Quick Fix Game 18: The Black Prism

[AliasSheep]

I'm not sure what lynching Meta would tell us?  Unless we get lucky and hit an eliminator, lynching an inactive is pointless.  And since we're less likely to lynch an elim than a villager, I think it'd make more sense to lynch an active player.  

Take, for example, verifying Ecth's claim that they're a normal, which would tell us whether they do or do not exist in the game or not.  Or how Elenion jumped to certain numbers rather than others, which could be an instance of him as an eliminator trying to mislead us.  Or maybe how Dani and Alv are both trying to lynch an inactive, which would get us no information and help the eliminators.  Especially given that an inactive can't even defend themself.  Sure, it's a good tactic for an eliminator to lie low, but this is the first turn when it's not even guaranteed they won't get on in later turns and if they don't appear in later turns, we can easily lynch them then, since everyone will know for sure that they're going to be inactive.  I don't even know if we can really consider them inactives yet either; they just haven't gotten on during the time elapsed in the turn.  For instance, before this post, I could have been considered an inactive; yet here I am.

So, I'm going to place my vote on Dani.  I've already outlined my issue with the voting on on inactives turn one thing and from her post, it seems like she's just following Alv's vote, using the exact same reasoning, whilst not really acknowledging him on it.  The last point is the weakest, of course, since the fact that her post immediately follows Alv's could be considered such, but I'd much prefer it to be explicitly stated in a post if someone would vote because of reasoning proposed by someone else.

EDIT:
That all being said, if you're a sub-red, it's your perogative on whether to attack inactives or not.  I might even encourage it, but I'd rather not use our one ensured kill on an inactive.

Edited September 26, 2016 by AliasSheep

[STINK]

Well, Sheep basically said everything I wanted to say. But really I just wanna add on that more focus should be placed on these peeps who wanna focus inactives for some reason.

[Alvron]

Normally, I wouldn't bother voting on the first round but this game has a time limit. 10 cycles.  If there is even one inactive eliminator then it becomes that much harder for us to win.  The longer the game continues the less active players there will be as we will be the target for the eliminator kills.  By using the lynch to kill inactives now rather than later we keep active players alive a little longer and remove the threat of losing to an inactive eliminator, both of which is good for the village.

I'm suspicious of Ec3's claim of being roleless but am willing to let that slid for now in the hopes that a Blue Drafter or Slave would check him out this cycle.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Alvron
typos :(

[STINK]

Except for the fact that we have kill roles to kill inactives, because lynching inactives causes no discussion, which is only good for elims. So we can leave the inactives to the kill roles, and actually lynch sus people.

[AliasSheep]

4 minutes ago, Alvron said:

 

Normally, I wouldn't bother voting on the first round but this game has a time limit. 10 cycles

 

Where is this in the rules?  I can't find it.

6 minutes ago, Alvron said:

The longer the game continues the less active players there will be as we will be the target for the eliminator kills.  By using the lynch to kill inactives now rather than later we keep active players alive a little longer and remove the threat of losing to an inactive eliminator, both of which is good for the village.

Also, the longer we vote on inactives, the longer before we get useful information about what players are active.  10 cycles is a long time, and that information is definitely the most important thing we need to get at the moment.

 

[Dani]

15 minutes ago, AliasSheep said:

So, I'm going to place my vote on Dani.  I've already outlined my issue with the voting on on inactives turn one thing and from her post, it seems like she's just following Alv's vote, using the exact same reasoning, whilst not really acknowledging him on it.  The last point is the weakest, of course, since the fact that her post immediately follows Alv's could be considered such, but I'd much prefer it to be explicitly stated in a post if someone would vote because of reasoning proposed by someone else.

Oh no, my name in red.

Okay so yes, I did follow Alv's reasoning, because it made sense. Though I'm only doing it for the first cycle. And it's only 2-3 hours left before the day ends and I don't think we'll be getting any fruitful discussion in that time.

 

[AliasSheep]

Just now, Daniyah said:

Okay so yes, I did follow Alv's reasoning, because it made sense.

What did you think of my objection to it?

1 minute ago, Daniyah said:

And it's only 2-3 hours left before the day ends and I don't think we'll be getting any fruitful discussion in that time.

I'd rather try and get discussion occurring now than have someone I don't think should be lynched get lynched.

