Long Game 37: Court Thread

[the winter system]

2 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

We were sleeping 

That is very interesting.

Well, in the least, that means this game has secrets. But that shouldn't be remotely surprising given our GMs.

The most obviously "secret" thing is the alignment changing factor with zimmy. I'm guessing this is a gameplay mechanic meant to mirror the thing with those spiders in the comic.

 

Also, I would like to conjecture that some roles may in fact be unofficially alignment indicative.

For example, I should like to predict that Ysengrin is Gilltie, and Reynard is Gunnerkrigg. There are a lot of reasons why that would make sense. Including what their abilities are suited to (Ysengrin would make no sense as an eliminator because he has a kill, similarly, Reynard would make a lot more sense as an eliminator because his powers lend themselves to creating chaos), and also how they each factor into the story (Ysengrin is utterly devoted to Gilltie, and Reynard seems to prefer humans).

Seeing as Reynard is potentially on our side, I should like to suggest that they claim roleless, if they are ever forced to claim.

 

On the Court side of things... Well there is nothing quite so obvious as the Ysengrin/Reynard pairing.

Although some roles, like the alignment scanning witch or the demi-fire elemental, would be somewhat unlikely to be given to the eliminator team.

 

EDIT: And finally, I read the relevant post Joe made that told us about "coyote" and "GM" voices.

I will note that this is possibly only a thing in Joe's thread. I imagine there is some level of autonomy between them.

I will also note that in that post, Joe very much implied that the medium's win condition is a little more nuanced then to directly make peace.

 

EDIT2: Why is the forest thread way more active than this one... 

There's pros and cons to having a more active thread. There's a lot more anarchy over there what with all their lynch votes and medium disagreement. I guess that's why we're in the civilized court and they're a bunch of rowdy forest folks. 

Just gettin in character out of character.

[DrakeMarshall]

But maybe I want anarchy and rowdiness 

[the winter system]

1 minute ago, Drake Marshall said:

But maybe I want anarchy and rowdiness 

Then go Trial yourself.

That sounded meanspirited but you know what I mean. Don't really, though. Stay with us. 

[DrakeMarshall]

Players are only allowed to take the test once in the game, right?

If so it makes sense to wait a little bit, in the very least.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Drake Marshall

[Ecthelion III]

I'd like to just make my opinion known that voting STINK as a medium is a bad idea. We've stated and restated that it's not good to have an eliminator in that position, so I think it should logically follow that we vote on someone who didn't nominate themselves. Plus I don't particularly trust STINK in a position of responsibility.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

33 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

I'd like to just make my opinion known that voting STINK as a medium is a bad idea. We've stated and restated that it's not good to have an eliminator in that position, so I think it should logically follow that we vote on someone who didn't nominate themselves. Plus I don't particularly trust STINK in a position of responsibility.

Stink made clear that he wanted the position of medium well before the game began. I don't think that his requesting to be medium is remotely alignment indicative. Stink is quite capable of a position of responsibility - he's a moderator on the site, and I think he'll ensure a level of levity consistent with Aonar and Joe running the game.

[DeTess]

47 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

I'd like to just make my opinion known that voting STINK as a medium is a bad idea. We've stated and restated that it's not good to have an eliminator in that position, so I think it should logically follow that we vote on someone who didn't nominate themselves. Plus I don't particularly trust STINK in a position of responsibility.

As opposed to voting for someone who was nominated before that person had made any sort of communication in the thread. It almost makes one wonder if some kind of out-of-thread communication took place, like in a google doc or something (just for the record, I don't think your vote for brightness was alignment indicative, nor do I think STINK's campaign is alignment indicative). 

Anyway, do you want to get STINK lynched? The rules don't mention a vote treshhold, and your vote is currently the only one.

Can someone give me a second opinion on Winter devotion? I don't think I've ever played with him (her?) before, so I'm not sure about what to think about his support for the plan of a mass-test,. Obviously, such a plan would either make things easier for the elims, or outright give them the win, but I don't know how serious he is (as I know from seeing STINK play that he was mostly joking about that plan, so I don't really suspect him over it).

