Opal Lion

[You check your inbox to find one new message, definitely sent to you by accident. The messenger needs to get better at sending things to the right person] MESSAGE TO [USERNAME UNKNOWN] 1. I am pleasantly surprised that I am alive and everything is over. It appears nearly all of the Loyalists survived, which is a victory in itself. 2. Having read through the new reports you sent, I am disappointed. Perhaps I had too much faith in the concept of balance. 3. If you managed to read all of my research papers on this situation, thank you for reading or sorry for wasting your time. As one can imagine, it is difficult to wake up halfway through an ongoing attempted sabotage. I cannot imagine I was very clear with my words when I spent zero minutes doing anything other than stressing over what I thought the distro would need to be. 4. Regardless of the distro, the Loyalists still performed well, finding all of the Saboteurs within the span of a few days. Nice. PS. When are you available to discuss the new thesis from Roshar? I'm getting off this ship as soon as I can. It's too dangerous out here. [You decipher a signature and the letters "gg" written across the empty space]

HANDWRITTEN RESPONSE TO "MINT HERON" [The writing is barely legible] 1. To answer your question, if "Onyx Flamingo" and "Sunburst Toucan" are both Loyalists, then at minimum the distro contains 2 Mistborn, 1 Kandra, 1 Coinshot, 2 vanilla (I am working on the assumption "Oxblood Beagle", and by extension "Magenta Albatross" are Loyalists) for the Loyalists vs 1-2 Kandra (noticed some talk of this earlier), 1-2 Seekers, and 1 Rioter for the Saboteurs. 2. Designation "Taupe Gecko" is presumably confirmed Mistborn for the role change off of Tineye...? 3. There has been no counterclaim for the shot on "Mauve Crocodile" claimed by "Scarlet Octopus", a Coinshot. I think you don't start considering "Scarlet Octopus" for another cycle here. 4. If we take both "Taupe Gecko" (weak social reasons) and figure "Scarlet Octopus" as Loyalists, that means at minimum there are 3 Mistborn, 1 Kandra, 2 Coinshots, and 2 vanilla for the Loyalist side. That is a potential of 5 firepower and 3 scans. 5. In this case, both claimed Coinshots and 2 out of the 3 claimed Mistborn are Loyalists. I'd look at figure "Plum Rhinoceros" next, then the pool of four Lurcher claims. 6. "Pearl Chameleon" is a wildcard. Some part of me wants to believe if they are a Loyalist they should be vanilla. 7. I think there should generally be one Saboteur in the firepower claims and one in the Lurcher claims. I am currently working on a basis of 2 Saboteurs left for my own sanity. If there is only one left, they should be either Mistborn or Coinshot. 8. The 4 Lurcher claims should generally have a Saboteur, especially in cases where both Coinshots are Loyalists. Specifically in this case where "Onyx Flamingo" is a Loyalist, it almost seems as easy as one Lurcher claim + "Plum Rhinoceros"? 9. Somewhat conclusing here that I would look at whoever you do not clear who can be a potential firepower role + likely one in the Lurcher pool. I find it difficult to imagine four Loyalist Lurchers in one game. [A collection of crossed out sentences form a convenient line break] 10. I also noticed that designation "Melon Dingo" would clear "Quartz Zebra" if Loyalist, similar to "Onyx Flamingo" and "Sunburst Toucan". 11. For figure "Melon Dingo", I am a little concerned at the claim of scanning "Mauve Crocodile" without having mentioned them at all. Potential consideration for "Melon Dingo" being a Saboteur and there being no Saboteur Smoker since their claim appears to be is the only evidence for a Smoker. 12. Keep in mind that deceased Saboteur Seeker "Salmon Meerkat" claimed a scan on "Quartz Zebra", the same target "Melon Dingo" did for night 2. "Melon Dingo" does not have a confirmed role at all and appears to be the most likely out of everyone to be a Saboteur lying about their role. This may get resolved tonight since "Melon Dingo" will be forced to either lie about a scan or genuinely scan someone. Perhaps be careful of the "scan" being lost to a target who dies in the night. 13. I am leaning towards the conclusion that "Melon Dingo" may be a Saboteur due to their claim appearing the most fake. 14. Very loosely, I believe "Melon Dingo", "Plum Rhinoceros", and "Onyx Flamingo" likely contain a Saboteur. Veeeeery loosely. PS. I will be unavailable for the remainder of the night. See you in the morning (if I'm alive). [A scrawled note fills the remaining space] If I'm being honest, this feels like it should already be mostly solved on a mechanical level. I struggle a lot with mechanics and mapping out all the possible situations so if it looks like I jump around a lot in my thoughts that is because I confuse myself more than I confuse you. Mechanics fry my last three brain cells. Seriously, I think you need to think about how all the claims work together a lot more than I am capable of. I am not sure if it was confirmed that Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role, since it says "One action per turn (two allowed per cycle)" and "each night one of them may use their action to kill a player" in the rules. In cases where Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role at night, you should be able to cross off certain pairs for simply having no one to have carried the night kill since they have proved night actions (mostly regarding Seeker claims). This possibly means "Onyx Flamingo" cannot be a Saboteur with "Salmon Meerkat" on night 2 and therefore is a Loyalist. I got stuck in a loop thinking about this. I know I'm doing a lot of mechanical solving but it is very challenging to focus on social aspects when the distro puzzle just seems Wrong no matter how I try to fit it together and it bothers me soooo much. [Tiny writing has been angrily crammed against the edge of the page. You can only make out a few words] never again wasting my time [???] losing sanity over [???] im going to [???] because they don't [You are unsure what the rest of the text says] SENT FROM TERMINAL A3801

