Jump to content

Long Game (3)2: Pulling on Strings


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, randuir said:

. What did you mean by saying I'd gone inactive in your thoughts one me? Was that a  typo, or...?

I meant, I only analysed your posts before I went inactive. The rest was tl;dr XD

Thanks for pointing out my mistake btw.

9 hours ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said:

Hmmm. What is this vow? I skimmed through the previous cycles, where most of your posts were insubstantial RP. There was nothing about some vow to slay my poor gentleman Quinn. Is this vote purely RP? If it is, then I highly encourage you to remove it and place it somewhere with reasonable evidence.

@Darkness Ascendant, you neglected to include me in your player analysis. I am offend:P

Much suspicion is being centered around Drake and Aonar, Drake due to his particular activity, and Aonar from a slightly less active position. It is likely that the Inquisitor sought out an active player to convert, so that he/she could have an Elim influence in much of the discussion. Drake is an active player, but that doesn't incriminate him yet. Aonar gets a bad gut read from me, and Drake is beginning to tilt Elim from his tone, but there needs to be more from this. I will most likely vote on one of these two.

OOpps....I thoougth you were dead for some reason.. heh. I have another massive post planned for this arvo, I'll put you in that one :D

7 hours ago, Bugsy6912 said:

Also, can we see your 'very real list' of suspicions? Having a secret list of suspicions composed entirely of gut reads has the potential to be an excellent elim tool, because the person could justify any vote by saying the suspect is "next on the list"

What do you mean by that?

@Jondesu @Bugsy6912 You guys are right about @Arinian *facepalm XD

5 hours ago, Herowannabe said:

@Darkness Ascendant nice analysis, but technically the way you've colored it indicates that you're trying to vote for several different people at the same time. You should go edit it and pick a different color to indicate your suspicions. 

Done thanks.

Okay so I did make some mistakes in the message reading thing. I also somehow got up late this morning because of daylight savings -_- So I don't have time to do anything else XD

One thing I forgot to do in my other post was to put my vote on Drake 

@Drake Marshall Care to defend yourself?

Aonar(0): Lopen

Bugsy(2): Lopen, Jodnesu

Hemalurgic Headshot(1): Figberts

Drake(6): Bugsy, Wilson, Hero, Randuir, Rae, Darkness

My god my index finger must hate me from all that scrolling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arraenae said:

She turned to face Garshin." Why would a powerful Lord want to kidnap us? My House is really small. We make custom clothing. We haven't even been a minor power anywhere since six or seven years ago."

"Same reason he's kidnapping all sorts of people, with no regard for whether they're nobility.  My theory is that someone thinks he's being funny."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... And the suspicions strike again.

So. I suppose I should defend myself or something.

The main accusations on me are by DA, Wilson, Randuir, and Rae.

 

Lets start with DA.

Quote

Ok, I can finally get back and make myself be active again XD. Here are my thoughts on the following players. Think of this post as making up for me being inactive. You guys better appreciate the amount of time I spent on this!

Arinian - Alrin

  Reveal hidden contents

@Arinian Made some logical and clear moves during this game. He has joked a fair bit during this game. And after looking back on the previous games he has played, he has never spoken as lightly as he has this game, perhaps he's just growing more comfortable, perhaps he's covering something. He has said

Maybe some of his eliminatorness has seeped into the main thread as well :P  He has placed and removed votes on people a few times, perhaps on order of his elim buddies. Made a few eh reasons for them as well.
I am leaning towards Elim Right now

Jondesu - Remarts 

  Reveal hidden contents

Call me weird, but for some reason I feel like @Jondesu might be a Tineye heh.

Anyway, Jondesu has been going through alot of real life problems during this game (Respect for playing bro). So far he has posted a little analysis and contributed a little during this game, and a fair bit of RP. During Day 2 he picked up on activity, having been fairly consistent during the game.

I have a neutral read on him

Elenion - Roger Elariel

  Reveal hidden contents

@Elenion's messages have been extremely annoying me this game, idk why, maybe it's the overuse of High Imperial that make him sound annoying, or the fact he said he would post translations of them (for others) then failed to do so consistently. 

Brooo, at least use it right :P 

He hasn't contributed much to the game, has voted on inactives using the "Crusade" as an excuse,  then during the later stages starts contributing in a meaningful way. Said you were sleep deprived, so there may be a factor to your lack of contribution to discussion. 

Right now, he is in neutral territory with a possibility of being elim

Drake Marshall - Serray

  Reveal hidden contents

Ok, so @Drake Marshall has been very helpful and active this game, points in your favour. He is one of the newer players so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's proposed plans and things as well.

This throws me off a little, far more confronting and self-aware than his other posts. So I have suspicions he may be an Elim, but I am willing to overlook it.

And then I come across this which throws Drake wildly into the Elim zone.

Mate, you yourself proposed we pay attention to changes in game style...

And right after those moments of flashing warning lights, Drake seems to go back to his "normal" style.

Elim screaming right here. Likeliest Inquisitor right now.

Randuir - Magister Agemtsar

  Reveal hidden contents

@randuir, one of the sneakier players :P . Good RP, very good analysis. LG30 must be taken into account, but I'm willing to bet he is Villager. (I'm very tired and not bothered looking up all his posts after he went inactive)

Magestar - David Agemtsar

  Reveal hidden contents

@Magestar Active/inactive on and off. Not enough to get a solid read on him. Seems a little detached from the game.

Herowannabe - Herwynbe

  Reveal hidden contents

@Herowannabe. Either one of the biggest threats or the biggest ally. Played in the original LG2, so has a fair bit of experience with this system and game-style. I'm willing to bet he is villager for now, but there is always the chance that the Inquisitor chose him for converting. He definitely didn't start off as the Inquisitor in my opinion.

(Loved those Tineye messages btw, respect)

Yitzi2 - Garshin

  Reveal hidden contents

Great first impression ^_^ @Yitzi2. I don't get an Elim read from you right now, but that could change :P 

Metacognition

  Reveal hidden contents

@Metacognition Could have been a valuable asset. Too bad inactive. Neutral read. Hasn't come online for a bit. Come and help us out 

Silverblade5 - Ryth

  Reveal hidden contents

@Silverblade5 Suspiciously inactive, has posted on other areas of the Shard (yesterday). Worth looking at should he become active again.

Arraenae - Rhea

  Reveal hidden contents

@Arraenae, A little erratic at the start but I would place that on your Insomnia (Know how that feels heh) Quickly falls into a rythm as the game. Some turns spent mainly doing RP than analysis and contributing, but I've done that as well, so I'm willing to overlook it. Villager read.

TheMightyLopen - Sidon

  Reveal hidden contents

@TheMightyLopen Been consistent with his posting, inputting where he can, rather than analysing, something I can understand. Grows active last cycle and places suspicions out there. Strong Village read.

little wilson - Willie Klara

  Reveal hidden contents

@little wilson, wilson, wilson. Another massive threat/ally here. Probably the person who understands the rules the best after Meta. Strong start, lots of activity, analysis and brainstorming. Slowly started lessening activity (probably for the best:P). Villager read on her as well, though again, the Inquisitor may have converted her, or will plan to. She definitely didn't start off as the Inquisitor.

Iamspartacus - Astrid the Bold

  Reveal hidden contents

@IamspartacusSadly hasn't posted anything :( 

Ornstein - Winkleton

  Reveal hidden contents

@Ornstein I have no clue who this is, I don't know anything about them or anything so I reserve my judgement for anything he/she posts after this. Hasn't posted much of anything. Nothing longer than 2 lines. Newbie so one of the things to be expected.

Araris Valerian - Wol

  Reveal hidden contents

@Araris Valerian Hasn't been active since last Thursday. Hopefully will pick up soon, so I can get a read on him :P 

OmeGaster - Rieyun

  Reveal hidden contents

@OmeGaster Also hasn't been active since last Thurday...

Kipper - Elenion

  Reveal hidden contents

@Kipper Fairly active, has contributed a little. Don't see why an Elim would choose to convert him however, and I doubt he started off as Inquisitor.

Yes, good point. Should anyone do anything like this then let us be suspicious of them!

Bugsy - Jelwynd

  Reveal hidden contents

@Bugsy6912 I've seen you active on the discord :P Come and join us and stop lurking! "Eh" read.

you-were-the-chosen-one-you-were-suppose:P 

Figberts - Quond

  Reveal hidden contents

@Figberts Has been fairly active, a little 50/50 on the read, but I'm willing to bet he's a villager.

Mark IV - The Follower

  Reveal hidden contents

@Mark IV Welcome back :P Glad to see you active and about, helping out and contributing. (Gods I'm tired now...)

Village read. Sure. WHy not?

Manukos - Reval

  Reveal hidden contents

@Manukos Not inactive, but not active either. Post more bro! We want to hear what you have to say. Neutral read.

Aonar Faileas - Vana Izenry

  Reveal hidden contents

@Aonar Faileas Is starting to be active again, keep it up yeah? I will analyse what you said just then after this heh. From what I *have* seen, I have a villager read.

Stay active! We want to hear what you have to say :D 

Ecthelion - Amnar

  Reveal hidden contents

(AH GODS FINALLY). @Ecthelion III Let's see. Refuses to ship with me. Lynch him bois.

jk

Was active at the start sort of, but went inactive. Might pick up again soon tho right? ;) 

*blinks blearily.

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

Conversion and a snap. *sigh, May the odds be ever in our favour...XD, it's a little status quo right now...

Ha. Highlighted it cos of those spaces in front of the commas that were triggering me XD.

Here's what I got.

Ofralllilluminationrwhichnhumanrreason cansgive,snoneaisrcomparablelto therdiscoverylof whatrwenare,roursroles,sour loyalties,awhatrfeatslofrtrickerynwe arercapablesof,sandawhatrwe willldorinnorderrtosdrive thesspikedaout

hmm.

