Long Game 31: A World Without Vin

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

"Alrin. My name is Alrin. But you will hear nothing more from me until I will know your name."

Juan smiled.

"Ah, right you are. My name is Juan, a pleasure to meet you. I must say, you look nothing like any of the other diners here, so I was intrigued. What is a man like you doing among nobles?"

He extended a hand to shake.

---

Sorry to cut into your RP. You can do whatever you like. 

[Arinian]

5 minutes ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said:

"Alrin. My name is Alrin. But you will hear nothing more from me until I will know your name."

Juan smiled.

"Ah, right you are. My name is Juan, a pleasure to meet you. I must say, you look nothing like any of the other diners here, so I was intrigued. What is a man like you doing among nobles?"

He extended a hand to shake.

---

Sorry to cut into your RP. You can do whatever you like. 

Ahh... no problem with cutting in my RP . But don't wait further RP(atleast in 10 hours) from me cause it's 2 AM right now and I gonna go sleep little bit.

[Droughtbringer]

With the Contribution Crusade:

We should still lynch inactives, we might get lucky and lynch an eliminator...but we shouldn't focus on just the inactives, they could be used as just a simple distraction towards what we are doing and focusing on and end up costing us the game.

[Jondesu]

Aman, I totally missed that I messed up with the original "vote" on Drought; I was on mobile and forgot to add the red tags. I don't like phattemer's initial statement, but he has a point with bandwagons, and I don't want to form one now without a decent reason. 

I do like having suggestions offered for various roles, but it sets off alarms in my head every time. That's probably because I've seen it used to gain trust with the village (in fact, I think Elenion did that once before, though I may be mixing it up with someone else's post), but of course it can also be a genuine villager trying to help. I'm not going to drop a vote on Elenion for a post like that, but I will be watching him.

[Elbereth]

5 hours ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said:

Any noble could be part-skaa? Does this mean Preservation or TLR could be converted? That's a scary thought. Of course, if that were so, I suppose it would make things easier for Ruin?

Preservation cannot be Part Skaa (because win conditions would die). The Lord Ruler could. 

[A Joe in the Bush]

As i said when i signed up, not going to be very active, and when i am, it'll probably be like this: just quoting posts and commenting on them. I have no intent to take notes for this game. Note that any and all of These Quotes may have chunks cut out of them. I'm only going to quote things I'm actually responding to. I will also be assigning each post i respond to a negative/positive score, negative being eliminator vibes, and positive being village vibes, so that i can just reference my last post to remind myself what my suspicions are.

On 3/10/2017 at 10:12 PM, Elenion said:

Looking over the player list, we have a lot of newer or less-active players in this game. While that isn't necessarily bad, it means that generating meaningful discussion might be more difficult than usual. I suggest that we run a strict Contribution Crusade this game in order to keep a base of active players late into the game when they're needed most.

 Poke vote time! SB are you watching the game? @Silverblade5

You're misinterpreting the Contribution Crusade. It is not "Punish inactivity, and ignore the active." It is "If you do not suspect any active players, lynch an inactive instead." Sure, lynching inactives would keep the game talkative, but it would also leave all the active eliminators relatively untouched.

And Poke votes, especially as you are using them, are completely useless. Vote to lynch, or don't vote at all.      This post is a classic Len post. Alignment Non Indicative. +/-0   (Now a -1, see my response to Orlok's quote)

On 3/10/2017 at 10:14 PM, Silverblade5 said:

Long live the crusade!

Mage

"Look, i'm active, don't bother to vote on me, cause I'm active!" Why did you vote Mage over the other people who hadn't posted?   Non indicative. 0

On 3/10/2017 at 10:34 PM, Elenion said:

That worked surprisingly well!

SB Phatt @phattemer

:Face_palm: Yay, you got Silver to post! but he said nothing. Keep the vote on him, until he offers opinions that can be analysed. Could be poking an inactive teammate (Silver) to get him to come to a doc? -1

On 3/10/2017 at 11:36 PM, Jondesu said:

@DroughtBringer, I'll poke vote you in the name of the Contribution Crusade. Are you going to be active this game?

Wasn't even a vote, just a mention. 0

23 hours ago, _Stick_ said:

Before anyone poke-votes me, I'd like to tell everyone that I'm here, following the game, and plan to remain active ish

So. Who to lynch this turn? The turns are kinda long, so we don't need to rush on it. But lets get the discussion going. Not that there's much to discuss....I hate Day 1s 

Suggest something to discuss then. Put forward a plan, even if it's a crappy plan with no chance of success, it will spark discussion. -1

22 hours ago, randuir said:

First of all, I recommend that Kandra try and make sure they use their two PM's each cycle. PM's are wonderful things that allow you to gain more info, and talk over ideas without immediately having to throw them into the thread for all to see. Kandra are also going to be useful  for getting new metal vials where they'll do the most good, but remember that confirmed Kandra is not confirmed Noble.

I agree completely. If you dare a Kandra though, make sure both of your contacts know who the other are, so we at least have someone to look at more closely if you end up dead.   Kandra talking to everyone is good for eliminators who want to hunt them, and for village trying to organize.  0

22 hours ago, randuir said:

Second, the metalurgists. There are unfortunately no metals that have only utility for the village. That having been said, I'd still attempt to get the most out of the role, if not from the start, then at least once you've found someone you're pretty sure is village who can act as stockpile ( @Elbereth, @Darkness Ascendant, @Conquestor, I assume you can't give metal vials to yourself as a metalurgist?). The reason for this is that it's going to be important for the village misting to remain stocked with metals at all times, as you'll never know when a game-winning vote comes down to whether someone still has some brass, zinc or copper left.