[You receive a personalized response] MESSAGE TO "MINT HERON" 1. Ah that's for you to figure out. I have important reading that cannot wait on such trivial matters. 2. In short, I think yes. It would be a good idea to clear the possibility of "Onyx Flamingo" and "Sunburst Toucan" potentially being allied Saboteurs. Given figure "Mauve Crocodile" died on the first night, I think it is fairly unlikely "Scarlet Octopus" shot a teammate (a little early for a play like that, they would've needed to think they were absolutely doomed as a team to pull that on night 1 in my opinion). 3. The Saboteurs get a standard night kill so I could see the case of having just a Mistborn be true, I suppose? If I really squint and ignore the fact that the Loyalists are quite strong in comparison for most scenarios involving this. [The message is signed at the bottom. You think it says "Dusk"]

[You notice a new alert on the terminal] NOTICE FOR THE CREW OF THE SS TYRIAN 1. If you wish to resolve my role, technically the correct play should be to shoot me and scan a role claim since I've claimed a vanilla Loyalist role and so am not as useful to the Loyalists. From your perspective either (a) I am a lying Saboteur, in which case you'd like me to die, or (b) I am genuinely just a vanilla Loyalist. If I were a Loyalist with a role, I would've claimed it already since lying about it would be foolish here. (This is my way of saying it's all good if you want to shoot me in this situation but I will haunt you from the grave if you do not take responsibility for my studies. I cannot lose hundreds of hours of work to this!!) 2. You (designation "Mint Heron") will still be in charge of furthering my research in my permanent absence, should this occur. Failing this, I believe figure H.E.A.R.T.H aka "Taupe Gecko" would be suitable for this duty. 3. I would prefer to stay alive as I have not finished reading the latest dissertation from the leading Rosharan scholars. 4. Again, I still believe the current known Saboteur roles imply the remaining 1-2 Saboteurs should have stronger roles, including one with firepower potential (whether this is Mistborn or Coinshot). Otherwise we would not be in this situation. You would have a group of Loyalists with enough potential firepower to level a small space station. No smart group of Saboteurs would ever dare to attack.

