Long Game 21: To Reforge a God

[Conquestor he/him]

Guys don't kill Aman, he looks like a villager to me. So if you could give your thoughts, again, on why he his suspicious, this would make me less suspicious of you. Also, who is being the least active without a good reason? Let's just lynch them, because it's better to lynch an inactive villager than an active on. Am I right?

[leiftinspace he/him]

By the way, I'm removing my vote on Leift, it kinda stopped being a poke a while ago.  Will put more thoughts up soon, just going over the thread.

Thanks Sheep! Now I'm not certain who to vote for. I feel that aman probably is a villager, and he does seem to be generating lots of discussion, so I think I am going to vote for Bard. Nothing personal, just think it might be beneficial to try and keep Aman alive awhile longer...

[A Joe in the Bush]

Humph. I am very much against this, and I'm still very suspicious of Young Bard, but I'll retract my vote on him. The PM devotion put in me has some persuasive people, who have some strange ideas that I'm willing to take time to check.

Edited May 16, 2016 by The Only Joe

[Amanuensis he/him]

 

There's nearly only three hours left in the game and I really don't like any of these alternative lynch candidates. The Young Bard, AliasSheep and Nyali are all new to me so I don't feel comfortable voting for them quite yet (aside from the fact so far I don't think they've done much that stands out), I trust what Mark has claimed to me is true and therefore know that lynching him would be bad for the village, and DC was lynched D1 in QF15 so I really would rather give him more time in this game. I doubt that I'll manage to get any support for this, but right now Elbereth is the player I'm most suspicious of, right next to Arraenae.

 

(3) Amanuensis: Phattemer, The Mighty Lopen, Elbereth

(2) The Young Bard: Paranoid King, leiftinspace

(1) Mark IV:,  Araris Valerian,

(1) DC: AliasSheep

(1) Nyali: The Young Bard

(1) Elbereth: Amanuensis

 

My reasons for voting for her are as follows:

1. Agrees with Joe that a sentence the Young Bard makes is suspicious but doesn't vote for him while simultaneously informing him that I am typically as active as I have been this game. However, when a couple more votes begin to form on me and it seems like the lynch can swing my way she speaks up and suddenly claims that her instincts are saying I'm an eliminator.

2. Besides gut, the first reason she thinks I'm evil is because I've mentioned games from the past. This is a weak reason to vote for me because if you look back on any game I was alive long enough that it became relevant I've done the exact same thing, no matter what my alignment is. Voting for me for this reason makes no sense, as this reason alone does nothing to harm the village (which is what we should be lynching people for) and happens regardless of if I'm a villager or eliminator. In my mind that's essentially the same thing as voting for someone because of the fact they choose not to vote on the first day because they don't believe in uninformed lynches. Lynched someone because of something they do consistently as a player is not a valid reason to kill them. I can't help but feel like she's just taking the opportunity to get rid of an active villager before they can do any real harm.

3. Her statement about the nature of eliminator docs still doesn't make much sense to me, even with her clarifications. While that might be true the one time she was an eliminator, I have seen others and even myself participated in convoluted plots like the one I suggested for Bard (though at the time I was suspicious of him for voting for me, I'm now less inclined to believe it's true). So essentially what's happening here is this part of her reason for voting for me was a knee jerk reaction to being voted on that I have since said I don't actually believe in.

4. The "if I was this I wouldn't be acting this way" argument is, in my opinion, on par with "I know you knows" in its ridiculousness. Firstly for the same reason why I don't like being voted for mentioning past games. If a player would do something both as a villager and an eliminator, why kill that for that reason without any other evidence to suggest evilness? While I agree that it can be used as an eliminator to try and get out of a lynch, I only think that would happen when said player has actually harmed the village with their actions. But what have I done so far besides get people talking? Nothing, apart from unintentionally encouraging Mark to reveal a fact I would have preferred him keep behind closed doors for now.

5. She also voted for me because I am bringing up past games when I mentioned something about changing my play style (I first mentioned it in QF15 when I said in my opening post "I am going to try something new this game and vote to lynch someone every day. During my absence I've decided to reevaluate my play style and am keen to try something new and to see how people react to the change." That was the only change I said I'd make, but then she goes on to state I wasn't clear about said changes. If you're willing to vote for me over something like "contradicting myself" (when I'm actually not) but you actually have no idea what I said I'd change, why not ask first before voting for me?

