Duderonomy

Well played, Electric Mango. And a (ig)noble sacrifice, Lyner! EM voting for you second is what threw me off, and it was a brilliant ploy. If I'd known more about Electric Mango's skills, I would've stuck with him instead of moving to iSocialism, who appeared to be in support mode for Lyner. Ultimately, I was pretty uncertain about the identity of trees, because everyone was so adamant about a suboptimal voting strategy for trees. I was unsure who was an arsonist throwing chaff, and who was a tree that didn't quite understand the methodology I was using. In fact if we'd had another vote, it's likely I would've gone for Rafay rather than EM because of that vote. Commander Shepard was the only clear tree/firefighter out there. iSocialism's last minute vote switch on Lyner did him in for me. I misunderstood his intentions, but now we know a lot more about him. Ultimately, we got to talk smack about each other and faff on about strategy. And that's all I really wanted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScuVQVRYK0

Yeah, those guys are pretty good. I really like Gaijin Goomba's investigation of the cultural source of video game memes.

I don't think Pretzimus or Robert2424 are going to be very active, but if EM hasn't voted by the end of today, then he is definitely the arsonist. An arsonist wouldn't vote on this day, because why risk your own lynch when you're going to win the next day lynch or not? This day is a must-lynch day for trees, whereas the first two days were optional-lynch days for trees. It's important to note that the decision to lynch/not lynch is situational not constant. I know it hurts to think about it, but all-lynch is not an optimal strategy for trees in every situation.

CS isn't very active, but when he is...

There's no evidence anyone could give of being a firefighter that would not hurt the trees. CS, please don't say anything about anyone you might have blocked. Far better to have the arsonists be surprised when not everyone they primed is ignited. That would extend the game multiple days. Otherwise, they would simply wait another day before ignition. Of course, the nature of the game is that we have to make decisions based on the behavior of other players. But CS called for a no-lynch the first day and agreed with the no-lynch the second day, so I'm inclined to believe him.

I'm more suspicious of his vote switch during the last day. There was zero reason for a tree to make that switch since Lyner was getting lynched no matter what, and I've stated before that more data is better for trees. More days plus more posts equals more data. The best thing for trees is for lynches to happen at deadline. That vote switch seems like a desperate ploy by the arsonists to ensure at least one of them makes it through the next day. Especially since I had already cast doubt on isocialism. Granted, there's a pretty good case for Electric Mango, as well. He campaigned fairly hard for all lynching all the time. But his personality appears to just enjoy the chaos of random lynching. isocialism also campaigned for lynching, but his vote switch puts him over the top.

http://www.non-grata.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smugdog.gif http://www.non-grata.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smugdog.gif http://www.non-grata.net/public/style_emoticons/default/penguin.gif

http://www.non-grata.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smugdog.gif

I appreciate all of the analysis isocialism, but I'm still inclined to view you as an arsonist. You have been just as vehement about voting in non-optimal situations as Lyner was, and that last switch really seemed to have no purpose except to swing suspicion away from you. Rafay and EM are distant seconds, but an arsonist is unlikely to be the first or second to vote for his partner, and I still think EM just wanted to lynch for the sake of lynching. It's also possible that one of the quiet ones are arsonists, so I could be burned by them, but I think the silence is more due to the war than any infernal intentions. We've got 3 quiet players and not all of them can be arsonist. I agree that this is the likely final vote. Get to voting/vote-baiting people!

No apology needed. I would hope you lynching Lyner would be about getting the arsonists. That's what matters. It'll be interesting to see what isocialism says.

We're still probably on the last day, so time to speak up all you peeps. I think isocialism's switch to voting for Lyner was a ploy to appear to be a tree. Lyner was getting lynched, anyway. Once the arsonists (lyner and isocialism) figured that out, they hoped isocialism being lyner's killing vote would defray suspicion. While this outcome certainly helped, it's only delayed ignition for a day. Speak up, everybody. This is the last vote so get it right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8yx4k4tzqE

In my experience with RL games, it's the ones that talk the most that always die first. Some of my relatives even have a "kill the loudest" policy. Then they wonder why no one finishes their games. This game also has the bad fortune to start right before a war. Granted it's not a major war, but it still takes up time. I've already said all about Lyner that I'm going to. If you can't be bothered to read back, I'm not going to repost.

Ultimately, anyone who is willing to put up with that much bullshit for the sake of power will always have some screws loose. Of course, I have yet to meet a person who doesn't have some screws loose. Politics is pretty much a high school popularity contest on steroids. There shouldn't be any surprise when you discover something horrible about someone involved in politics. The question is always how it reflects on their ability to do their job. With Hilary, that's a definite. With Spitzer, I'm not so sure, but I differ from the majority on the prostitution issue, anyway. As far as David Vitter is concerned, Louisiana is by far the most socially liberal part of the south. There's a reason Mardi Gras continues there and blue laws never got a lot of traction. They have a lot in common culturally with the Caribbean and celebrate their connection with France. You have to view them through the lens of Catholicism, rather than Fundamentalism. Catholics tend to be more accepting of individual sinners and absolution, while Fundamentalists will turn you out of the church after a scandal. Vitter would not have gotten the same second chance in a Protestant part of the Bible Belt.