11 "r"s

5 "l"s

4 "n"s

3 "a"s . First Thing I notice is that they seem to get smaller downwards heh XD. 5+4=9, +3=12. Someone check if I counted that stuff right.
I'm slightly delirious so someone check over this and see if I made any mistakes, and perhaps work something out using what I found heh.

Storms I'm too tired now, I will analyse this turn's posts and do some RP in the morning perhaps. Good night.

First of all... As much as I disagree with basically everything else you said... Nice catch with the cipher. Could just be one of the red herrings... But still, I didn't see that.

I don't really have time to crack it, but still. Nice job.

 

Second. You're accusations on Arinian. To speak bluntly, I disagree with them, and you can't hardly say we are elim buddies because at the time I first declared I trusted Arin, no conversion had occured. You're accusation amounts to:

1. He's been telling jokes, which is uncharacteristic. Thing is, while that is a change, is that the kind of change that indicates alignment? I have doubts. This may marginally cast suspicion on him, but alone it isn't worth much.

2. He's changed his votes. I'm just going to say flat out, changing votes is not alignment indicative at all. It actually makes sense to change votes when there are new developments, and, indeed, an elim would be more likely to change votes rarely so as to fly under the radar.

3. He might be changing votes in response to the orders of elim friends. This makes no sense. There was no conversion at the time Arin was doing these things.

 

Third, you're accusations of myself. Yes, I saved that for last. I'm not trying to distract you or make it seem like those things take priority, I just had other things to say. Now, onward.

Amusingly, the first quote by me you cite is this one:

Quote

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

I just want to start by saying that this challenge still stands. It's a shame to die in this game... But I'm a new player, and it is in my interest to ensure advantages that cut across multiple games. You still can't read me. Every game so far, the bandwagons made on me have been mislynches (the only time I was elim I was never bandwagoned, in fact in the cycle I died I got the people who initially most suspected me to vote on an innocent).

Now, we can move on to the real accusations. Namely, these accusations are (or perhaps I should say accusation, not accusations):

1. I said we should look for inconsistency, then openly claimed I was being inconsistent.

Now, I'll give you this. I suppose by my own previous reasoning, you should lynch me. That was kind of stupid of me.

But you know what? I still stand by my initial statement. It is a good idea to look for changes in play styles across games. That's a good way to find elims.

So... Why are my changes in play style exempt?

Well, for one, I've actually tried to explain why I might be playing differently. Also, the ways in which I am different aren't particularly elim-y (a difference does not inherently suggest eliminator, but the nature of the difference may do so).

Also. This is probably going to sound suspect or something, but... I'm basically consistently inconsistent. Look at how I changed from AG3 to LG30. I was village in both of 'em.

But, at the end of the day... You are saying I am likely to be an inquisitor simply because I contradict myself? Villagers contradict themselves too, mate.

 

Now, onward to Wilson's post. Ugh. This is going to be a monster post, isn't it? Still, I've learned the hard way, if you don't defend yourself while you have the chance, people assume the worst. I digress though. Back to Wilson's post.

6 hours ago, little wilson said:

I didn't read that as DA saying inconsistency is suspicious. I read that as him saying inconsistency from a player who was specifically saying we should look for inconsistency and play style changes as causes for suspicion was suspicious. And honestly, I think DA is onto something here.

I got it in my head that Drake was the Rioter so clearly couldn't be the Inquisitor, and never adjusted that alignment assumption back to neutral when he so vehemently denied bring the Rioter (and now I think he was telling the truth). So this makes me wonder about the real motivations for why he didn't vote. He never placed a single vote during the day, but I doubt his opinions about the necessity of a lynch suddenly appeared in the last few hours. Now I'm wondering if his lack of a vote was because he didn't want to put himself out there too much. He wanted a lynch but he didn't actually want to get involved. He wanted everyone else to do it for him. Which is very, very eliminator-y.

I initially trusted his very self-assured comments about his alignment and lynch him to find out, and how maybe another mislynch will finally teach people about him. But considering that most of these comments weren't in relation to his alignment but his role, I'm fairly wary now. See, I can see why a villager would defend themselves from being accused of being a Misting publicly: you don't want the Inquisitor to kill you to make a convert. But that's not at all the impression that I get from Drake's defense. He seemed like he was defending himself more from an incorrect accusation, and in my experience, there's not many things that irritate an eliminator more than them accruing suspicion or attracting attention for the wrong reasons.

And while the Dalinar kill could've been to place more suspicion on Drake, it could also have been to protect Drake from those same accusations, because he's exactly what Dalinar was saying. While it's a risky move to kill to protect yourself from your biggest accuser, it's still a totally valid one. And given the red flags with him, I think that's what happened. Drake.

You're accusations are summarized I believe in these points (don't hesitate to correct me if I am not representing your argument correctly):

1. In the first paragraph you cite DA's arguments and say he might be on to something. I've addressed those separately.

2. Cycle 1, I say we need a lynch but refuse to cast a vote myself. Seems like something an eliminator would do, to make sure somebody dies but not get their hands dirty.

3. My defense of being accused to rioting seemed like an overreaction. Hypothetically, an eliminator would be annoyed at being accused for the wrong reasons.

4. Dalinar threw a senseless vote on me a little while ago. Possibly I'm using reverse psychology, killing Dalinar to gain trust by making it look like the elims are trying to cast suspicion on me.

My defense:

2. I already told you the reasons I didn't vote. I didn't feel informed enough on the game to cast a vote. I was merely arguing against the notion I heard some people voicing (you included) that a D1 lynch is a bad idea. As for not wanting to get my hands dirty, being involved in a lynch... Would it surprise you to learn that villagers don't always want to get their hands dirty in a lynch, either? It doesn't serve the town if I needlessly attract suspicion and get myself killed (apparently I've done that anyway though XD). If I cast a vote without any good reasoning (and I had no good reasoning to offer), it puts me in danger. Yes, elims would want to preserve themselves, but so too would villagers. My death doesn't do the village any good.

3. Honestly, that's actually a pretty good point. But it's also ridiculously hypothetical. Yeah, maybe that's why I overreacted. But maybe I overreacted just because I was sleep deprived, in bad health, and generally annoyed at the world. If you want, I can ask the GM if I'm allowed to bluetext confirm the first two of those facts, but the second one was actually already confirmed in bluetext during signups.

4. This is IKYK. You can pick any number of iterations to go on this, and it will alternately implicate me as innocent or guilty. If I were an elim, wouldn't I just leave Dalinar alone? Killing him does nothing but draw attention to me. Why on earth would an elim want that kind of attention? If you follow the IKYK, it just becomes a coin toss on whether I'm elim or not. Anonymity is vastly preferable.

Other comments:

Wilson, I want to highlight something else here. You are reminding me a lot of AG3. I remember that game, you spent a lot of time lying low. Then, out of the blue, Wyrm throws a vote on me with zero reasoning. You quickly back it up, casting the first vote you had cast in several cycles. After you're weight was behind it, but someone else had started it, the bandwagon took off immediately, and I was speedily lynched without a single substantial accusation made. I remember this, because you're actions made a red flag to me. I made a post right before the cycle ended (which nobody ever bothered to read I suspect) where I said I thought it very likely you and Wyrm were elims.

Why am I bringing all that up? Because you're doing the exact same thing right now, perhaps... I'll give you this, there's actually some good reasoning this time. But it's similar. To my knowledge, you haven't voted this entire game, and now you quickly back up DA's suspicions and a bandwagon immediately takes off. I don't like this.

Oh, and also I'll say, you're a great target for conversion. I'd love to have you on my team. You're reputation is great at starting bandwagons, even if we discount the fact that you are genuinely quite good at this. Wilson, I predict you are a spiked coppercloud. If you guys want, you can lynch me, but when you know my alignment for sure maybe you'll come back to this and consider targetting Wilson. Unfortunately, we can't resolve this with bronze, because the conversion was copper.

As for DA... My read on him is pretty neutral. Honestly, his grounds for accusing me are pretty solid, which makes me suspect he is village. The only thing out of ordinary is that he is being uncharacteristically active/helpful, but, frankly, I would never vote on someone for that. Even if it meant he was eliminator, I do not want a precedent of killing people for being active or helpful.

If I had to guess, I'd say the inquisitor was Aonar, simply because Aonar keeps dodging suspicions so smoothly. But that is a very tentative guess, and I'm probably wrong about it.

 

Now. On to the next post! That would be the one made by Randuir:

2 hours ago, randuir said:

Okay, so if I haven't miscounted my vote tally again, the people up for execution currently are bugsy and Drake. Let's start with Bugsy, as he hasn't posted as much.

Bugsy's posts in the first two cycle's haven't been particularly informing with regards to his alignment. His posts have been mostly RP, and though the primer on High Imperial was greatly appreciated, it doesn't say much about alignment.

Things get a bit more interesting in this cycle. Bugsy's vote on Drake is the first time he's voted this game if I'm not mistaken. His reasoning seems to boil down to 'I don't trust my gut any longer, let's go with DA's explanation.' Though I don't think it's a bad idea to listen to other player's suspicion's, I think it's also important to do your own research. still, this isn't exactly elimmy action. His defense against Jondesu also makes sense, though looking at Lopen's post in which he mentions the list, I can'help but wonder if his reference to the list might have been Sarcastic.

So, overal, I've got a Neutral read on bugsy.

Now, on to Drake (TL;Dr, I agree with Wilson, I just need far more words to say so). In C1, he's stated twice that we should look out for changes in play-style, and three times that we should make sure to lynch someone. It has been stated before by many others but this is quite odd.