Don't stockpile metals unless you can be reasonably certain you're stockpile person is not only village, but not a half skaa. so, only stockpile metals if someone proves they are Preservation.  -1

22 hours ago, randuir said:

So, the number of elims. If the 20% convention is used, there's 3, or maybe 4 elims. However, since they've got a faction conversion ability, I suspect there are going to be less of them to start with. There will almost certainly not be 4 of them (unless there's a massive amount of pewter among the village), and I suspect there are only going to be 2 of them. This does depend on the number of half-skaa around.

This has been bugging me for a couple of game now, and I've finally figured out why. What does it matter how many eliminators there are? We're not going to be able to guess the number with any certainty. We'll find out after we've killed them all. until then, it's good enough that we remember they can convert. I'm not going to bother with that discussion anymore. (I will happily bother with a discussion of the number of Half Skaa, because that's something really important)

22 hours ago, randuir said:

22 hours ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

A metallurgist cannot be a misting as well. And Metallurgists can only give vials to mistings. So no point in giving to themselves.

Does this mean a metallurgist could go around figuring out who is and isn't a misting by just randomly tossing metal vials around and seeing which arrive?

Better Question, can the metalurgist only give the right metal to a misting? If so, give two random types to each person. if they can receive both, you've found either TLR or Kelsier.  rendered defunct by a future clarification.

18 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

With all due respect, Elenion, I have to say I disagree vehemently with this suggestion. You are quite right that we have a newer and marginally less active player base, and that activity is something we should all try to do something about. However, this is a very small game, and there are two factions with kills, and two potential sources of vigilante kills, along with a lynch each cycle. I firmly believe that if the village has any chance at winning this, we need to get as much information as we can, as quickly as we can. 

A strict contribution crusade is an awful way to get information. It may keep more players present, but it eliminates the source of information gathering for the village. A credible lynch, based on evidence, forces players to defend themselves, and forces other players to defend them. This allows us to work out ties between players, or to catch contradictions in views. A lynch based on the contribution crusade, on the other hand, requires no more defence than raising one's hand and saying "I'm here, please don't lynch me". It may keep a couple more players around a little longer, but they won't have any information to work with, and with a game of this size with as many kills, I'm not terribly worried about inactivity anyway.

The last thing I'd like to point out is that the contribution crusade is an excellent thing to hide behind. It allows a player to appear as if they're contributing to the game, helping the village, whilst actually providing no views of their own, and so not exposing themselves to being caught. As such, I'm going to vote on Elenion.

Ah, glad you're back Orlok. You're so much more eloquent then me. +1, and changing my original 0 on Len's post to a -1

18 hours ago, phattemer said:

Yes, I'm here. While I do agree with Orlok's reasoning, I'm going to wait to vote to encourage more discussion. 

phattemer. Doing nothing encourages more nothing. If you agree with Orlok, toss a vote on Len to give him more motivation to post. Don't sit back and lurk. -2

17 hours ago, Magestar said:

Oh No.  I've been poke voted.  

/sarcasm

While I agree that a lynch purely based on purported inactivity isn't necessarily the best way to go, I don't think that a strict contribution crusade is a bad idea.  People don't like seeing there names in red; However, I'd say to everyone who wants to place votes that encourage activity, well founded suspicions/attacks tend to bring people out more than a simple poke vote.

This — This is a very bad idea.  This doesn't encourage activity – it encourages blurbs.  If people think they can get away with simply saying, 'I'm here guys.  (Random Vote)', then odds are, that's all they'll do.  Especially in LG's, it's important to watch people who are lurking.  It's an easy thing for Elims to kill inactives, and just stay quiet themselves.  

"It's an easy thing for Elims to kill inactives, and just stay quiet themselves." Can you clarify that? I agree with the rest of your post, but that statement just confuses me. Did you mean it's easy to kill actives and hide among the inactives? or did you actually mean what you said, that they're killing the true inactives, and pretending to also be inactive? +1

17 hours ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said:

I agree with Mage exactly. We are immediately given the option of lynching someone, but we have absolutely no information. So, we must have discussion. I will wait to place my vote.

Would red this, but already red'd phatt. Rusting vote Hemashot. Encourage discussion. don't sit there passively, stating that you are here. read the rules, and suggest a plan for a role if you have no suspicion, but don't say "I agree, please talk more so i don't have to yet." -2

17 hours ago, randuir said:

One way to discourage this is to pair the 'poke-vote' with a question to the person you are voting for. To demonstrate: Straw (@Straw), what is your opinion on Elenion's insistence on a strict contribution crusade?

Doing it that way, you encourage more participation than just "I'm here guys, please don't lynch me". Also, Straw, as I don't think we should be doing poke-votes when the game has been going for less than 24 hours.

This^ This is good. +1 That is a much better way to do early votes, though i would still refuse to refer to them as poke votes, as it implies you'll remove the vote no matter the answer.

17 hours ago, Straw said:

Eh, I think a strict contribution crusade sends the wrong message to new players.

I agree, but why do you think that Straw? 0

16 hours ago, DroughtBringer said:

@Jondesu Yeah I am

Translation: I will be active once the game's more exciting. Please don't just make one sentence posts unless they're in blue text sayiing why you're not posting, but giving a time when you will post. 0

16 hours ago, _Stick_ said:

Anyone got Kandra PMs yet?