NOTICE TO @Mint Heron 1. You are officially in charge of continuing my studies if I am murdered. [ALERT: There are 3156 new files in your inbox]

[A soft chime indicates you should check your inbox] URGENT NOTICE 1. Please read the attached document. 2. For your reference while reading, see below for a semi-updated version of the comprehensive claims list provided by "Oxblood Beagle" recently. 3. Thank you for returning Basic Metals: An In-Depth Analysis in a timely manner. [You open the document to find a hastily written essay] ESSAY V2.9.1 BEST FINAL THE REAL FINAL VERSION According to what we know, there are/were 20 crew members with an expected number of 5-6 being Saboteurs. 4 Saboteurs have been found; there should be 1-2 left. Currently, known deceased Saboteurs include 2 Seekers, 1 Kandra, and 1 Rioter. Notably no firepower. Known deceased Loyalists include 1 Mistborn. "Oxblood Beagle" and "Taupe Gecko" both claimed Mistborn. Both appear to be Loyalists, and taking these claims truthfully would imply there are a total of 3 Loyalist Mistborn. In addition to this, figure "Plum Rhinoceros" claimed Mistborn. Should these all be true, there are 4 Loyalist Mistborn. That is... a lot, in my opinion, keeping in mind that Mistborn is a pretty strong role with the ability to do everything at some point, including shoot and check role/alignment. I find it fairly unlikely that the last Seeker claim is a Saboteur Seeker. If this figure ("Melon Dingo") is a Saboteur, they are not a Seeker. There are 5 Lurcher claims between the following designated figures: "Ivory Dragonfly", "Indigo Weasel", "Quartz Zebra", "Violet Axolotl", and "Peal Chameleon". I would assume at least one of these claims are either false or include a Saboteur Lurcher. I struggle to believe all these claims could be truthful and Loyalist, for my own sanity. To put it in simple terms: You're telling me the Saboteurs have zero firepower and that the Loyalists have likely >3 Seeker/Coinshot/Mistborn roles, along with at least 1 Kandra role to backup one of these? On top of that, the Loyalists have at least 3 Lurchers? Let's say we assume the Saboteurs have exactly a Smoker. That is not a very strong role by itself, and in that case, Loyalists have... extreme firepower, multiple roles that can save others, multiple roles that can be one of these for a cycle, and backups? And the Saboteurs have 2 Seekers, a Rioter, a Smoker, and a Kandra. If this is the case, there should absolutely be another Saboteur missing who has a stronger role, specifically a firepower role (Mistborn/Coinshot). I find it very difficult to believe the last 1-2 Saboteur roles does not include a Mistborn or Coinshot. If anything, I'm hesitant to believe there is a Smoker Saboteur. It's more likely that the potential Smoker is a Mistborn who rolled Smoker already, unless I have missed evidence that points against this. In cases where there are at least 4 Loyalist Lurchers, it would make sense for the Saboteurs to have a Coinshot or Mistborn who will roll Coinshot. Coinshot is technically a stronger role than Mistborn specifically for the Saboteurs, so I honestly am concerned we are missing a Saboteur Coinshot here. A point of evidence for this would be 2 Saboteur Seekers. What use is a Seeker to the Saboteurs if they cannot use it to identify strong Loyalist roles and then take those roles out? Remember that currently there has to be 3+ Loyalist Lurchers, according to claims and my inferences on Saboteur numbers (at most 2 Saboteurs in the pool of 5 Lurcher claims). If the Loyalists have that much potential to stop the Saboteurs from murdering anyone and the Saboteurs do not have an extra role that can kill, then something is extremely wrong with the distro. I would like to believe that will never be the case. The one thing I cannot take into account is if a Loyalist is lying about their role, which I honestly believe there is a pretty good possibility of, given that otherwise there are literally two vanilla Loyalists in a sea of fairly strong roles. I'm not going to dictate your choices here. If you are a Loyalist fakeclaiming a role, I hope you know what you're doing. CONCLUSION I cannot create a distro here that makes any sense because the Loyalist roles that would have to be true to an extent would imply strong roles that have yet to be found from the Saboteurs, because the current known deceased Saboteur roles are not very strong when compared to the minimum of what the Loyalists would have in the case where all Loyalists are being truthful about their roles. The Saboteurs should have a role with firepower here that we have yet to identify. A Saboteur Lurcher and Smoker combo as the last 2 Saboteurs would make no sense next to the Loyalist roles. That does not even take into account that there may only be a single Saboteur left. Please tell me someone has stopped to think about this more than I have. [References and scribbled out notes fill the rest of the page]

