Jump to content

Long Game (3)2: Pulling on Strings


Recommended Posts

@randuir but the logical conclusion is not that the Inquisitor killed Aman. After all, there are quite a few reasons why the Inquisitor might refrain from wrecking him. Let's look at a few.

-Aman would have garnered some suspicion for his "grand challenge," almost certainly, as you and others mentioned. Suspicion always leads to discussion, and Eliminators love to fly under the radar when lynch discussion is happening on an innocent. This particular case would lend itself very well to loads of filler discussion. Why remove that possibility, especially if it might lead to the village lynching Aman?

-Aman is one of the typical movers and shakers of discussion. However, no matter how fantastic he is at analysis, it's unlikely that he'll pick the single bad guy out of a crowd in the first few Cycles. In fact, he would have likely led the village to lynch a few more innocents, with air-tight reasoning and solid conviction. Why give that potential up as an Eliminator?

-Aman requested to be attacked. Why? While we know in hindsight that he had no protection and wasn't a Thug, we didn't know that at the time. With the potential to waste a kill, why would the Inquisitor wreck Aman?

With the reasoning above, I'm almost positive that IF the Inquisitor killed Aman, they were not experienced. Following, I'm fairly certain that an inexperienced Inquisitor wouldn't have killed Aman. The request for death would seem like a trap to a small child with even the barest background in Star Wars.

 

Who else can kill? Oh yeah, Coinshots. Why would an experienced Coinshot NOT kill Aman? Here are a few reasons, again.

-Typically, I don't have strong suspicions this early in the game. Most people don't, in fact. Poke votes happen in the early game, not tunnels.

-Aman didn't really do anything suspicious. Did anyone suspect him?

-Experienced Coinshots would most likely wait and use their powers judiciously once they have solid suspicions. 

-Even if an experienced Coinshot did suspect Aman, it seems unlikely to me that they would fall into what looked a lot like a trap.

-Delayed consequences: If a Coinshot wanted to reveal himself later, imagine having to explain killing Aman N1. A lot of suspicion would come from that.

In light of these reasons, I think the only role left that fits the profile of Aman's killer is an inexperienced Coinshot. Someone who saw the challenge, immediately suspected Aman for it, and was willing to use a kill this early in the game without thinking about future consequences.

Quite a bit of the pro-Inquisitor kill conversation has been coming from an assumption that the Inquisitor would kill someone Night 1. We don't necessarily know that that's true, and saying that "The Inquisitor SHOULD want to kill someone N1" doesn't mean that the Inquisitor DOES want to kill someone N1. I'd challenge peeps to give reasoning aside from that assumption.

This has been a Normative Statements Post, bois. #Microeconomics #Jargon

@Yitzi2 @Mark IV @EveryoneWhoWhinedAboutMeHavingHomeworkAndNotSpendingEveryWakingMomentOnTheShard 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

@Jondesu, Stink is in charge of the writeups, which means that you ought to make any inferences with a small mountain of salt, and/or significant quantities of intoxicating fluids.

Heh, good to know.  I won't count on it revealing anything, then.

26 minutes ago, randuir said:

(emphasis mine) The GM confirmation regarding that that I quoted earlier is on page 7 of the combined thread, if you want to see it for yourself. It could of course be that some uber-metals get as bonus that they are a free action, but I don't think the GM's would mess with our ability to estimate the inquisitor's power quite this badly. Plus, having an Uber-metal be a free action would discourage giving it away to convert someone, as it is an actual loss of power, rather than just a loss of versatility.

I think the only extra "action" I could expect is any passive abilities, like pewter, but I agree that they wouldn't get a free action with that particular GM clarification.

Edited by Jondesu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the discussion about Aman's intentions, I thought I'd mention this:

I had a sort-of active PM with Aman, where the topic did come up that he was going to mention a plan to the thread. He didn't say exactly what it was, but, he did say he expected himself to be converted, so he instead would propose a plan where he would be scanned or killed in a few cycles. Last cycle's plan was a result. 

From this, I suspect that Aman's intentions were as he stated. 

This post is a slight rambling mess because 

1)I'm on phone

2)I'm settling down to sleep. 

So, yeah, if there any questions for me, I'll answer them on the breeze tomorrow. 

Praise the Ja, and may he provide blessed dreams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aman said in a PM that he made the challenge to make the Inquisitor have to choose between options that could hint at who they are. If the Inquisitor killed Aman, it would protect more vital roles, and if it didn't kill Aman, he'd have more protection. If he hadn't made the challenge, the Inquisitor would have just done their own thing with kills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I have no doubt that Aman was killed by elim. What need for coinshot to hit Aman? I don't see good reasons for that... Okay I see some reasons: 1)We have absolutely erratic coinshot. 2)Coinshot is veerrryyyy paranoid  of Aman. But both this possibilities is stupid, so I'm sure that it was elim kill.