6. Finally, the fact that she says her vote is staying where it is regardless of what I say. Considering that she's the one deciding my fate that's pretty closed minded, and almost suggest a confidence that she knows I'm going to die anyway.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Amanuensis

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

I'm still suspicious of Aman and think we should lynch him. He posts this much regardless of alignment people. So if you're thinking "eliminators don't talk so much and encourage discussion like this" and that's the sole reason you think he's village, that's not a good way to go about deciding if he's good or bad.

 

Aman, sorry, but I don't have access to a computer atm, so I can't really go in depth about my suspicion of you. I will say that it's mostly just a gut/tone read though.

 

I don't agree with lynching Bard. If you guys want to save Aman, I'd suggest lynching an inactive(like Trel maybe...).

 

I will hopefully do a full post before this Turn ends, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time.

[Nyali she/her]

I don't really know what to think of Aman, but no matter what, I can get behind lynching inactives. They're less fun. Of the inactives, The Nameless (Trelagist) has the least exciting name.

[Amanuensis he/him]

Aman, well, as a villager, he can be useful, but he's annoyingly difficult to kill when he's an eliminator. I probably wouldn't lynch him if it came down to it. 

 

I'm still suspicious of Aman and think we should lynch him. He posts this much regardless of alignment people. So if you're thinking "eliminators don't talk so much and encourage discussion like this" and that's the sole reason you think he's village, that's not a good way to go about deciding if he's good or bad.

 

My only question for you, Lopen, is what changed between these two posts? Also I'm going to go ahead and point something out, since this keeps being brought up.

 

MR12 - Villager, 90 posts out of 794 (#1 Participant) Lived until the last cycle.

LG19 - Villager, 26 posts out of 597 (#8 Participant) Went inactive due to real life circumstances, then died.

LG17 - Eliminator, 40 posts out of 581 (#5 Participant) Died relatively early.

QF14 - Villager, 34 posts out of 658 (#7 Participant) Willingly arrested self early to provide village with information.

LG16 - Villager, 37 posts out of 529 (#4 Participant) Sacrificed self early to create more Snitches.

MR11 - Eliminator, 40 posts out of 493 (#3 Participant) Survived the entire game remaining lowkey.

QF12 - Neutral, 35 posts out of 366 (#1 Participant) Murdered relatively early.

AG2 - Villager, 32 posts out of 869 (#9 Participant) Murdered relatively early.

MR10 - Eliminator, 100 posts out of 937 (#1 Participant) Survived the entire game, half of which I was a known eliminator.

LG15 - Villager 163 posts out of 1,692 (#1 Participant) Began this game in a very similar way that I did this one, died halfway in.

 

Why did I just spend twentyish minutes of my life compiling this information? To show that regardless of my alignment it's either a hit or a miss how active I am. The only time that I was the number one participant in a game as an eliminator was the same game that I intentionally told people that I was evil knowing that I was safe from the lynch so that I could mess with the villagers heads. Every other case (and even in that game before I revealed myself) I played significantly more reserved than I typically do as a villager. My activity as a villager is also the same reason why I am usually killed early on in games. If people are going to cast shade on me for citing previous games then also cite previous games themselves, I would appreciate it if research was done to ensure accuracy.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Amanuensis

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

I'm up for lynching an Inactive. Since I don't think either Aman or Bard are evil. 

That being said I'll place my vote on Trelagist. 

He has posted very little and has contributed almost nothing to the village. Also Nyali already has a vote on him so there is a chance to stop Bard or Aman from dying. 

 

Edit: 

(3) Amanuensis: Phattemer, The Mighty Lopen, Elbereth

(2) The Young Bard: Paranoid King, leiftinspace

(2) Trelagist: DC, Nyali 

(1) Mark IV:,  Araris Valerian,

(1) DC: AliasSheep

(1) Nyali: The Young Bard

(1) Elbereth: Amanuensis

Edited May 16, 2016 by DeathClutch19

[A Joe in the Bush]

Devotion, I know this is sounds suspicious, but I'm requesting a one on one PM with you once you can make more.. I'm on your side, and I need your help.

