186 posts in this topic

28 minutes ago, Roadwalker said:

What are the mathematics on not voting vs. voting? Which is better for the village? I'm not a stats person, but I figure in a 13 person game it might be better to vote.

If it were just statistics, not voting is better, but since we are trying to learn information from voting patterns it is usually better to have a voting history to analyze.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I don’t have a generally great reason to vote on anybody right now, as everyone has checked in (in some manner), and not much has been said about the game yet. However, letting the Deepness and Elims kill unopposed, without executing our own candidates, will leave us in a worse position than losing one innocent. As such, Roadwalker. You may be surprised to learn that by the very mathematics you suggested, we likely have a better chance of winning by killing you! (Or me, but let’s ignore that part. :P) You have at least a 3/13 chance of being hostile, and despite my enjoyment of CadCom’s RP, I am currently getting odd vibes from him that I can’t quite place. Hopefully with greater activity we’ll get more reads. 

2 minutes ago, Camium Compouner said:

If it were just statistics, not voting is better, but since we are trying to learn information from voting patterns it is usually better to have a voting history to analyze.

Statistics actually supports voting too—if we never voted, two people (or more) die each night, slowly killing the village. That’s in addition to its analytical value, which is also substantial. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

*espite my enjoyment of Ca*Com’s RP, I am currently getting o** vibes from him that I can’t quite place. Hopefully with greater activity we’ll get more rea*s. 

Perhaps these crazy vibes come from me not being able to use common groups of letters that together signify a meaning, simply for containing an evil letter. Some of the more common ones woul* be Woul*, Coul* An* rea* ha*, an* many others. Often times, rewor*ing things to not use this cheat that I'm using in the last half of this post is very *ifficult. 

E*it: I *o use those letters in PM's though, as some of you may have notice* so if you want to hear me without using crazy wrap-aroun* wor*s an* phrases, sen* me a message.

Edited by Camium Compouner
You can see it
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soahc smiled. He stood on a mountain peak, his traveling cloak flaring behind him, snow blasting his face. He still smiled. The Deepness would be stopped, or would win. Now was when it would be decided.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is interesting:

57 minutes ago, Camium Compouner said:

If it were just statistics, not voting is better, but since we are trying to learn information from voting patterns it is usually better to have a voting history to analyze.

VS

56 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

Statistics actually supports voting too—if we never voted, two people (or more) die each night, slowly killing the village. That’s in addition to its analytical value, which is also substantial.

 

@Camium Compouner, you explicitly state that not voting is better.

@Fifth Scholar, you explicitly state that voting is better.

 

Camium, do you back off of your original statement, or do you hold to it? 

I'm voting on you and not Fifth, even though I really want to vote on Fifth for voting on me on my first day back, because he seems to back his point up better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, this is ENTIRELY circumstantial evidence.

Being an Honorable Judge of the Khlennian court, I can personally attest that no decision ever ought to be based off of evidence like:

Camium visiting the thread and not posting at the same time as

Fifth, who visited the thread and didn't post. Perhaps both viewing my post, then discussing it in the Elim doc or in PM's? Note: Any tins ought to spy on these guys right here, just to give more data to my earlier point.

*Taps side of nose and winks*

Screenshots:

picture1

picture2

Edited by Roadwalker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see everyone has posted at least once. Now that I've read all the AG5 docs currently available, I have more time to spend on this game.

With only thirteen players and a good chance of two kills per cycle in addition to any lynches, this game isn't going to last very long unless we kill the Deepness/any doctors do a good job of preventing kills. As such, we should probably avoid the stagnation of an intentional no-lynch, though we might not be able to get a no-lynch even if we tried with two potential vote manipulation roles out there.

@shanerockes, is it actually your intention to kill those whose RP names don't start with 'd'?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Roadwalker said:

 

@Camium Compouner, you explicitly state that not voting is better.

@Fifth Scholar, you explicitly state that voting is better.

 

Camium, do you back off of your original statement, or do you hold to it? 