2. Vote manipulation. We've seen plenty of vote manipulations and there was some guesses about Uber-vote manip from inquisitor. I'm think that we haven't seen any vote manipulations from Inquisitor and this all vote manipulations were done by villagers. Why?

     1)Elim have only one action and there was kill and I think that this was elim kill as I wrote above. Yes, there were guesses about auto-soothing from elim when he votes. I think that existence of this auto-soothing is very doubtful cause then it's easy to find inquisitor by his votes.

    2)What I think is happened with votes. I see 2 possibilities.

          - Obvious one. There were 2 soothers and 1 rioter and all they decided to mess up with votes.

          - Or 1 soother and 1 rioter. Ecth was soothed and Silverblade rioted Lopen's vote or Silver was soothed and Ecth rioted Lopen's vote. From previous games I can say that Silver usually not paying much attention to games and I think that possible that he just forgot about his vote on Aonar. Maybe I'm missed but I haven't seen any answer on that from Silver he just ignored that. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

17 hours ago, Aonar Faileas said:

First off, shame on anyone who didn't see this coming. :P Aman offered up a free, uninterrupted kill against a strong player that gives the village minimal information and the Inquisitor a guaranteed convert tonight. While doing otherwise might have cast a little suspicion on Aman, theres no real way to justify it as worth it. Pragmatism FTW. :P

Anyways, have fun. Go and discuss and things so I have more information to base suspcions on. :P

Nice so maybe it was you who killed Aman? 

I just want to say that you acting like when you were elim in LG29. Of course I played only 2 games with you(LG28 and LG29) so I can't judge clearly about how you acting usually. But from what I saw when you was villager in LG28 you was more active and in LG29 when you was elim you most of time lurked feeding us with promises like that one, that you just need more time and info and you will truly join game but all that was just promises and you showed up in thread only when there appeared chance that you will be lynched for your lurking. So story repeats again, so maybe this time I shouldn't repeat old fails and lynch you?

17 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

I don't know about you guys, but it has never gone well in my experience for anyone making a deal with Aman. I'm not surprised at all that he is dead, although I am a bit surprised that he wasn't as thug or had some other way to survive the attack.

Also, I'll put my vote on Elenion for now.

Same as Aonar in both games that I played with you was not very active, I can't say that it was lurking from you but flying under radar surely. Also your reasoning for vote on Len sounds weak, cause Len acted as usual Len I haven't seen any unusual agression from him. Maybe you can provide us with other reasoning for your vote?(Oh okay I can't blame you for weak reasoning you atleast brought it)

16 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

As Garshin wandered away from the rambling Keeper (whom, he noticed, had not actually answered the question he'd been asked), he came across another argument.  "You know, your accusation of that strange watcher fellow actually was fairly suspicious, seeing as it made no sense whatsoever.  The way I see it, you're currently our number one candidate for the culprit.  And now that a Smoker is dead, we need to act, as the Inquisitor probably charged a Hemalurgic...oh right, Hemalurgy isn't well known in this age.  Suffice it to say that the Inquisitor is likely to have an ally soon, who will be a Smoker as well."

-----------------------

That's a vote for Elenion, though it is highly tentative and subject to change if someone suggests a more likely target.

That vote hits me as super weird. I read through thread but still don't understand your reasoning for that. Also part "tentative and subject to change if someone suggests a more likely target" looks like you happy to jump on lynch on anyone, also it can be interpreted as good back way if something will go wrong. Or interpreted as you don't have your own opinion. And I'm sure that you have your own opinion, suspicions, even gut read will be suitable answer for me.

Also I want to add that posts from Yitzi on N1 was giving bad hints to me. He was pointing on vote manipulations. I will just quote one of his posts:

Quote

But why would anybody Riot to Sark; he was a clear winner.  Unless the Inquisitor was trying to cast suspicion...but then it would be more convincing if he soothed only one voting person.

Maybe he is one who tried to cast suspicions? But that just my gut read.

14 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

I'm dodging the question? I suspect the question is somewhat irrelevant, if everyone is so sure the rioter is a villager.

But fine. Perhaps I can answer this question.

To no fault of Wilson's or your own, it appears you've ignored the original post I made last night on that matter. So I'll reiterate:

It was apparent last cycle that there was going to be a lynch. The voting requirements were fulfilled. At that point, what bearing does my advocating a lynch have on my voting?

Honestly, I could probably just stop there. But I don't feel like stopping, so, onwards.