Edited August 12, 2017 by randuir
I really need to proof-read before posting. Lots of syntax/spelling bugs fixed.

[the winter system]

9 minutes ago, randuir said:

As opposed to voting for someone who was nominated before that person had made any sort of communication in the thread. It almost makes one wonder if some kind of out-of-thread communication took place, like in a google doc or something (just for the record, I don't think your vote for brightness was alignment indicative, nor do I think STINK's campaign is alignment indicative). 

Anyway, do you want to get STINK lynched? The rules don't mention a vote treshhold, and your vote is currently the only one.

Can someone give me a second opinion on Winter devotion? I don't think I've ever played with him (her?) before, so I'm not sure about what to think about his support for the plan of a mass-test,. Obviously, such a plan would either make things easier for the elims, or outright give them the win, but I don't know how serious he is (as I know from seeing STINK play that he was mostly joking about that plan, so I don't really suspect him over it).

With them. I'm a they. 

Honestly most of this joking around is something I do more villagery. I feel a lot more paranoid about being playful when I have something to hide. If I'm gonna be a playful elim, it's gonna be in PMs so I can establish trust one on one.

[Ecthelion III]

My apologies, STINK, I did not know that you had made your intentions known before the game started. I never read the pre-game posts. Thanks, Orlok.

[TheMightyLopen]

47 minutes ago, randuir said:

As opposed to voting for someone who was nominated before that person had made any sort of communication in the thread. It almost makes one wonder if some kind of out-of-thread communication took place, like in a google doc or something (just for the record, I don't think your vote for brightness was alignment indicative, nor do I think STINK's campaign is alignment indicative). 

Anyway, do you want to get STINK lynched? The rules don't mention a vote treshhold, and your vote is currently the only one.

Can someone give me a second opinion on Winter devotion? I don't think I've ever played with him (her?) before, so I'm not sure about what to think about his support for the plan of a mass-test,. Obviously, such a plan would either make things easier for the elims, or outright give them the win, but I don't know how serious he is (as I know from seeing STINK play that he was mostly joking about that plan, so I don't really suspect him over it).

Yeah, I don't really think Winter has done anything suspicious so far. I've played quite a few games with winter, and this seems pretty normal to me.

Anyways, it's kind of late, and there's a lot of absent players, so I'm not sure if I really want to have a lynch. I don't really have anyone I suspect at this point either...

[DeTess]

I guess I'm fine with a no-lynch round. The most important thing to gain from the day 1 lynch is the discussion (usually at least), and I honestly don't see a repeat coming up of LG35 where 10 pages where generated in 6 hours (though if you guys want to do that, don't let my nay-saying stop you).

Also, not that it particularly matters at this point, but #VoteSTINK

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by randuir

[DrakeMarshall]

I'm not really feeling a lynch either. We could always contribution crusade though.

[Aonar]

2 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

Players are only allowed to take the test once in the game, right?

If so it makes sense to wait a little bit, in the very least.

Yes.

Also, I feel compelled to respond to this:

17 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

As it stands right now, the test creates a feedback loop.

 

If the forest is beating us, we are more likely to want to join them and take the test.

And when we take the test, the overall effect is to give the forest an advantage, because 60% of the time they gain +1 villager on their side and -1 villager on the other side.

So if a lot of us take the test, the forest starts to win, and if the forest starts to win, even more of us will have reasons to take the test.

 

I can agree that such a strategy is maybe not the most fun way to play the game. And therefore we shouldn't do it.

But isn't it kind of concerning that such a potential gamebreak is simply sitting there in the open?

I can't help but suppose that there must be something about the test that we don't know about yet. Something secret.

The test is an important game mechanic, and I'm sure the GMs have thought about this more than I have, so far.

 

EDIT:

Lets do some proper permutations for all this, hmm?

 

Court

    Case 1. Gunnerkrigg villager takes test.

        Outcome 1 (60%)- Alignment change. Gunnerkrigg loses one villager, Gilltie gains one villager. Gilltie faction is favored.