I'm voting on you and not Fifth, even though I really want to vote on Fifth for voting on me on my first day back, because he seems to back his point up better.

I was thinking that in in the situation where little to no analysis exists that it is better to have more people after the first cycle to continue from that point on. 

But I was also saying because analysis is a thing, it is better to vote. That's why I was going to try to place a vote, by the time the cycle finishes. 

I'm thinking returning the vote also because it seems you are quick to accuse, but I also anti-support voting for new/recently returning players. It isn't great sportsmanship, so I will wait for now. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're less than 5 hours left, and we've got a tied vote on CaCom and Roadwalker. @Young Bard, what happens in the event of a tie?

I'm willing to have a lynch this turn, but I'd feel bad lynching Roadwalker round one of their return. At the same time, I can understand CaCom's logic, even if it is a bit circular. (I'm actually stuck in about the same kind of circle, since I want the game to last longer, but no information from a lynch is unhelpful in the long run).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise, Roadwalker, as I had forgotten it was your first game back; however, I do hope that you won’t be terribly offended if I vote on you tomorrow. This game, as Devotary has brought up, is looking to be very short, and you’re currently my best lead, so...I’m sorry if you die on cycle two or three? But I can’t ignore the possibility that you’re evil for very long. It sucks that the small size of this game means we have an urgency to kill but it’s kind of the way it goes sometimes, sorry. :( 

Part of my mistrust stems from your last post, which seems dishonest. I can’t speak to Cadmium, but as for myself, the last time I was on the Shard the most recent post was Ark’s, and I find your insinuation that I was somehow plotting already with a player who I’d just explicitly contradicted in-thread a tad bit premature for a villager to make. 

I still believe it is important to vote, however, so Elandera. This is again not my first choice, but her last post seems to be trying to sympathise with a lot of groups at once, without offering much of an actual opinion. She makes sure to give support to both sides of the CadCom/Road debate, and puts in a quick aside that she’s willing to lynch, which tends to be a good way to appear village without committing very firmly to any particular vote or course of action. Flimsy? Sure. But so is everything on D1, and it’s imperative to begin lynch discussion, however trivial, now. 

Quote

Debonair - You ooze charisma, and that means people listen to you. Target a player, and their vote is shifted to another player of your choice.

Alright, this is perhaps going to be one of my more controversial assertions, but I think this role is a perfect Eliminator role, and I’d be wary of anybody with it. Not enough to lynch them, but enough to take a closer look. The reasoning here is that 3 Elims in this game would be simply too many for a nine-player village to handle, even if the Deepness kills about an equal number of each. As such, this is a good role to give the Elims the voting power of a few people without actually getting the people themselves. The only thing that makes me a little more reserved is that it’d give the Elims the equivalent of four votes, which would probably be too many, unless we just have a lot of pewter users. Again, I’m not entirely sure, and we shouldn’t go around lynching by role, but this role makes me uncomfortable. 

Quote

Desperate Packman (to be honest, I just want all the roles to start with D at this point) - After the debacle with the metalminds, you intend to keep an eye out around camp and make sure nothing like this happens again. Target a player, and you can see whoever targeted them that night.

I don’t have much to say about this one, other than that it’s a more likely village role, and they should be watching people they think will be killed to see if we can catch the Deepness, or an Eliminator.

Edited by Fifth Scholar
Role analysis
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Elandera said:

what happens in the event of a tie?

We know that ties result in a no-lynch.

25 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

The reasoning here is that 3 Elims in this game would be simply too many for a nine-player village to handle, even if the Deepness kills about an equal number of each.

Three elims versus nine villagers is generally a balanced setup, assuming comparable role strength for each side. The Deepness could potentially skew that balance to either side, though it's difficult to say which side would be hurt more. Another potential reason for a three membered elim team is that I don't believe a two person team could win without killing the Deepness. Outnumbering the village 2-1 or 2-0 would trigger the Deepness's win condition, causing everyone else to lose.