So, beyond that, my vote would have only mattered to steer the lynch one way or another.

And yet. I had read basically none of the many posts in that cycle. I really wasn't informed enough to cast a vote, so why should I be steering the vote?

So I made comments on the posts I saw right in front of me in the last few hours of the cycle, and let that be that.

Honestly... If I'd thrown a vote on someone last second in the previous cycle, without proper reasoning that comes from actually reading the thread, do you seriously think I wouldn't have gotten called out for that by someone? It seems now that when I exercise restraint, I am still called out... Doesn't much matter what I do then.

Which, I suppose is fine. Maybe after a few more mislynches, y'alls will realize you can't read me. Which, independent of my alignment in any particular game, is useful.

Want to call my bluff? Lynch me. I dare you. I may be dead, but I'll also be proven right. And trust me, that matters much more to me :P:P:P

 First why you bringing "I suspect the question is somewhat irrelevant, if everyone is so sure the rioter is a villager", maybe I missed something but I don't see reasons why question about not voting "irrelevant" just cause rioter is possibly villager. You pushed for lynch but not voted, and answer that there already was enough votes sounds irrelevant. There always place for one more vote especially on D1 when there can't be any true consistence in votes(obviously cause it's D1).

 I will agree that Ecth's accusation is wrong. But talking about playstyles yours changed and I'm think that you got important role and that also can mean that you are elim.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusions: Yitzi. I can count some of his advices and thoughts as harmful for village(his advices about seekers on D1) or atleast wrong from my point of view. Also his vote on Len on D2 don't holds any ground and when people started to question him his answers was illogical and confusing(atleast for me). Probably I will vote for him later but I have rule for myself not to lynch newcomers till C3.

Drake. Ecth accusations on Drake is really weird and unreasonable. Only on what I can point it's Drake's behavior, for me it looks different then usual for him, that may be connected that he got important role in this game but that not indicates his alignment. Of course there can be other reasons for changes in his tone and activity so I not gonna count that as reason to vote for him.

Aonar, Drought. Lurkers... I don't like lurkers...

Araris. I think he is villager... yes it's hard to read him due to his playstyle but his tone looked genuine for me.

Also I think I should add Rae. She is acting not as village!Rae. You will ask what made me think so? I don't see bloodthirsty crowd that thinks that Rae is suspicious and it's usual for village!Rae to be suspicious. But I should reread her posts... maybe I will find something suspicious and will calm down :D

For now I will cast my vote on Aonar cause he is acting as when he was elim.

Also I think I should reread  more carefuly D1 and N1. But I'm not sure that I would do it cause I'm lazy :D

I think that's all for now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arinian said:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nice so maybe it was you who killed Aman? 

I just want to say that you acting like when you were elim in LG29. Of course I played only 2 games with you(LG28 and LG29) so I can't judge clearly about how you acting usually. But from what I saw when you was villager in LG28 you was more active and in LG29 when you was elim you most of time lurked feeding us with promises like that one, that you just need more time and info and you will truly join game but all that was just promises and you showed up in thread only when there appeared chance that you will be lynched for your lurking. So story repeats again, so maybe this time I shouldn't repeat old fails and lynch you?

Aonar, Drought. Lurkers... I don't like lurkers...

Araris. I think he is villager... yes it's hard to read him due to his playstyle but his tone looked genuine for me.

Also I think I should add Rae. She is acting not as village!Rae. You will ask what made me think so? I don't see bloodthirsty crowd that thinks that Rae is suspicious and it's usual for village!Rae to be suspicious. But I should reread her posts... maybe I will find something suspicious and will calm down :D

For now I will cast my vote on Aonar cause he is acting as when he was elim.

Also I think I should reread  more carefuly D1 and N1. But I'm not sure that I would do it cause I'm lazy :D

I think that's all for now.

 

Obviously. :rolleyes: I mean, who else could it be? I'm clearly the Inquisitor..

Meh. Two games does not a sample group make. Once upon a time, I was fairly consistently vocal, but that's not really the case anymore. If you went back and read LG28, you might notice that I really wasn't very active. Especially at the beginning. So I'm going to go back to lurking, and continue to do so until I have reason to do otherwise.

But go ahead and lynch me if you feel like it. I dare you. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Arinian, I don't attract bloodthirsty hordes looking to off me that quickly. :P Try waiting a few cycles.

Has Meta said anything this game? He's on the player list, he ran the first version of this game, and he's a mod. There's no reason for him to be this silent. @Metacognition, you are playing this game, right?

I'm voting for Yitzi2 for an overall lack of reasoning. It's hard to follow and doesn't make a lot of sense.

