Mid-Range Game 15: The Dula Revolution

[Amanuensis he/him]

17 hours ago, Ecthelion III said:

Those poor senators. Making themselves instant targets for the Mysteries Cultists.

(Remember, be suspicious of anyone who has remained in the senate for too long)

Well, it's not like I asked to start a Senator that being said, I don't personally think someone remaining a member of the Senate for long is a good reason to suspect them on its own. If their Senatemates are being attacked while they alone are left unscathed, that would be a very good reason to believe they are evil. We will have to see who the Derethi and Jeskeri use their kills on before we can make any informed guesses on who, if any, of the current Senators are our enemies.

I also want to take note that you only mention the Jeskeri and not the Derethi. I suppose I could interpret that as you believing the Derethi would not be interested in becoming Senators, which I can understand and believe is likely what happened, but I don't know you well enough to determine the likelihood of you boarding that train of thought so quickly. My knee jerk reaction is that you might be a Derethi trying to subtly focus people on the other evil faction, but for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

16 hours ago, The Young Bard said:

EDIT: Mek, can you get repeal and elect the same senator on the same night?

For curiosity's sake, what was your intent in asking this? Usually I ask a question if the answer has an impact on a genuine strategy but, I can't really see the benefit on repealing and electing a Senator simultaneously.

Let's see, what else...

Minor conflict between Mailliw and Bard about the rules of the Senate. Seems to have been resolved, and honestly I didn't see anything in the exchange that might be indicative of alignment. Bandwagon occurs on Bard, which I've already commented on in the Senator doc. Guess I'll put it in a quote here for easy reference.

Quote

 

Ah. Well, Elodin and Cloud might still be caught up in that bandwagon mindset from LG23. As for the other two, they’re brand new, so a bit impossible for me to tell. And this is a part of the reason why I hate bandwagons to begin with; it’s so incredibly difficult to apply logic and reason to many votes used in bandwagons and subsequently analyze the players for it. I need logic and reason to do any good in these games, which is why I always end up encouraging order. That being said, I personally don’t think you’re evil, based on anything you’ve said. Granted I’ve only paid attention this game for all of an hour, and most of that was spent on rules, but right now I’m reading village - particularly due to you trying to encourage discussion, and your willingness to volunteer being investigated. No reads on the other Senators right now, though.

Guess this where I preach why it's important to explain the reasoning for your votes as much as possible. Barring information received through role interactions which are too sensitive to share at the risk of your own life, I believe that every villager should make it a priority to voice their thoughts and thoroughly consider / express why you vote for someone. It's relatively rare to catch an eliminator early on, both due to the fact that villagers tend to make up the majority and eliminators can coordinate their votes to ensure a villager is lynched over them. Knowing this, if we force everyone to apply genuine logic to their votes, it gives the eliminators less wiggle room to manipulate the lynch in their favor. Also, when one is eventually killed, we have more content of theirs to sift through for potential hints at who might be innocent and who else might be on their side. I understand that this is the first day and that none of us have access to enough information to do this effectively, however, there are tricks to encourage discussion or pressure players into reacting hastily, to be analyzed at a later date.

One such technique is what Bard has been doing, except in my opinion poke votes aren't particularly helpful. I appreciate what he's doing - trying to get players who have yet to post to respond - but without any real bite to a vote, most players aren't going to take it seriously. You'll see them do things like Orlok and Seonid did, where they get on just to provide a reason for their absence, then disappear again. Keep in mind that in a lot of these cases there's genuine reason for them to be away, but if it's truly going to be effective a player needs to feel like they're in genuine danger.

12 hours ago, Metacognition said:

I think that this is what most people meant by you being excessively aggressive so early and I'd have to agree. What was it in what Maill said that made you think that he was trying to play mind games? As far as I could tell, he was only clarifying a part of the rules. So why did you jump directly to already throwing suspicion about his motives? The only thing that comes to mind is if you don't want people trusting Maill all that much because you already know that he's not a Derethi due to you being one. 