So now we have one vote on Ca*Com and one vote on Elandera. @Camium Compouner has promised to put down a vote, but has yet to do so.  Elandera supporting a lynch in principle but not wanting to actually cast a lethal vote is something I believe elims are more likely to do than villagers, but there is insufficient data for how Elandera votes when evil. Nevertheless, I will vote for Elandera over Ca*Com at this time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fifth Scholar said:

I still believe it is important to vote, however, so Elandera. This is again not my first choice, but her last post seems to be trying to sympathise with a lot of groups at once, without offering much of an actual opinion. She makes sure to give support to both sides of the CadCom/Road debate, and puts in a quick aside that she’s willing to lynch, which tends to be a good way to appear village without committing very firmly to any particular vote or course of action. Flimsy? Sure. But so is everything on D1, and it’s imperative to begin lynch discussion, however trivial, now.

Sorry, that post was made while I was at work, and it was a relatively busy day so I didn't have a ton of time to commit to reading and posting. I agree, votes are definitely important. At the time, however, I couldn't decide on who to vote on. Most of the people are either returning, new-ish, or very frequently lynched early on. The two candidates as of my last post both fell into one of those categories.

I honestly still don't know who to vote on, even as it comes to saving my own life.

10 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

Elandera supporting a lynch in principle but not wanting to actually cast a lethal vote is something I believe elims are more likely to do than villagers, but there is insufficient data for how Elandera votes when evil. Nevertheless, I will vote for Elandera over Ca*Com at this time.

I wasn't supporting either lynch in principle, I actually opposed both of them (see above for better explanation). And yes, insufficient data because I have a really bad track record as an elim, for the few times I've been one. :P

For now, I'll place a vote on Droughtbringer. I've heard through some PMs that they aren't responding to PMs, despite having seen them. That would likely place them as a Tin Feruchemist, and based on Fifth's analysis, likely elim.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try and contribute more this game. I haven't been the best with activity in the past...

I support lynch happening, for the same reasons quoted above. I don't really see any lynch candidates, however. Personally, I'm hesitant to kill someone over flimsy evidence, which is why I most likely will not vote this cycle. Not that I wouldn't, but I just don't see anything incriminating in the evidence that I see that I can trust not to have been influenced by my bias towards believing whatever people say.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Elandera said:

I wasn't supporting either lynch in principle, I actually opposed both of them (see above for better explanation).

The idea here is that an elim, starting with the knowledge that particular candidates up for the lynch are innocent(though in this game not elim doesn't mean villager), finds it difficult to conjure evidence to convince themselves that said candidate is actual evil and/or the elim doesn't want to be the decisive vote on someone the elim can't see as anything but innocent. Not wanting to directly kill a villager, they instead cast a vote on someone not up for the lynch to fulfill their civic duty while avoiding the suspicion/guilt of lynching a villager. Xinoehp is following the same type of strategy, but elim!Xino tends to bandwagon so I'll leave that alone for now.

I can also confirm that Droughtbringer is capable of responding to PMs this cycle.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

The idea here is that an elim, starting with the knowledge that particular candidates up for the lynch are innocent(though in this game not elim doesn't mean villager), finds it difficult to conjure evidence to convince themselves that said candidate is actual evil and/or the elim doesn't want to be the decisive vote on someone the elim can't see as anything but innocent. Not wanting to directly kill a villager, they instead cast a vote on someone not up for the lynch to fulfill their civic duty while avoiding the suspicion/guilt of lynching a villager. Xinoehp is following the same type of strategy, but elim!Xino tends to bandwagon so I'll leave that alone for now.

I can also confirm that Droughtbringer is capable of responding to PMs this cycle.  

 

Refer again to my reasoning for not voting. I was relatively busy while trying to decide on a candidate, but thought lynching CadCom would be mean since he often dies early, and Roadwalker because they're just returning. Once I got off work, and had the time to actually put together what evidence I had, I landed on Drought.