5 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

I see I wasn't clear.  So let me clarify:

-Elenion's accusation of Ecthelion last night made no sense, since Ecthelion was not the only person whose vote was negated.

-There are a few potential reasons for this, but Elenion being the Inquisitor was one of them.  Since the village definitely wants to have a lynching today (both because an enemy smoker means "follow the cop" is now definitely a no-go and because even if we accidentally lynch a misting, it doesn't give the Inquisitor another opportunity to convert), even that fairly minor added amount was enough to vote for him.  (Now I've reconsidered, since his general posting makes other explanations much more likely). 

However, this is still a fairly weak reason, and therefore I am ready to change my opinion based on the future reasoning of others, should I see any that is good.

As for "provide an ad Hominem as if it was reasoning": When discussing the role of a given individual, an ad Hominem regarding that individual is addressing the topic at hand and therefore not fallacious.

In this community, a "follow the cop" strategy with a few cleared people dictating what everyone else does until they too are cleared is generally frowned upon. (Orlok, our GM is particularly vocal against those.) Additionally, since this is a conversion game, all scans should be taken with a grain of salt, because someone who was village today might not be village tomorrow. However, the potential existence of one slim Smoker doesn't render Seekers completely useless. The Smoker still has to choose who to smoke, and they can only cover themselves and one other person. The Seeker can still seek others. Besides, an eliminator scan is still an eliminator scan, regardless of how many Smokers there are in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

No, but someone else might later come up with a better reason to be suspicious of someone else.

So your opinion is based on an as of yet unstated opinion? One that's backed with evidence that just hasn't been presented yet? That is the worst attempt at bandwagon ever lol.

Dalinar

Yitzi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Silverblade5 said:

So your opinion is based on an as of yet unstated opinion? One that's backed with evidence that just hasn't been presented yet? That is the worst attempt at bandwagon ever lol.

Dalinar

Yitzi

Will you read what I actually said? 

My opinion at the time of that statement was based on reasons that I gave, namely the fact that Elenion accused Ecthelion of rioting due to something that was not unique to Ecthelion.

My current opinion is "no vote".

My future opinion may be based on an as-of-yet unstated opinion from someone else; it being the future, I can't know what will happen, and wanted to be clear that my position was malleable based on future considerations.

How would you say "this is my current vote, but if someone gives a good reason to change it I probably will"?

Edited by Yitzi2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Arraenae said:

@Arinian, I don't attract bloodthirsty hordes looking to off me that quickly. :P Try waiting a few cycles.

Interesting how your ability to attract bloodthirsty crowds works with convert hmm... If you will be converted all bloodthirst will dissapear in moment, or it will last for some time after you will be converted :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

Will you read what I actually said? 

My opinion at the time of that statement was based on reasons that I gave, namely the fact that Elenion accused Ecthelion of rioting due to something that was not unique to Ecthelion.

My current opinion is "no vote".

My future opinion may be based on an as-of-yet unstated opinion from someone else; it being the future, I can't know what will happen, and wanted to be clear that my position was malleable based on future considerations.

How would you say "this is my current vote, but if someone gives a good reason to change it I probably will"?

Apologies. I jumped the shark and voted, instead of reading the entire thread. As for your question, I probably wouldn't make that statement at all. I'd assume malleable opinions to be inherently understood by people, and not need stating. Here is mine: If I find someone more suspicious than you, the vote shall be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bandwagon on Yitzi2 has gone far enough. I've reread the thread to current in a less sleep-deprived state and I don't think his vote was made with evil intent. I may not agree with the reasoning behind it (other players have already affirmed that I didn't do anything not in my usual playstyle), but it doesn't strike me as an Inquisitor move. Maybe that of a member of a standard elim team, but not for a solo elim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DroughtBringer, you are lurking, as Arinian pointed out, and since Aonar explained himself somewhat, I find your behavior the most suspicious at the moment (it should be noted, I talked with Mark via PM and while I haven't stopped being suspicious, I'm looking for better grounds for suspicion before I vote on him again, to help me avoid tunneling). Until I hear a good explanation, DroughtBringer has my vote. I'd consider some of the true inactives, but we know the Inquisitor isn't one, and they're mostly new players, and I don't like to vote them out early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've picked the particular parts of Kipper's post that I disagree with. anything not quoted here are things I can't find faulty logic in (there's TL;DR at the end for those in a hurry).

4 hours ago, Kipper said:

-Aman is one of the typical movers and shakers of discussion. However, no matter how fantastic he is at analysis, it's unlikely that he'll pick the single bad guy out of a crowd in the first few Cycles. In fact, he would have likely led the village to lynch a few more innocents, with air-tight reasoning and solid conviction. Why give that potential up as an Eliminator?

