Long Game 63: The Set

[The_God_King]

2 hours ago, Young Bard said:

I am part of the Kidnapping Subset, and we collectively targeted Elandera, roleblocking them - if another member of my subset wants to come forward to confirm, that's their choice.

Kidnapping Subset is an interesting subset claim. I know of several other subsets that have various actions. I imagine there are subsets for Roleblock (Kidnapping Sparkles and Sunshine Happy Time), protection (Legal), Seer (yet to be named), and a subset involved with communication (Communication). There could be another subset hiding out there but I haven't the foggiest (unless I utterly missed something in thread).

I have come across some information to make me trust Elkanah but I still don't have enough information to make a proper accusation. Let's see what happens!

 

edit: the reason I assume a seer subset is because this would be a way different game without one

Edited March 3, 2020 by The_God_King

[Alvron]

2 hours ago, Young Bard said:

I am part of the Kidnapping Subset, and we collectively targeted Elandera, roleblocking them - if another member of my subset wants to come forward to confirm, that's their choice.

Though honestly, I think the 'Kidnapping Subset' has such major branding issues. I vote we rename them the "Sparkles and Sunshine Happy Time Subset'. We don't want to sound evil now, do we.

As for my vote on Coda, I have no idea. I assume it was manipulated onto Venture.

Many thanks.  I don't think it will be necessary for someone to come forward to confirm your claim as it would be foolish of an elim to claim a whole subset which could easily be counterclaimed.

I don't think your vote was moved to Venture.  Two votes were removed and only one added.  It makes more sense for the one on Abs to be moved to Venture rather than yours as that would've left it a tie, which of course isn't a bad thing but I doubt many would that.

7 minutes ago, The_God_King said:

Kidnapping Subset is an interesting subset claim. I know of several other subsets that have various actions. I imagine there are subsets for Roleblock (Kidnapping Sparkles and Sunshine Happy Time), protection (Legal), Seer (yet to be named), and a subset involved with communication (Communication). There could be another subset hiding out there but I haven't the foggiest (unless I utterly missed something in thread).

I have come across some information to make me trust Elkanah but I still don't have enough information to make a proper accusation. Let's see what happens!

 

edit: the reason I assume a seer subset is because this would be a way different game without one

I'm interested in how you came by your information.  Since the only Subsets to be revealed are the Sparkles and Communication groups, how do you know of the Legal department?  It makes sense for there to be one but you could only know the name if you are either in the team, and Elim or have a PM from the Communication team and they have a PM with someone from Legal.

[Elkanah]

18 hours ago, Young Bard said:

You can add an extra name to that list, Alv - Elandera, who was roleblocked last night. In fact, I'd say they're probably more likely to be the Elim than one of the people who were merely inactive, since I think it's likely the Elims have the ability to choose who submits the kill to prevent the issue of inactive teammates, and would have chosen someone active if at all possible.

Also, I'm pretty sure the inactivity rule applied to the whole cycle, not just the turn - I posted in the day cycle, so if I'd submitted a night action I believe it would have still gone through, but I could be wrong about that (GM's?). So even if it were due to inactivity that the kill didn't go through, the people who didn't post the entire cycle would be... actually, I think that would leave no-one.

That is definitely a read. To play the devil's advocate, is it possible that you have an eliminator in your subset who would skip the kill in favor of framing Elandera? I guess if I was an eliminator, I would still want to take the kill and try to frame people in another way. @DeTess, will we be told in the write up if a kill is blocked. If not it looks a lot better for Elandera. If we are told, I doubt there is a better explanation for a lack of a kill than a role block. 

Also, Young Bard, this is a ballsy play if you are just claiming Elandera was role blocked just to throw her under the bus. You did post who you were most suspicious so I'll remove my vote. 

6 hours ago, Elandera said:

As for who I find suspicious, I'll have to go for the "third time's the charm" vote and place it on Elkanah.

Maybe it'll stick this time?

6 hours ago, Elandera said:

The reason I find this odd is that it downplays the initial elim threat. One starting elim would be way overmatched, especially with the likely difficulty of finding the Sequence(s). The game would be over with a lucky D1 lynch. More likely, the elims had about 3 players, 4 after the conversion, with the possibility of converting more through other yet-to-be-revealed mechanics.