Should we be revealing that? I honestly don't know. There's a good question to ask people to encourage activity. Should we reveal how many kandra PM's there are, thereby getting a better idea of the role distributions? Or should we keep our connections secret? -1 for just asking to gather information

16 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

In the spirit of ongoing discussion, Mage, would you defend your assertion that a strict contribution crusade isn't a bad idea? I'd reiterate that encouraging activity shouldn't be something we need to worry about, this game. With Ruin, the Skaa, Assassins, Coinshots and a lynch all capable of depleting the alive player list, and such a small game anyway, we really need to get the most information we can out of activity. Supporting a crusade draws attention from the game to those players who are inactive. It gives the 'crusader' a place to hide, it doesn't give us information from the targeted player, and it takes focus off those players we should be discussing.

^ I agree with this, and with the example it sets. 0

15 hours ago, randuir said:

Anyway, back to game-related matters. @OrlokTsubodai has raised a good point about the number of kills. If I remember correctly, the elims get 1 kill per cycle as group, and Ruin also gets 1 kill per cycle. Then there are steel mistings (Of which the elims have 1, unless Kelsier isn't in the game) and assassins. That means that, even if there are no steel misting or assassins, we must expect 2-3 kills per cycle at the least. There are some deterrents that will likely limit the amount of vigilante kills in the early game, namely the hazekiller and the limited amount of vials of steel a steel misting starts with.

So, to sum up, there is one faction kill with the intent of eliminating nobles, one with the intent of eliminating Skaa and 1 specific noble, 2 active sources of vigilante kills (Steel misting and assassin) and 1 reactionary source of kills (hazekiller). I don't think we'll see any vigilante kills on cycle 1, apart from possibly Kelsiers steel, given the relatively limited knowledge of the Nobles at that point and the risk of hitting a hazekiller-protected target. It can go quickly in the latter cycles, though this also depends on how many thugs, gold ferrings, lurchers, steel ferrings and pewter ferrings we have.

Remember that not all roles are present. I would estimate Hazekiller as being one of the more likely to remove, and also one of the vig kills, since we kind of have ruin on our side, and he doensn't need vials/charges to kill. but overall, +1 (Also, just realized, Kelsier and another elim could doubletap a high value villager.

15 hours ago, Magestar said:

Edit;  Ninja'd by Rand.  

I wouldn't be surprised if not all the roles are in the game.  Considering the possible number of kills, it would make sense that there would be an equal number of protect roles.

Magestar ninja's me by 14 hours. +1

13 hours ago, Elenion said:

Orlok has a fair point in that we definitely do need to have some lynchings based on evidence, but I stand with Mage and Jon in that inactives have crippled previous games and so need to be dealt with in some manner.  Maybe we could use the lynch to kill actives based on evidence, and encourage vigilante roles to target inactives if they have no better suspicions.

Phatt still hasn't responded, so I'll leave my vote on him.

Someone earlier made a conjecture about elim team size.  I'm leaning toward there being three starting elims this game, because to attempt to convert a player Kelsier has to give up one of his metal actions, making it less likely that he'll be liberal with conversions.  Three starting elims would give them decent voting and action power off the bat and if Kelsier died early, while leaving them room for team growth due to conversions if Kelsier survives into the late game.

Let's not have our vigilantes who have limited kills target inactives. have them target people who they suspect, or who have gathered a lot of votes. Excellent point on the cost of the conversion, but also remember that there are metalurgists, so Kelsier could theoretically try to convert every player in the game. It's what i would do. try to convert, and then kill if they're unconvertable. +1

12 hours ago, Elbereth said:

So, DA wasn't quite correct here. You may give vials to anyone, whether they are a misting or not. This does include yourself. 

That said: here's how actions work. You may use one action per role that you have. So Kelsier can only do one conversion/metal action per turn. The Lord Ruler is essentially a Mistborn and a Feruchemist, so may use two. But say the Lord Ruler were also a Metallurgist - he could then use a Misting action, a Feruchemy action, and the Metallurgist action. The eliminator kill can be used in place of any role action. 

You may also pass one vial as a free action, if you wish (in addition to the Metallurgist action, if you have it). Any more passes must be used in place of a role action. 

Oh, dang. Metalurgist, just stockpile all your vials.

11 hours ago, Elenion said:

Here's my role advice. If you think there's a better way to play your role, go ahead and play it that way. This is intended to help newer players who aren't sure how to use their role to good effect:

Tineye: Scan actions every cycle, looking for players who have killed others. Then, contact them in PMs and ask for a role-claim. If they claim a role that's not a vigilante kill role, then they're a lying Skaa. If they claim vig-kill, keep a sharp eye on them. Even if you don't spot a kill, keep collecting information on who did what.

Soother/Rioter: Manipulate votes according to your own suspicions. If you aren't suspicious of anyone, manipulate a vote that doesn't matter in order to announce that you're there.

Your analysis reads as you forgetting that there are limited vials. Soother's and Rioter's, don't use your action just to announce you exist, it's a waste of a vial. And how do you expect the Tineye's to contact the killer? and how do you expect the tineye to contact the killer, and not get killed? The other roles, i have no opinion on your thoughts. Had you given different advice for tineyes, i likely would have put this at +1, but your tineye advice reads as heavily eliminator. -1

10 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

Elenion voted for both SB and phatt for CC reasons, so nothing particular to read from that until we know his alignment. If he's a villager, than he'd just be genuinely poke voting. If he's an eliminator, then, well, there could be a lot of motives, but honestly if he died today, there'd be not enough interactions between him and other players to analyze what his intent was, exactly. So not very useful in the long run. I haven't yet read his role advice so I can't say for sure if there's some underlying intent there. I'll probably attempt that later, when my head is in a better place. Regardless, as much as I agree with Orlok's arguments regarding the Contribution Crusade, I don't feel like voting for Len is worth it. For now my gut is saying he's village, anyway, not that gut isn't infallible, or that I've really thought too hard on this.