But with your confirmation, Droughtbringer. I was working off information that's several hours old. Sorry Drought!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we've left the roadwalker lynch, but hear me out. From the info I've gotten, roadwalker previously was a player with experience, so they know how to stop a lynch against themselves. Now what better excuse than something along the lines of 'you won't kill a recently returning player on their first cycle back.' It just isn't sitting well with me. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Camium Compouner said:

I know we've left the roadwalker lynch, but hear me out. From the info I've gotten, roadwalker previously was a player with experience, so they know how to stop a lynch against themselves. Now what better excuse than something along the lines of 'you won't kill a recently returning player on their first cycle back.' It just isn't sitting well with me. 

See, there's something off about this post to me. I'd think Roadwalker (I have no idea why, but I keep wanting to type your name as Roadkiller :huh:) would be experienced enough to get out of a lynch without having to fall back on that. So, in interest of self-preservation, Ca*Com.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cycle 1 is over! Stand by for Cycle 2.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slowly, members of the travelling crew began to assemble in the centre of camp. When a sufficient number of them had arrived, one of them lifted themselves up on top of an overturned cauldron, using it as a pedestal.

"There are traitors in our midst. We need to stop them."

There was a smattering of applause.

"To this end, we need to turn out the first of these traitors - Dietrich Drake!"

The crowd looked at each other, slightly confused.

"Who? Why?"
"What's the point?"
"How do we know you aren't the traitor?"
"Are any of you interested in participating in an Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting?"

The crowd began to debate amongst themselves.
"You must be the traitor!"
"No, you are!"
"What about him? He has a particularly traitorous face, wouldn't you say?"
"Meetings are at six o'clock, for anyone interested. Feel free to come along."

The man on the cauldron looked around. "Everyone! We must present a united front in order to stop these traitors! If we can not do that, we may as well return to our tents."

There was a brief pause. Then people returned to their tents.

However, a few people had a different plan. This person handing out "Alcoholics Anonymous" leaflets seemed strangely unconcerned about the traitors. Perhaps they would show up to this meeting after all...


D didn't decide his domestically endowed designation. D did despise his domestically endowed designation. D didn't desire Domestic dependency. D Desired deliverance from domestic duties, discharge from dull day to day grinds, and to be emancipated from dad and other juridical guardians.
During the second of Doxil, D Did the duty, signed the declaration, and ended dependency on his juridical guardians. D now lived Independently. 
D was dismissed from residency in the domicile of his departed juridical guradians. D didn't have a trade, and didn't derive dollars doing daily doings. 
D found different directions to derive dollars. D undertook peddling prohibited  drugs. Additionally, D started doing drugs. 
D did his darndest and decieved many detectives and disregarded dicated decrees.
D detected that D was in a dilemma. D couldn't deceive detectives directly nowadays. D had entangled himself redundantly. 
D developed a different deception. D feigned his death and disguised his identity. D changed his domestic designation to an endogeneous designation.
D was now named Fourth Letir, an individually established designation, and a different identity. D had a decision to proceed anew. D decided to do good. 
During the first days, D did good. D found decent directions to derive daily dollars. 
Disastrously, D's addictions dismally rebounded. D became a drunk, and a drug addict. 
D started using dark terris magicks in devilish ways. Destroying Alendi's friends and developing devious designs of destruction.
D died unattended and abandoned, a desolate and deserted drunk druggie in his decrepit abode. 


Dedne sat on a rock, looking out over the cliff face, brooding.

"What is the purpose of life? What is the purpose of our mortal existence? If there is none, what is the purpose in fulfilling our journey? What is the purpose of anything in life?"

Unfortunately for Dedne, the person standing behind him had no such philosophical troubles.

With a quick push over the cliff face, Dedne's mortal existence was snuffed out.


Droughtbringer decided to go for a walk. Behind, he heard someone shout his name, which he ignored - he had other things to be doing.

He walked for several hours, mulling over his thoughts, and so was completely caught by surprise when one of his feet stepped down and splashed into water, immediately seeping into his boot. Cursing, and coming back into the present, Drought looked out, noticing for the first time the large pool of water in front of them. Well, Drought thought it was water - it was an inky black, about 20 feet across, and Drought couldn't see the bottom.