Solid point. I yield to your explanation

1 minute ago, The_God_King said:

Kidnapping Subset is an interesting subset claim. I know of several other subsets that have various actions. I imagine there are subsets for Roleblock (Kidnapping Sparkles and Sunshine Happy Time), protection (Legal), Seer (yet to be named), and a subset involved with communication (Communication). There could be another subset hiding out there but I haven't the foggiest (unless I utterly missed something in thread).

I have come across some information to make me trust Elkanah but I still don't have enough information to make a proper accusation. Let's see what happens!

 

edit: the reason I assume a seer subset is because this would be a way different game without one

This is good information. I believe the last subset is one with a kill role. We already have two dead gold ferrings who are protected from kills that are not the arrest or lynch. I see no other reason for this role if we don't have a subset that can kill independent of the elim team. 

 

I'm still not completely sold on Elandera (watch me unwittingly defend another EBI agent. At this rate, I'll be the next to defect XD). I'll send a poke at Coda. @Coda, do you know how it is that you had that vote removed from you?

10 hours ago, Abstrusity said:

So there are two possibilities. One, an elim submitting the kill was roleblocked. Two, there was no kill submitted. I think everyone was active at least once this cycle, but the elims may have postponed the decision till the end of the cycle and then been unable to get on in time. Slight amounts of suspicion towards those inactive during the night cycle. Does anyone want to come forward with who else was roleblocked last night? 

So either Young Bard or someone in their subset roleblocked Elandera, if that is indeed the case. Interesting.

Sorry I missed this. Also yes.

[The_God_King]

2 minutes ago, Alvron said:

I'm interested in how you came by your information.  Since the only Subsets to be revealed are the Sparkles and Communication groups, how do you know of the Legal department?  It makes sense for there to be one but you could only know the name if you are either in the team, and Elim or have a PM from the Communication team and they have a PM with someone from Legal.

Hm... Interesting thought process! I'll let you know that I have established knowledge of the Legal subset through a couple of means. Knowledge of the Coms team came from the fact that I am in a group PM that was created by unknown parties (Probably the Coms team). I figure that the Elims probably have at least one member in it so they already know.

 

5 minutes ago, Elkanah said:

This is good information. I believe the last subset is one with a kill role. We already have two dead gold ferrings who are protected from kills that are not the arrest or lynch. I see no other reason for this role if we don't have a subset that can kill independent of the elim team. 

We also forget to take into account vote manipulation. That might be a subset or an action role (bronze or zinc). Kill could also be either of them (The Set's knowledge of Hemalurgy wouldn't preclude the existence of an action role). 

[Elkanah]

13 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Since the only Subsets to be revealed are the Sparkles and Communication groups, how do you know of the Legal department?

I believe Experience was a member of the Legal Subset.

3 minutes ago, The_God_King said:

We also forget to take into account vote manipulation. That might be a subset or an action role (bronze or zinc). Kill could also be either of them (The Set's knowledge of Hemalurgy wouldn't preclude the existence of an action role).

True, the kill could be an individual role, but I find that less likely. We have allegedly seen that not everyone is a gold ferring, so I wouldn't be surprised to find there are bronze or zinc ferrings.

[Zillah]

Vote count:

Xino: (0) *Elandera*

Young Bard: (0) *Elkanah*

Elandera: (3) Young Bard, Xinoehp, Rathmaskal

Elkanah (2) Elandera, Zillah 

Coda: (1) Elkanah

 

The Elkanah I’m seeing in this game may as well be a completely different player than the Elkanah I played with the past two games. Both of which they were confirmed Village. They are playing extremely carefully in comparison to their previous antics. 

Elandera’s excuse of not taking an action feels like an eliminator trying to use the least risky justification. It is safer than claiming to have taken some other action that could have potentially be challenged. Their vote on Elkanah makes me question my suspicions of them. However it could also be an effort to try and remove the pressure off of them as they are currently in the lead by two votes. (Barring vote manipulation)

My last suspicion falls onto young bard. Your mention of Elandera being roleblocked was a surprise. And then you were very quick to reveal details about what your subset could do. If you’re a villager with an elim in your subset you’re likely somewhere in their crosshairs now. 

At the end of this, I think I’ll put a vote on Elkanah For drastic gameplay changes and reasoning that feels very flimsy. 

[Rathmaskal]

1 hour ago, Alvron said:

I'm interested in how you came by your information.  Since the only Subsets to be revealed are the Sparkles and Communication groups, how do you know of the Legal department?  It makes sense for there to be one but you could only know the name if you are either in the team, and Elim or have a PM from the Communication team and they have a PM with someone from Legal.