N1, Drake starts by defending himself against Elenion's accusation of being a Rioter. I do feel his defense here is on the strong side, as his reaction seems more appropriate to being accused of being an elim. This might represent annoyance about getting his role outed this early, but it again strikes me as odd. There's also this, from the same post (page 11 of the combined thread):

This 'changing my mind' dialogue kinda struck me as odd. It seems to try and convey a reluctance to vote, but in the end, a reluctant vote will get someone lynched just as easily as a confident one. Drake hasn't really struck me as someone that would try and manipulate the tone of his post intentionally to make him appear innocent in case of a village lynch, however. Of course, a vote cast during the night doesn't contribute much to any lynch, but still.

A later post by Drake that night(still page 11) is once again in stark contrast to his earlier vehement defense.

If Drake is this convinced that the vote manipulation was done by villagers, why did he feel the need to defend himself like that against being 'accused' of being one of them?

Okay, on to the next day cycle. Drake suggests that Ecthelion might actually be the rioter, then votes on him anyway (despite there not having been any conversions, meaning that rioter!ecth literally can't be an elim). More interesting is this part from his post(page 13):

The fact that conversions become possible is indeed a consequence of people dying. Pushing for a lynch would have made a conversion possible just as easy (though we've been somehwat lucky so far and hit two roleless, limiting the options for conversion). SO I find it again odd that Drake seems to think allowing conversions is 'unfortunate', while he was pushing for a D1 lynch, which could have potentially allowed a N1 conversion.

Okay, I'm spending too much space and time on this, especially since I'm at least in part reiterating and rediscovering what some others, like Wilson, have posted before. I'll speed up from here, and only cover stuff that really jumps out at me and hasn't been said before.

...Which means I'm done, actually. there's the whole contradiction of Drake saying we should look for changes in playstyle, and then later saying that any changes in his style are not suspicious. There is the thing with Dalinar's death, but I always assume IKYK level 1 on cases like that, and I'm probably not the only one, so this is one of the cases where a level 2 is not unreasonable.

So In summary. Do I think there's definite proof that Drake is evil? No, I don't, but he's done more odd, elimmy things than Herowannabe, so my current read on Drake is somewhat elim (which is more than slightly elim, but less than medium-rare elim).

Edit: since I mentioned my vote tally, I might as well include it.

Day 3 vote tally

Aonar(0): Lopen

Bugsy(2): Lopen, Jodnesu

Hemalurgic Headshot(1): Figberts

Drake(4): Bugsy, Wilson, Hero, Randuir

You're argument seem to be summed up by these points (again, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you):

1. At the beginning, you claim that it is "odd" that I've advocated a D1 lynch and that I've advocated looking for changes in playstyle. I'll just say, I can't really see how either of these two things is odd. I gave solid reasons why a D1 lynch really was in our interest. And looking at changes in play style simply is a strategy to find elims. If you feel it isn't an effective one, and disagree, I don't know if that's a reason to suspect me.

2. I was reluctant to vote on Ecth, but still did, so my reluctance wasn't worth much. You later say you don't think this in of itself indicates alignment, because you believe I am unlikely to manipulate the tone of my posts in this way. I agree. :P

3. I denied being a rioter, even though I thought the rioter was likely village. You express confusion as to why I'd try so hard to say I'm not the rioter if I was so sure the rioter was village. Perhaps I can clarify why: I'm not a rioter. That's basically all there is to it. Yeah, it might be to my advantage at this point to claim rioter, but it simply isn't my role. I'm not going to lie to village.

4. I advocated a D1 lynch but found a conversion to be unfortunate. So... You are saying that everyone who voted D1 should be happy about conversions? Just because a D1 lynch means a possible conversion? You know, there are other reasons to lynch someone D1 then to allow a conversion. Lots of them. Like, maybe, killing elims, or getting information from a D1 lynch. Frankly, those are the most obvious reasons anyone ever advocates a D1 lynch. Risking a conversion is a necessary evil. I do not understand at all how you conclude that I should be happy about a conversion, just because I advocated a D1 lynch.

 

And finally, Rae's post.

2 hours ago, Arraenae said:

I feel that Drake's behavior during N1 was pretty elim-like.

Also, N1, when defending himself, he said "Or actually...changin' my mind. If you want me to prove I'm not a rioter, what better way is there but to cast a vote?" Casting a vote that didn't disappear wouldn't prove very much. All it would have shown was that Drake's vote didn't disappear this cycle. As part of a defense, it's kind of odd.

 

"Ah, apology accepted, Quinn," Rhea said. "Just make sure you don't do it again." She turned to face Garshin." Why would a powerful Lord want to kidnap us? My House is really small. We make custom clothing. We haven't even been a minor power anywhere since six or seven years ago."

Your point seem to be that I claimed I would vote to prove I'm not a rioter, but if I were a rioter I could just not use my powers that cycle. You are right about this, but unless the real rioter wants to refrain from using their powers every cycle just to make me look bad (or a soother wants to soothe me every cycle), I can have a reasonable expectation that my vote will prove me to not be a rioter. Also, even if I were a rioter (and I assure you I'm not), that shouldn't matter, since evidence implies that the rioter is a villager.

 

So... I'm done I guess.

Making posts like this is annoying. I don't particularly enjoy having to argue against y'alls. Still, I've learned the hard way that such posts are necessary to stay alive sometimes.

I hope I've covered all the points you've raised against me.

Edited by Drake Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

Magestar - David Agemtsar

  Reveal hidden contents

@Magestar Active/inactive on and off. Not enough to get a solid read on him. Seems a little detached from the game.

 

To be honest, that's fairly accurate.  I've been kind of busy, and honestly, I just haven't been as invested in SE lately.  >.>  I don't know what it is.  I have actually been paying some attention to the game, despite my lack of posting, but I just don't feel like I've anything to contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Darkness Ascendant Most of my posts lately have been from my tablet, which is why they've all been relatively short, and the time involved to type up a full translation was more than I thought the translation would be worth. I'm sorry if that made them hard to read.

 

The Tin Message: Decoded? (Ising the not being in High Imperial)

--This might be completely wrong. But I found something interesting, so I may as well share my thought process from late last night.--

The white letters, alone: R L R N R S S A R L R L R N R S S A R L R N R S S A R L R N R S S A R L R

Next, while making a count of letters, the numbers suspiciously began showing up close to multiples of 4. Turns out, the entire message can be broken up into the same letter sequence, with slightly different variations, repeated 4 times. I then divided it into "rows"

Row 1:   R   L   R   N   R   S   S   A   R   L

Row 2:   R   L   R   N   R   S   S   A   R   L

Row 3:             R   N   R   S   S   A   R   L

Row 4:             R   N   R   S   S   A   R   L

Row 5:   R

Next up, I considered the heading: SEA 4:2. What this immediately reminded me of was the "Gloria Scott" code from Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books. I looked at every 2nd white letter, every 4th white letter, every 2nd letter, every 4th letter, every 2nd black letter, every 4th black letter, every 2nd character, every 4th character, but got nothing. Dead end.

I then started considering other codes. Repeated letters like this aren't typical of Caesar or Vignere cyphers, and if it is the key to a Vignere Cypher it doesn't look to decode the black letters. I scrapped that plan.

And I remembered something: Lowercase "L" and uppercase "I" are the same character in this font. And if you convert every "L" to and I, you get:

Row 1:   R   I   R   N   R   S   S   A   R   I

Row 2:   R   I   R   N   R   S   S   A   R   I

Row 3:            R   N   R   S   S   A   R   I

Row 4:            R   N   R   S   S   A   R   I

Row 5:   R

I only found this out after the fact, because in my thought process the next thing I did was use the player list to search for anagrams. I found a few possible player/character name matches (ALRIN in particular sparked my interest), began to rearrange each row like an anagram, and hit gold:

Row 1: ARIN IS RRRS

Row 2: ARIN IS RRRS

Row 3: ARIN RRSS

Row 4: ARIN RRSS

Row 5: R

Now I'm not sure what to do with all of those extra Rs and Ss, but I find it an interesting coincidence (or more than that) that Arin's name comes out of that not once or twice but four different times. I PMed him last night asking if he knew anything about this, and then notified the thread that I had found a possible crack in the message. Then I went to bed, and have been busy watching LDS General Conference today, and since Arin still hasn't responded I've decided to just put my findings out there for feedback. Did I find something important? Is it just a coincidence? Did I decode the message completely wrong? Have those crazy letters finally driven me insane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have fun with this....

26 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

1. He's been telling jokes, which is uncharacteristic. Thing is, while that is a change, is that the kind of change that indicates alignment? I have doubts. This may marginally cast suspicion on him, but alone it isn't worth much.

It can be. For example, if a person has played a number of games and every time they're good, they take the game fairly seriously and don't joke around, but then they make many jokes when they're evil, joking would be considered a tell. A very obvious tell and one that should be easily fixed, but a tell nonetheless. Context is everything.

Quote

But I'm a new player, and it is in my interest to ensure advantages that cut across multiple games. You still can't read me. Every game so far, the bandwagons made on me have been mislynches (the only time I was elim I was never bandwagoned, in fact in the cycle I died I got the people who initially most suspected me to vote on an innocent).

Anyone of any alignment can say exactly that. Confident villagers with nothing to lose can (and do) say things like this. Eliminators who want to get villagers second-guessing themselves and potentially remove votes on them can also very easily say things exactly like that (and they have). Using the "You always mislynch me" excuse as a reason for your alignment is a ridiculous reason to give. See, eventually, a lynch will come along that isn't a mislynch, and if you use this exact reasoning every time you're up for the lynch, then that time when you're actually evil and you're up for the lynched, you'll do it again, guaranteed. So forgive me if these words mean nothing to me.