Edited May 16, 2016 by The Only Joe

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

My only question for you, Lopen, is what changed between these two posts?

 

Because at the time of that first post, you hadn't posted as much, so I didn't have as much of an eliminator read on you.  As I said in the first post you mention, you are a very helpful villager, so at the time, I didn't think the small amount of suspicion I had against you was worth lynching you, in case I was wrong. But my suspicion of you has only grown since then, so that now I feel more confident in my suspicion of you.

 

Edit: I'll try and get a post up about why I'm suspicious of you Aman, but time is running short and I doubt I'll be able to post it in time for it to make any kind of impact on whether we lynch you or not.

Edited May 16, 2016 by TheMightyLopen

[Amanuensis he/him]

Because at the time of that first post, you hadn't posted as much, so I didn't have as much of an eliminator read on you.  As I said in the first post you mention, you are a very helpful villager, so at the time, I didn't think the small amount of suspicion I had against you was worth lynching you, in case I was wrong. But my suspicion of you has only grown since then, so that now I feel more confident in my suspicion of you.

 

Edit: I'll try and get a post up about why I'm suspicious of you Aman, but time is running short and I doubt I'll be able to post it in time for it to make any kind of impact on whether we lynch you or not.

 

 

Fair enough   you're wrong, but I can't really do anything about that now. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

EDIT: There's an hour and forty-five minutes left. I really don't want to vote for either Young Bard or Trel but I will likely switch my vote to one of the two at the very end of the cycle to keep me alive. 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Mailliw73 he/him]

I don't want to lynch Bard. It's his first game.

I think Aman should be left alive for now. He talks a lot, and that helps us. I also don't see anything particularly suspicious about him. Of the top three candidates, I'll be voting for Trelagist. In about a half an hour, I'll be back on and place my vote. I'd rather not vote for any of these, but I will vote for an inactive over anyone else.

[Elbereth she/her]

My reasons for voting for her are as follows:

Agrees with Joe that a sentence the Young Bard makes is suspicious but doesn't vote for him while simultaneously informing him that I am typically as active as I have been this game. However, when a couple more votes begin to form on me and it seems like the lynch can swing my way she speaks up and suddenly claims that her instincts are saying I'm an eliminator.

I can't really argue against that. It's basically what happened. Didn't intend it that way, but it is true.

Besides gut, the first reason she thinks I'm evil is because I've mentioned games from the past. This is a weak reason to vote for me because if you look back on any game I was alive long enough that it became relevant I've done the exact same thing, no matter what my alignment is. Voting for me for this reason makes no sense, as this reason alone does nothing to harm the village (which is what we should be lynching people for) and happens regardless of if I'm a villager or eliminator. In my mind that's essentially the same thing as voting for someone because of the fact they choose not to vote on the first day because they don't believe in uninformed lynches. Lynched someone because of something they do consistently as a player is not a valid reason to kill them. I can't help but feel like she's just taking the opportunity to get rid of an active villager before they can do any real harm.

Also a fair point. And it's true that I wasn't really thinking of it in the context of your usual playstyle. It's more that there's been some discussion recently about referencing past games that's changed my perspective on the tactic, so I was reacting against that. It's true that you usually do that, so that does reduce your suspicion a bit for me.

Her statement about the nature of eliminator docs still doesn't make much sense to me, even with her clarifications. While that might be true the one time she was an eliminator, I have seen others and even myself participated in convoluted plots like the one I suggested for Bard (though at the time I was suspicious of him for voting for me, I'm now less inclined to believe it's true). So essentially what's happening here is this part of her reason for voting for me was a knee jerk reaction to being voted on that I have since said I don't actually believe in.

Sorry for not being clear about it. Not sure I can explain it any better, though. Sorry.

And I must have missed you saying that you don't believe that actually happened? So I apologize for that.

The "if I was this I wouldn't be acting this way" argument is, in my opinion, on par with "I know you knows" in its ridiculousness. Firstly for the same reason why I don't like being voted for mentioning past games. If a player would do something both as a villager and an eliminator, why kill that for that reason without any other evidence to suggest evilness? While I agree that it can be used as an eliminator to try and get out of a lynch, I only think that would happen when said player has actually harmed the village with their actions. But what have I done so far besides get people talking? Nothing, apart from unintentionally encouraging Mark to reveal a fact I would have preferred him keep behind closed doors for now.