White space in OP plz. Maybe some section headers, too. The Game Theorist had some interesting Zelda theories, while the Angry Video Game Nerd pretty much summed up every attempt to apply a timeline to Zelda games. Both are on Youtube. The Zelda and Mario franchises were created solely for the sake of fun and not the sake of any overarching narrative. That's what makes them so, well, fun while other story-focused games of that era weren't. Attempts to connect them are a credit to the creativity and passion of their fans, but ultimately futile when the company itself doesn't bother with any sort of narrative. The only Nintendo IP from that era that actually had a narrative was Metroid, but that arc was largely ignored in the TeamNinja reboot. If you want a literary comparison, I think both of those series use the same storytelling techniques as Howard's Conan the Barbarian and Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories. Yes, characters and settings were consistent, but there's not necessarily a direct causal connection between the individual stories. Moorcock even explored these ideas explicitly in his books, positing a central hero soul being reincarnated into several different forms and universes. The primary reason for these techniques is that it lets readers/players drop into the action faster when they're already familiar with pieces of it. Link to the Past could've had all-new characters, since little about the first Zelda explored Link himself, but they went with their existing IP because it was easier for them to build on and easier for players to relate to. That way, both player and gamemaker could focus on the game, rather than catching up on setting or character. For a more artistic explanation, imagine a single battle being painted by Picasso, Monet, Dali, and DaVinci. All would focus on different narratives and even different viewpoints of the battle. Yet, you may not even recognize them as the same battle or know that they are in the same field. So I always hesitate to draw parallels that haven't been explicitly made by the game publisher itself. The important parts are the central characters and the overall theme of the game. Attempting to cobble together a narrative where none exists is enjoyable, but the most important part is that you enjoyed the games.

Well, you were the final lynching vote. I'm still more suspicious of Lyner and iSocialism at this point. If I were the arsonists, I'd have one loud and one quiet guy to decrease the odds of both being lynched. I'm pegging Lyner as loud and iSocialism as quiet. You're still probably more of a lynch-for-fun type, but I haven't played a lot of games with you. Everybody's much better off thinking about previous behavior from other players and picking off anybody acting oddly. While being loud elicited suspicion, anybody that reads the OWF or this forum knows that I'm an overanalytical loudmouth. My behavior in this game was not out-of-character for me. Commander Shepard seems to typically be the quiet type. I don't know enough about Lyner, but isocialism tends to be quiet. Still, anybody that isn't speaking up at this point either doesn't want to win, or is an arsonist.

Desperation won't be needed until Day 4. I don't mind joining R2V if needed. This is about teams, not about individual performance.

Is it possible to pause the game after the next lynch until we get two more players, or does that risk losing momentum? Man, if things go down like they're shaping up to, the next day will be popcorn-worthy.

Not really, the votes from those three are predictable. My current theory is that Lyner/isocialism are our arsonists, while Rafay just wants to lynch the new guy. With isocialism, he stayed pretty quiet in Day 2, and only emerged to support Lyner and lynching in Day 3. That sparks of being on a team, plus he's been rather quiet. My guess is that the arsonists have gone for a loud/quiet strategy with one member steering debates while the other flies under the radar. It maximizes the chances of at least one of them escaping lynches. Still, I've become more suspicious with Commander Shepard's absence. As for Robert2424, it's going to be nearly impossible to determine his role until he is replaced. Not something that can be helped at the moment.

I'm voting Lyner because I learned a lot about him in Day 2. Reasons for voting Lyner: 1. Was a kill vote (and was the second kill vote) 2. Bandwagoned onto kill vote 3. Attempted to gloss over logic for lynching on Day 2 without explanation. 4. Went into further explanation when pressed, but failed to account for all variables involved. 5. Continues to press for an all-lynch strategy. Vote: Lyner At the moment, I'm betting on isocialism for being the second arsonist, especially if I'm correct that Lyner is an arsonist. I'll go over my reasons in more detail when it comes time to vote for him. Based on his behavior on day 2, I think Electric Mango just likes to lynch people.

I disagree. We learned a lot about both Lyner and you yesterday. Something we'll use to our advantage today. Arsonists can only do 1 of 2 things: ignite or prime. They cannot do both. Igniting slows their progression by a day. I'd be shocked if they ignite early unless someone is being a genuine threat and can be eliminated without suspicion. Or if they believe they've found the fireman.

I don't know how the U.S. would be knocked down without a nuke or two. I might argue with Lysistra about public healthcare, but there's a reason the U.S. system has built an economy few others can match. Either countries are too small (Americas minus Brazil), too divided (EU), too corrupt (Russia) or have a rule of law that is too weak (China). Not saying China's anarchy, but everything is skewed towards the government's benefit. That will always anchor the economy. If anybody wants to "knock the U.S. down a peg or two", then they're in for a fight. I believe in a multi-polar world, but would rather have a peaceful one.

It's more that Tibet will be impossible to get away from China. Just look at where it is located: surrounded on all sides by mountainous and populous countries. Talk about a logistical nightmare. And there wasn't a giant outcry against Crimea (minus the standard tut-tutting of the media & politicians). I even stated to KH once that it was a historical part of Russia that maintained its Russian identity. The outcry was against Russia's invasion of Eastern Ukraine, an area that was Ukrainian until Russia took uniforms off of its soldiers and sent them in. Until those fighters leave, sanctions should be maintained to indicate that the West will not lay down if Russia drives further into Europe.

My thoughts exactly. At this point, the only way forward in Syria is to negotiate a deal with Assad. He's still the best option, the "Moderate Rebels" simply don't exist. Ain't that the truth. But the moderate "fighters" exist, they're just on their way to Germany. Nobody in Syria wants to bleed for that piece of dirt besides fascists and fanatics.