XPERIENCE_THE_SHARD as Drahs Xperienc(the x is silent) Gold Ferring Suit in the legal subset

[Guest Coda]

2 hours ago, Elkanah said:

Coda, do you know how it is that you had that vote removed from you?

A member of my subset offered to aid me as a token of good faith. I was not online at the time, so they took the initiative and removed the vote. I do not know if the vote was transferred or removed. 

[Elkanah]

2 hours ago, Zillah said:

My last suspicion falls onto young bard. Your mention of Elandera being roleblocked was a surprise. And then you were very quick to reveal details about what your subset could do. If you’re a villager with an elim in your subset you’re likely somewhere in their crosshairs now. 

I'm not so sure. First, if there is an eliminator in his subset, they already know about the role block and likely have some influence over it. Second, killing Young Bard now wouldn't unreveal the existence of a sparkles and sunshine happy time subset. Assuming he wasn't lying about a role block subset (and I don't understand why he would have) killing him now wouldn't change anything. If, however, there wasn't an eliminator in his subset, they now are aware of the existence of said role block and may try to prevent future blocks. 

Either way, I figure he's as likely if not a little less likely to be killed now than he was.

2 hours ago, Zillah said:

The Elkanah I’m seeing in this game may as well be a completely different player than the Elkanah I played with the past two games. Both of which they were confirmed Village. They are playing extremely carefully in comparison to their previous antics. 

At the end of this, I think I’ll put a vote on Elkanah For drastic gameplay changes and reasoning that feels very flimsy. 

Flimsy? Me?

To be fair, almost anything seems safe compared to my last few games 

 

2 hours ago, Zillah said:

Elandera’s excuse of not taking an action feels like an eliminator trying to use the least risky justification. It is safer than claiming to have taken some other action that could have potentially be challenged. Their vote on Elkanah makes me question my suspicions of them. However it could also be an effort to try and remove the pressure off of them as they are currently in the lead by two votes. (Barring vote manipulation)

I still think we may be reading into this too far... Unfortunately, I'm not above voting for Elandera to save my own skin. After all, I can be 100 percent sure that I'm village, but I can't have the same assurances about Elandera. 

 

Incidentally, this is excellent analysis, Zillah! Thank you for your contribution!

3 hours ago, The_God_King said:

I have come across some information to make me trust Elkanah but I still don't have enough information to make a proper accusation. Let's see what happens!

Thank you! I'm very interested to learn what this is, but all in good time... If I live that long.

 

 

Thank you @Coda. That is also some very useful information! Coda

(Sorry, quoting from different pages is hard on mobile)

So we can assume there are individual roles that move and remove votes instead of subsets. 

 

I'm sure there's someone I'm forgetting to respond to, but it's late and I need sleep. I'll go back and make sure I didn't miss anyone tomorrow

[The_God_King]

2 hours ago, Rathmaskal said:

XPERIENCE_THE_SHARD as Drahs Xperienc(the x is silent) Gold Ferring Suit in the legal subset

I knew I saw it somewhere! Thanks for pointing it out, I have a list consolidated to keep track but I forgot where the legal subset came from. 

 

1 hour ago, Coda said:

A member of my subset offered to aid me as a token of good faith. I was not online at the time, so they took the initiative and removed the vote. I do not know if the vote was transferred or removed. 

Interesting. That confirms my theory that vote manipulation would be an action role. 

 

 

[DeTess]

6 hours ago, Elkanah said:

 @DeTess, will we be told in the write up if a kill is blocked. If not it looks a lot better for Elandera. If we are told, I doubt there is a better explanation for a lack of a kill than a role block. 

If an action that would normally have some effect visible in the write-up is roleblocked, it will not be mentioned. If it is prevented from succeeding in some other way, it will be mentioned.

So, for example, if some kind of attack action was taken and it was roleblocked, it would not be mentioned. If it was instead not roleblocked, but taken against a gold ferring, the write-up would mention something like 'player was attacked, but survived'.

[Abstrusity]

As far as I can tell, suspicion of Elandera is derived largely from Young Bard's testimony and supported by their vote on me last round. Suspicion of Elkanah seems to come a little more out of the blue. Elandera is more suspicious to me.