Again, I'm not saying that the original thing was alignment-indicative. I'm saying that the "I wouldn't do this as an eliminator" argument is one that I personally feel to be suspicious and much more useful to eliminators.

Also, I'm not sure of the bolded part's relevance or meaning. Could you clarify?

Finally, the fact that she says her vote is staying where it is regardless of what I say. Considering that she's the one deciding my fate that's pretty closed minded, and almost suggest a confidence that she knows I'm going to die anyway.

That is not what I was saying. I was saying that nothing in the post I was responding to had convinced me to change my mind. Your next post, about being an active player, did come closer to swaying me. You are an active player, and it is true that it would be nice to keep you alive for that fact alone. But active eliminators are almost equally bad for the village side as active villagers are for the eliminator team, and I do still suspect you a fair amount given that it's only D1 (although somewhat less than before given your responses). Certainly more than the other two lynch candidates. So it doesn't seem likely that I'll be changing my vote unless something changes.

Also, I notice that no one still has said anything about passing Shards, except DC. Thank you, Deathclutch. It is true that not all passing has to happen immediately, but I do encourage it sooner rather than later. More you have your Shard, the more reluctant you'll be to give it away, I think. Anyone else have thoughts?

EDIT: Stupid formatting. Also, I completely forgot to respond to one part.

She also voted for me because I am bringing up past games when I mentioned something about changing my play style (I first mentioned it in QF15 when I said in my opening post "I am going to try something new this game and vote to lynch someone every day. During my absence I've decided to reevaluate my play style and am keen to try something new and to see how people react to the change." That was the only change I said I'd make, but then she goes on to state I wasn't clear about said changes. If you're willing to vote for me over something like "contradicting myself" (when I'm actually not) but you actually have no idea what I said I'd change, why not ask first before voting for me?

I apologize. I did misremember the quote slightly. Although to me, the second part of your statement does imply more of a change than just lynching someone every day. It seems I misinterpreted that, though, so I apologize. Edited May 16, 2016 by Elbereth

[cloudjumper he/him]

I think that Trelagist should probably post soon or be lynched. Like Mail, I don't really see Aman as suspicious, nor do I find The Young Bard suspicious. Truthfully, I don't actually find Trelagist suspicious either, but he's the most likely candidate for being 17th Shard, Odium, or Autonomy.

 

I won't be posting anything else this cycle, because I will be going to bed soon.

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

Well, you're almost always suspicious of me, so I'll take that with a shaker of salt.

 

...that's kinda true. Although if I'm remembering correctly, most of the times I said I was suspicious of you, I was an eliminator, so I knew you weren't evil.

 

I was finishing packing for my move tomorrow so I couldn't really say much at the time of my last post, but allow me to elaborate on what I meant. I was making both a reference to DC's last post and responding to Rae's accusation of me being Odium. DC has it completely right. 

 

 

My point in saying that getting lynched D1 is the most detrimental thing for Odium is that if I was Odium (or any other eliminator for that matter) why would I knowingly put my life at risk by pursuing things that can easily be interpreted as suspicious? Behaving the way I have hasn't done much for gaining trust, but what it has gained for us all is conversation.

 

If you're not going to look at past games that I have been a villager or an eliminator to see how involved I usually am on either side then look at what I have done thus far this game. We are on page eight right now, a total of 161 posts including this one of which 22 belong to me (the most). I have used several different methods to get people involved in the game (creating a debate on whether or not worlds should be revealed, poke voting lurkers to encourage them to post, and then this whole business with Mark). There are now many posts from a wide variety of players that can later be analyzed once we are privy to more information. If I did my job right then said information should help the village discover eliminators in the future.

 

The fact of the matter is I'm not an eliminator. I do not mind being lynched for two reasons; first, that the only loss the village receives from my death is one less body to keep them from being outnumbered, and second, that I am confident that my revealed alignment would lead the village to an eliminator. At this point I believe that at least (and most likely) a single player that has voted for me is evil. Personally I am the most and equally suspicious of Elbereth and Arraenae based off them being the ones that have effectively decided this lynch. I would rate Lopen next due to the fact alone that earlier on in the turn he said that he would rather keep me alive because I'm helpful as a villager (which I would say I have been more helpful this turn than most) and notoriously hard to kill as an eliminator (which in retrospect doesn't make sense to me as to why that's a reason to keep me alive since there is no protection from the lynch in this game) and yet he ended up turning on me based of very weak reasons (the way I understand it he voted for me for doing something that all players should do, which is be open about who they are suspicious of and why). As for Bard and phatt I think they are more likely villagers than not (if you want me to explain why I feel this way about these two I can as well).