[You have one new notification] MESSAGE TO CREW OF THE SS TYRIAN 1. It appears I was mistaken in my earlier evaluations (which is obvious in hindsight had I individually read people). My apologies. 2. Designation "Ivory Dragonfly" and "Taupe Gecko" are probably both in the clear. 3. I continue to have concerns on the distro. This was not anywhere close to what I had predicted. 4. In my opinion, the Saboteurs should almost certainly have firepower still alive if the rest of their team composition is fairly weak when compared to the potential Loyalist roles. If not, then there are likely more Saboteurs than previously assumed. 5. From my perspective, in cases where both Coinshots are Loyalists, there should be a Saboteur among the Lurcher claims (regardless if the claims are truthful), and one likely among the Mistborn claims. 6. If I'm being completely "fr" as they say, I am not the worst shot here because I do not impact accidentally shooting a strong Loyalist role, in case you want to clear the chance that I'm the Saboteur Smoker. However, I would rather not spend my valuable time dying after wasting so much of it to read your undignified chatter. 7. Has anyone considered if there is a chance that the Saboteur Smoker is actually a Mistborn? 8. If you decide to murder me, please send a copy of my work to my fellow scholars. Good night. [You notice a half-finished essay on space travel has been attached to the message]

[A new message adds to the clutter in your inbox] ATTENTION, CREW OF THE SS TYRIAN 1. I am a Loyalist Vanilla. Please see the definition <here> for further information. 2. Judging by the list of claims, I'd find it hard to believe there are two Loyalist Seekers on board (more specifically - it should never be the case that the 7 claims in the Kandra, Mistborn, and Seeker group all are Loyalists). This means somewhere between designations "Salmon Meerkat" and "Melon Dingo" there is likely a Saboteur. 3. I would extend this to the group of Lurcher claims likely not all being truthful. I would expect the Saboteurs would have immense firepower if all four were Loyalists, but such distros are often called "swingy" and "bad", according to multiple sources. There is probably some off possibility of this, and in such cases, I believe at least one Coinshot would need to be a Saboteur. 4. As I believe it was previously mentioned, there is almost zero chance all of the Mistborn and Coinshot claims are all Loyalists. 5. Due to claims not adding up, I would guess the majority of remaining Saboteurs (if not all) are hiding in the claimed roles. I would hesitantly guess that multiple Saboteurs are not claiming the same role. 6. I do not believe there is a distro where all 6 of the Coinshot and Lurcher claims are truthful Loyalists. 7. I do not believe there is a distro where all 6 of the Seeker and Lurcher claims are truthful Loyalists. 8. At this time, the Mistborn and Kandra roles are too complicated for me to determine whether I would assume a Saboteur is in the group of 5 by itself. 9. I am a little concerned at the ratio of potential Loyalist roles to Saboteur roles. Specifically on what that means for the number of Saboteurs on board. I find it very difficult to conceptualize a distro that is not extremely favored towards the Loyalists without this. PS. If anyone has seen my copy of the 8th edition of Basic Metals: An In-Depth Analysis, please contact me and return it at once. Thank you. [The message is signed but you can't make out the name through the illegible handwriting] Edit: 7a. It is possible both Seekers are Loyalists based on there being a possibly known deceased Seeker Saboteur already. More specifically, it is more likely both Seekers are Loyalists than it is that both Coinshots are Loyalists.