But if Elandera doesn't turn out to be an elim, then there are two possibilities. Either the Sparkles subset did block Elandera, and the elims didn't send in a kill that night at all, or at least a portion of the Sprinkles subset is traitorous and misleading us. If you are a member of the Sprinkles subset, can you confirm what Bard said? 

A final theory just occured to me, but I will wait to share it before hearing more from people.

[Elkanah]

1 minute ago, Abstrusity said:

As far as I can tell, suspicion of Elandera is derived largely from Young Bard's testimony and supported by their vote on me last round. Suspicion of Elkanah seems to come a little more out of the blue. Elandera is more suspicious to me.

But if Elandera doesn't turn out to be an elim, then there are two possibilities. Either the Sparkles subset did block Elandera, and the elims didn't send in a kill that night at all, or at least a portion of the Sprinkles subset is traitorous and misleading us. If you are a member of the Sprinkles subset, can you confirm what Bard said? 

A final theory just occured to me, but I will wait to share it before hearing more from people.

Is the final theory that there is no SS happy time subset and Young Bard lied to throw Elandera under the bus? That seems like a pretty desperate play for this early in the game. The only reason that would make sense is if she is likely the only seeker in the game and therefore worth losing a teammate over. 

I'm not sure what a traitorous part of the SS subset gets by false claiming when there are other members who could contradict. I think they either aren't speaking up because he told the truth, or they aren't speaking up because they don't exist. 

Given the first, we can trust him until someone contradicts his claim of blocking Elandera. Given the second He could be on an eliminator team that forgot to or chose not to submit a kill. Also given the second and if he's village, he could be lying about the sunshine subset to protect himself from revealing his individual role block role. If that's the case I'm sorry for outing you, Young Bard. If a seer were to claim right now, they would likely be killed, however, if a person claimed to be part of a seer subset their role doesn't die with them and they become less of a target. It's possible that Young Bard was just trying to stay alive which I can empathize with. 

 

Also, the suspicion on me as far as I can tell is based purely on activity. I'm not too worried about it as my playstyle has shifted slightly and if I have lynched several people over that in the past. I maintain my villagerness, but I am also not afraid to die. This dead doc looks like it's going to be lit!

[Rathmaskal]

Just a quick vote count:

• xino (0) - Elandera
• Young Bard (0) - Elkanah
• Elandera (4) - Young Bard, xino, Rath, Abstrusity
• Elkanah (2) - Elandera, Zillah
• Coda (0) - Elkanah

[Elandera]

1 hour ago, Abstrusity said:

As far as I can tell, suspicion of Elandera is derived largely from Young Bard's testimony and supported by their vote on me last round. Suspicion of Elkanah seems to come a little more out of the blue. Elandera is more suspicious to me.

I disagree about the vote being suspicious. While I acknowledge my reasoning for voting on you was bad (in hindsight), I felt at the time it was valid. As I'd tried explaining to TGK, by the time the vote was split between Venture and yourself, I was DMing a D&D game and didn't really have time to make any changes. Nor did I really feel a change was necessary, because the votes on Venture seemed to have no more basis than the votes on you. I'm wrong, obviously, but you have to understand my reasoning in the moment based on the information I had available to me at that time. 

Elkanah's vote in that whole thing seems far more suspicious to me because of its timing. Most elims don't feel comfortable starting the lynch on someone they know will turn village, but they'll be more than happy to join it around the third vote.

[Abstrusity]

I understand. Elkanah is next in line for death, but your fall will reveal a lot of information. Sometimes sacrifices must be made.

[Kidpen]

Elandera Elkanah is a bad lynch and I will not let it happen.

I may post something else, but mostly I've been talking in my doc.

[Elandera]

4 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

Elandera Elkanah is a bad lynch and I will not let it happen.

I may post something else, but mostly I've been talking in my doc.

What do you mean it's a bad lynch? I get my argument isn't based on much, but there's be so little discussion in the game so far it's difficult to get a good read on anyone.

[Kidpen]

6 minutes ago, Elandera said:

What do you mean it's a bad lynch? I get my argument isn't based on much, but there's be so little discussion in the game so far it's difficult to get a good read on anyone.