The only way it would mean something is if a specific player or players have a habit of finding you suspicious when both parties are village. But it doesn't look like that's the case here. The same people might be involved to some degree or another, but they're not the reason for you being mislynched consistently. You don't know Maill because he's on a mission now, but whenever Maill and I were in a game and we were both village, I very frequently would cause his death because I found him suspicious. This happened more often than not, and it became a sort of running joke between us. In a case like that, one could easily go "Sigh. You did this same thing in these specific games, in which we were both village as well. If you're village this time, you might want to take a step back and look at the facts again."

But anyway, you seem to take pride in the fact that your playstyle changes from game to game and people can't get a read on you. Which is fine. That's great. But you can't really be surprised, given that you so readily change from game to game, that people find different reasons to be suspicious of you. Because of this, you can't really say "You can't read me" because that's your entire point. You are intentionally making it hard to read you, so why even bring up the fact that people can't read you? It becomes non-alignment indicative at that point and therefore the point is moot.

Quote

It is a good idea to look for changes in play styles across games. That's a good way to find elims.

It can be, yes. But I would actually say that it depends on both the playstyle change and the person exhibiting that change. People learn as they play and make mistakes, and playstyles naturally shift as you play more. That's just a fact. Not only this, but there are also players who are like you and mix up their playstyle from game-to-game, never reusing a previous one exactly as they have in the past. Consistently inconsistent. With those players, a playstyle shift is non-alignment indicative. Then you have the players who are cognizant of how they play as village and can mimic their village playstyle with a fair bit of accuracy. With those players, looking for a playstyle shift will get you nowhere because there is no playstyle shift.

So, sure, looking for shifts can help find eliminators. But you should rarely, if ever, lynch someone based solely on a playstyle shift, though it does depend on the exact shift and the amount of evidence you've accrued to support the shift being a tell. Playstyle changes, in and of themselves, are not alignment-indicative.

Quote

So... Why are my changes in play style exempt?

Well, for one, I've actually tried to explain why I might be playing differently. Also, the ways in which I am different aren't particularly elim-y (a difference does not inherently suggest eliminator, but the nature of the difference may do so).

Also. This is probably going to sound suspect or something, but... I'm basically consistently inconsistent. Look at how I changed from AG3 to LG30. I was village in both of 'em.

Again, this just means you can't use your playstyle as a reasoning for your alignment because it's not alignment-indicative. If you wanted it to be, you wouldn't be consistently inconsistent. I don't care how consistently inconsistent players played in past games where they village. I care how they are playing now, because that's all that matters.

Quote

You are saying I am likely to be an inquisitor simply because I contradict myself? Villagers contradict themselves too, mate.

I don't think anyone was saying that. Even when I pointed out that your words were contradictory back on Night 1, I wasn't saying I found you suspicious. On the contrary, I was nearly certain you were a Rioter, and were therefore not the Inquisitor. Contradicting yourself is merely a reason to look at a person closer, to decide if the contradiction is of malicious intent or not. That's all.

Quote

Hypothetically, an eliminator would be annoyed at being accused for the wrong reasons.

There's no "hypothetical" about it. The only question is if that's your motivation. Eliminators don't like being accused for incorrect reasons. They generally dislike false positives. If you are going to accuse them, have the facts right. This is based not only on my own personal experience of being an eliminator, but also on many other people I've talked to and on eliminator docs that I have read. False positives are annoying. No hypothetical needed.

Quote

I already told you the reasons I didn't vote. I didn't feel informed enough on the game to cast a vote. I was merely arguing against the notion I heard some people voicing (you included) that a D1 lynch is a bad idea. As for not wanting to get my hands dirty, being involved in a lynch... Would it surprise you to learn that villagers don't always want to get their hands dirty in a lynch, either? It doesn't serve the town if I needlessly attract suspicion and get myself killed (apparently I've done that anyway though XD). If I cast a vote without any good reasoning (and I had no good reasoning to offer), it puts me in danger. Yes, elims would want to preserve themselves, but so too would villagers. My death doesn't do the village any good.

From a certain viewpoint, a D1 lynch for this specific game is a bad idea. I would say that the only acceptable reason for a D1 lynch in a game like this, with only a single starting eliminator, is for momentum, as Aman brought up on D1.

You didn't feel informed enough to vote, so instead of using your time to catch up on the thread and become informed so you could vote and therefore support the stance you were taking in thread, you instead used your time to write multiple posts in the last couple of hours of the cycle to tell others to vote. Right.

Yes, villagers don't always want to get their hands dirty. But when villagers don't want to get their hands dirty, they usually don't pressure all the other villagers to do something they themselves aren't willing to do. And actually, in my experience, when a villager is sold on the idea that a lynch needs to happen, they're actually more willing to vote with a lynch they might not personally agree with completely, merely because they want to ensure that a lynch does happen, and isn't messed up due to vote manipulation. You see, had the Rioter not Rioted, and had one of the Soothers soothed one of the votes off Sart, it would've been a tie. No lynch. I can't count the number of times I've seen people throw a vote on a lynch in the last hour or even the last 5 or 10 minutes of the cycle to put someone far enough ahead to protect from vote manipulation. And most of the time, those people voting last minute are villagers. So you're saying that you strongly supported a lynch but didn't feel informed enough to vote doesn't fly for me.

As for the villagers wanting to preserve themselves....Death is something that just happens in these games. A villager who avoids doing something they believe in merely because it might kill them later on and they don't want to die is a useless villager. If all the villagers did that, the eliminators would win every time. If one is a villager, one is basically ensured not to have malicious intent towards the village. Therefore, if one accrues suspicion for one's actions, all you should have to do is explain why you did what you did, and even if other villagers don't necessarily agree with you, if your reasons seem genuine to the action, then it should be fine. Obviously, mislynches can still happen even if one is doing that, but when that happens, it gives the villagers involved in the lynch a better read on one's personal village motivations, if they don't match up with the norm.

Quote

Honestly, that's actually a pretty good point. But it's also ridiculously hypothetical. Yeah, maybe that's why I overreacted. But maybe I overreacted just because I was sleep deprived, in bad health, and generally annoyed at the world. If you want, I can ask the GM if I'm allowed to bluetext confirm the first two of those facts, but the second one was actually already confirmed in bluetext during signups

I'll take you on your word for that, though it doesn't change my thoughts about it, since a person can be sleep-deprived, in bad health, annoyed, and also be an eliminator and over-react like that. A villager can as well. Your RL things are non-alignment indicative.

Quote

This is IKYK. 

Yes, it is. I'm aware. It's actually not even a factor in my suspicions of you, for the sole reason that it is an IKYK and therefore trying to guess at it is useless. The only reason I even brought it up was because everyone up to that point had been suggesting that the Inquisitor killed Dalinar to place suspicion on you, and that's not necessarily what happened. There are other explanations for the Dalinar kill, but at the end of the day, we don't know why Dalinar died. He said so little. It could've been to place suspicion on you. It could've been because you're the Inquisitor and he was fixated on you. It could've been because he told the Inquisitor in a PM that he was a MistingIt could've been because he said so little so his death would give us no information on the Inquisitor. We don't know, so speculating in a way that actually affects a persons thoughts on different players is pointless.

Quote

You are reminding me a lot of AG3. I remember that game, you spent a lot of time lying low.

Great. That means I was doing my job in that game, mimicking my village playstyle. Excellent. Thanks for the affirmation.

Also, my laying low wasn't because of my alignment. It was because I said I wasn't going to devote as much time to the games, and I was making a distinct effort to force myself from spending too much time on that game despite my being evil in it. I guarantee that had I wanted to be active, I would've been active.

Quote

Why am I bringing all that up? Because you're doing the exact same thing right now, perhaps... I'll give you this, there's actually some good reasoning this time. But it's similar. To my knowledge, you haven't voted this entire game, and now you quickly back up DA's suspicions and a bandwagon immediately takes off. I don't like this.

You're right: this is my first vote this game. It's also only the third day of the game, and on the D1, I was against a lynch, and D2, I was busy. I missed over half of that day, and only got caught up about an hour or two before the cycle ended, and I could tell an inactive would be lynched and therefore there wasn't any point for me to get involved. It was too late to do anything, and I didn't feel the need to vote when Drought had a 5 vote lead. So yeah, I'm voting on cycle 3. How is that similar to AG3? In AG3, I'm pretty sure I voted in almost every single cycle.

I didn't back-up DA's suspicions. DA's comments on you made me rethink my thoughts on you, and I had more to add, so I did. I can't be blamed for any bandwagon and to say that the bandwagon afterwards is my fault is ludicrous. Can no one add their own thoughts to another person's suspicions without being seen as inherently suspicious for doing just that? I'm not in cahoots with DA.

Quote

Oh, and also I'll say, you're a great target for conversion. I'd love to have you on my team. You're reputation is great at starting bandwagons, even if we discount the fact that you are genuinely quite good at this. Wilson, I predict you are a spiked coppercloud. If you guys want, you can lynch me, but when you know my alignment for sure maybe you'll come back to this and consider targetting Wilson. Unfortunately, we can't resolve this with bronze, because the conversion was copper

It's for that exact reason that I would be a terrible convert right now. Because I'm expected to be converted. I'm also expected to be seeked (and I have it on reasonable authority that there is a Seeker in this game, or at least someone who claims to be a Seeker. Whether they are actually the Inquisitor or not remains to be seen). Converting me also has the added risk of not knowing my current role. If I'm regular, no worries for the Inquisitor, but if I'm a Misting, I guarantee you that I would've set up some way to confirm my ability to those who know my role (of which there would be multiple). Converting me is a huge risk. And as I said, I don't care to devote as much time to the games as I used to, so having me as the first (or second) convert wouldn't be as much of a boost as it would've 6 months ago. I'm not going to be on the doc strategizing every second of free time I have. I'm fairly minimalist in docs now, compared to my former activity.

But my saying that doesn't help, because I'd say it regardless of it I'd been converted or not.