Granted, I'm not a big fan of how quickly you accrued votes for it, but since most of those votes also went away pretty quickly, I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them were from other Derethi to make it seem like a bigger bandwagon than it was. Not going to vote for you yet, but I'm definitely keeping an eye on you and would suggest that the Senate either scans you or recalls you tonight*.

 

Stating that you're willing to remove your vote just because they say something isn't all that helpful. Your vote has no teeth when you do this. Eramit could pop on just to say hi and that's enough, which makes me think that you're voting just to be seen voting at this point. At the very least, state something like, "I'm voting for Eramit because they seem to be lurking. Unless they can give a reason for that, my vote stands." As such, Lime. Why vote when you're just going to tell the person what they need to do to get out of it?

 

Finally, as El pointed out in the Senate Doc, remember that the turns are only 24hrs long! We need to come to a consensus fairly quickly. We don't have time to waste on a lot of poke votes and such or else everything will be decided at the last minute, which gives both the Derethi and Cultists a better shot at being able to manipulate the vote. We need to minimize that as much as possible. I have a few other thoughts on what we could do, but it's incredibly late for me, so I'll get around to them tomorrow. 

 

*Which reminds me of a question for McKeeDee: The rules are unclear. Does everyone vote for a Senator and a Recall at night or is it just the Senate? Because that changes how we should go about making sure that the Cultists can't maintain a majority there.

This post, by Meta, is a great example of a first day vote. It might just be because we have very similar mindsets / play styles, but I agree with the reasoning for his vote 100%. Although what Lime did is not very indicative of alignment, he effectively took a recent example of what's going wrong with the lynch so far and made an example of her. That being said, I'm going to comment on a couple other things, first.

I agree with his assessment that Mailliw was only trying to clarify the rules (even though he was wrong), not attempting to play mind games with Bard. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. While what Bard suggested could very well be an interpretation of his intent, I don't think it's very likely. While I like to encourage people to look at each action and reaction from every angle, I believe rationality should take precedence over paranoia.

Likewise, Bard's reaction to Mailliw is very reminiscent of his reaction to him a couple turns ago in LG23. Unless Bard is evil in both of these games, I think that's more of a result of Bard's perspective being skewed by Mailliw's reputation than anything else. I've been a victim of the same exact thing recently, much to my chagrin, so can vouch that it is a serious issue. Ultimately, I disagree with Meta about Bard in this regard. That being said, I can at least understand where he's coming from.

No point in reiterating what El and Meta have said about the length of these turns and the importance of acting fastidiously. I've pretty much already covered it this post.

7 hours ago, Mckeedee123 said:

No, the acolyte doesn't have to reveal their name.

The Kesegan monk will be told if their kill was blocked by someone guarding them. If the kill is blocked by a guard action, they will not be informed about whether or not the action would have gone through otherwise. The vigilante killing is actually intended to be more of a screening role than anything else. More "seeker" than "coinshot."

A senator duelist can protect themselves.

And just to clarify, PM's are not allowed in this game.

Okay, so, @Korathi Acolyte(s): not revealing your name is certainly an option, if you want to bring players into your doc without them first being confirmed Dulan by the Senate. I don't know if I would take that risk, as I think that's a great opportunity to get some villagers to collaborate without a chance of their plans being revealed to the Derethi / Jeskeri, but ultimately that'll be up to you.

@Kesegan Monk(s): I still think that protecting players is more important thank screening players, as if you decide to use that and hit an unprotected villager you're ultimately making the eliminators job easier. But once again, that risk is for you to take. I can only tell you what I would do in your shoes.

5 hours ago, Ecthelion III said:

Bard Kipper

I'm a little suspicious of Meta, but I think I'll hold back on putting a vote on him for now.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, the totals appear to be so far:

Kipper (4): The Senate, Ecthelion III

Cloudjumper (1): Eramit

Conquestor (1): Bard

Eramit (1): Lime

Straw (1): Elenion

Lime (1): Meta

 

Can you articulate for me why you placed a vote on Kipper, as well as why you're suspicious of Meta? My notes require context.  Otherwise that vote tally looks accurate to me. I'm keeping one constantly updated in the Senator doc, in case you weren't aware. I was going to copy it over but you pretty much did the work for me. 