You are right that Aman is unlikely to pick the eliminator out of a crowd. However, he is more likely to do so than many other players, so why run the risk of getting caught by him. The village would be more likely to lynch more villagers without him than with him.

Quote

-Aman requested to be attacked. Why? While we know in hindsight that he had no protection and wasn't a Thug, we didn't know that at the time. With the potential to waste a kill, why would the Inquisitor wreck Aman?

I've had somewhat limited experience with Aman as a player, but he hasn't really proven to be a sneaky villager in that time (I remember him also saying something along those lines in LG31 when I accused him of trying to sneakily get people focused on Joe, but I can't find the exact quote). He has of course been quite good at analysis, but he generally hasn't been in the business of willful misdirection. This might just be a wrong impression by a rather new player though.

I agree with your points about the coinshots.

4 hours ago, Kipper said:

Following, I'm fairly certain that an inexperienced Inquisitor wouldn't have killed Aman. The request for death would seem like a trap to a small child with even the barest background in Star Wars.

Why exactly do you think an inexperienced inquisitor wouldn't have killed Aman? A read through previous games he played in would probably show that he could be a possible threat, and if Inexperienced!elim assumed Amanuensis would honor his word, there would be no reason for him not to take the shot if he/she wasn't willing to play game.

4 hours ago, Kipper said:

Quite a bit of the pro-Inquisitor kill conversation has been coming from an assumption that the Inquisitor would kill someone Night 1. We don't necessarily know that that's true, and saying that "The Inquisitor SHOULD want to kill someone N1" doesn't mean that the Inquisitor DOES want to kill someone N1. I'd challenge peeps to give reasoning aside from that assumption.

I'd say most inquisitors would want to recruit at least 1 or 2 fellow elims. If the elim still had the option to attack someone during the night, he'd certainly take it to increase his chances of having a misting corpse to use to convert someone the next night.

Which brings me to the one major weakpoint in your reasoning, which relates to what the inquisitor has done instead of killing someone. 

Possibly, he used some kind of uber-vote-manip to make sure the lynch would go through. This is unlikely though, as the lynch already looked likely, but there was no guarantee it targeted a misting. Therefore, keeping an action in reserve for a night kill almost guaranteed at least 1 kill, with the possibility of two kills, while manipulating the votes would almost guarantee one kill, with no chance of a second. In other words, saving the action for a kill is the more efficient thing to do.

According to the LG2 master-doc, neither uber-copper nor uber-petwer needed to be activated. Though that might have changed for this game, I do not think that too likely.

that leaves uber-versions of iron, steel, bronze and tin (and possibly atium). I've seen people warn against including the obvious use of uber-tin (spy on everything) in games because of the incredible amount of extra workload, though if it is included, this might be a distinct possibility.

Some uber-vatiant of iron (maybe redirect the attack to someone else?) probably doesn't make much sense at this early stage.

Depending on what uber-bronze does, it might be useful, but if it's the same as it was in LG2 (one target scanned, pierce copperclouds), an attack would be more efficient, as it procures the same information and also procures a corpse for conversion.

So, in conclusion, the only uber-metal that I can see a use for, apart from the kill-metal right now would be uber-tin. There could be some really out-there effects that the inquisitor could use (uber-atium, anyone?) but I don't think that is very likely. All in all, I can't really think of something the inquisitor would do instead of killing someone.

TL;DR Kipper makes some good points, but I'm not convinced.

I'll hopefully have some time tomorrow to do a full reread of the previous cycle to check if anyone truly stands out to me as suspicious. For now, have this vote tally:

Day 2 Vote Tally

Elenion(1): Araris, Yitzi2

Mark IV(1): Herowannabe

Drake(1): Dalinar

Yitzi2(2): Arraenae, Silverblade5, Elenion

Dalinar(0): Silverblade5

Iamspartacus(1): Randuir

Aonar(1): arinian

Droughtbringer(1): Jondesu

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, randuir said:

You are right that Aman is unlikely to pick the eliminator out of a crowd. However, he is more likely to do so than many other players, so why run the risk of getting caught by him. The village would be more likely to lynch more villagers without him than with him.

My groups of points are all co-dependent on one another. No one point stands on its own. However, I still consider them all very strong. This one...leaving him alive, the Inquisitor would gain possible misdirection, possible suspicion from Aman, and presumably a future conversion. Killing him, the Inquisitor loses the potential of suspicion from Aman, loses the potential for conversion of a typically trusted player. Add Aman's challenge to this, and my personal opinion is that an experienced Inquisitor would leave him alive. We're basically repeating ourselves on this point, though.