Also, why can't we resolve this with Bronze? Let's say hypothetically that I were converted. The spike only has a 50% chance of taking. If it did, sure, I'd be a Smoker, and I could smoke myself, but a person who ends up smoked to a seek should be watched closer, particularly in this case. If the spike didn't take, then I'm wide open to a seeking. I see no reason why Bronze can't get involved in this. I'm not one single whit worried about a seek, because I can tell you exactly what it will find, and it won't be a Spiked anything.

Quote

If I had to guess, I'd say the inquisitor was Aonar, simply because Aonar keeps dodging suspicions so smoothly. But that is a very tentative guess, and I'm probably wrong about it

I'm pretty sure Aonar isn't the Inquisitor, though he could've been converted last night. One of Aonar's biggest alignment tells is PM activity. He wasn't terribly active in the thread in LG28, but he was pretty active in PMs and out of the 3 people I was working with in PMs, he was by far the one I trusted most. He's been fairly active in PMs again this time around, and he was being helpful as well, hence why I rather think he's not the Inquisitor. But he hasn't had much of anything to say so far today in PMs (though I haven't tried to talk to him either) so yeah. May have been converted, but he just as easily might not have been.

Quote

I gave solid reasons why a D1 lynch really was in our interest.

And then you never voted.

Quote

I was reluctant to vote on Ecth, but still did, so my reluctance wasn't worth much. You later say you don't think this in of itself indicates alignment, because you believe I am unlikely to manipulate the tone of my posts in this way. I agree. :P

To me, it looked like you were voting on Ecth because you thought he was the Rioter and you didn't like him accusing you. Why vote on someone you think is a villager?

Quote

I denied being a rioter, even though I thought the rioter was likely village. You express confusion as to why I'd try so hard to say I'm not the rioter if I was so sure the rioter was village. Perhaps I can clarify why: I'm not a rioter. That's basically all there is to it. Yeah, it might be to my advantage at this point to claim rioter, but it simply isn't my role. I'm not going to lie to village

I think it strange Randuir mentioned that, because denying it is the only thing you could do, no matter what. If you are the Rioter, the Inquisitor would kill you. If you aren't the Rioter, you can't claim Rioter because then the real Rioter would know you were lying and would tell someone about it. If you're village in that situation, you're casting suspicion on yourself needlessly, and if you're the Inquisitor in that situation, you've basically just revealed yourself to someone, and even if that person is killed, once they die and are revealed to have been telling the truth about being a Rioter, you're done-for. You denying it tells us nothing.

Quote

You know, there are other reasons to lynch someone D1 then to allow a conversion. Lots of them. Like, maybe, killing elims, or getting information from a D1 lynch. Frankly, those are the most obvious reasons anyone ever advocates a D1 lynch.

Yes. In standard games, this is true. In this specific game, that's less true. Killing an eliminator is highly unlikely to happen in a D1 lynch in a game with only one starting eliminator. Getting information is also negligible, since, again, there's only one starting eliminator. The useful information you gain in D1 in a game like this is stuff that doesn't relate to D1 lynches. It's thoughts about other players, and opinions about different strategies and stuff that aren't strictly relevant to D1. In other games, D1 lynches can be used to get information through ties to other players, but that's not a factor here because there was only one eliminator.

And since you're so intent that a D1 lynch was crucial in this game, I think I'll ask you at the end of the game what information one could've gleaned from this D1 lynch that would've been useful and relevant for later in the game. Have fun making something up, because if you're not the Inquisitor I highly highly doubt there's anything there. :) 

 

Sigh. I almost miss my long posts. Not enough to bring them back though. This was a one-off. I also want to make it clear that I'm not convinced of Drake's being the Inquisitor. He might well not be. But none of his arguments can be seen strictly from a village-mindset and a fair number of them are actually rather contradictory to how villagers usually act, which doesn't really tell us anything about his current alignment, since that's his intent. He could just as easily be evil as he could be village since there's no Drake-tell that helps one way or the other. But that's fine, because I don't need past-game analysis to find things done in this game suspicious, and based on what he's done, he's the person I'm most suspicious of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay guys, I have been watching the thread. My first comment is that my reason for voting on Elenion still stands. I found his nighttime aggression to be unwarranted.

On the matter of Drake, I'm not convinced. Actually, I was buying his suspicion of Wilson until he brought up her reputation. I think the point about her activity matching AG3 is a good one, and I'll keep my eye on her. But I feel like Wilson is too much of a wildcard player both in terms of her current playstyle and her likelihood to be lynched based on reputation that she would get converted right now. Or basically, I don't want to make reputation lynches really at all, and especially not this early in the game.

@Metacognition, where are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? I'm going to make things a little more fun for me. My role is Village SootherI soothed Ecth's vote on D1, to make sure that Mark wouldn't die due to vote manipulation, since Mark was actually active. For as long as I live (I expect this won't be long), I will soothe one vote off a player of my choice each day, and I will PM a random person just before turnover to let them know what vote I'm soothing, to prove that I can still soothe and have therefore not been converted. Vote manipulation has the added benefit of seeing if a person is smoked or not. It's like an additional mini seeking, and given that the spiked team will soon have two converts with copper spikes, and there's a good shot that one of them will take, so long as the village smokers aren't smoking, all village emotional allomancers can use their abilities the same way.

Sorry, Aman. I know you wanted me to keep this under-wraps, but honestly, given that Lopen and Kipper knew already, and either could've been converted, or would be at some future point (assuming Kipper isn't the Inquisitor), there was a high chance the Inquisitor will find out my role regardless, assuming he doesn't know it already. Plus, I like the idea of being a publicly revealed Misting and seeing how long I'll survive. :P

Anyone want to start taking wagers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a couple quick comments, because I am very tired. I didn't sleep much last night, so I'm not feeling up to a big post and haven't read all of the posts completely, but there were a few things I wanted to respond to.

1. I have no idea what to think about Drake. Aman sort of made me lean village on him after I voted on him D1, so I was leaning that way. Now, well, I need to read over the posts about him and from him much more thoroughly before I'd come to a conclusion I'd be willing to post, which I honestly doubt I'll do before this Cycle ends. :P

2. Elenion, it doesn't seem wise to put your Tineye decoding stuff in the thread. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Getting the Tineye killed? Because they're almost definitely a villager, so there's no reason to reveal their identity.

3. Excellent analysis post DA! I'm sure that took a lot of effort, so yes, it is very much appreciated.

4. Bugsy, here's the Totally Real List: Jondesu, Randuir, Magestar, Meta, Silverblade, Ornstein, Omegaster(though I kind of doubt it now that he's dropping out for a bit), Manukos, and Aonar. You were on there, but your response was enough for me to cross you off the list for now(like I said, I'm being very generous marking off possible suspects for the Inquisitor). Wilson says she doesn't think Aonar is the Inquisitor, which definitely holds some weight in my mind, simply because I've got no clue about him. :P Anyways, I'd probably heavily revise that list at this point, so I don't think it's worth much, but you asked. :P

5. Wilson did indeed claim Soother to me. Which was cool since she'd never claimed to me before, but then she ruined it by revealing it in the thread. >> Regardless, she should be able to prove her role this Cycle if she wasn't converted.

6. I think that's it actually.
7. I can't stop numbering...
8. Praise the Ja.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilson covered a lot of my points already. Really, I don't think Drake is doing a very good job defending himself. The more he talks, the more suspicious I get. Maybe I'm tunneling, maybe I'm not. I feel like it's pretty likely that he's the Inquisitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmm... You're going to make me post more defense? Fine then.

Quote
Quote

But I'm a new player, and it is in my interest to ensure advantages that cut across multiple games. You still can't read me. Every game so far, the bandwagons made on me have been mislynches (the only time I was elim I was never bandwagoned, in fact in the cycle I died I got the people who initially most suspected me to vote on an innocent).

Anyone of any alignment can say exactly that. Confident villagers with nothing to lose can (and do) say things like this. Eliminators who want to get villagers second-guessing themselves and potentially remove votes on them can also very easily say things exactly like that (and they have). Using the "You always mislynch me" excuse as a reason for your alignment is a ridiculous reason to give. See, eventually, a lynch will come along that isn't a mislynch, and if you use this exact reasoning every time you're up for the lynch, then that time when you're actually evil and you're up for the lynched, you'll do it again, guaranteed. So forgive me if these words mean nothing to me.

The only way it would mean something is if a specific player or players have a habit of finding you suspicious when both parties are village. But it doesn't look like that's the case here. The same people might be involved to some degree or another, but they're not the reason for you being mislynched consistently. You don't know Maill because he's on a mission now, but whenever Maill and I were in a game and we were both village, I very frequently would cause his death because I found him suspicious. This happened more often than not, and it became a sort of running joke between us. In a case like that, one could easily go "Sigh. You did this same thing in these specific games, in which we were both village as well. If you're village this time, you might want to take a step back and look at the facts again."

But anyway, you seem to take pride in the fact that your playstyle changes from game to game and people can't get a read on you. Which is fine. That's great. But you can't really be surprised, given that you so readily change from game to game, that people find different reasons to be suspicious of you. Because of this, you can't really say "You can't read me" because that's your entire point. You are intentionally making it hard to read you, so why even bring up the fact that people can't read you? It becomes non-alignment indicative at that point and therefore the point is moot.

So... Basically this whole thing isn't alignment indicative. By your own admission that is what you are getting at here. And non-alignment indicative stuff isn't a reason to lynch someone. If you admit this isn't alignment indicative, why did you initially try to pass it off as one of your reasons to lynch me?

