|TJ|

Hmm, we know 3 double voters. Kas claims to have lost his power: He also claims Double-Voter #3 forgot to use their double vote: The remaining double-voter is @Illwei. Can you confirm if you used double-vote? Also, I don't find any reasons for Abrasionists to remove vote off a 10+ lynch vote because a) it's pointless and b. it will make them look suspicious if they are found to be manipulation the vote.

So Lotus was not exactly covering for Devotary as I theorized. If not, Illwei's vote on Pyro would be visible to Kas. BUT (hold on here some crazy theory about teamwork) Devotary could have made sure that Lotus' reassigned vote properly fell on Pyro! (Ehh, not convincing but still it would be a very cool scenario if they manage to coordinate that) But why was Devotary's vote added? Bah, the simplest answer is we have a null-to-full vote converter. There is one vote missing actually. I'm convinced Vapor Vanish is real.

You're basically adding numbers at this point lol Howw? 3 double voters are (Illwei, Kas, Player #3) and 2 Tensors are (Pyro and Devotary). Where did you get 3 (2 if you consider the Vapor Vanish) more vote manipulations? xD

I think he's asking why you voted two times two times Here: And here: So a lot of reveals in this cycle, which seemingly coincidentally (and weirdly) seems to focus on Devotary. Vote scanner is not something I've seen before, but definitely not a stretch with the amount of vote manipulators in the game. I see no reason for Kas to lie unless a team of (Kas+Sart) are bussing Devotary (which I find unlikely as I don't think there is any need to bus right now as there was literally no suspicion on Devotary before this cycle from others). Coming to the possibility of vote manipulations, there's this idea floating in my head since D2 lynch (that Kas did not mention). I find it weird that in both the lynch cycles, there was a tied vote, and one of the lynchee had vote manipulation to save themselves. I was toying with the idea that Lotus is covering for a teammate who manipulated the vote to save her. In this case, Lotus does not actually have vote manipulation but pretends she does so that we do not doubt others for doing that. Sure, there's a 20% chance (there were 5 players with one vote on them so chance that her vote was reassigned to Pyro again was 1/5), it's still weirdly convenient. Now with Devotary's vote apparently on Pyro, it's surely a possibility that Devotary would have manipulated the vote to save Lotus and Lotus claimed it to cover for Devotary. Something to ponder about. Of course we'll get to know if it's true or not if Devotary gets lynched (which like a definite possibility now), but yeah, if Devotary ends up with Pyro-type vote, it's definitely worth to follow it up with a Lotus lynch. Edit: @Sart, can you clarify if you have target scan or action scan?

Can you use this during the day?

Noooo, I'd rather you don't :/ Not that it would cause confusion, I wouldn't mind that. But because Mat is iconic. And he's the best. Why would you want to change your name to anything other than Matrim bloody Cauthon. Though it's your account, and it's your choice and I'll be totally fine with it. What would you change it to anyway? Hoid's Flute? Wait... that's actually not half bad.

This was the exact same thing he did with me. Apparently he was suspecting one of us to be elims because of the back-to-back disease claims. After I got back PMs, I PMd him stating I suspected him because if he was a villager with disease, why would he think/theorize that the game was a conversion one (with the elims being diseased trying to convert healthy villagers)? That's when he revealed that he actually did not have a disease and that he lied to me and you. He wanted to see if a lot others acted like he had a disease, in which case either me or you would be elims since we didn't have PMs, the only way we could communicate that info to others would be through an elim doc.

So some diseases give powers at expenses (e.g. roleblockers cannot PM), other powers do not have disadvantages (like double vote). Illwei used a double vote to save themselves at the expense on Mist on D1. Powers/Diseases spread by some unknown mechanism. Kas claimed he got the double vote power, Pyro claimed he got his cancel-vote-but-self-vote-is-reassigned role by the spread. Lotus claimed she got the same role via the spread. There is a role that heals diseases but takes away the powers as well. I was healed of my role-block in this way. Sart and Matrim are claimed role-blockers as well. My guess is that elims have a Silber-type role as well. I'm convinced it was them (and not Silber) who took away my roleblock. So they can remove the powers of people who are not dangerously close to figuring out the elims via analysis and their only threat at this point is their power, and kill people who are dangerous in-thread. Gears was rallying the village and acting as a strong supporter of information sharing. I'll be voting for Devotary because how I am not supposed to make an immediate connection between disease and their powers when someone mentions it? It's a mechanic of the game and I deduced that every action has a specific disease name (if it has one). And I'm trying to verify if people are telling the truth are not. And even confirming their role is not alignment-indicative (as Elkanah rule earlier). It's in no way similar to asking the name of the village alignment. The minute he mentioned lesions, the only thing that came in my mind was "okay he knows role-blocks are a result of lesions", and I felt that I had to convey that to the thread. I felt that post was odd.