[A new message appears in your inbox, likely sent to you by accident] NOTICE TO USER: 1. Apologies for the delay in replying. I have compiled my thoughts below while reading through the reports as you (are going to) request(ed). 2. Please note I did this at a detriment to my own sanity. 3. I did not read in much detail. You cannot just send me this many pages and expect me to read!! If you have specific inquiries, please attach the relevant information in your next message. PS. Have you read through that 216-page paper I sent you? I'd like to discuss it soon with someone competent enough to understand what it means. There's no one smart enough on this ship, ugh. I look forward to your next correspondence. [You find an attached file that appears to be a set of handwritten notes] [You squint and can barely make out words through the messy writing] TRANSCRIPT OF THOUGHTS: 1. As I do not need to make inferences in real time, I skipped ahead to the page flagged as IMPORTANT to discover that deceased figures "Sage Kangaroo", "Saffron Iguana", and "Mauve Crocodile" were Saboteurs, and designation "Sapphire Elephant" was a Loyalist. 2. As noted from the first vote total attached, new figure designated "Violet Axolotl" may be unaligned from the Saboteurs, as this person caught heat from a known deceased Saboteur on the first day, "Mauve Crocodile". Without reading, I cannot make this conclusion more solid. *** Note: Read more in detail later 3.. Also important to the first vote total is "Sage Kangaroo" and designation "Indigo Weasel" voting each other. As figure "Sage Kangaroo" chose to make this vote very late, I am not sure this means anything for the loyalty of "Indigo Weasel." 4. However, it confuses me as to why "Sage Kangaroo" chooses to vote "Indigo Weasel" over "Violet Axolotl" here, given that a Loyalist "Violet Axolotl" vote would have allowed the Saboteur to live to see another day, no? 5. [This line starts with several crossed out misspellings of taupe] "Taupe Gecko" had good energy at the end of the first day, and a good vote switch (especially if "Violet Axolotl" is revealed as a Loyalist). I like this person. 6. "Oxblood Beagle" looks good from end of day activities for similar reasoning. [A crossed out scribble in the margins reads:] Sorry to break from professionalism, but this is SO BORING to read through. Surely I have better things to do than study this, right? Ugh, I'm not going to discover anything from sifting through paragraphs of junk. [The transcript continues] 7. From the second "day" of reports, I definitely approve of "Oxblood Beagle" for focus on known Saboteur "Saffron Iguana". 8. I skipped ahead to the second attached vote count. At a glance, I like those who voted for the Saboteur (duh), but specifically "Mint Heron", who caught my attention earlier for seemingly genuine uncertainty regarding votes at the end of the first day. 9. At most, I believe it is likely that only one of the six voters are Saboteurs. For no reason other than I believe that is how one would approach this situation, without much context on how anyone was approaching the situation in the first place. [A half erased note that can be barely deciphered] [???] hard to keep track of everyth[???] SOO BORINGG... why did I become a scholar just to [unreadable writing] could [???] nt my time reading the latest edition of [???]'s new textbook on [the text is too small to read] [The transcript continues] 10. At this point, I changed my approach from "read nothing" to "attempt to read through what the Saboteurs said". Sigh. Hours of my life wasted... 11. From the perspective of "Sage Kangaroo", I feel I gained nothing. Perhaps they took an awkward approach to "Scarlet Octopus" regarding liking the aforementioned person's work. I draw no conclusion on this, as I could see it as a Saboteur trying to gain reputation with a Loyalist. A bit pointed for it to be a Saboteur defending another Saboteur, but my estimation of "Sage Kangaroo" is that they may have been new to this line of work. 12. I believe designation "Ivory Dragonfly" may be unaligned (and therefore a Loyalist) due to the opinion of "Sage Kangaroo" on the aforementioned. 