 

There are two different roles that can scan players, the Awakener whom can confirm I am neither Odium or Autonomy (since I am Shardless) and the Suicidal Analyst (who will straight up know if I am innocent or not). I would prefer that the scans not be wasted on me but that's a much better alternative to a player aligned with the Shardic Coalition being lynched on the first day for reasons that I personally feel don't really make sense.

Emphasis mine

 

I'm a bit confused at these 2 statements. First, you admittedly have done things that can be "easily interpreted as suspicious," but then you say that you're getting lynched for reasons that don't really make sense? You also say that you don't mind being lynched, as it gives us information to analyze, but since posting that you have posted a lot, trying to save yourself. Which, I'm not saying is a bad thing, because villagers should try and prove themselves rather than letting themselves be lynched. No, I'm saying that you saying "I don't mind being lynched" feels suspicious to me, like you're trying to downplay your desire to survive.

 

Also, when I said you were notoriously hard to kill as an eliminator, I wasn't saying that was reason to not lynch you. That makes no sense. I was saying "he's a very useful villager, which makes me very nervous to try and lynch him, but on the other hand, as an eliminator, he's very tricky to kill, because players tend to trust him because of his lengthy, content filled posts, so if there was an opportunity for me to lynch him when I thought he was evil, I might want to take advantage of that no matter how early it was." That post was about if the votes were as they were when I posted that at the end of the Turn, who I would decide to lynch.

 

I didn't exactly "turn" on you either when I voted on you. I'd already stated some small suspicion of you, just based on gut, so when you posted that about Bard and DC, I decided I'd vote on you, rather than pursuing other suspicions.

 

Fair enough   you're wrong, but I can't really do anything about that now. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

EDIT: There's an hour and forty-five minutes left. I really don't want to vote for either Young Bard or Trel but I will likely switch my vote to one of the two at the very end of the cycle to keep me alive. 

 

I thought the Turn was ending an hour earlier than it is, so I was able to go through and get some elaboration done on why I'm suspicious of you!

 

Anyways, I haven't really seen anything from you that I would point to and say "this is the reason I believe he's evil." Which is why I didn't quote any more of your posts. I just feel like your posts are off.

 

Also, in response to ninjas.

 

@Elbereth, Sorry for not chiming in on whether Shards should pass their Shards or not. Honestly, I've been focusing on getting a solid lynch target rather than game mechanics, which is what I generally focus on on Day 1. So, I don't yet have an opinion on what the Shards should do, but I will almost assuredly go through the rules and form an opinion on this, because it does seem to be an important topic that needs to be discussed. Here's my initial thoughts though, I guess. Hoid knows who the Shards are. So, those players will most likely be targets for the 17th Shard.

 

Ah, sorry, just got interrupted. Will continue thoughts once I get back to my computer.

 

Just wanted to note, I feel like Cloudjumpers post was suspicious. Almost like he's trying to save Aman.

[Seonid he/him]

The cycle ends in about 1 hour! Get your votes and actions in!

 

Current Vote Tally:

 

Mark IV (1): Araris

Mailliw (1): Conquestor

Amanuensis (3): Phattemer, Lopen, Elbereth

Young Bard (2): Paranoid King, leiftinspace

Nyali (1): Young Bard

Trelagist (3): Nyali, DeathClutch, cloudjumper

Deathclutch (1): Sheep

Elbereth (1): Amanuensis

 

Note: If you have multiple votes in red, I will count the first one recorded. If you want a later vote recorded, you have to green the first one out.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Seonid

[Amanuensis he/him]

Also, I'm not sure of the bolded part's relevance or meaning. Could you clarify?