16 minutes ago, randuir said:

I've had somewhat limited experience with Aman as a player, but he hasn't really proven to be a sneaky villager in that time (I remember him also saying something along those lines in LG31 when I accused him of trying to sneakily get people focused on Joe, but I can't find the exact quote). He has of course been quite good at analysis, but he generally hasn't been in the business of willful misdirection. This might just be a wrong impression by a rather new player though.

Hey, don't sell yourself short! We were all new players once. To your point: Regardless of Aman's previous sneakiness, it would seem just a wee bit off for anyone to request death.

18 minutes ago, randuir said:

Why exactly do you think an inexperienced inquisitor wouldn't have killed Aman? A read through previous games he played in would probably show that he could be a possible threat, and if Inexperienced!elim assumed Amanuensis would honor his word, there would be no reason for him not to take the shot if he/she wasn't willing to play game.

My primary reason why an inexperienced Inquisitor wouldn't kill Aman is the whole dare thing. Imo, an inexperienced/erratic/whatever Inquisitor's thought process on this would be largely distilled to the dare, which seems quite fishy. Why would an inexperienced Inquisitor assume that Aman would honor his word if Aman is requesting a kill on himself? That's ludicrous. Honestly, I think making the dare was a horrible, pointless move for Aman himself, though I wasn't expecting him to die. Again, we're just repeating ourselves on this point.

18 minutes ago, randuir said:

I'd say most inquisitors would want to recruit at least 1 or 2 fellow elims. If the elim still had the option to attack someone during the night, he'd certainly take it to increase his chances of having a misting corpse to use to convert someone the next night.

Which brings me to the one major weakpoint in your reasoning, which relates to what the inquisitor has done instead of killing someone. 

Possibly, he used some kind of uber-vote-manip to make sure the lynch would go through. This is unlikely though, as the lynch already looked likely, but there was no guarantee it targeted a misting. Therefore, keeping an action in reserve for a night kill almost guaranteed at least 1 kill, with the possibility of two kills, while manipulating the votes would almost guarantee one kill, with no chance of a second. In other words, saving the action for a kill is the more efficient thing to do.

According to the LG2 master-doc, neither uber-copper nor uber-petwer needed to be activated. Though that might have changed for this game, I do not think that too likely.

that leaves uber-versions of iron, steel, bronze and tin (and possibly atium). I've seen people warn against including the obvious use of uber-tin (spy on everything) in games because of the incredible amount of extra workload, though if it is included, this might be a distinct possibility.

Some uber-vatiant of iron (maybe redirect the attack to someone else?) probably doesn't make much sense at this early stage.

Depending on what uber-bronze does, it might be useful, but if it's the same as it was in LG2 (one target scanned, pierce copperclouds), an attack would be more efficient, as it procures the same information and also procures a corpse for conversion.

So, in conclusion, the only uber-metal that I can see a use for, apart from the kill-metal right now would be uber-tin. There could be some really out-there effects that the inquisitor could use (uber-atium, anyone?) but I don't think that is very likely. All in all, I can't really think of something the inquisitor would do instead of killing someone.

TL;DR Kipper makes some good points, but I'm not convinced.

I'll hopefully have some time tomorrow to do a full reread of the previous cycle to check if anyone truly stands out to me as suspicious. For now, have this vote tally:

Well, I'd argue that what the Inquisitor did instead of killing is not a weakpoint in my reasoning, solely because I didn't even address it. Perhaps the Inquisitor was inactive; perhaps the Inquisitor made another action. I don't really care. In fact, this whole argument is rather irrelevant. It won't make a difference to the game. I'm addressing only motivations because I like to talk about them.

In my analysis, the Inquisitor doesn't have a good motivation for killing Aman that is good enough to outweigh the drawbacks and potential drawbacks. The only type of player who does have that kind of motivation is an inexperienced Coinshot.

Also, there's a difference in how the two of us are approaching this problem. I'm approaching a specific action that happened and addressing different roles' motivations for making that action. The reasons that I've used are objective reasons and analysis that any outside player could come up from. The conclusion I reach is subjective, but the presumptions are not. On the other hand, you're trying to prove that I'm wrong by trying to get into the Inquisitor's head; addressing actions (by the way, actions that you presumably don't know if the Inquisitor even has in this game) that may or may not have happened (which you also don't know, presumably), and coming up with the motivations for those actions.

The conclusion of your argumentation still relies on a massive assumption, which I've already addressed elswhere.

 

All that said, I'm about done arguing this. The points are all out there, and it's not going to change the game.

Arinian. His suspicion of Aonar doesn't really seem to be based on anything but past games, and find it very suspicious when votes like that are placed. Also, I've seen quite a bit of fillerposting from Arinian.