[STINK]

Well, there was some stuff that could have been discussed. Instead, you all watched me talk to the GM in the thread.

[Dani]

Wait, I just had a thought. If Meta had already said that he might not have time to play, he probably wouldn't have been made an Elim I think. Or not. I don't know, do they make potential inactives elims?

[STINK]

Oh, I just looked at the rules again and we get to make 2 free PMs every cycle? Oh.

Also, we can't be sure if the distribution was random or not, Dani.

[Mark IV]

Hi there! My name is Mark.  I vote for Alv because his reasoning seems a bit off to me. This is the first cycle. Not the third or fourth. I find it would be fair to vote on someone inactive beyond the third or second cycle. But the first one itself? In a QF? That's too early, IMO. 

Secondly, and this has been mentioned before, but notwithstanding that, I also thought about it myself - Lynching inactives C1 detracts the Lynch discussion from giving very helpful outputs (unless the inactive person is an eliminator which I find to be very unlikely). If the elims fail to make a kill for some  consecutive cycles, then we could start killing inactives.  

Or something like that.

[Dani]

Oh well, Meta.

[Mark IV]

 

In the above post, the tone and continuity might be a bit off, owing to my sleepiness right now...

Edited September 26, 2016 by Mark IV

[Dani]

8 minutes ago, STINK said:

Oh, I just looked at the rules again and we get to make 2 free PMs every cycle? Oh.

 

Not this cycle though, right? 

[The_Lady_of_Chaos]

I'm sorry i've been inactive, i've been trying to keep up to date, but i'm still trying to figure out what i'm doing. I'd be posting more if i knew what to post.

[AliasSheep]

So vote tally at the moment is:
Con (1) : Bard
Meta (1) : Alv
Alv (1) : Mark
Dani (1) : Sheep

Since Alv is basically going for the same point as Dani and I want there to be a lynch this turn, I'm gonna switch from Dani to Alv.  The only difference is the slight bandwagoning from Dani, but I'm putting more priority on getting a lynch than pushing suspicion on Dani, for now.

EDIT:
New vote tally:

Con (1) : Bard
Meta (1) : Alv
Alv (2) : Mark, Sheep

Edited September 26, 2016 by AliasSheep

[Straw]

50 minutes till turnover.

[STINK]

Ah, isn't a desktop truly wonderful?

Ecth.

I need not explain why.

[AliasSheep]

2 minutes ago, STINK said:

Ah, isn't a desktop truly wonderful?

Ecth.

I need not explain why.

Errr, yes you do.

[Metacognition]

2 hours ago, Alvron said:

I think Inactives are the biggest problem right now.  An inactive Eliminator can easily cost us the game if left unchecked.  As such I think we should use the first two lynches to target inactives and any sub-reds can do the same with their attacks should they wish to set anyone on fire.  Of the current inactives we have @The_Lady_of_Chaos, who's a new player, @Metacognition, who admits he might not have the time to play and @Conquestor, who is almost always borderline inactive.  Of those, Con is the only one that hasn't been online since the start of the game.  I would rather not kill a new player so Meta has my vote.

Vote Tally:
Assassin (0): Bard
Stick (0): Bard
Con (1): Bard
Meta (1): Alv

I think you're being a bit too opportunistic here, Alv. As has been pointed out, lynching someone who hasn't been very active doesn't help us much when we likely* have ways of dealing with inactives that don't distract from the lynch. Beyond that, you're using it as an excuse to go after me; someone that you'll, if I'm right, want to take out as soon as possible on the off chance that I do become active later on. If you can do so without wasting a kill and without giving too much away in the lynch, I could see you taking that chance. 

*I am concerned about all these people who keep claiming to be so sure that we have some sub-reds on the village side. Unless they are themselves sub-reds, there's no saying for sure. 

I will try to be around and discuss as much as possible, but as I said before and as Alv pointed out, I don't have a lot of time right now. Heck, it was a surprise to find out that I was actually signed up! I never came back and said that I had time to play at the moment. I'll at least try to keep up and add my two cents for as long as I survive, but I can't be the motivator and discussion starter that I tend to be. Sorry.

 

[STINK]

4 minutes ago, AliasSheep said:

Errr, yes you do.