That being said, I don't currently feel strong enough about any one player to vote for them to be lynched, either in thread or in the Senator doc. However, I am very tempted to nullify the Senate vote on Kipper for two reasons: A, like me, he was killed rather early in LG23 (which was his first game back in a rather long time) and B, I'm not very fond of players being killed before they have the opportunity to respond, especially when there's no real accusation accompanying the votes. If I were to apply pressure on anyone, it would likely be Cloudjumper, Lime or Eramit, as they all appear to be present enough to respond.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Master Elodin]

Storms, this Senate Doc thing is annoying!

[Elenion he/him]

1 hour ago, Ecthelion III said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, the totals appear to be so far:

Kipper (4): The Senate, Ecthelion III

Cloudjumper (1): Eramit

Conquestor (1): Bard

Eramit (1): Lime

Straw (1): Elenion

Lime (1): Meta

 

A list of current thread votes exists in the Senate doc.

[Ecthelion III he/him]

13 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

 

14 hours ago, Ecthelion III said:

Those poor senators. Making themselves instant targets for the Mysteries Cultists.

(Remember, be suspicious of anyone who has remained in the senate for too long)

Well, it's not like I asked to start a Senator that being said, I don't personally think someone remaining a member of the Senate for long is a good reason to suspect them on its own. If their Senatemates are being attacked while they alone are left unscathed, that would be a very good reason to believe they are evil. We will have to see who the Derethi and Jeskeri use their kills on before we can make any informed guesses on who, if any, of the current Senators are our enemies.

I also want to take note that you only mention the Jeskeri and not the Derethi. I suppose I could interpret that as you believing the Derethi would not be interested in becoming Senators, which I can understand and believe is likely what happened, but I don't know you well enough to determine the likelihood of you boarding that train of thought so quickly. My knee jerk reaction is that you might be a Derethi trying to subtly focus people on the other evil faction, but for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

 

I actually posted that before I even knew my alignment. So, don't read anything into that; it was just general advice. As you were saying, the Cultists are not a force to be underestimated.

-

Also, @Mckeedee123, if the Senate decides to scan one of the Senators, the result cannot be revealed to the scanned Senator, right?

Edited July 9, 2016 by Ecthelion III

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Oh, I forgot in my last post. I was thinking we could all vote on a scan target here in thread and then the Senate could be like an electoral college and take our votes into account, though they wouldn't have to if they don't want to.

I suggest Jaime.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Mailliw73

[Ecthelion III he/him]

I'm going to change my vote to Conquestor since there are way too many people with just 1 vote on them (not much of an incentive to come out). Kipper

As for who to scan, I'd be fine with Jaime, but I'd prefer to scan Cloudjumper and lynch an inactive instead.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Ecthelion III

[Amanuensis he/him]

11 minutes ago, Mailliw73 said:

Oh, I forgot in my last post. I was thinking we could all vote on a scan target here in thread and then the Senate could be like an electoral college and take our votes into account, though they wouldn't have to if they don't want to.

I suggest Jaime.

Personally, I am willing to cast my votes in the interests of the whole as opposed as the interests of the few. That being said, I am of the opinion that investigating the players within the Senate isn't wise, as if the Jeskeri want to win they are going to have to kill / get us repealed. In forcing them to do that, they end up providing the information we would receive from Investigations. The investigations can then be used to target those outside the Senate to effectively double what we learn as a collective every cycle. Of course, they could respond by simply leaving the Senate alone, but unless three of the starting Senators are Jeskeri (which is extremely unlikely) then we have nothing to fear in that regard.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Amanuensis
Used the word anyway way too many times

[Elenion he/him]

Just now, Amanuensis said:

Personally, I am willing to cast my votes in the interests of the whole as opposed as the interests of the few. That being said, I am of the opinion that investigating the players within the Senate isn't wise, as if the Jeskeri want to win they are going to have to kill / get us repealed anyway. In forcing them to do that, they end up providing the information we would receive from Investigations anyway. The investigations can then be used to target those outside the Senate to effectively double what we learn as a collective every cycle. Of course, they could respond by simply leaving the Senate alone, but unless three of the starting Senators are Jeskeri (which is extremely unlikely) then we have nothing to fear in that regard.