        Outcome 2 (40%)- No alignment change. Gunnerkrigg loses on villager, and gains one eliminator. Gunnerkrigg faction is favored (to a similar extent as the above outcome favors Gilltie).

    Case 2. Gilltie eliminator takes test.

         Outcome 1 (60%)- Alignment change. Gilltie loses on eliminator, Gunnerkrigg gains one eliminator. Gunnerkrigg faction is heavily favored.

         Outcome 2 (40%)- No alignment change. Gilltie loses an eliminator, and gains a villager. Gunnerkrigg faction is somewhat favored.

Forest

    Same as court, basically, except reversed.

 

So... The test will alter your alignment...

But in almost all cases, the test will favor whatever faction you are now part of, after testing.

That's rather dangerous.

So I am still lead to suspect that there is something secret in play here.

Or maybe I've just read the numbers wrong, and the test isn't vulnerable to gamebreaking. That is also possible.

Either way... Be careful, hm?

I feel the need to make a clarification here, even though I probably shouldn't. The Test is not vulnerable to game-breaking. It's vulnerable to game-throwing. If you want to intentionally lose the game, potentially for yourself and definitely for your faction feel free to exploit the Test. If you want to use it as a strategic tool, go ahead; as you noted above Testing tends to favour the faction being Tested out of. It doesn't always, but will usually result in a slight net-positive. If multiple people Test, however, it begins to strongly favour the other faction, on balance, so, as you said, be careful, and use the advantage you can gain from the Test wisely.

Also, realized I forgot to respond to one of Lopen's questions. Yes Zeta's alignment change is not restricted to Court/Gillitie.  

Edited August 12, 2017 by Aonar Faileas

[DrakeMarshall]

But is it gamethrowing if you've switched alignments? This sounds dangerous...

Because it would be extremely lame, we should not mass-test. But technically such an approach would result in a majority win, if I'm reading this correctly.

[Aonar]

1 minute ago, Drake Marshall said:

But is it gamethrowing if you've switched alignments? This sounds dangerous...

Because it would be extremely lame, we should not mass-test. But technically such an approach would result in a majority win, if I'm reading this correctly.

Yes. Someone who Tests specifically to win in the other Faction is a traitor, preferring the possibility of their, and a handful of other players personal wins with the opposing side to their own team's win. (Both literally, and flavour-wise. ) 

Could. Not would. Although it's not the point of this, there are things you don't know about that reduce the validity of this, beyond the fact that it's gamethrowing and that due to relying on invoking the will of the dice gods (that being what it is ), it's more likely to result in a mass loss, not a mass win. 

[DeTess]

Yeah, as a tabletop rpg'er/wargamer, I can tell you that the dice gods are real and very bloodthirsty. I'd say the mere existence of the zeta role is temptation enough for them, no reason to add to that by trying to win by mass test.

[Ecthelion III]

As a response to Randuir, for the grand total of one game I've played with Winter before, their actions have seemed normal to me.

I think we should Crusade, because it's dangerous to have a no-vote situation. Reasoning: in a game where alignments can change all the time, a last-minute single vote would be not only disastrous but also generally NAI for future rounds. Therefore, Shqueeves.

 

[DeTess]

3 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

I think we should Crusade, because it's dangerous to have a no-vote situation. Reasoning: in a game where alignments can change all the time, a last-minute single vote would be not only disastrous but also generally NAI for future rounds. Therefore, Shqueeves.

 

What do you mean by 'allignments can change all the time?' Taking the test removes someone from this thread, while I don't really expect the zeta effect to occur more than once (and who knows what that does exactly). I don't know about any other alignment changing effects (technically, the Medium is one, but it's predictable).

The reason no-lynch cycles are dangerous is because it tends to halt discusdion. Lynching a possible inactive isn't going to do much for discussion either in my opinion, though I guess it might be better than nothing?

[Ecthelion III]

I am referring to the Test. Just because they leave the Court doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about them ever again; there's a fair likelihood that one or both of us may leave the Court as well.