SB's vote on Magestar is a pure poke vote. Same conclusion as with Len's. Unlike Len, though, I would vote for him because he hasn't done much else to participate since, if anything at all (off the top of my head).

Already said my piece on Orlok's vote, really. I see why he voted for Len and I can agree with it. Need some sparks to ignite a fire. But while my gut is also telling me Orlok is a villager, it doesn't mean I feel the need to follow his lead.

Magestar. Hm. His participation in the discussion gives me good vibes, too. So at the very least, I will cross him off my list of people to suspect. For now.

I'm glad that Ecth pointed out the fallacy in one of phatt's statements, though I don't think he made as big deal out of it as it deserves. So I'll go ahead and quote the exact post now, and accompany it with a vote of my own.

Phattemer. Can you explain to me exactly how waiting to vote = encouraging discussion? It's not like voting on someone causes other players not to respond, and it also doesn't help discussion if that sentence is all you say before you disappear. Your actions don't match your implied desires, and that confuses me. @phattemer

 

Vote Tally

(0) Silverblade5: Elenion, 

(1) Magestar: Silverblade5, 

(2) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, 

(1) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, 

 

It should also be noted that Jondesu retracted a vote for Drought, though he never put Drought's name in red, only '@mentioned' him with a "I'll poke vote you in the name of the Contribution Crusade."

Which reminds me. Not going to talk as much about this as I should, but given that most games, the players who would bring up this sort of thing are dead by the time it's relevant, please make sure you constantly check back through old turns every time new information is revealed. I've seen games recently where villagers could discover the identities of the eliminators fairly easily if they just revisited old discussions (and even just tallies) with the knowledge of a player's alignment. I'm not saying any of these votes are particularly important, but there's always a potential there is.

My vote on Phatt was ninja'd by 9 hours. +2 for this post, because he's hitting on all the ideas Villagers should be hitting on.

10 hours ago, phattemer said:

I was referring to how in some cases a bandwagon can be formed early on in a cycle, which leads people to want to wait for the results of it before talking more. You're right that that is not likely to happen on D1.

Any Kandra, please contact me.

Eh, don't see that as a good enough answer. If a bandwagon forms, just tell Elenion to knock it off. =P Though, if he's not involved, maybe look at why it formed. 0

5 hours ago, Elbereth said:

Preservation cannot be Part Skaa (because win conditions would die). The Lord Ruler could. 

I would like to point out that the lord ruler isn't part skaa. Elbereth made that rule clarification to prevent the Lord ruler from proving his role, and then turning into a mayor.

My Final tally for who i trust and suspect at the moment:

Elenion, _stick_, Phattemer, and Hemalurgic Head shot are at -2
Orlok and Randuir are at +1
Magestar and Amanuensis are at +2.
All else are at neutral reads

[Amanuensis]

8 hours ago, DroughtBringer said:

 

 

 

 

 

With the Contribution Crusade:

We should still lynch inactives, we might get lucky and lynch an eliminator...but we shouldn't focus on just the inactives, they could be used as just a simple distraction towards what we are doing and focusing on and end up costing us the game.

How about we all just agree to not go inactive, or at the very least, warn the thread with a message like "If I don't appear online by [insert time here], kill me, preferably with a night kill as to not waste the village's time." This would solve the problem of lynching inactives fairly easily.

7 hours ago, Jondesu said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aman, I totally missed that I messed up with the original "vote" on Drought; I was on mobile and forgot to add the red tags. I don't like phattemer's initial statement, but he has a point with bandwagons, and I don't want to form one now without a decent reason. 

I do like having suggestions offered for various roles, but it sets off alarms in my head every time. That's probably because I've seen it used to gain trust with the village (in fact, I think Elenion did that once before, though I may be mixing it up with someone else's post), but of course it can also be a genuine villager trying to help. I'm not going to drop a vote on Elenion for a post like that, but I will be watching him.

Fair enough. I will note your stance on phatt as neutral with a potential for defense, with a subnote that this is Day 1 and you have a tendency with being reluctant to lynch people this early, with an postnote that I might be remembering wrong and that I need to revisit previous games to confirm.

I myself have made role advice from both sides. For a time, it was something I did at the beginning of every game, most notably LG24, in which I was evil and gained the trust of a majority of the village and took out nearly all of their protective roles in a single night by having them target me. So yeah, I would say we should not view that advice as something indicative of alignment. It's better to focus on things like player's opinions of each others, their attempts to kill and save them, as well as role claims and how they fit into the greater picture of the game.

So, with that in mind. Ten hours has passed since I placed my vote on and so far only Jondesu has responded to the fallacies I have pointed at regarding Phatt (never mind, just got a notification from Joe, let me go read that.) Okay, now that makes Phatt in the lead with three votes, and so far only four players have commented on it. @phattemer, I know there's not much of a defense you can really muster this early, but do you have any thoughts you can contribute? In particular I would like to see your thoughts on other players. @Elenion, @Silverblade5, @Arinian, @Straw, @Hemalurgic_Headshot, @Bartimaeus, @Magestar, @DroughtBringer, @randuir, @_Stick_, @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, @OrlokTsubodai: what are your thoughts on Phatt, the players voting on him, and each other? @Ecthelion III, do you still want to keep your vote on phatt now that two other players have voted for him as well? Also, since this was something that caught my attention as soon as the sign ups were posted, do we want to test out what happens if we have a tie vote? The rules state the results are "blah blah blah" which is not very informative. Do we think that information is worth obtaining earlier rather than later? If so, how would you all like to go about arranging a tie?