@Arraenae are you voting for Yitzi because of a lack of reasoning, or because you actually suspect Yitzi to be the Inquisitor, using a lack of reasoning to accomplish a nefarious goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quond finished his book, and stood up, accidentally putting too much weight on his right leg. He grunted, and shifted it back to his left. His right leg was mostly fine, he was 28 after all, but his bone had been broken when Teikel's men had raided his house. It had never been fully set, so sometimes it still hurt a bit. He looked around the small room, which hardly even deserved that name, and decided he was bored. Uncertain of what to do, he decided to wander outside, see if Tekiel or the Fool was there, and kill them if they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kipper said:

 

@Arraenae are you voting for Yitzi because of a lack of reasoning, or because you actually suspect Yitzi to be the Inquisitor, using a lack of reasoning to accomplish a nefarious goal?

Gah. Thought about this and realized that I don't suspect Yitzi, I just really don't like his lack of reasoning. Yitzi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arraenae said:

Gah. Thought about this and realized that I don't suspect Yitzi, I just really don't like his lack of reasoning.

I suspect that part of that was simply that I wasn't clear on my reasoning (I have attempted to clarify since then), and part of it was that I was in turn over-estimating the significance of someone else's flawed reasoning (I have since retracted my position).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm... So. Some things.

 

First of all I just noticed the tin message in the writeup. Tells me a few things. First, that they probably aren't a new player, talking about "new blood" and "old blood." Second, there's a code in there, which I haven't the patience to crack right now.

 

5 hours ago, Arinian said:

Drake. Ecth accusations on Drake is really weird and unreasonable. Only on what I can point it's Drake's behavior, for me it looks different then usual for him, that may be connected that he got important role in this game but that not indicates his alignment. Of course there can be other reasons for changes in his tone and activity so I not gonna count that as reason to vote for him.

You're wrong about the important role bit, but you're quite right that my playstyle has changed.

If its any excuse, the past few days I was sleep deprived and still recovering from the flu. I'm sorry if I've been... Less then cordial.

To be honest, my playstyle changes kind of a lot. Part of that is I have mood swings, part of that is that I'm experimenting with different approaches since I'm still sorta new to the game.

2 hours ago, Kipper said:

My groups of points are all co-dependent on one another. No one point stands on its own. However, I still consider them all very strong. This one...leaving him alive, the Inquisitor would gain possible misdirection, possible suspicion from Aman, and presumably a future conversion. Killing him, the Inquisitor loses the potential of suspicion from Aman, loses the potential for conversion of a typically trusted player. Add Aman's challenge to this, and my personal opinion is that an experienced Inquisitor would leave him alive. We're basically repeating ourselves on this point, though.

Hey, don't sell yourself short! We were all new players once. To your point: Regardless of Aman's previous sneakiness, it would seem just a wee bit off for anyone to request death.

My primary reason why an inexperienced Inquisitor wouldn't kill Aman is the whole dare thing. Imo, an inexperienced/erratic/whatever Inquisitor's thought process on this would be largely distilled to the dare, which seems quite fishy. Why would an inexperienced Inquisitor assume that Aman would honor his word if Aman is requesting a kill on himself? That's ludicrous. Honestly, I think making the dare was a horrible, pointless move for Aman himself, though I wasn't expecting him to die. Again, we're just repeating ourselves on this point.

Well, I'd argue that what the Inquisitor did instead of killing is not a weakpoint in my reasoning, solely because I didn't even address it. Perhaps the Inquisitor was inactive; perhaps the Inquisitor made another action. I don't really care. In fact, this whole argument is rather irrelevant. It won't make a difference to the game. I'm addressing only motivations because I like to talk about them.

In my analysis, the Inquisitor doesn't have a good motivation for killing Aman that is good enough to outweigh the drawbacks and potential drawbacks. The only type of player who does have that kind of motivation is an inexperienced Coinshot.

Also, there's a difference in how the two of us are approaching this problem. I'm approaching a specific action that happened and addressing different roles' motivations for making that action. The reasons that I've used are objective reasons and analysis that any outside player could come up from. The conclusion I reach is subjective, but the presumptions are not. On the other hand, you're trying to prove that I'm wrong by trying to get into the Inquisitor's head; addressing actions (by the way, actions that you presumably don't know if the Inquisitor even has in this game) that may or may not have happened (which you also don't know, presumably), and coming up with the motivations for those actions.

The conclusion of your argumentation still relies on a massive assumption, which I've already addressed elswhere.

 

All that said, I'm about done arguing this. The points are all out there, and it's not going to change the game.