13. There is a noteworthy so-called "poke vote" interaction between "Saffron Iguana" and "Sage Kangaroo", both deceased Saboteurs. It is seen again between "Sage Kangaroo" and "Mauve Crocodile". *** Keep an eye out for similar details between others. [A break in the message. You scroll to the next page to find more] 14. From the perspective of "Mauve Crocodile", I noticed that this figure chose to defend designation "Ivory Dragonfly". Since they chose to push in the direction of new figure "Salmon Meerkat", I believe this increases the odds of "Salmon Meerkat" being a Loyalist. 15. I would note I am unsure what this means for "Ivory Dragonfly", as I before had leaned towards them being unaligned with the Saboteurs. 16. Note that later on, "Mauve Crocodile" throws "Ivory Dragonfly" in a pool of people they call "cleared". 17. The odds increase as "Salmon Meerkat" votes for "Sage Kangaroo" in response. 18. From the perspective of "Saffron Iguana", it seems their last plays largely may not be helpful to analyze since their hand was likely forced. 19. "Saffron Iguana" has awkward play around "Scarlet Octopus". This is the second time I have noticed such play around designation "Scarlet Octopus". 20. Much of the treatment "Saffron Iguana" gave "Scarlet Octopus" revolves around defending the latter, yet later says that they would prefer "Scarlet Octopus" dies over figure "Mint Heron". 21. This makes me wonder if "Saffron Iguana" knew "Scarlet Octopus" was a Loyalist and so had a weird treatment of not wanting to vote "Scarlet Octopus" while also preferring the aforementioned person would die (burden of TMI, they call it, perhaps?). 22. In past texts, I have seen instances where this is reminiscent of the way two Saboteurs treat each other (not wanting to defend too much and look like allies, but not wanting the other to die). I am increasingly uncertain on my opinion of "Scarlet Octopus". 23. I later noticed that designation "Scarlet Octopus" claimed a role of "village coinshot" earlier. 24. I read both the mentioned designation's reasons for shooting "Mauve Crocodile" (not very conclusive; reasoning was lacking but not necessarily indicative of a lie) and claiming the shot (was fine I suppose, I don't mind it). 25. I do find it a little weird to have claimed there immediately. Is Loyalist firepower not important to keep quiet about so that you will not be targeted by the Saboteurs? Unless they were only given a single shot. The immediate claim is what I find most suspicious for "Scarlet Octopus", along with awkward treatment from two known Saboteurs. 26. The deceased Saboteur "Saffron Iguana" spoke out against "Salmon Meerkat", which continues to lead me to believe that "Salmon Meerkat" is likely a Loyalist. 27. Who is this DF person who keeps being mentioned?? CONCLUSION: [A chart has been scribbled across the bottom of the page] + Salmon Meerkat, Oxblood Beagle, Taupe Gecko +~ Ivory Dragonfly (?????), Mint Heron Person of interest: Scarlet Octopus - [this area is blank] 1. If I had to guess, someone with claimed firepower is lying about being a Loyalist from the distro information I keep seeing. I am not sure who has claimed such a thing. In fact, I'm not aware of most claims. Please send me a list of this info at the earliest convenient time. 2. Please inform me if you would like a claim from me. I would be happy to oblige. 3. I should be in contact for several hours should you wish to follow up with me immediately. [A note at the bottom in small text reads:] honestly this took me so long to write and I got nothing out of what I read so just give me directions for what to read at this point please

I figured that the tineye was fifth. but had no idea who the tineye was until they died. Okay logging off of the anon account now, i promise

This brings public joe mentions in this game up to 3, I believe? Though kinda weird that one of them was aeo??

I kinda thought someone else was Hael but i don't remember who i thought they were but I def didn't think that Alb was Hael, kinda thought it was tj based on specific language used at a specific time but didn't think Kanga was TJ at all

Beagle

Hello

But really besides c1, scorps voting patterns the other days were not at all similar to the cycle Vulture was in contention, and was pretty much voting and parking despite moving wagons the entire day. On D4 you see him trying to save his teammates via pushing up other wagons, but on every other cycle you see hom content with his vote/the way things are playing out as the other wagons race around him Edit: Next time I'm just gonna stick on my d1 reads and not let anyone sway me on absolutely anything I stg