I would end this post with me publicly declaring my read on Joe like I did with Jon, but I'm going to keep that in my pocket for now, since there's a bit more to process, and I want to see more players react to the lynch on Phatt, first.

 

---

Vote Tally

(0) Silverblade5: Elenion, 

(0) Magestar: Silverblade5, 

(0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, 

(3) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, 

(1) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, 

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Amanuensis
Adding vote tally

[Elbereth]

On 3/10/2017 at 5:12 PM, Darkness Ascendant said:

LG31: Day 1 - Dancing Mist

 

Rules Clarifications:

 

Ties will result in a coin flip.

The "blah blah blah" was because the rules weren't checked before posting originally. 

[Darkness Ascendant]

1 minute ago, Elbereth said:

The "blah blah blah" was because the rules weren't checked before posting originally. 

allso. Go to sleep.

[Amanuensis]

2 hours ago, Elbereth said:

The "blah blah blah" was because the rules weren't checked before posting originally. 

Completely missed that. Thanks. Which means deliberately tying votes to kill an inactive along with a suspicious player is off the table, thus if it becomes necessary, getting rid of them will either require the Skaa to use their group kill (unlikely), Coinshot spending one of his Vials (inefficient), or Ruin doing the Nobles a favor (assuming we don't lynch them, which I'd rather not do). I would prefer the first, but unless a tiny pool of specific players are eliminators, I doubt that's going to happen, so... whispers into Spike... Ruin, if you're listening, I ask that around Cycle 3, you start removing players who are inactive first, followed by those barely participating. There seem to be no limits to your kills, and this will help you narrow down candidates for Preservation. You should also keep in mind you have to kill the Skaa to win, too, therefore using your kills on players not helping find them makes fulfilling that half of your win con much easier.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Amanuensis

[Magestar]

3 hours ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

"It's an easy thing for Elims to kill inactives, and just stay quiet themselves." Can you clarify that? I agree with the rest of your post, but that statement just confuses me. Did you mean it's easy to kill actives and hide among the inactives? or did you actually mean what you said, that they're killing the true inactives, and pretending to also be inactive? +1

Oops.   Yes, I meant actives, not inactives.  (While typing that, I actually switched up actives and inactives again.  >.>  What's my brain doing lately? )

3 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

So, with that in mind. Ten hours has passed since I placed my vote on and so far only Jondesu has responded to the fallacies I have pointed at regarding Phatt (never mind, just got a notification from Joe, let me go read that.) Okay, now that makes Phatt in the lead with three votes, and so far only four players have commented on it. @phattemer, I know there's not much of a defense you can really muster this early, but do you have any thoughts you can contribute? In particular I would like to see your thoughts on other players. @Elenion, @Silverblade5, @Arinian, @Straw, @Hemalurgic_Headshot, @Bartimaeus, @Magestar, @DroughtBringer, @randuir, @_Stick_, @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, @OrlokTsubodai: what are your thoughts on Phatt, the players voting on him, and each other? @Ecthelion III, do you still want to keep your vote on phatt now that two other players have voted for him as well? Also, since this was something that caught my attention as soon as the sign ups were posted, do we want to test out what happens if we have a tie vote? The rules state the results are "blah blah blah" which is not very informative. Do we think that information is worth obtaining earlier rather than later? If so, how would you all like to go about arranging a tie?

Ok.  So, I actually think you're making a bigger deal out of Phatt's fallible logic than necessary.  It could be he just messed up phrasing somehow, as I have done in the past.  My slip ups tend to make me more sympathetic to fallible logic, so I could be rather partial here to one side of the argument.  However, I don't think I shall be voting on Phatt just yet.  I'd like to see what he has to say as well.

Because I do feel the need to place a vote down somewhere, I'm going to vote on Len.  His tone has felt different than it has in past games, a few of the things he has said had thrown me off, and while I defended one of his ideas earlier, the follow through on it and the general way he's gone about it have not made me super trusting of him.  This is D1, so this is mostly a gut read, but it's all I've got for now.  

[DeTess]

3 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

@Elenion, @Silverblade5, @Arinian, @Straw, @Hemalurgic_Headshot, @Bartimaeus, @Magestar, @DroughtBringer, @randuir, @_Stick_, @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, @OrlokTsubodai: what are your thoughts on Phatt, the players voting on him, and each other?

 

My thoughts on Phattemer are that he currently is the most suspicious of a not particularly suspicious bunch, for the reasons that have been so neatly presented by Joe and Amanuensis. It's not the be-all and end-all of proof, but it's better than what I've got on most other people. 

Of the others, I've got some suspicions for stick, regarding his question about if anyone had been contacted by a Kandra, as there is a lot of information that can be derived if even a single person had answered that question. Most of that information would probably have been more dangerous in the hands of an elim than useful in the hands of village.

I've got slight village reads on Joe, Amanuensis and Orlok, and a  slight village gut-feeling on Mage and Elenion. Everyone else I consider neutral for the moment.

[Amanuensis]

48 minutes ago, Magestar said:

 

 

 

 

Ok.  So, I actually think you're making a bigger deal out of Phatt's fallible logic than necessary.  It could be he just messed up phrasing somehow, as I have done in the past.  My slip ups tend to make me more sympathetic to fallible logic, so I could be rather partial here to one side of the argument.  However, I don't think I shall be voting on Phatt just yet.  I'd like to see what he has to say as well.

Because I do feel the need to place a vote down somewhere, I'm going to vote on Len.  His tone has felt different than it has in past games, a few of the things he has said had thrown me off, and while I defended one of his ideas earlier, the follow through on it and the general way he's gone about it have not made me super trusting of him.  This is D1, so this is mostly a gut read, but it's all I've got for now.  