Arinian. His suspicion of Aonar doesn't really seem to be based on anything but past games, and find it very suspicious when votes like that are placed. Also, I've seen quite a bit of fillerposting from Arinian.

@Arraenae are you voting for Yitzi because of a lack of reasoning, or because you actually suspect Yitzi to be the Inquisitor, using a lack of reasoning to accomplish a nefarious goal?

Mmm... To speak bluntly, I really don't get why a coinshot would have killed Aman. Maybe after a cycle of Aman living, if it looked like the inquisitor had taken the challenge... Then I might suspect Aman a bit. But a village coinshot attacking him on the cycle of that challenge? That would be an order of magnitude above simple inexperience.

It occurs to me that you might have actually been the hypothetical village coinshot in your story, and you are merely trying to explain yourself.

It has also occurred to me that your theory might just be a more heinous case of fillerposting than what you've accused Arinian of.

And, speaking of that, Arinian is actually probably the person I most trust in this game. You may not like the idea of reasoning off people's previous play styles... But in my experience, that's actually one of the more effective modes of analysis. And Arinian is playing his normal self, to the hilt.

So, hm... I don't really need to vote on Ecth, but I do need to vote on someone this cycle, I think... And it wouldn't be worth much, to call you out and then not put my voting behind my words.

So, even though my suspicions on you are not strong... Kipper, I'm voting on you. I am open to being persuaded to remove my vote.

 

Finally! I'll start off some RP, hm? Lets join the funeral procession!

Serray bowed her head in reverence to the dead.

She hadn't known the woman who died. For that matter, she didn't know any of these people.

Stupid... Ising thinking the invitation of Tekiel might spell the changing in fortunes... Ising wrong.

She, like the other... Members of the test... Were locked in this estate. She didn't like the look of all those coffins neatly lined up, either. All empty but one (soon to be two).

Perfectly counted. One for each of them.

"Wasing Tekiel... Tekiel, the hell you playing at?" she spoke to herself under her breath.

Perhaps it was time to escape this place and leave it behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm going to break down what my mind interprets the course of discussion this cycle:

Aman is dead! What does this tell us about the Inquisitor? Well, this doesn't really tell us much. And I'll go and put in a vote, based on what I said previously. Hey, I'll vote too. So Mark is suspicious? Oh, and Len is too. And Araris. Let's just say that we are suspicious of them, but not go into detail of our suspicions. And talk more about Aman's death! I think Yitzi is suspicious! Me too! Bandwagon time! Could it have been a Coinshot? No, it makes no sense for it to be a Coinshot. Well, now the Inquisitor has a conversion lined up. Arinian's suspicious! Etc, etc.

That was putting it lightly. What needs to come from this cycle is who we are going to lynch, who is the prime target for Elim conversion, and plans. I just checked to see if Aman had any parting suspicions lynch if he died, and he didn't. How unfortunate. He only mentioned @Dalinar Kholin and @Iamspartacus, due to inactivity. I was hoping to get a lead... This cycle I'll vote, okay? However, I can't pry anything useful from what has been said and come up with a good excuse to vote on it, so I might slip into a bandwagon to see that something gets done around here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said:

So I'm going to break down what my mind interprets the course of discussion this cycle:

Aman is dead! What does this tell us about the Inquisitor? Well, this doesn't really tell us much. And I'll go and put in a vote, based on what I said previously. Hey, I'll vote too. So Mark is suspicious? Oh, and Len is too. And Araris. Let's just say that we are suspicious of them, but not go into detail of our suspicions. And talk more about Aman's death! I think Yitzi is suspicious! Me too! Bandwagon time! Could it have been a Coinshot? No, it makes no sense for it to be a Coinshot. Well, now the Inquisitor has a conversion lined up. Arinian's suspicious! Etc, etc.

That was putting it lightly. What needs to come from this cycle is who we are going to lynch, who is the prime target for Elim conversion, and plans. I just checked to see if Aman had any parting suspicions lynch if he died, and he didn't. How unfortunate. He only mentioned @Dalinar Kholin and @Iamspartacus, due to inactivity. I was hoping to get a lead... This cycle I'll vote, okay? However, I can't pry anything useful from what has been said and come up with a good excuse to vote on it, so I might slip into a bandwagon to see that something gets done around here...

Hm... You are right on all of this... Except one thing, which you probably know... But I'll still say it, since I didn't see it in your post.

Don't publicly discuss who you think is a good conversion candidate. If we conclude so-and-so is totally getting converted this cycle, the inquisitor just won't convert them. Talk about it in PM maybe, but wait until next cycle (by then the inquisitor will probably have converted someone) to discuss publicly who you think is a candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...