black cat that followed Wark home every night to the corner of the block and then stopped as though it knew the point where Wark the watchman became became just Wark sometimes people need to accept the consequences of their actions, Wark said, once sometimes, said Warmmha, people don’t have a choice and people are scared or maybe Kellehrt said that sometimes it was hard to tell the difference between the words God breathed into his ear and his heart and his own words and did it matter, was it presumption? derision sometimes and it cut like the blade of the scythe through the harvest in the golden light of the afternoon because who was he to question and who was he that the words of Warmmha would have reached him you are all such children, said Warmmha with a terrible sadness and staring at the broken body of Riggs, seeing it again in his mind in the bloody light of dusk, Kellehrt prayed that God would speed Riggs on his way and give him peace and light