Good with me; my senate scan is still on rabble-rousing Eramit.

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Just now, Amanuensis said:

Personally, I am willing to cast my votes in the interests of the whole as opposed as the interests of the few. That being said, I am of the opinion that investigating the players within the Senate isn't wise, as if the Jeskeri want to win they are going to have to kill / get us repealed anyway. In forcing them to do that, they end up providing the information we would receive from Investigations anyway. The investigations can then be used to target those outside the Senate to effectively double what we learn as a collective every cycle. Of course, they could respond by simply leaving the Senate alone, but unless three of the starting Senators are Jeskeri (which is extremely unlikely) then we have nothing to fear in that regard.

Ah, that is a good point. I didn't think of the Jeskeri as much. Their win con is something we don't see often, so I'm going to have to push myself to remember them. I was mainly thinking that it was likely that there's a Derethi/Jeskeri in the Senate and that it would be nice to get them out as soon as possible. That said, I see your point and like the idea of forcing the eliminators to remove the Senators themselves much more.

[emilylime she/her]

7 hours ago, Metacognition said:

Stating that you're willing to remove your vote just because they say something isn't all that helpful. Your vote has no teeth when you do this. Eramit could pop on just to say hi and that's enough, which makes me think that you're voting just to be seen voting at this point. At the very least, state something like, "I'm voting for Eramit because they seem to be lurking. Unless they can give a reason for that, my vote stands." As such, Lime. Why vote when you're just going to tell the person what they need to do to get out of it?

Finally, as El pointed out in the Senate Doc, remember that the turns are only 24hrs long! We need to come to a consensus fairly quickly. We don't have time to waste on a lot of poke votes and such or else everything will be decided at the last minute, which gives both the Derethi and Cultists a better shot at being able to manipulate the vote. We need to minimize that as much as possible. I have a few other thoughts on what we could do, but it's incredibly late for me, so I'll get around to them tomorrow. 

It's been over a year since I've played SE, and honestly, I made that post with what I could remember of those past games in mind. I remembered making the mistake of not posting/contributing enough in one game, as well as all the (reasonable, yet misdirected) suspicion that that brought down on me. I saw that this game had started, and I was eager to avoid making the same mistake. I do agree that what I posted was little better than posting nothing at all, though; while poke votes certainly have their use, we don't have much time in this game, and the qualifier I attached to mine effectively rendered it useless. So, yes, I was voting just to be seen voting, but it was due to self-doubt and it's not a mistake I'll be making again. You're right- we can't afford to place "meatless" votes, so to speak. [troy bolton voice] We've gotta work, work, work this out...

Ahem.

Anyway, as such, I'll remove my vote from eramit for now (note: this is not because I said I would when eramit replied, but because of the above reasons). Cloudjumper, I still find your strong reaction to Bard's poke smelling a little fishy, and your explanations leave a lot to be desired.

(Although, @eramit, I do find it odd to declare that you think Bard is innocent without sharing any of your reasoning. Care to elaborate?)

[eramit he/him]

I thought Bard is innocent because when I declared him a suspect and voted to lynch him I went quickly through the posts and saw him voting for a lot of players and thought he wanted to start a bandwagon and lynch someone but after I read them for a bit longer I saw he was just vote poking.

I am by no means saying he isnt from the cultists or the Derethi but for now I will put him off my radar.

[emilylime she/her]

3 minutes ago, eramit said:

I thought Bard is innocent because when I declared him a suspect and voted to lynch him I went quickly through the posts and saw him voting for a lot of players and thought he wanted to start a bandwagon and lynch someone but after I read them for a bit longer I saw he was just vote poking.