Also, I'm not playing differently each game to try to get lynched, or to try to be unreadable. Which it seems like you might be implying. Frankly, I really am getting tired of mislynches (mind you, I'd still get a kick out of proving y'alls wrong :P). I'm just really not putting any effort into keeping a consistent playstyle. I'd rather try different approaches and see how people react (otherwise how exactly do I improve?). I'm not stating you can't read me as a boast, I'm stating it as a fact. It's a little bit like the rule with Rae, I suspect. When Rae is innocent, they always seem suspicious. To multiple people, myself included.

Quote
Quote

It is a good idea to look for changes in play styles across games. That's a good way to find elims.

It can be, yes. But I would actually say that it depends on both the playstyle change and the person exhibiting that change. People learn as they play and make mistakes, and playstyles naturally shift as you play more. That's just a fact. Not only this, but there are also players who are like you and mix up their playstyle from game-to-game, never reusing a previous one exactly as they have in the past. Consistently inconsistent. With those players, a playstyle shift is non-alignment indicative. Then you have the players who are cognizant of how they play as village and can mimic their village playstyle with a fair bit of accuracy. With those players, looking for a playstyle shift will get you nowhere because there is no playstyle shift.

So, sure, looking for shifts can help find eliminators. But you should rarely, if ever, lynch someone based solely on a playstyle shift, though it does depend on the exact shift and the amount of evidence you've accrued to support the shift being a tell. Playstyle changes, in and of themselves, are not alignment-indicative.

And none of this is alignment indicative either, again by your admission.

Quote
Quote

So... Why are my changes in play style exempt?

Well, for one, I've actually tried to explain why I might be playing differently. Also, the ways in which I am different aren't particularly elim-y (a difference does not inherently suggest eliminator, but the nature of the difference may do so).

Also. This is probably going to sound suspect or something, but... I'm basically consistently inconsistent. Look at how I changed from AG3 to LG30. I was village in both of 'em.

Again, this just means you can't use your playstyle as a reasoning for your alignment because it's not alignment-indicative. If you wanted it to be, you wouldn't be consistently inconsistent. I don't care how consistently inconsistent players played in past games where they village. I care how they are playing now, because that's all that matters.

...Or this, it looks like.

Quote
Quote

You are saying I am likely to be an inquisitor simply because I contradict myself? Villagers contradict themselves too, mate.

I don't think anyone was saying that. Even when I pointed out that your words were contradictory back on Night 1, I wasn't saying I found you suspicious. On the contrary, I was nearly certain you were a Rioter, and were therefore not the Inquisitor. Contradicting yourself is merely a reason to look at a person closer, to decide if the contradiction is of malicious intent or not. That's all.

It looks a lot like the major point of you're accusation is that I said we should look for inconsistency, but I myself am inconsistent. What is that, if not a contradiction?

Is that not the basis of you're accusation? You would do well to state it more clearly if not. Preferably concisely. I understand and respect that you are providing details in your argument, but if you can't also sum up your argument to lynch me in a sentence or two, it isn't much of an argument.

Quote
Quote

Hypothetically, an eliminator would be annoyed at being accused for the wrong reasons.

There's no "hypothetical" about it. The only question is if that's your motivation. Eliminators don't like being accused for incorrect reasons. They generally dislike false positives. If you are going to accuse them, have the facts right. This is based not only on my own personal experience of being an eliminator, but also on many other people I've talked to and on eliminator docs that I have read. False positives are annoying. No hypothetical needed.

Um... No hypothetical about it? The hypothetical is that if I were an eliminator, maybe I overreacted because so-and-so. But that all is completely contingent upon me being an eliminator in the first place, which is utterly hypothetical. You are begging the question. You've set my being an eliminator as the premise, and unsurprisingly, reached the conclusion that I am an eliminator.

Yes, there is a possible alternate reality in which these events are explained by me being an eliminator, but you need to go further than that. Why is your explanation more likely than mine?

Quote

From a certain viewpoint, a D1 lynch for this specific game is a bad idea. I would say that the only acceptable reason for a D1 lynch in a game like this, with only a single starting eliminator, is for momentum, as Aman brought up on D1.

I'm just going to reiterate that a D1 lynch was actually a good idea. Yes, you are 5x less likely to hit an eliminator D1... But if you do hit that eliminator, the game is all but won (not outright because of pewter, but basically won). Just like that. 1/5 the chances, but 5x the value... You're expected value remains unchanged. I said that D1 if you recall.

Quote

You didn't feel informed enough to vote, so instead of using your time to catch up on the thread and become informed so you could vote and therefore support the stance you were taking in thread, you instead used your time to write multiple posts in the last couple of hours of the cycle to tell others to vote. Right.

As for spending my time telling people to vote instead of catching up and then voting... You seem to be assuming those two activities take the same amount of time. Posting a quick blurb about what's in front of me takes a lot less time then catching up on five pages of thread.

Just because I posted over several hours, you think I had 100% of that time frame to devote to Sanderson Elimination? I most certainly did not.

Quote

Yes, villagers don't always want to get their hands dirty. But when villagers don't want to get their hands dirty, they usually don't pressure all the other villagers to do something they themselves aren't willing to do. And actually, in my experience, when a villager is sold on the idea that a lynch needs to happen, they're actually more willing to vote with a lynch they might not personally agree with completely, merely because they want to ensure that a lynch does happen, and isn't messed up due to vote manipulation. You see, had the Rioter not Rioted, and had one of the Soothers soothed one of the votes off Sart, it would've been a tie. No lynch. I can't count the number of times I've seen people throw a vote on a lynch in the last hour or even the last 5 or 10 minutes of the cycle to put someone far enough ahead to protect from vote manipulation. And most of the time, those people voting last minute are villagers. So you're saying that you strongly supported a lynch but didn't feel informed enough to vote doesn't fly for me.

As for the villagers wanting to preserve themselves....Death is something that just happens in these games. A villager who avoids doing something they believe in merely because it might kill them later on and they don't want to die is a useless villager. If all the villagers did that, the eliminators would win every time. If one is a villager, one is basically ensured not to have malicious intent towards the village. Therefore, if one accrues suspicion for one's actions, all you should have to do is explain why you did what you did, and even if other villagers don't necessarily agree with you, if your reasons seem genuine to the action, then it should be fine. Obviously, mislynches can still happen even if one is doing that, but when that happens, it gives the villagers involved in the lynch a better read on one's personal village motivations, if they don't match up with the norm.

So... You are saying that if multiple vote manipulations happened, maybe there ends up no lynch? Okay, but there's only one inquisitor. Chances are, they can't vote manipulate multiple times in a cycle. So unless villagers wanted to screw up the lynch, what you are proposing is impossible. A lynch was all but certain, like I said.

As for self-preservation... You think I'm not willing to risk myself? I assure you, I am. I've done it before (for that matter, what do you think pushing a D1 lynch even was? It's a risk taken to accomplish something). But to risk myself with zero return? That's just foolishness. Neither an eliminator nor a villager would risk themselves to get nothing done.

Quote
Quote

Honestly, that's actually a pretty good point. But it's also ridiculously hypothetical. Yeah, maybe that's why I overreacted. But maybe I overreacted just because I was sleep deprived, in bad health, and generally annoyed at the world. If you want, I can ask the GM if I'm allowed to bluetext confirm the first two of those facts, but the second one was actually already confirmed in bluetext during signups

I'll take you on your word for that, though it doesn't change my thoughts about it, since a person can be sleep-deprived, in bad health, annoyed, and also be an eliminator and over-react like that. A villager can as well. Your RL things are non-alignment indicative.

Again, if this is all totally non-alignment indicative, why did you initially try to pass it off as a reason to lynch me?

Quote
Quote

This is IKYK.

Yes, it is. I'm aware. It's actually not even a factor in my suspicions of you, for the sole reason that it is an IKYK and therefore trying to guess at it is useless. The only reason I even brought it up was because everyone up to that point had been suggesting that the Inquisitor killed Dalinar to place suspicion on you, and that's not necessarily what happened. There are other explanations for the Dalinar kill, but at the end of the day, we don't know why Dalinar died. He said so little. It could've been to place suspicion on you. It could've been because you're the Inquisitor and he was fixated on you. It could've been because he told the Inquisitor in a PM that he was a MistingIt could've been because he said so little so his death would give us no information on the Inquisitor. We don't know, so speculating in a way that actually affects a persons thoughts on different players is pointless.

...so basically more "non-alignment indicative" content, according to you. You've basically admitted that most of your initial argument was filler.

Only it actually isn't completely non-alignment indicative. I still hold that it would be a pretty stupid move for me to kill Dalinar, if I were inquisitor. Leave him totally ignored and his vote is totally ignored, and I get to fly under the radar.

Quote
Quote

You are reminding me a lot of AG3. I remember that game, you spent a lot of time lying low.

Great. That means I was doing my job in that game, mimicking my village playstyle. Excellent. Thanks for the affirmation.

Also, my laying low wasn't because of my alignment. It was because I said I wasn't going to devote as much time to the games, and I was making a distinct effort to force myself from spending too much time on that game despite my being evil in it. I guarantee that had I wanted to be active, I would've been active.

My point isn't really your "laying low" but how you lay low, so I'll move on to the next part:

Quote
Quote

Why am I bringing all that up? Because you're doing the exact same thing right now, perhaps... I'll give you this, there's actually some good reasoning this time. But it's similar. To my knowledge, you haven't voted this entire game, and now you quickly back up DA's suspicions and a bandwagon immediately takes off. I don't like this.

You're right: this is my first vote this game. It's also only the third day of the game, and on the D1, I was against a lynch, and D2, I was busy. I missed over half of that day, and only got caught up about an hour or two before the cycle ended, and I could tell an inactive would be lynched and therefore there wasn't any point for me to get involved. It was too late to do anything, and I didn't feel the need to vote when Drought had a 5 vote lead. So yeah, I'm voting on cycle 3. How is that similar to AG3? In AG3, I'm pretty sure I voted in almost every single cycle.