Interesting. So, you don't agree with the lynch on phatt, because you've had fallible logic in the past. In my opinion, the two scenarios are very different, as your "slip ups" always occurred while you were actively participating in the game, where phatt is being very passive. He's made two posts, no more than a few short sentences, and both involved him advocating discussion without making any effort to contribute. It's less the fallacy and more the principle of the matter that is keeping my vote on him, which is why I said I would remove it if he puts himself out there more.

So, inherently, I think it's odd that you are voting for a player who is contributing to discussion only because his tone feels different to you. Yes, it's day one, and therefore we don't have much evidence to work with. But we can at least use the lynch to make an important statement and set the tone for the game. You yourself has mentioned how inactivity has had a large impact on the last few. If the active players don't make a significant effort to nudge the more quiet ones into the spotlight, then we're never going to make progress on this subject.

Vote Tally

(0) Silverblade5: Elenion, 

(0) Magestar: Silverblade5, 

(0) Droughtbringer: Jondesu, 

(4) phattemer: Elenion, Ecthelion III, Amanuensis, A Joe in a Bush, randuir, 

(2) Elenion: OrlokTsubodai, Magestar, 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Amanuensis

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

My thoughts, as requested.

So Joe has nicely picked apart the cycle and assessed the contributions of each player. I have -2. Interesting.

I normally refrain from throwing out a vote right from the start, and I wanted discussion to progress further before I acted. Now things have clearly progressed. Now, in terms of voting, there are two major targets: phatt and Len. Phatt is quickly becoming a bandwagon, but I'm getting good reads on Orlok and Mage, from their discussion, so I'm tempted to vote on Len.

So it comes down to this: do I want to join the bandwagon? It is D1, and we have minimal information, so we need some quickly. The best way of doing that is to lynch someone. Of course, we could lynch terribly wrong, as it goes most games, and kill a villager D1. What is better?

I'm susceptible to bandwagons, so phattemer. 

[Magestar]

20 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

So, inherently, I think it's odd that you are voting for a player who is contributing to discussion only because his tone feels different to you. Yes, it's day one, and therefore we don't have much evidence to work with. But we can at least use the lynch to make an important statement and set the tone for the game. You yourself has mentioned how inactivity has had a large impact on the last few. If the active players don't make a significant effort to nudge the more quiet ones into the spotlight, then we're never going to make progress on this subject.

That's fair.  Which is why I would like to see what Phattemer has to say.  I'm not super committed to the Elenion lynch, but I do like to back my suspicions.  My vote on Phat would do almost nothing right now, while my vote on Elenion in the very least sparks discussion and adds to the game.  If it goes nowhere;  fine.  I'm not unhappy to move my vote to Phat, if his lynch seems like it's the only one going anywhere, but right now, I don't think there's enough evidence to lynch him.

As far as voting on an active player... I hadn't really thought of that.  >.>  I am, apparently, susceptible to the thinking I am trying to discourage.  I would like @phattemer to speak up a little.

Oh, and I forgot to say this earlier, but I am very happy that you pinged everyone earlier.  I often want to do this, but I tend to be a little too lazy.  Thanks.  

[Arinian]

12 hours ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said:

"Alrin. My name is Alrin. But you will hear nothing more from me until I will know your name."

Juan smiled.

"Ah, right you are. My name is Juan, a pleasure to meet you. I must say, you look nothing like any of the other diners here, so I was intrigued. What is a man like you doing among nobles?"

He extended a hand to shake.

---

Sorry to cut into your RP. You can do whatever you like. 

Alrin shrugged and shook Juan’s hand.

“Nice to meet me?” He snorted then added. “What I’m doing here? Wasting time, like all other nobles. And wine there not bad… I think”. He poured wine in another glass and pushed it to Juan.

“Also if you so interested I was waiting for someone but apparently this someone is late”.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

So, with that in mind. Ten hours has passed since I placed my vote on and so far only Jondesu has responded to the fallacies I have pointed at regarding Phatt (never mind, just got a notification from Joe, let me go read that.) Okay, now that makes Phatt in the lead with three votes, and so far only four players have commented on it. @phattemer, I know there's not much of a defense you can really muster this early, but do you have any thoughts you can contribute? In particular I would like to see your thoughts on other players. @Elenion, @Silverblade5, @Arinian, @Straw, @Hemalurgic_Headshot, @Bartimaeus, @Magestar, @DroughtBringer, @randuir, @_Stick_, @Szeth Son-Son Mallano, @OrlokTsubodai: what are your thoughts on Phatt, the players voting on him, and each other? @Ecthelion III, do you still want to keep your vote on phatt now that two other players have voted for him as well? Also, since this was something that caught my attention as soon as the sign ups were posted, do we want to test out what happens if we have a tie vote? The rules state the results are "blah blah blah" which is not very informative. Do we think that information is worth obtaining earlier rather than later? If so, how would you all like to go about arranging a tie?

 

It's usual for me to give doubt too suspicious actions, yes I think that Phatt said things that sounds really suspicious but I've seen same things from many players. So I think that's not sooo indicative as you think. (reminding you about Stick's lynch in spy game). But I will vote on Phatt cause I just don't have other leads. Don't have much to say about phatt cause he showed not high level of activity in other games too.

I'm little bit suspicious of Stick but it's usual for me 

Also I was ninjad by Mage and HH... nice 

[Stick.]

I'm not really feeling the Phatt lynch. It started with a mere poke vote and quickly turned into a bandwagon. He hasn't said much...He asked a Kandra to contact him though, he'll probably speak up in PMs. There isn't much I can do to prevent the lynch now I guess 

Joe:

Quote

And how do you expect the Tineye's to contact the killer? and how do you expect the tineye to contact the killer, and not get killed? The other roles, i have no opinion on your thoughts. Had you given different advice for tineyes, i likely would have put this at +1, but your tineye advice reads as heavily eliminator. 