Oh, I'm sorry I wasn't disagreeing with you when you told meta-reasoning shouldn't be used brushed-off or considered individually weaker than analysis. In fact, I have used meta-reasoning were frequently. We caught Ventyl in LG66 because 2 Village Leechers were dead, and he was another outed Leecher, and I meta-reasoned there couldn't be 3 Village Leechers. So yes, I agree with you that meta-reasoning is useful and shouldn't be frowned upon. Many a times I have held myself back from providing suspicions based on meta-reasoning as I was aware of the dismissive/frowned upon approach others take on such reasoning.

Hold on, wait what? The score was 3-3. Why would you remove a vote from Pyro? That would get you lynched? Yes, Kas. I believe my action would be not fun for the eliminators. I regret it, and apologize once again. I didn't think ahead. The idea popped in my head, I thought it was smart and I went with it. One way to determine if I'm being "right" is I look at the matter from the opposite perspective. And that's when I realized my mistake. If I was an elim, I would definitely NOT enjoy being to forced to tell something would surely and easily (potentially) out me as an eliminator. Retrospectively, I should not have done that, no matter how useful it seemed to me. I should have thought about all this before taking my action. To me, my actions were unethical and wrong, and I will not repeat this in the future. Me and Matrim actually. Lesions is correct, and since no one mentioned our disease in-thread, you must have it (or you got the info through some other means, but I won't get into that now.

That is not the proof that he was wrong. Possibly you were just one of the players he had PMd (or received a PM from). He asked me as well, if my disease was the one he had. So I presume he asked a few others as well.

At least one of them is, as Pyro told he got it from someone. Edit: @Elkanah @The_God_King Is the reassigned vote visible? That is, is the name of the person who takes this action is visible along with the number, or just the number is shown? Edit 2: @Illwei, did you double vote?

@Devotary of Spontaneity, no. My basic suspicion on Araris is based on the voting pattern with Illwei and his preference to lynch Mist over Illwei, when people voting for Mist did not have better reasoning than those voting for Illwei. Now that he has explained why meta voting might be worse than a random vote, I can understand.

@Lotus I don't read people as trustworthy. I categorize their posts as village, elim or null. As such, Ash's post I quoted earlier seemed village. Hence at that point in time, I gave him a village read. That does not mean I trust him at all, and obviously my read will change during the course of the game according to his actions. Same applies to everyone. And I'd imagine elims would try to stay away from each other rather than blatantly give each other village reads. That would form a clear elim chain when one of them is lynched. And you could probably share the screenshot of the sheet.

I made them up xD And that is the correct answer. I sent Matrim a list of 10 diseases, and he chose the one I had. I need no more proof that he indeed is a role-blocker. Illwei claimed to be the vote manipulator.

Yeah, proving Mat is a role-blocker doesn't prove his alignment. I'd rather him try to block the elim kill. Elim!Matrim would have no reason to lie about his disease as he might be caught about his lie, and village Matrim simply would not lie. Just to confirm, @Matrim's Dice, I'll send you a numbered list of diseases in PM ( I do not want elims to connect the name of the disease to the actions). Reply here on thread with the number adjacent to the disease you have. Edit: Sent.