Moving his foot back, he sighed. He took his boot off, and set it atop a nearby rock to dry. Then, he moved to the edge of the pool to inspect it further, until his nose was a few inches from the water. Which is when he felt a force behind him grab and force his head under the water.

As the party trekked out the next day, the only sign they saw of Droughtbringer was one solitary boot, resting atop a rock.


We lost two of our members today - if we continue at this rate, we will all surely perish before we make it to the pool.

In many ways, we have been brought up against an impossibly Herculean task. Stop an impossibly powerful enemy, with enemies within and without. There is a part of me that fears the scholars at Khlennium may have gotten it wrong - what would be the consequences if I fail?

I fear for the future of this motley crew. I fear for the future of all my people. And I fear for the people of all of Scadrial.


IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are a Feruchemist storing a charge this cycle, please send that in as an action, rather than just leaving it implied. I may not have made that clear before, so I will give people the benefit of the doubt this cycle.

Also, a massive thanks to CadCom for his death write-up, which made me burst out laughing when he sent it to me - please go find something he posted and upvote that.

Xinoehp has died. They were a roleless Alendi Loyalist.
Droughtbringer has died. They were a Desperate Packman Alendi Loyalist.
CadCom was lynched! They were a Bronze Feruchemist and a Desperate Packman, and a member of Kwaan's Lackeys.

Vote Count:
CadCom(2): Elandera, Roadwalker
Elandera(2): Devotary, Fifth Scholar
Roadwalker(1): CadCom

Player List:

Roadwalker - Honorable Dietrich Drake
Itiah - De Itiah au Powerful
Ark - Soahc
Shqueeves - {Delinquent without a name}
Fifth Scholar - Duilin
Droughtbringer - Droughtbringer - Desperate Packman Alendi Loyalist
Xinoehp - Dedne - Roleless Alendi Loyalist
Elandara - Declan, the Detailed
Devotary - Daedi
CadCom - Fourth Letir - Bronze Feruchemist/Desperate Packman Kwaan's Lackey
ShaneRockes - Dave, the Terrible Liar
Snipexe - Dr. Snip
Walin - Nawl

Edited by Young Bard
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They’d found a traitor. And he’d been lynched.

The very fact that they’d killed one was unsettling, it meant the rumours of assassins lurking in the shadows weren’t rumours, stories. They were the truth. And as De Itiah had learned in theatre school, when it came to killers, in the dark, there was never just one.

Daedi,” he said. “Declan voted for the traitor, and you voted for them. Right now, I find that suspicious.” He paced, with his hands behind his back, and addressed the group in front of him. The presence of Alendi made his announcements harder. The man always seemed far more mature than his age.

“There are traitors among us,” he said. “As they would say in theatre school, the plot is only just beginning. Now we know that they’re here, we’ll have to hunt them down, find them! And maybe have some character development along the way, but that obviously comes second after making sure the traitors are dealt with.” Why had he ever thought uszing theatre terms would help him solve a murder?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang! I had a poke vote on Cadmium that I forgot to remove, just to get him to back off his position or not.

That was lucky. And it looks like my neck was saved by the recently returning dynamic. Thanks, I appreciate it.

14 hours ago, Elandera said:

... For now, I'll place a vote on Droughtbringer. I've heard through some PMs that they aren't responding to PMs, despite having seen them. That would likely place them as a Tin Feruchemist, and based on Fifth's analysis, likely elim.

On 2/7/2019 at 9:17 PM, Fifth Scholar said:

I’d place higher odds on an Elim having this, as the Elims won’t have incentive to PM anything incriminating so a villager with this role likely won’t turn up much.  

 

Well, bard just threw all of our role analysis out the window, eh? @Fifth Scholar, what are your thoughts on having multiple roles?