That's right, it does. I noticed that too. If I had to guess, I'd say Village!Len has a Kandra/Tineye ish kinda role or something. Elim!Len might have teammates with a role like that. Or he might have had a little mix-up between Tin Mistings and Tin Ferring. Though I don't exactly understand how the Ferring one works.

Just saw HH's post. Another one joins the bandwagon. Elim vibe right there. Seems to me like he's trying to lock the lynch to keep it safe from Zinc/Brass Mistings...

Mage What you just said seems a bit off to me. Like, you claim not to be committed to the Len lynch, and would move your vote to Phatt if it means anything. That seems like an Eliminator trying to look neutral. 

I can't find the post, but someone said that they aren't suspicious of Mage or Orlok because they had a conversation about encouraging activity. ...? I don't get that

18 minutes ago, Arinian said:

I'm little bit suspicious of Stick but it's usual for me 

I'm suspicious of you too 

Edited March 12, 2017 by _Stick_
Spelling

[Orlok Tsubodai]

I'm working through the thread, and have a larger post to follow once I've eaten lunch, but for now would like to head off this theme of voting for Phatt because of "bandwagons" or not having "any other leads". I will elaborate shortly, but have never seen "bandwagons" as a defensible reason for a vote, shutting down discussion as they do. Arinian, perhaps by voting on another player, or asking them questions, you might gain other leads?

[Magestar]

2 hours ago, _Stick_ said:

Mage What you just said seems a bit off to me. Like, you claim not to be committed to the Len lynch, and would move your vote to Phatt if it means anything. That seems like an Eliminator trying to look neutral. 

*shrug*  I do have trouble with committing to suspicions; take a look at most of my other games.   Although I will make not of one thing;  I said my vote on Phatt wouldn't mean anything, I think.  Not that I would move my vote if it meant something.  I more meant I wouldn't hold on to the Len lynch if it didn't seem viable.

2 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

I'm working through the thread, and have a larger post to follow once I've eaten lunch, but for now would like to head off this theme of voting for Phatt because of "bandwagons" or not having "any other leads". I will elaborate shortly, but have never seen "bandwagons" as a defensible reason for a vote, shutting down discussion as they do. Arinian, perhaps by voting on another player, or asking them questions, you might gain other leads?

Yes.  Please.  Bandwagon votes are rather annoying, and easy to hide behind.   

As for voting on another player to draw discussion...

*cough*myvoteonLen*cough

[DeTess]

3 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

I'm working through the thread, and have a larger post to follow once I've eaten lunch, but for now would like to head off this theme of voting for Phatt because of "bandwagons" or not having "any other leads". I will elaborate shortly, but have never seen "bandwagons" as a defensible reason for a vote, shutting down discussion as they do. Arinian, perhaps by voting on another player, or asking them questions, you might gain other leads?

Why do you think that voting for someone because there are no other leads is a bad thing? I agree with you regarding using a bandwagon as an excuse, but If I have to choose between voting on someone because of a minor suspicion, or voting on someone else that I don't suspect at all I'll of course vote on the person I only have a minor suspicion of.

Now, voting on someone because you have no other leads and then not hunting for other leads is a bad idea. There is probably more than one elim in this game, after all. So, on that matter: @_Stick_, what did you expect to achieve with your question regarding whether anyone had been contacted by Kandra already?

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

Just like I had thought, I have been accused because of my participation in a bandwagon. Not surprising. Still, there are only two candidates for a lynch (Mage has only one vote on him for now), but I can't do much with either. phatt, because he hasn't defended himself yet. If his defense is not effective, then I might vote with actual intent. Len, I'm not feeling it right now. He might be suspicious, but I don't think it's enough.

For now, it is simply the bandwagon. It could be derailed or confirmed. It all waits for @phattemer.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

An awful lot has happened since my last substantive post, and I preemptively apologise for the length of this post. I'll try to keep things clear, for ease of following my comments and arguments. I’m writing this on google docs, and may well insert quotes at a later point.

I'll work through the thread, and then offer comments on the themes of discussion.

@Elenion, I don't want to be rude, but take issue with your claim that “some” lynches need to be based on evidence. I think that there are very few circumstances in which generating a discussion based on evidence isn't useful, and to me, it sounds like your view is that these ought to be given equal weight to bandwagoning on inactivity?

@Arinianyou said that you were suspicious of Stick because she doesn't look suspicious. Would you care to expound on this? There are a lot of players so far that you haven't mentioned as being suspicious - why call Stick out?

@A Joe in the Bush, I agree that your criticism of @Elenion'a role advice is warranted, and would also highlight Elenion’s views on thugs. I may be misinterpreting him, but it seems to me that he thinks thugs should claim when up for the lynch, and that they should expect a lynch to dissipate when they do so. This, to me, is a ridiculous view. Not only are we unable to verify that they are indeed a thug, allowing anyone who cared to claim a “get out of jail free” card, but more importantly, being a thug is not remotely indicative of being good. If we leave suspicious players be based on it taking longer to lynch them, we go into the late game with potential evil players capable of taking two lunches to kill, and so only delaying the problem.

@Ecthelion III rightly identifies @phattemer's strange ways of generating discussion, but ignores both @_Stick_, who had said the same thing yet earlier in the thread than Phattemer, and @Hemalurgic_Headshot, who had also advocated discussion by waiting to vote…
Why did you single out Phattemer?