I didn't back-up DA's suspicions. DA's comments on you made me rethink my thoughts on you, and I had more to add, so I did. I can't be blamed for any bandwagon and to say that the bandwagon afterwards is my fault is ludicrous. Can no one add their own thoughts to another person's suspicions without being seen as inherently suspicious for doing just that? I'm not in cahoots with DA.

I'll look back on AG3 but I do not think you voted every cycle. I'm fairly certain you didn't vote the cycles before you voted on me, and definitely not a second vote in a bandwagon like the one you threw on me in AG3.

I'm not claiming you are responsible for all the bandwagons under the sun, silly. That would indeed be ludicrous but it's very obvious I am not claiming that. I am claiming that you are responsible for two in particular, the one in AG3 and this one. Regardless of your alignment, I don't think you can deny that.

Neither am I claiming you are in "cahoots with DA". In fact, if you read on, you see my read on DA is totally neutral. Is there any implication in my post that you are aligned with DA? I'm not saying this is the exact same set up as AG3. DA is probably innocent. But you still threw a suspicious second vote on me that made me flashback to AG3.

Quote
Quote

Oh, and also I'll say, you're a great target for conversion. I'd love to have you on my team. You're reputation is great at starting bandwagons, even if we discount the fact that you are genuinely quite good at this. Wilson, I predict you are a spiked coppercloud. If you guys want, you can lynch me, but when you know my alignment for sure maybe you'll come back to this and consider targetting Wilson. Unfortunately, we can't resolve this with bronze, because the conversion was copper

It's for that exact reason that I would be a terrible convert right now. Because I'm expected to be converted. I'm also expected to be seeked (and I have it on reasonable authority that there is a Seeker in this game, or at least someone who claims to be a Seeker. Whether they are actually the Inquisitor or not remains to be seen). Converting me also has the added risk of not knowing my current role. If I'm regular, no worries for the Inquisitor, but if I'm a Misting, I guarantee you that I would've set up some way to confirm my ability to those who know my role (of which there would be multiple). Converting me is a huge risk. And as I said, I don't care to devote as much time to the games as I used to, so having me as the first (or second) convert wouldn't be as much of a boost as it would've 6 months ago. I'm not going to be on the doc strategizing every second of free time I have. I'm fairly minimalist in docs now, compared to my former activity.

But my saying that doesn't help, because I'd say it regardless of it I'd been converted or not.

Also, why can't we resolve this with Bronze? Let's say hypothetically that I were converted. The spike only has a 50% chance of taking. If it did, sure, I'd be a Smoker, and I could smoke myself, but a person who ends up smoked to a seek should be watched closer, particularly in this case. If the spike didn't take, then I'm wide open to a seeking. I see no reason why Bronze can't get involved in this. I'm not one single whit worried about a seek, because I can tell you exactly what it will find, and it won't be a Spiked anything.

The spike doesn't have 100% chance to take? Huh. Didn't see that in the rules.

You'd make a poor conversion target in general, but for copper it might well be worth it since you could evade seeking at that point. It's a gamble, but a worthwhile one.

Still worth scanning you, since there's a 50% chance the eliminators don't have any access to copper, which means we'd get an accurate scan on you.

But whether or not you are the elim, if that spike took, you are getting smoked tonight I'd guess. So we only have a 50/50 chance to get your alignment. Soother claim or no.

Also, the fact that you are potentially scannable doesn't really give me much reason to not vote you. You clearly don't intend to wait for me to be scanned before voting, and I have no intention of waiting either.

Unless a seeker wants to randomly scan one of us two and rely on the fact that the elims can only smoke one person at a time, if even that? I'll say in advance I'm roleless, so I'm basically indistinguishable from someone being smoked I'm afraid. But seeing as I may well be lynched this cycle, the scheme I propose isn't probably going to matter.

Quote
Quote

If I had to guess, I'd say the inquisitor was Aonar, simply because Aonar keeps dodging suspicions so smoothly. But that is a very tentative guess, and I'm probably wrong about it

I'm pretty sure Aonar isn't the Inquisitor, though he could've been converted last night. One of Aonar's biggest alignment tells is PM activity. He wasn't terribly active in the thread in LG28, but he was pretty active in PMs and out of the 3 people I was working with in PMs, he was by far the one I trusted most. He's been fairly active in PMs again this time around, and he was being helpful as well, hence why I rather think he's not the Inquisitor. But he hasn't had much of anything to say so far today in PMs (though I haven't tried to talk to him either) so yeah. May have been converted, but he just as easily might not have been.

I don't know Aonar at all, so maybe you are right about the PM thing. But honestly, to me this seems like sort of an odd connection.

And if you've ever voiced in a previous game that PM activity is a big tell for Aonar, it is no longer a useful tell at all. But you probably know that.

I'm not saying I think Aonar is an inquisitor. Like I said, it is a very tentative guess. I'm probably wrong about it. But if I had to guess, I'd guess Aonar.

Quote
Quote

I gave solid reasons why a D1 lynch really was in our interest.

And then you never voted.

You've already brought this up earlier in the same post, and accordingly I've already addressed it in this post I'm writing right now, so I'm just going to move on.

Quote
Quote

I was reluctant to vote on Ecth, but still did, so my reluctance wasn't worth much. You later say you don't think this in of itself indicates alignment, because you believe I am unlikely to manipulate the tone of my posts in this way. I agree. :P

To me, it looked like you were voting on Ecth because you thought he was the Rioter and you didn't like him accusing you. Why vote on someone you think is a villager?

I didn't vote on Ecth because I necessarily thought he was a Rioter. If you go back to where I voted, you'll see I voted on Ecth primarily because it felt weird that Ecth so quickly pinned the rioting on me. A secondary reason for the vote was to prove I'm not the rioter.

Quote
Quote

I denied being a rioter, even though I thought the rioter was likely village. You express confusion as to why I'd try so hard to say I'm not the rioter if I was so sure the rioter was village. Perhaps I can clarify why: I'm not a rioter. That's basically all there is to it. Yeah, it might be to my advantage at this point to claim rioter, but it simply isn't my role. I'm not going to lie to village

I think it strange Randuir mentioned that, because denying it is the only thing you could do, no matter what. If you are the Rioter, the Inquisitor would kill you. If you aren't the Rioter, you can't claim Rioter because then the real Rioter would know you were lying and would tell someone about it. If you're village in that situation, you're casting suspicion on yourself needlessly, and if you're the Inquisitor in that situation, you've basically just revealed yourself to someone, and even if that person is killed, once they die and are revealed to have been telling the truth about being a Rioter, you're done-for. You denying it tells us nothing.

I agree, it tells us nothing. Randuir was mistaken to use that point as an accusation. I don't fault him for it, because unlike you, Randuir hasn't later claimed that his point doesn't actually indicate alignment.

Quote
Quote

You know, there are other reasons to lynch someone D1 then to allow a conversion. Lots of them. Like, maybe, killing elims, or getting information from a D1 lynch. Frankly, those are the most obvious reasons anyone ever advocates a D1 lynch.

Yes. In standard games, this is true. In this specific game, that's less true. Killing an eliminator is highly unlikely to happen in a D1 lynch in a game with only one starting eliminator. Getting information is also negligible, since, again, there's only one starting eliminator. The useful information you gain in D1 in a game like this is stuff that doesn't relate to D1 lynches. It's thoughts about other players, and opinions about different strategies and stuff that aren't strictly relevant to D1. In other games, D1 lynches can be used to get information through ties to other players, but that's not a factor here because there was only one eliminator.

And since you're so intent that a D1 lynch was crucial in this game, I think I'll ask you at the end of the game what information one could've gleaned from this D1 lynch that would've been useful and relevant for later in the game. Have fun making something up, because if you're not the Inquisitor I highly highly doubt there's anything there. 

I think I've already covered this mate. It is mathematically equivalent to lynch someone D1 this game, and in other games.

It seems like it all circles back to the fact that I didn't vote someone D1. I've already explained precisely why I did what I did. Maybe you feel your alternate reality is more likely, but if so, I hope you're okay with being proven wrong...

Quote

Sigh. I almost miss my long posts. Not enough to bring them back though. This was a one-off. I also want to make it clear that I'm not convinced of Drake's being the Inquisitor. He might well not be. But none of his arguments can be seen strictly from a village-mindset and a fair number of them are actually rather contradictory to how villagers usually act, which doesn't really tell us anything about his current alignment, since that's his intent. He could just as easily be evil as he could be village since there's no Drake-tell that helps one way or the other. But that's fine, because I don't need past-game analysis to find things done in this game suspicious, and based on what he's done, he's the person I'm most suspicious of.

If you really think it's 50/50 I'm an elim, I agree, you absolutely should lynch me. That's great odds on a lynch.

But I think the odds are substantially worse than 50/50. All you've done is presented a possible reality given the current situation, in which I am an eliminator. Sure, that carries weight from you (whether you like it or not), but I don't see much substance here. At the end of the day, this is only gut talking. You can judge for yourself what gut is worth...

 

I'm probably posting this too late in the cycle to even matter, but here you are. Goodnight.

When I end up village next cycle, do me a favor and at least scan Wilson. And Aonar. Pick randomly between them or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Drake Marshall: I'm not going to re(re(re))hash everything that's already been said about you, but a couple points:

re: Value of a day 1 lynch:

You are partially right. Mathematically, the odds of a successful day 1 lynch were the same in this game as in any other game (actually they're a bit better, because a successful day 1 lynch of the inquisitor basically means a village win right there, or possibly having to hunt down 1 other converted eliminator). But a failed day 1 lynch in this game would have been mathematically much worse than in any other game. A failed day 1 lynch in which we hit a misting would have been handing the inquisitor its first convert on the first cycle. 