The arguments against Elkanah are as follows:

1. They downplayed the threat of the elim team. 
   • I don't feel at all like this is a reasonable thing to base an elim read off of, in a game where the elim team is the only enemy. They definitely aren't right about that theory, but I don't think it's the type of thing someone would say from an elim mindset.
2. They voted for Abstrusity based off of your faulty reasoning.
   • I didn't like the Abstrusity lynch, obviously, but Elkanah voting on it seemed moderately reasonable given the information we had. And this severely downplays the fact that you did, in fact, vote on Abstrucity first. The only other person on the train was Venture, who wanted to save himself.
3. Playstyle changed severely.
   • This is a valid read sometimes, but in this specific case I don't think it indicates an elim. Elkanah has very much agreed that they changed their playstyle heavily in this game, and for me that makes it read more as a general switch than an alignment based switch.

At the moment Elkanah has, if anything, a moderate village read from me. I'm not totally sold on your elimness, but the case is by far the strongest out of all the players, and you certainly haven't given any reasonable alternatives, in my view.

[Elandera]

18 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

The arguments against Elkanah are as follows:

1. They downplayed the threat of the elim team. 
   • I don't feel at all like this is a reasonable thing to base an elim read off of, in a game where the elim team is the only enemy. They definitely aren't right about that theory, but I don't think it's the type of thing someone would say from an elim mindset.
2. They voted for Abstrusity based off of your faulty reasoning.
   • I didn't like the Abstrusity lynch, obviously, but Elkanah voting on it seemed moderately reasonable given the information we had. And this severely downplays the fact that you did, in fact, vote on Abstrucity first. The only other person on the train was Venture, who wanted to save himself.
3. Playstyle changed severely.
   • This is a valid read sometimes, but in this specific case I don't think it indicates an elim. Elkanah has very much agreed that they changed their playstyle heavily in this game, and for me that makes it read more as a general switch than an alignment based switch.

At the moment Elkanah has, if anything, a moderate village read from me. I'm not totally sold on your elimness, but the case is by far the strongest out of all the players, and you certainly haven't given any reasonable alternatives, in my view.

1. Yeah, I get that. It's definitely not the sole reason, and would not be my argument if it weren't also for the vote. 

2. I did start that. Now that I realize my mistake, my concern about Elkanah's vote is that he seemed too eager to join the wagon without checking for himself. I'd be just as willing to lynch Venture for the same if he weren't already dead, as his vote was not placed for self-protection.

3. It's always better to own up to a playstyle switch, especially if you are elim. I'd argue more that acknowledging it after someone brings it up I'd more NAI, while the actual change could still be a sign of elimineyness.

[Alvron]

16 hours ago, Rathmaskal said:

XPERIENCE_THE_SHARD as Drahs Xperienc(the x is silent) Gold Ferring Suit in the legal subset

Ah, my thanks for pointing that out Rath.  I thought I had kept better tabs on the death reveals but apparently not.

So, if my tally is correct, which at this stage I wouldn't be surprised to find I missed something, then it's 5 votes on Elandera and 2 on Elk.  We know of a vote moving ability and a vote cancelling ability at very least so it is currently possible for the lynch to end in a tie albeit unlikely.
That said the evidence against Elandera isn't strong, just a roleblock claim against an apparent no kill.  It is however the best lead we have.  Sorry Elandera but I would rather learn the truth than hope it ends in a tie at this stage.  Rest assured that if you are innocent, Bard will likely be lynched the next cycle.

Votes:
Xino (0): Elandera
Bard (0): Elk
Elandera (6): Bard, Xino, Rath, Abs, Kidpen, Alv
Elk (2): Elandera, Zillah
Coda (0): Elk
 

[Kidpen]

6 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Bard will likely be lynched the next cycle.

Under the assumption that he made up the Sparkles subset, or for some other reason I can't think of?

[Elandera]

11 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Sorry Elandera but I would rather learn the truth than hope it ends in a tie at this stage.

 A no tie suggestion from you? That's it. You're definitely the elim this time!

[Alvron]

13 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

Under the assumption that he made up the Sparkles subset, or for some other reason I can't think of?

Elandera is basically only being lynched based on Bards claim.  In past games when such claims tend to be wrong, the claimant tends to be lynched next cycle.

9 minutes ago, Elandera said:

 A no tie suggestion from you? That's it. You're definitely the elim this time!

I know but the odds of getting a tie at this stage is almost impossible.  However, if you can somehow get two more votes on Elk, I'll be willing to switch and be the tying vote.  

[DeTess]

One more hour, people. Get your actions and votes in!