I am by no means saying he isnt from the cultists or the Derethi but for now I will put him off my radar.

Fair enough; so long as we don't completely discount the idea of him being cultist or Derethi.

[Elbereth she/her]

12 hours ago, Mailliw73 said:

Not commenting on the Senate doc is going to be hard. I was going to argue that I'm not the most experienced player, but then I realized that that isn't true. No matter what game I play in, no matter who else is playing, I will always have played the most games here.  That's weird to think about. 

Don't worry. By the time you come back in two years, I'm sure plenty of people will have played more than you.

9 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

Whilst I have a minute, though, I'd like to point to my senatorial record in QF14 as evidence that I should be elected where a vacancy appears - clearly I'm well suited to govern without corruption or populism. 

Uh... no. Please no one vote Orlok into the senate. We seem to have different memories of how that turned out: as I recall, everyone died.

Right, onto non-banter. Aman. Currently, you're my strongest suspicion. As in LG21, it's mostly gut, but I'll try to point out what particularly seemed off to me. 

5 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

My best advice I can provide to combat this is: treat both the Derethi and the Jeskeri with equal weight. So long as I am alive, I will do my best to remind players of where each faction is in terms of winning, to the best of the knowledge we have, so that no one loses perspective on the situation. While us Dulas need to kill the Derethi to win, we also need to make sure that the Senate is not compromised. Additionally, make sure that if a player is instrumental in killing a Derethi OR a Jeskeri, that does not mean they are on the same side as you. They want each other dead just as much as we want them dead. If you're going to give someone your absolute trust, make sure it's for sure reasons. That being said, I am going to encourage players to invest some trust in each other, because a cooperative, truly democratic village is going win more often than not.

This paragraph. This is the thing that really stood out to me. You're placing yourself above the rest of the players (which you usually do to an extent, but generally not this bluntly). "Us Dulas" and that kind of thing is a phrase I've always regarded as eliminator-like, because you're deliberately and obviously placing yourself with the village. You're telling people to trust each other somewhat, but you're also telling them that there's no possible way to trust them completely because even if they kill an eliminator they could be the other kind of eliminator. 

So my vote is staying on you this turn, almost certainly. Haven't put my Senate vote on you, because that feels unfair, but I'm certainly considering it. 

As for ensuring that the Jeskeri don't overrun the Senate, I would recommend we leave it as it is. I highly doubt that the Senate started with a Jeskeri majority. so as long as we preserve it in its current state we should be fine. Now, both the Derethi and the Jeskeri are going to want to get in there, the first for the power to control the investigations, the second for their win condition. As a result, if we decide not to recall any Senators, they are more likely going to use their kills to open up slots. This is good because due to the fact there's only five of us, it'll allow the village to be able to quickly narrow down which of them are evil (based on who are targeted and who are not). This also allows us to focus our protective roles on a smaller group of targets, making it more likely that a kill will be blocked, and therefore giving the village more time to gather information. In the case a kill slips through our defenses, it is important that we investigate any potential replacement first, which should not be hard to coordinate.

Now, I do like this plan. Regardless of the fact that it's coming from my current highest suspicion, the idea seems solid. (Which is part of why I'm not putting my senate vote on you, yet. While I think you're an eliminator, I don't know that it's in our best interests to kill a Senator.)

I also put my scanvote on Eramit, because of these two quotes: 

4 hours ago, eramit said:

Sorry for not posting yet... When the game started I was busy in sleeping (it looks like I live in a very far time zone).

From what I saw (I dont have much time so I briefd through the posts) Bard tryed to pull some votes on a lot of kolos (players) and trying to create a hyped kolo - mob to vote to lynch them which seems suspicious...

 

 

4 hours ago, eramit said:

After reading the posts and thinking for a moment I think Bard is innocent and didnt want to harm anyone (except the evil cultists and converts).

Cloudjumper's latset post seemed suspicious to me: you said you voted for Bard because you didnt thought clearly but it seemed like you took Bard on your aim at the moment the game started and tryed to conceal it with the excuse of not wanting to get lynched but at this point of the game he just poked anyone and wasnt focused on you and there was no reason to worry.

