Game Thread - WW XCIIX - The Meaning Of Death

[Pomegranate]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Not necessarily. Still only Elendil and Amandil would know the person who was dreamed. Say Elendil chooses Brinn and sends it to the revealed Amandil. Only Elendil and Amandil would know it was Brinn. Amandil wouldn't have directly announce the next day "Brinn is innocent" to let Elendil know this. Amandil can disguise the result easily enough in his posts to let Elendil know the result and thus proceed from there. And as Nerwen pointed out, there's also the Ranger.

Which means that, especially in the case of Amandil if not afterwards, Amandil could pretty explicitly just state "I dreamed of an innocent", since only Amandil and Elendil would know who's being thus labeled - no need for too much secret coding. Obviously the name of a KM can be shared. After Amandil the rest would need to be more concealed, and indeed the lists that tp suggested could come in handy. If we do want to keep them concealed - stating explicitly known innocents would indeed, as mentioned, put the KM in the situation where they either have to accept the amount of unknown roles getting smaller and smaller, as well as facing the threat of being found themselves, while hunting for Elendil; or keep killing the known innocents and know that nothing threats Elendil apart from lynch. If the innocents will stay known only to Elendil (and the current dreamer), there is the danger that when Elendil dies we are left with very little trustworthy information.

Regarding participation, it seems like there is more potential in this game than there has been in the past few. And anyone has time to put up a randomised list. If it would become a habit for everyone, I think it would also be harder to forget, as you'd keep seeing the lists in every post in the first part of the day.

I'd say yes to Amandil revealing. I'd also agree to lists today at the very least.

Just to confirm, there's no CC, right?

And just in case - if a KM decides to do a fake-reveal, Amandil, at least counter that! Otherwise we're stuck with a lot of problematicly full trust to a KM, and potentially to a chain of people after that.