Okaaay, I'm a little bit less suspicious of you now. Since I no longer have the role-block, and you may be the only other one, if you're a village, it wouldn't be sensible for me to vote on you this cycle. Hopefully you'll hit someone with an action next cycle and we can confirm. Matrim's Dice Alright, my next suspicion: When Illwei voted on Ashbringer, they had 3 votes on them and Ashbringer had two (Araris and Matrim). Illwei voted on Ash to make it 3-3 and immediately changed their vote to Mist who had one vote on her to make it 3-2-2 .Doesn't make sense to vote above their self preservation, because even with the double vote it would make it 3(Illwei)-3(Mist)-2(Ash), so Illwei knew someone else would change their vote to Mist so they do not die? Araris was that someone else to make it 3-4 including the double vote. I'm not exactly sure what to make of whole interaction because both Araris and Illwei could have kept their vote on Ashbringer, and Illwei would still have survived. Among the three people involved, Illwei and Araris are more connected. Araris' reasoning to save Illwei was because reasoning on Illwei's suspicion was mostly meta, but the reasoning on Mist's suspicion was.. not at all better. It had votes of Sart, who had vaguely give some reasoning via RP post, and Illwei, who just stated their suspicion without giving any reason (they didn't even tell it was a gut vote). Araris Valerian

Alright @Gears. The action I had was a role-block. I was the one who blocked Sart last cycle. Basically chose a player who voted on Mist and hoped I would block the elim kill. @Matrim's Dice, confirming you are a role-blocker too? Whom did you target last cycle? I already sent a PM to Sart as an apology for blocking his action if he was village.

I didn't make up the disease *facepalm*. I made up the description of the disease. What part of this is so hard to understand? Again, I did have the penalty. I could not PM. Just the way I described the disease was false. Since I did not make up the PM thing, I'm actually convinced we have the same disease. You still want me to reveal it?

Guys, I have final exams in 10 days. I won't be able to be as active as I was in previous games. @Lotus, I gave a village read to Ash because I found his reply to Silber's proposal very valid. He said that if an elim dies and we have to analyse the scans he have it would be very confusing and delve into IKYK territory. He also told Elims might find it easier to find the scanner as they would continuously give out accurate results. Two very good points, which I doubt an elim would make. He has not done anything suspicious since then, so I maintain the village readon him. Here's the posts: I'm heavily rethinking me earlier village read on Matrim: And for this I change my opinion on you. I'd imagine the elim mindset would be "Wait, will the village be suspicious that there are two people of the same disease, and suspect that both cannot be villagers, and hence deduce that I'm an elim?" It does lead to IKYK scenario, but I'm keeping an open mind and read you as village right now I think my train of thought on that reasoning was wrong. An elim would also have equal motive to disease-claim after someone has already done it. They would think that the people who PMd them would find them suspicious and hence would want to claim. I recant my village read on Matrim. On top of that, the symptoms I gave for my disease was absolutely false. I just made up something about "sealed lips and blocked ears" because I didn't want to reveal my exact disease in case the elims had one, and then they would know my actions. But Matrim did not find anything suspicious about my disease description, which makes me suspicious of him. I also did not agree on his reasoning on Ashbringer last cycle and Lotus this cycle. Singled out Ashbringer out of many players not doing analysis, possibly because he already had a vote on him? Matrim's Dice. Yes I did use my power before that, in N1. I was told that my power was used successfully and that I was cured of my disease, together at the beginning of D2. I'm ready to talk about my powers, but I'm a little apprehensive because Matrim claims to have the same. Even though I doubt him, on the odd chance that he's village, I do not want to out his disease since he does not seem to want to do it. Might do it anyway if many people think it's reasonable, but I'll ask anyway. @Matrim's Dice, is it okay if I reveal my erstwhile action?

I think Silber (or someone with similar action) targeted me. I'm healed of my disease and can no longer use my action. PMs are now open for me.

@Gears, I do not have vote manipulation. I simply assumed that vote manipulation had a penalty because I assumed every action has a penalty. That write-up seems to indicate the same, naming Mist's powers as "condition-action" which means each action has a condition (penalty) attached to it.

Yes, that was what I was talking about. Err, Kondrea here. I heard you were telling something I didn't tell. Are you telling that you were mistaken and that I wasn't talking completely about Illwei, or are you talking about something else and I misunderstood?

Kondrea never told it was entirely Illwei though. I read this as Illwei apologizing for voting on Mist. Not using vote manip on her. But it's better to get confirmation. @Illwei

@Illwei, why did you suspect Mist? @Araris Valerian, how do you reply to the accusations from Ashbringer? So, either Illwei was an elim and was protected by a fellow elim by vote manip, or they are village and elims are trying to frame them. The vote manipulator is most certainly an elim. Village vote manipulators (if you exist), you know your penalty for manipulating votes. See if that penalty was exhibited by someone else, and keep a close eye on them.