I totally haven't said before that we need to be suspicious of Ecth. Oh wait, I did. So thanks not thanks

[Alvron]

2 hours ago, AliasSheep said:

Where is this in the rules?  I can't find it.

It's very clearly in the rules:

Drafters

Standard Village faction. Note that although the faction is called Drafters, not every player will be a drafter. Win if they kill all spies within 10 cycles.

Spies

Standard Elimination faction. One kill per cycle, with a google doc in which to conspire. After 10 cycles, the Spies win even if they have not outnumbered the Drafters.

1 hour ago, Mark IV said:

Hi there! My name is Mark.  I vote for Alv because his reasoning seems a bit off to me. This is the first cycle. Not the third or fourth. I find it would be fair to vote on someone inactive beyond the third or second cycle. But the first one itself? In a QF? That's too early, IMO. 

Secondly, and this has been mentioned before, but notwithstanding that, I also thought about it myself - Lynching inactives C1 detracts the Lynch discussion from giving very helpful outputs (unless the inactive person is an eliminator which I find to be very unlikely). If the elims fail to make a kill for some  consecutive cycles, then we could start killing inactives.  

This is the first cycle and thus is the prefect time to kill off any inactives.  If we wait until the third or fourth cycle then we will have more to go on for the active players and are less likely to target inactives.

If we wait until the eliminators fail to make a kill for two or three cycles just how much closer will we be to losing?  three cycles is 30% of the game gone.  And at what point do they stop placing kills?  after five cycle when we finally catch one?  That leaves us 2 cycles to find the inactives.  Not much time.
 

8 minutes ago, Metacognition said:

I think you're being a bit too opportunistic here, Alv. As has been pointed out, lynching someone who hasn't been very active doesn't help us much when we likely* have ways of dealing with inactives that don't distract from the lynch. Beyond that, you're using it as an excuse to go after me; someone that you'll, if I'm right, want to take out as soon as possible on the off chance that I do become active later on. If you can do so without wasting a kill and without giving too much away in the lynch, I could see you taking that chance. 

*I am concerned about all these people who keep claiming to be so sure that we have some sub-reds on the village side. Unless they are themselves sub-reds, there's no saying for sure.

If I wanted to take you out Meta, then, no offence, I wouldn't have voted for you.  Not this early.  Voting for you just beings attention to myself and that's something I try to avoid.
But since you have posted, you are not inactive so, Meta.

Con however is still to appear and is my only hope of living.  Not that I expect to.

Sadly, I knew as soon as I got my role that I wouldn't survive long.  But once I'm dead, know that killing inactives early is the only way the village will win.

[AliasSheep]

1 minute ago, Alvron said:

If I wanted to take you out Meta, then, no offence, I wouldn't have voted for you.  Not this early.  Voting for you just beings attention to myself and that's something I try to avoid.

But if there were other inactives, and you didn't want to draw attention to yourself, then why did you vote Meta?  I know you posted something earlier on about why him, but you'd still draw attention to yourself.  And I don't understand why Conquestor wouldn't be a valid choice?  Wouldn't it have made more sense to vote for him?

 

3 minutes ago, Alvron said:

It's very clearly in the rules:

Drafters

Standard Village faction. Note that although the faction is called Drafters, not every player will be a drafter. Win if they kill all spies within 10 cycles.

Spies

Standard Elimination faction. One kill per cycle, with a google doc in which to conspire. After 10 cycles, the Spies win even if they have not outnumbered the Drafters.

Thanks; I don't think I read through the faction section properly, I was expecting it to be at the top or something.

[Alvron]

Just now, AliasSheep said:

But if there were other inactives, and you didn't want to draw attention to yourself, then why did you vote Meta?  I know you posted something earlier on about why him, but you'd still draw attention to yourself.  And I don't understand why Conquestor wouldn't be a valid choice?  Wouldn't it have made more sense to vote for him?

As I said.  Chaos was a new player and I like to give them some breathing room.  Con hadn't be online since the game started so that only left Meta.

[AliasSheep]

Just now, Alvron said:

As I said.  Chaos was a new player and I like to give them some breathing room.  Con hadn't be online since the game started so that only left Meta.

I can understand Chaos, but as far as I can tell, your worry is just inactive elims?  So wouldn't Con qualify.  Or are you specifically worried about elims pretending to be inactive, which isn't the impression I got.