[the winter system]

17 minutes ago, randuir said:

What do you mean by 'allignments can change all the time?' Taking the test removes someone from this thread, while I don't really expect the zeta effect to occur more than once (and who knows what that does exactly). I don't know about any other alignment changing effects (technically, the Medium is one, but it's predictable).

The reason no-lynch cycles are dangerous is because it tends to halt discusdion. Lynching a possible inactive isn't going to do much for discussion either in my opinion, though I guess it might be better than nothing?

Is there a vote manipulation role? (I really need to remember to check which roles exist and not before I make assumptions about what'll happen)/. Because a no vote cycle gives vote manipulators free reign to end up confusing us. 

[TheMightyLopen]

12 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

I am referring to the Test. Just because they leave the Court doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about them ever again; there's a fair likelihood that one or both of us may leave the Court as well.

Wouldn't the only player who would do a last minute vote be an eliminator? So if they did that and then took the test, they'd have a 60% chance to be an eliminator in the new thread, and would probably be lynched immediately. I'm not sure if that should be a really worry.

I don't mind the vote on @Shqueeves though. He's been online since the game started(he signed up for the new MR I think), but he hasn't posted yet. So his quietness it a little strange.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but does there need to be at least 2 votes for a lynch?

[Aonar]

Just now, TheMightyLopen said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but does there need to be at least 2 votes for a lynch?

 

Yes.

[xxGaea]

Hm...I suppose I should post again before the cycle ends. I don't really see the merit in lynching someone this cycle, because we really don't have anything to go on right now. It doesn't seem like there will be a huge detriment if we don't have a lynch today, so I would hold off. Plus, it feels a bit wrong to me to lynch someone for not posting on day one. Things could have come up, and a contribution crusade this early feels a bit excessive, in my opinion. 

@Aonar Faileas, How does voting work in this game? As in, if there is only one vote, will the person voted on still be lynched? Also, how do ties work?

I think we should hold off on voting until we have more time for discussion, therefore more time to reveal any suspicious activities. Holding off on a contribution crusade also appeals to me. Missing the first day cycle obviously isn't a good sign, but again, things can come up where people can't get on. If there have been no posts by Day 2, then that is another thing since that gives more ample time to get on and make at least one post.

Overall, I think we should just hold off on voting this cycle, so @Ecthelion III, if you could be so kind as to remove your vote from Shquueves it would be much appreciated.

That being said, @A Budgie, @Clanky. You two have only posted once, and didn't mention being otherwise preoccupied iirc. Where are you two? Come join us in the court!  

@Metacognition, @Shqueeves, @asterion137; Where are you three? I know Drought said they wouldn't be active until cycle two, but I don't remember any such thing said by you three? We miss you, and would love it if you could join us. Or at least check in and let us know that you are alright. I am worried about your health, and just want to check and make sure you are all okay. <3

Now that all that is done, I won't be here for the end of this cycle or the beginning of the next cycle. I am leaving for a Ride Along in two hours, and will be barred from my phone until I am done with it. I will check in once I get back on my computer afterwards, though.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

36 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

As a response to Randuir, for the grand total of one game I've played with Winter before, their actions have seemed normal to me.

I think we should Crusade, because it's dangerous to have a no-vote situation. Reasoning: in a game where alignments can change all the time, a last-minute single vote would be not only disastrous but also generally NAI for future rounds. Therefore, Shqueeves.

 

@Ecthelion III, what exactly do you hope to gain from a "contribution crusade" lynch on Shqueeves? I'm an immense supporter of including people in our game, and encouraging activity, but think that PMing him when PMs go up, in three hours time, is far better than lynching a new member of our community. Shqueeves has played two games here so far - what sort of message do you want to send him about our community? The contribution crusade is now (thankfully) about being inclusive, and helping players, and lynching a new player with this reasoning is the opposite of being inclusive, and is something I will play no part in. 

[Aonar]

Ties will be decided by a dice roll. (Yes this means that MEB has final say on all ties. :P)