@Amanuensis, firstly, I'd like to offer my best wishes that you recover swiftly, and sympathy for your Worm induced distraction. You say I'm your first post that you'd consider a vote on Silverblade for not doing anything. Is this materially different to a poke vote? 

@phattemer's argument that he delayed voting to avoid a bandwagon forming is, to me, a weak argument. Two votes hardly make a bandwagon, and increasing pressure on a player increases their motivation to defend themselves, whilst doing nothing, as has been pointed out, adds nothing to discussion. 
His claim that he'd like kandra to contact him strikes me as desperation. Whether that's holding an important village role or trying to convey the sense that he has an important village role isn't yet apparent.

I agree wholeheartedly with Aman’s warning that the game would turn into a “follow the cop” if we all wait for answers, although think that a consensus is present in the thread that doing so is a poor strategy. I think his argument regarding Straw is very weak, and am a little surprised he brought it up. It's far more likely to be coincidental than Straw informing Phat that he needed to respond.

@Silverblade5, you said you agree with Phattemer’s role advice. Which parts did you particularly agree with, and what do you think about his advice to Tineyes and Thugs?

@DroughtBringer made a post that I see as inherently contradictory. He says we should lynch inactives as we might get lucky, but that they may also be a distraction. Do you support lynching them or not?

@A Joe in the Bush, Stick did exactly the same thing as Phattemer. Is there a particular reason for voting on Phattemer rather than Stick or Headshot?
I'm not sure I agree with you regarding stockpiling of metals. Although it does limit supplies for the eliminators, it also results in a lot of village firepower being at risk, reliant on a single player’s survival. 
What's the value in saying what you did about the Lord Ruler? If you're right, you increase the likelihood of the Lord Ruler becoming a mayor, which is something I think we can all agree should be opposed.

@Amanuensis, I agree completely regarding your assessment that role advice isn't alignment indicative, and indeed, it makes me suspicious, being a safe and uncontroversial place to appear helpful. I would ask, though, whether there is any value in claiming you have a read on Joe that you're not prepared to reveal. The conversation has been focused on Phattemer, and is of limited use. Creating a second strand of conversation would increase the information we could draw from the lynch. My other thought is that you're trying to get additional suspicion cast on Joe, and if so, why not mention that you're suspicious of him? It strikes me as a way to try to direct conversation whilst potentially avoiding the consequences of putting an opinion out there.

@Magestar, you say that things Elenion has said have thrown you off. Which particular things has he said that have done so?

@randuir, you vote for Phatt as he's the most suspicious player, but other players have done exactly the same thing. What makes Phattemer more suspicious than Stick or Headshot?

Aman, you recently said it was “odd” that Magestar is voting for a player based on their tone feeling different. Is this but an observation, or are you suspicious of Magestar, now? If so, why didn't you say so?

@Hemalurgic_Headshot, your recent post, to me, makes me very suspicious of you. You note that it is “interesting” that Joe called said he was suspicious of you, attempt to justify calling for discussion whilst not perpetuating it, and then vote on Phattemer for doing exactly the same thing you did. If he warrants a vote, don't you?

@Arinian, similarly, you say that Phattemer’s actions are not indicative of alignment, as although they're suspicious, many other players have done the same thing. How do you reconcile this view with voting for Phattemer immediately after?

I'm going to post this now, and edit in the posts that have occurred since starting this analysis as soon as I can.

Edited March 12, 2017 by OrlokTsubodai

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

8 minutes ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

@Hemalurgic_Headshot, your recent post, to me, makes me very suspicious of you. You note that it is “interesting” that Joe called said he was suspicious of you, attempt to justify calling for discussion whilst not perpetuating it, and then vote on Phattemer for doing exactly the same thing you did. If he warrants a vote, don't you?

Your points are all true, and I am not saying that you should not vote against me. You have clearly given evidence that I should have a stack of votes for the exact reasons phatt does. I found it interesting, because I don't think I am suspicious as Len or phatt, but apparently I am. It's a matter of perception.

What troubles me is that there is a matter of hours before the cycle ends, and most of us are confused and wondering who to lynch.

[Magestar]

Huh.  Did those pings not work, or is it just me?   Thankfully, I was just sitting here...

Watching the thread...

-sigh-

Ok.  Here we go.

2 minutes ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

@Magestar, you say that things Elenion has said have thrown you off. Which particular things has he said that have done so?

Ok.  First off, how he dealt with the poke voting he did.  It was neither very effective nor very helpful, and while I defended his ideas, his follow through was poor.  He's actually been less aggressive than usual.  His tone seems different than it usually does.  And I have a general suspicion of Elenion to begin with, which probably doesn't help.  Again, this isn't a huge suspicion, but more a discussion booster.

Ninja'd by HH...  I'm honestly not surprised that we don't have a lot to go on.  This is C1.  Usually, you don't figure out a lot C1.  It's the lynch and what people've said that gets things going C2.

[DeTess]

25 minutes ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

 

@randuir, you vote for Phatt as he's the most suspicious player, but other players have done exactly the same thing. What makes Phattemer more suspicious than Stick or Headshot?

Maybe we disagree on what constitutes 'the exact same thing'. HH has been relatively active, though most of his posts have been RP. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think he's ever said that he didn't vote to promote discussion. I am slightly more suspicious of HH than I was before because of his reasoning for voting on Phattemer being "I like bandwagons'.

Regarding stick, I'll wait until I've gotten an answer to my question before rendering judgement, but he once again hasn't claimed to have taken a certain course of action to promote discussion, followed by a complete lack of participation in discussion from him. He hasn't been very active in the ongoing discussion yet, but at least he hasn't claimed that he was doing things to promote discussion.