You were correct in saying that Bronze feruchemy was likely an eliminator role, though I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning. @Young Bard, does voting count as an action? I kind of doubt that it does, but that could alter the game significantly if it does.

 

Judging by the writeup, Droughtbringer was killed by the deepness, and Xino was either elim-killed or defender-killed. Based on the writeup, I have a very loose gut feeling that they were defender-killed, which could mean that the other elims were storing bronze (that would be funny if they were all feruchemists) or performing other actions. Or a lot of things, now that I think about it. **Note: Sorry for my stream-of-consciousness-writing, its how I play.**

@Young Bard, does the elim kill come first or last in the order of actions?

 

It's a shame we lost our packman. That would also put the earlier-quoted statement from @Elandera under heavy scrutiny. Would the person who told Elandera that Drought was not responding please step forwards? Until they do, just for impetus, Elandera.

 

Edit:

Drought: Referencing those whose names don't start with D,

On 2/7/2019 at 2:28 PM, Droughtbringer said:

Dear everyone, we obviously have 3 people to lynch as soon as possible. With Soahc and Nawl being the to biggest candidates, as Fourth Letir is relatively close to being on our side, the side of the greatest letter of the alphabet.

I assume that this is just joking, as we have Droughtbringer confirmed as a villager. RIP, Drought.

On 2/7/2019 at 6:03 PM, shanerockes said:

I agree with @Droughtbringer in the fact we need to get rid of the traitors. 

Still, I assume this is joking.

18 hours ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

@shanerockes, is it actually your intention to kill those whose RP names don't start with 'd'?

Devotary pulls those two posts under the microscope in an interesting way. @shanerockes, your only post in that cycle was (presumably) joking that we should get rid of those whose names don't contain a d. As one of those people was a traitor, this is a really fast'n'loose softclear for shane and drought, but not for devotary. Not suggesting anything yet, just pointing this out.

 

Edit 2:

13 hours ago, Camium Compouner said:

I know we've left the roadwalker lynch, but hear me out. From the info I've gotten, roadwalker previously was a player with experience, so they know how to stop a lynch against themselves. Now what better excuse than something along the lines of 'you won't kill a recently returning player on their first cycle back.' I never said this, just sayin'. It just isn't sitting well with me. 

@ Tin Feruchemists Anyways, If someone could posthumously spy on Cadmium, and see if someone PM'd them with some data on my past experience, that would be great. Reading Cadmium's post, they were clearly desperate to divert the lynch. Anyways, the interesting point is "from the info i've gotten." If no one PM'd them that info, it means that someone in the elim doc has played with me before, in the lg33-46 period. That narrows the pool a little bit. Also, thanks to whoever said that! Yay for recognition.

Edited by Roadwalker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Roadwalker said:

@Young Bard, does voting count as an action? I kind of doubt that it does, but that could alter the game significantly if it does.

No.

58 minutes ago, Roadwalker said:

@Young Bard, does the elim kill come first or last in the order of actions?

Kills (excepting the lynch) come last.

Edited by Young Bard
Being more specific.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Fifth is a Pewter Dark Terris Magicker who cancelled their vote, it appears we have a village debonair who killed Ca*Com. The fact that presumably no votes were moved off of Ca*Com decreases the chance of an elim debonair, though it's still a possibility.

4 hours ago, Roadwalker said:

That would also put the earlier-quoted statement from [Elandera] under heavy scrutiny. Would the person who told Elandera that Drought was not responding please step forwards? Until they do, just for impetus, [Elandera].

I feel that an elim!Elandera would have been more likely to vote for Roadwalker instead of Ca*Com. Both votes would have tied the lynch, but the former would carry less risk for a pair of elims.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I was at a track meet myself, but I expected a little more activity than this. Especially since we got an Eliminator. I guess ten living players doesn’t leave much to be said. 

I’m going to go over the thread of yesterday, the PM I had with CadCom, and then I’ll make a post and respond to everyone’s inquiries. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fifth Scholar said:

Wow. I was at a track meet myself,

Indoor or outdoor?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.