 

So when I write long posts like that my thoughts tend to get jumbled or I'll end up rereading them and editing some words in favor others for the sake of sentence variety so I think that's one of the situations where what I originally meant to say got lost somewhere. What I was saying is that I can see the "I wouldn't have done this if I was evil" thing being something an eliminator would do if they made a move (an example of what I mean would be like Mailliw in QF14 where he claimed to have used a Ledger on you and discovered that you were Corrupt. If it turned out he was evil and he said that simply to keep people off his back for making a really big mistake then yes, I'd agree that's suspicious. But in my case I haven't done anything that has harmed the village, so I don't really understand the votes on me / the reasoning that me saying why would I be this active as an eliminator is suspicious.

 

Also, I notice that no one still has said anything about passing Shards, except DC. Thank you, Deathclutch. It is true that not all passing has to happen immediately, but I do encourage it sooner rather than later. More you have your Shard, the more reluctant you'll be to give it away, I think. Anyone else have thoughts?

 

I did bring it up again to see if more people would add their thoughts. Original Shardholders (apart from Odium and Autonomy) are basically guaranteed villagers, so I think if I were a Shardholder I would get with another and offer them my Shard as a means to consolidate them. This is dangerous because of that person ends up getting attacked by Odium or the 17th Shard that's not one lost but two (or more) but at the same time it's safer because they're spread out less, and unlike passing them to Shardless players there's no chance of them not being aligned to the Shardic Coalition. Really I would say if you're going to pass your Shard to another Shardholder, do it to a someone who has some form of protection or is unlikely to be attacked anytime soon, or give it to a Shardless player that you have very good reason to trust.

 

...that's kinda true. Although if I'm remembering correctly, most of the times I said I was suspicious of you, I was an eliminator, so I knew you weren't evil.

 

Emphasis mine

 

I'm a bit confused at these 2 statements. First, you admittedly have done things that can be "easily interpreted as suspicious," but then you say that you're getting lynched for reasons that don't really make sense? You also say that you don't mind being lynched, as it gives us information to analyze, but since posting that you have posted a lot, trying to save yourself. Which, I'm not saying is a bad thing, because villagers should try and prove themselves rather than letting themselves be lynched. No, I'm saying that you saying "I don't mind being lynched" feels suspicious to me, like you're trying to downplay your desire to survive.

 

Also, when I said you were notoriously hard to kill as an eliminator, I wasn't saying that was reason to not lynch you. That makes no sense. I was saying "he's a very useful villager, which makes me very nervous to try and lynch him, but on the other hand, as an eliminator, he's very tricky to kill, because players tend to trust him because of his lengthy, content filled posts, so if there was an opportunity for me to lynch him when I thought he was evil, I might want to take advantage of that no matter how early it was." That post was about if the votes were as they were when I posted that at the end of the Turn, who I would decide to lynch.

 

I didn't exactly "turn" on you either when I voted on you. I'd already stated some small suspicion of you, just based on gut, so when you posted that about Bard and DC, I decided I'd vote on you, rather than pursuing other suspicions.

 

The bit I was referring to that could be easily interpreted as suspicious was my voting for Mark. I knew the mysterious circumstances would cause people to question my motives, which is inherently bad for eliminators. I did it anyway because I thought the resulting discussion would maybe lead us to an eliminator at some point. As for the "I don't mind being lynched part" I literally said the exact same thing D1 in LG15b for the exact same reason. I do not have a very useful role. I would rather I die D1 then a potential Shardholder. That being said I'd also rather not die for the fact that no one joins these games to be cut out from them early. Though I might not have much to offer in regards to abilities, I have been helpful at finding eliminators in the past and would like to chance to earnestly try to do so in this game. I have been looking forward to a rerun of a Shard game ever since the last one, since I was lynched very early in that game for equally poor reasons as the ones I am up for the lynch in this game now.

 

Just wanted to note, I feel like Cloudjumpers post was suspicious. Almost like he's trying to save Aman.

 

I do agree that the post was suspicious, but not because of his vote on Trel (as there are several players before him that have said they do not think I should be lynched, he's just the first one to tie it). What I don't get is how he figures Trelagist is the one most likely to be of the 17th Shard, Odium or Autonomy. Elbereth. Cloudjumper. Can you please explain why you think that?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Amanuensis

[A Joe in the Bush]

 

 

Note: If you have multiple votes in red, I will count the first one recorded. If you want a later vote recorded, you have to green the first one out.