But anyway, that's neither here nor there now. 

 

re: 

Quote

If you really think it's 50/50 I'm an elim, I agree, you absolutely should lynch me. That's great odds on a lynch.

But I think the odds are substantially worse than 50/50. All you've done is presented a possible reality given the current situation, in which I am an eliminator. Sure, that carries weight from you (whether you like it or not), but I don't see much substance here. At the end of the day, this is only gut talking. You can judge for yourself what gut is worth...

Actually, right now the odds only need to be better than 1/26 for it to be a worthwhile lynch. And I would say there's definitely better than a 1/26 chance that you're up to no good. 

 

Also, a question for you: A few days ago you said: 

Quote

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

So basically... yeah. We're calling your bluff. Your stance seems to have shifted since you said that. The other day you cared more about being proven right than you did about whether or not you survive. Now you're fighting the lynch with all you've got. I can't and don't blame you for the latter, but now it's making your dare start to look like a true eliminator-bluff that is backfiring on you. Care to comment?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on my phone now, so this is going to be quick, but my non-alignment indicative comments were in reference to you using those things as reasons for your current alignment. They are not, given your play style. I don't care how you've played in past games. I'm looking at this game in particular and what I see is inconsistency that doesn't match up with typical village play, in my experience. You can claim the inconsistency to be just an effect of your play style, but that's not going to help you because it doesn't say anything about this specific game. And I still think you could've skimmed the thread enough to cast a vote. Not enough for any kind of analysis, but hey, you were the one saying a lynch was so important.

Not multiple vote manipulation. One. All it would've taken was a single soothe for the vote to be a tie, given the vote count at the end of the cycle. I actually considered soothing a vote off Sart, but decided not to because he'd voted for himself and hadn't said anything after that so was basically inactive. Wouldn't have mattered if I had, given the riot, but still.

I guarantee I voted before voting on you in AG 3. I'm pretty sure I cast a vote on Dalinar's first lynch though not for him, and I know I voted on Hero in the second lynch. I was also part of the bandwagon that took Rae's first life and kept Nyali alive for a cycle longer. So yeah, I definitely voted many times before voting for you. I generally try to vote in every cycle of the games I play, regardless of my alignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Herowannabe said:

So basically... yeah. We're calling your bluff. Your stance seems to have shifted since you said that. The other day you cared more about being proven right than you did about whether or not you survive. Now you're fighting the lynch with all you've got. I can't and don't blame you for the latter, but now it's making your dare start to look like a true eliminator-bluff that is backfiring on you. Care to comment?

Meh, sure, I'll comment. Just because I'd enjoy proving you wrong doesn't mean I'm going to do a bad job serving my faction. The village is hurt by every mislynch. In the least, it is critical that a lynch by C3 should actually be informative. If I don't defend myself, you don't get any information.

And anyway, hasn't defending myself ultimately improved the quality of the challenge? Now I have people claiming with much more confidence that certain things about me are elim-y.

So, yes. You can "call my bluff." We'll see if there's backfiring soon enough I think.

 

...And another post by Wilson. I suppose I really ought to reply to this as well before I sleep.

10 minutes ago, little wilson said:

I'm on my phone now, so this is going to be quick, but my non-alignment indicative comments were in reference to you using those things as reasons for your current alignment. They are not, given your play style. I don't care how you've played in past games. I'm looking at this game in particular and what I see is inconsistency that doesn't match up with typical village play, in my experience. You can claim the inconsistency to be just an effect of your play style, but that's not going to help you because it doesn't say anything about this specific game. And I still think you could've skimmed the thread enough to cast a vote. Not enough for any kind of analysis, but hey, you were the one saying a lynch was so important.

Not multiple vote manipulation. One. All it would've taken was a single soothe for the vote to be a tie, given the vote count at the end of the cycle. I actually considered soothing a vote off Sart, but decided not to because he'd voted for himself and hadn't said anything after that so was basically inactive. Wouldn't have mattered if I had, given the riot, but still.

I guarantee I voted before voting on you in AG 3. I'm pretty sure I cast a vote on Dalinar's first lynch though not for him, and I know I voted on Hero in the second lynch. I was also part of the bandwagon that took Rae's first life and kept Nyali alive for a cycle longer. So yeah, I definitely voted many times before voting for you. I generally try to vote in every cycle of the games I play, regardless of my alignment.

To the first paragraph, I think you are missing my point. You made several accusations against me. When I made counterarguments about the majority of them, you admitted that they are "not alignment indicative." So you basically claimed that most of the accusations you initially made were actually insubstantial. By your own words, I am almost forced to conclude that you knowingly used details that do not indicate alignment to persuade people to vote on me.

To the second paragraph, the fact that I didn't know that it only required 1 should probably tell you enough as it is. Sure, maybe I was just pretending not to know. Or maybe not. You overestimate my subtlety if you really think that. You ever heard of Occam's razor?

To the third paragraph, I'm pretty sure the few cycles before you voting on me your voting and general activity was pretty minimal. I could be wrong about that. Honestly, it wouldn't much change my point. You've mostly kept attention off of you and then suddenly thrown your weight behind a bandwagon.

For what its worth, in this case, you seem to be putting yourself on the line to get me lynched a little more then you did last time. That implies to me you probably aren't actually spiked (on the other hand, last time I didn't accuse you in retaliation until it was too late, so maybe you're willingness to argue this more boldly is explained by that, and you are still suspect). But it does strike me as a bit odd how quickly this bandwagon took off, based on an accusation I'm having a rather hard time seeing as substantial. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if one of the people who hopped aboard the bandwagon was our convert.

 

Goodnight, for real this time. And good luck... ;)

I've done the best I can to make this lynch informative for you, in the least. Try not to waste it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting on Drake because I'm 50/50 on him, and as he himself said that's definitely enough for a vote. That dare to lynch him was originally not alignment-indicative, but now that he's opposing it it's appearing more and more like a bluff. I can't say for sure, but I think I have used that as a bluff in a past game. Either that or I've considered it but decided against it. Anyway, most of his posting hasn't been alignment-indicative, at least to me, but what I have been able to get is a slightly-negative gut read. I'd say elim chances are 50/50, so my vote comes down. Not as a bandwagon, but as a gut vote with a bit of evidence.

Ising the voting of Drake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a little behind and I still need to give this game the analysis it needs. Fortunately I have tomorrow off for spring break!

For now I'm going to drop a vote on Elenion because of the ridiculous bandwagoning which has occurred so far. (This is subject to change.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've realised that I ought to have shown the UberMetal given up when the conversion occurred, and have neglected to do so. It is as follows:

UberSteel - This is your ability to kill. If you give this up, you must rely on your converts to put in a kill action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

I've realised that I ought to have shown the UberMetal given up when the conversion occurred, and have neglected to do so. It is as follows:

UberSteel - This is your ability to kill. If you give this up, you must rely on your converts to put in a kill action. 

Fascinating. Why would the Inquisitor give up its kill action this early in the game? Or, even more importantly, what other powers does the Inquisitor have that are better than that!? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, little wilson said:

You know what? I'm going to make things a little more fun for me. My role is Village Soother. I soothed Ecth's vote on D1, to make sure that Mark wouldn't die due to vote manipulation, since Mark was actually active. For as long as I live (I expect this won't be long), I will soothe one vote off a player of my choice each day, and I will PM a random person just before turnover to let them know what vote I'm soothing, to prove that I can still soothe and have therefore not been converted. Vote manipulation has the added benefit of seeing if a person is smoked or not. It's like an additional mini seeking, and given that the spiked team will soon have two converts with copper spikes, and there's a good shot that one of them will take, so long as the village smokers aren't smoking, all village emotional allomancers can use their abilities the same way.

(My Emphasis)

Aww.. Geee. Thanks! 

I know I have been slightly (understatement) inactive since the last night cycle and I apologise for that. :/ 

The reason is that I'm playing this game in my exams (I have very bad judgement :P) 

Either way, I'll be able to contribute tomorrow. Which is a night cycle... >.>

Also, Page two has a lot of monster posts... a lot, what with the Defenses and Arguements against Drake.

13 hours ago, Herowannabe said:

Fascinating. Why would the Inquisitor give up its kill action this early in the game? Or, even more importantly, what other powers does the Inquisitor have that are better than that!? :o

I suspect perhaps because the convert now gives them a kill action. Which means that if the spike did hold, you can still expect no smoking from the Elim's side.

IMO, and this is just guessing, but perhaps the reason they felt their kill action was less valuable as compared to the other actions relies on these two points:

  1. The convert now gives them a kill action.
  2. They think two kill actions would end this game too soon, thus, sacrificing one of them, and retaining other useful, non-kill actions.
  3. Sacrificing the Uber-Steel frees up the eliminator to do other actions. 

 

From this, IMO, the inquisitor feels that all of their other actions are useful (As promptly stated by Hero) and possibly wants to prolong the game. 
The first thought that came to my mind was "Look at the people from D1 who said 'Don't lynch!'"
However, I now realise that this conclusion is quite baseless, as the no D1 lynch reasoning was different from the reasoning I suspect the inquisitor used. 

Anyways, these are my two cents for now.

Praise the Ja!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mark IV said:

(My Emphasis)

Aww.. Geee. Thanks! 

I know I have been slightly (understatement) inactive since the last night cycle and I apologise for that. :/ 

The reason is that I'm playing this game in my exams (I have very bad judgement :P) 

Either way, I'll be able to contribute tomorrow. Which is a night cycle... >.>

Also, Page two has a lot of monster posts... a lot, what with the Defenses and Arguements against Drake.

I suspect perhaps because the convert now gives them a kill action.

Isn't the convert fairly likely to get the role of the dead misting (i.e. smoker)?  So how can that possibly give them a kill action?

Something strange is going on...

Edited by Yitzi2
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...