Until you will give a good explanation to your voted I will remain with mine.

You put your vote on Bard and then retracted without anyone's input. To me, that spells "more experienced people in your doc telling you to vote for someone else". I'm not voting for you because I don't want you to die D1, and I don't want to vote if I don't want who I'm voting for to be lynched, but I regard that as suspicious. (And yes, I saw your explanation. It didn't change my opinion.) 

That's all I have for now. I should be on in the couple of hours before turnover, but I can't guarantee anything before that, and if I do check in it'll likely be in the Senate doc rather than a post, because that's easier for me. Sorry to those who can't talk in there.  That does not sound fun. 

[Mailliw73 he/him]

1 minute ago, Elbereth said:

Right, onto non-banter. Aman. Currently, you're my strongest suspicion. As in LG21, it's mostly gut, but I'll try to point out what particularly seemed off to me. 

This paragraph. This is the thing that really stood out to me. You're placing yourself above the rest of the players (which you usually do to an extent, but generally not this bluntly). "Us Dulas" and that kind of thing is a phrase I've always regarded as eliminator-like, because you're deliberately and obviously placing yourself with the village. You're telling people to trust each other somewhat, but you're also telling them that there's no possible way to trust them completely because even if they kill an eliminator they could be the other kind of eliminator. 

Wow. One minute you're discussing scan choices in the doc with him, the next you're voting for him? I did notice the "Us Dulas" thing too, but don't know if it's worth lynching over.

[Elbereth she/her]

 I was curious whether I could get anything out of him before he knew I was suspicious of him. Sadly not. 

And... maybe not, but it's also D1. That's the best I have. 

[Amanuensis he/him]

29 minutes ago, Elbereth said:

Uh... no. Please no one vote Orlok into the senate. We seem to have different memories of how that turned out: as I recall, everyone died.

Well, to be fair to Orlok, the reason everyone died was because of me and my decision to take the concept of an Anarchist way too far  so I wouldn't really hold that against him.

29 minutes ago, Elbereth said:

Right, onto non-banter. Aman. Currently, you're my strongest suspicion. As in LG21, it's mostly gut, but I'll try to point out what particularly seemed off to me. 

This paragraph. This is the thing that really stood out to me. You're placing yourself above the rest of the players (which you usually do to an extent, but generally not this bluntly). "Us Dulas" and that kind of thing is a phrase I've always regarded as eliminator-like, because you're deliberately and obviously placing yourself with the village. You're telling people to trust each other somewhat, but you're also telling them that there's no possible way to trust them completely because even if they kill an eliminator they could be the other kind of eliminator. 

So my vote is staying on you this turn, almost certainly. Haven't put my Senate vote on you, because that feels unfair, but I'm certainly considering it. 

Can you elaborate on the "placing myself above the rest of the players" portion of your explanation a bit? That's the only part I'm really confused on. As for the "us Dulas" thing, I completely understand that interpretation, and really have no solid ground to argue on. While I can promise that was not my intent, I know that words are just wind, so that'll do nothing to sway your opinion. All I can say is I hope you consider my actions as much as you consider one example of phrasing. Now, in regards to the bit about trust, in my opinion, I was only stating a solid fact about this game that normally doesn't apply to others. Plus, with all of the brand new players and the chance that one of them started out with a role like Kesegan Monk, it just seemed like something worthy of mentioning. The point I was trying to make is that if I help lynch a Derethi today, that doesn't mean I'm a Dula. I could very well be Jeskeri myself, and therefore I, and no one else, should gain absolute trust without first being investigated by the senate. In the case that a player was instrumental in killing both a Derethi and Jeskeri, I could see that being enough reason to trusting them completely, but until that happens I'm going to advise caution. Once again, I do not expect to live long. If we keep the Senate stagnate as it is, it should be impossible for the Jeskeri to win without removing us themselves, and considering I was the one who proposed the idea I fully expect to be their first target. I doubt the Derethi will want to keep me alive for very long either, so all I'm trying to do is put all of my thoughts on paper (or in this case, in data?) so that people have things to reference when I'm no longer around.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Amanuensis
Grammar

[Elenion he/him]

It appears that Straw is inactive, so I'm switching my vote here to cloudjumper (my reasons can be found in the senate document).