I require any votes you want to withdraw to be greened out. I would rather you not edit the original post, but rather place a green vote in a new post.

 

Umm. . . Are we greenning out all votes or not? you've said two different things now.

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

The cycle ends in about 1 hour! Get your votes and actions in!

 

Current Vote Tally:

 

Mark IV (1): Araris

Mailliw (1): Conquestor

Amanuensis (3): Phattemer, Lopen, Elbereth

Young Bard (2): Paranoid King, leiftinspace

Nyali (1): Young Bard

Trelagist (3): Nyali, DeathClutch, cloudjumper

Deathclutch (2): Sheep, Rae

Elbereth (1): Amanuensis

 

Note: If you have multiple votes in red, I will count the first one recorded. If you want a later vote recorded, you have to green the first one out.

I thought Rae took her vote off of me??

[Seonid he/him]

We are still greening votes out.

 

There's just one player who, up until recently, had votes on two separate players with neither greened out. I'm just clarifying how I'll handle that situation. Which is: if a player has two votes, and neither is greened out, I will take the one that was placed first.

 

So, if you want your vote not to be counted, green it out (preferably in a new post, not in the original one).

[Seonid he/him]

I thought Rae took her vote off of me??

 

She did. I missed it. Thanks.

[A Joe in the Bush]

Oh, I thought you meant all red vores, not unretracted red votes.

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Trelagist. At this point, I'd rather lynch an inactive than Aman or Bard.

[Amanuensis he/him]

QF15 is complete. Elbereth was Rem from the start (and she received the first vote in the game). The reason I voted for Mark was because Lopen and I had a very short discussion about how often the first vote in these games is on an eliminator (honestly it happens quite a lot). The theory I talked about testing was whether or not Mark, who received the first vote this game, followed this trend. At the time I had no other reason to vote for anyone, and as I said I wanted to encourage discussion in a different way than usual, so I decided to go for it. I have since talked things over with Mark and believe he is aligned to the Shardic Coalition, and therefore I have no reason to push for his lynch.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Amanuensis

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

 

The bit I was referring to that could be easily interpreted as suspicious was my voting for Mark. I knew the mysterious circumstances would cause people to question my motives, which is inherently bad for eliminators. I did it anyway because I thought the resulting discussion would maybe lead us to an eliminator at some point. As for the "I don't mind being lynched part" I literally said the exact same thing D1 in LG15b for the exact same reason. I do not have a very useful role. I would rather I die D1 then a potential Shardholder. That being said I'd also rather not die for the fact that no one joins these games to be cut out from them early. Though I might not have much to offer in regards to abilities, I have been helpful at finding eliminators in the past and would like to chance to earnestly try to do so in this game. I have been looking forward to a rerun of a Shard game ever since the last one, since I was lynched very early in that game for equally poor reasons as the ones I am up for the lynch in this game now.

 

 

I do agree that the post was suspicious, but not because of his vote on Trel (as there are several players before him that have said they do not think I should be lynched, he's just the first one to tie it). What I don't get is how he figures Trelagist is the one most likely to be of the 17th Shard, Odium or Autonomy. Elbereth. Cloudjumper. Can you please explain why you think that?

 

 

I can understand not wanting to lynch a villager with a Shard, but we're gonna have that risk regardless, so you pointing out that you'd rather sacrifice yourself than lynch a villager with a Shard just seems like a pointless sentiment to voice, since I believe that most villagers would, in a situation where it's either them or an extremely dangerous villager up for the lynch, sacrifice themselves to give their team the best shot at winning by allowing the more helpful role/player to survive(not necessarily the case, because no one wants to die, but I think my point is clear enough). And you mentioning your death in LG14 feels a bit like a play on others sympathy.

 

I was also going to point out that fact about Cloudjumpers post as well. First he says "I'm not that suspicious of Trelagist" but then goes on to say he's the most likely candidate for an evil. Which, is pretty odd. Another thing I thought was odd about his post was that he specified that he, like Mailliw, wasn't suspicious of Aman. It just seemed kind of pointless to add, like he was trying to back up his non-suspicion of Aman by adding a villagers(Mailliw, in this case) perspective alongside his own. But maybe that's reading too much into his post.

 

I'll get back into passing Shards once this Turn has ended.