[Ecthelion III he/him]

I'd be fine being scanned, Aman, though I'd prefer if we actually scanned someone being more suspicious - cloudjumper and eramit come to mind, whomever we don't lynch.

[Seonid he/him]

Alright - I haven't had a lot of time to devote to reading through this thread (and the Senate doc - with Elb and Aman in there, I'm never going to keep up :P). But I promised to try and be useful today, so I'm going to follow through on that.

I don't have strong feelings on the lynch, other than I think that there needs to be one. At the moment, I'm not going to vote - there wouldn't be any reasoning behind it if I did, and I agree with Aman that the most important part of the vote is the reasoning. If I get enough time to go through the thread again and find any interesting patterns, that will certainly change.

Right now, though, I had a thought about the Senate scan. It might be useful to scan the "second-place" player for the lynch. That is - if more than one player are up for the lynch, we lynch one of them and scan the other. Of course, the Senators will do what they want to do - but if we set that as a pattern, we can watch and see which of the senators (if any) don't want the second place person scanned.

I'm certainly not advocating for this, as if it's the obvious best way to use the senate scan, but it was an idea I had, and I wanted to see what others thought of it. Now to try and get caught up on the Senate doc again.

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Alright, looking back over the Bard lynch train that came and went real quick, I think Elodin is one of the more suspicious of the ones there. I'm trying to decide if I'd rather have him scanned or lynched, though, really, either would work for me. I also liked Aman's idea in the doc about scanning the second most voted for player. I'm personally fine with either Cloud or Elodin, or even Eramit, though he hasn't been voted for much. I don't see the point in scanning or lynching Conq though, as he's inactive so far.

Edit: Ninja'd by Seonid on the second place thing.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Mailliw73
Ninja

[Ecthelion III he/him]

Looking at Aman's table in the Senate document, it appears that Conq and Straw have been lurking. Hmmm

[Amanuensis he/him]

11 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

Looking at Aman's table in the Senate document, it appears that Conq and Straw have been lurking. Hmmm

I was literally about to post and comment on this... good on you for paying attention

Name	Last Online
Straw	3 Hours Ago
Conquestor	5 Hours Ago
Eolhondras	8 Hours Ago
Kipper	22 Hours Ago

This isn't particularly indicative of alignment in @Straw's case, as his lack of activity is a reoccurring instance across games. @Conquestor normally is fairly active, but I'm relatively certain he's been lurking in LG23 too. That being said, I don't think I've even seen him viewing either of the relevant threads. @Eolhondras was definitely on when the PMs got sent out, but very likely could have gone straight to bed after seeing the results. I might go check the SE Stats doc to see if his time zone is in there to confirm that theory, unless someone else cares to do it for me. Not really much point in discussing @Kipper since he hasn't been online in a nearly a full day already, but I'll poke him anyway. Hopefully these tags will encourage them to come and play.

From the Senate Doc:

Quote

Elbereth: Will respond to the rest later, but Eol’s Australian. Couldn’t quite resist checking when I saw you asking…

That means it is 0644 for him right now, so that guess of mine lines up pretty well. Can probably expect him to post in the next few hours.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Ecthelion III he/him]

Kipper is viewing this right now. We know you're here.

[Amanuensis he/him]

Just now, Ecthelion III said:

Kipper is viewing this right now. We know you're here.

That's twice now you've posted something I was going to point out  I even prepared this screenshot and everything.

Speak of the Svrakiss and he shall appear, amiright?

[Kipper he/him]

I typically post when I view the thread. Relax. I'm here for you, dear.

So...yeah? I have absolutely nothing to say. Just got home from work; will finish reading the rules after I shower and stuff. My sister and brother's birthdays are the next two days, so that will take some of my time.