Anniversary Game: In the Re-Wake of the Koloss

[Kasimir he/him]

I strongly disagree with Hreo's points, and I will post a fuller response later, when I'm a little less busy.

 

Before that, I will note one thing. I've been debating doing this, but I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. What is it, you may ask? I think we need a lynch. I think we can't sit back and delay, and I think we don't just need the lynch discussion (and discussions if we've already agreed not to lynch someone are, I argue, toothless. People sometimes reveal things under pressure. Without voting and without the threat of a lynch, the pressure just isn't there.) We need more data, and sitting back and waving our hands and waiting for Seeker evidence--assuming we even have a Seeker (note Wyrm's very pertinent point that a Seeker doesn't have to be Village-aligned this time!) isn't going to get us that.

 

So, I'm pretty sure this fellow, Karnad, is a pretty nefarious character. I encourage you to smite him. Why, he's been suggesting pretty dodgy tactics, such as smiting an innocent villager in red. He's been urging us to kill, he's been uncharacteristically silent in the group PMs, and he's been in contact with some fellow dodgy characters.

 

Edit for grammar.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Kasimir

[ostrichofevil he/him]

Wyrmhero, as I am a first player I was annoyed at Eolhandren's "trolling" attempt and I'm kind of paranoid.  Trying to liven up discussion does not make me Spiked.  For now, I am retracting my vote for Eoladdin.

[Kasimir he/him]

Hmm. First, I don't endorse taking out fellow players just because they have playstyles I disagree with, and Hreo has given a sufficient response to allay suspicions on the grounds of my later points, even if I find his response weak. As I have mentioned, Point 1. cannot be taken to be a point for trusting Hreo or for distrusting Hreo. I merely added it for thoroughness. So I find it slightly interesting that Hreo is invested enough to attempt to defend against that as well.

 

Second, I'd appreciate if if you don't put words in my mouth. I said you were an experienced player, and I stand by that. I did not say that entailed you were a dangerous player. While I have a personal danger-ranking full of tiers and scales for all the players, that is not pertinent to the matter at hand, and Wilson can certainly attest to the fact that you are nowhere near the tiers I'd actively seek to kill if I were an Eliminator. And that, I mention, because that is my standard for 'dangerous'.

 

Third. I'm going to try to make everything as brief and curt as possible, because we could argue about how best to play this game until the Spiked kill us all. And that is a distraction from other concerns we should be discussing.

 

No one is going to deny we don't have sufficient evidence at this point in time. The sad fact is, mislynches happen. Sometimes, we make bad mislynches pretty late into the game--anyone who wonders just needs to take a look at LG7, where we ended up mislynching a noble Smoker who had a kandra and House powers. What I do deny is: discussion with the pre-agreement that we shan't lynch anyone, or worse, shan't vote is effective. I think that is absolutely not the case at all.

 

Think about it. If you have a role, that's fine, but you're also a villager. You just have extra add-ons. (Imagine, especially, if you're a Thug.) If you're a villager, your vote is your power. Your vote is your power and your voice, and without it, your voice can be ignored. With your vote, you are making a powerful statement about your suspicions--and it enables you to put pressure on another player precisely because it could lead to a lynch.

 

But when are we going to have sufficient evidence by your lights, Hreo? Next cycle? The cycle after? With no pressure on anyone at all to speak? (Did you notice that the people on Ren's list still aren't speaking up? That Dom is still remaining silent?) Do you think we can trust the Seeker? Did you forget there are no safe roles in this game, as Meta has already said? Do you think we even have a Seeker, or a Mistborn with bronze? Has the trauma of Beetle faded from most minds, already? What happens if/when your Seeker dies?

 

Do you think the dead are going to speak to us, then? Perhaps conveniently hold a note telling us who their killer was? How often do we actually have smoking gun evidence in the game? Just look at MR4. By the time we had smoking gun evidence pointing us to Macen and Aonar, it was very late in the game. How much evidence is enough for you? What is the threshold you want? If you've noticed, precisely because we don't have any safe roles, the most certainty you will ever get is word of Meta, and that comes at a lynch.

 

The way I see it, any of the plans that Hreo can propose to counter my arguments are perfectly compatible with a scenario in which we lynch. How does the fact the game begins with a night cycle make a difference? Your answer reveals your problematic preconceptions. It's not about evidence. Unfortunately, Vron has disappointed us by not telling us who his killer was. Alv, if you see this, I am disappoint. That's so inconsiderate of you. This means we begin the game with a man down. That also means that unlike most other games in which we say, "Well, we can wait for the second day to begin earnest lynch discussion", we have already incurred the waiting casualty.

 

Why is data so important? Precisely because we're shooting ghosts at the moment. That's just what mathematical modelling is. We're constructing models of Eliminator behaviour from a single data point at the moment. It's no surprise that we should be getting it so terribly wrong. What we exactly need is more data and a toothless model of discussion is not going to get us the data only a lynch can provide. With more data, we can revise our models. We can remove assumptions about how the Eliminators are playing, how they are regarding the lynch, and draw connections between players, such as who is defending whom. We can determine if the Eliminators are treating the lynch passively, in which case we look amongst the silent players, or if they are actively agitating for a lynch, as Awes did in LG5. It's simply arrogant and foolish to assume that with our limited information now, we'll know how this specific Team Evil is playing. For that, we mut have data. And the beautiful thing is, the more idea we have about narrowing down a pool of suspects, the better the baseline for our Seeker (if we do have one) to work from. So even though your model is predicated on sitting by passively and waiting for the Seeker to verify people, it's still a weak model precisely because it isn't giving the Seeker good data to work from. I suggest we can partner the Seeker and help them with their task.

 

That's what I have to say. I'll leave it at that. I am not going to divert the discussion any further than I may have.

 

I'd still like to hear from Dom, who has been ominously silent, and Ash, who's been flagged. I also note that at some point, we may want to lynch the Seeker to ensure their information has been good. This is a cold-blooded way of playing, so it may not be a good idea, but I raise it, nontheless, as a possibility.

 

And as I've previously said, I will vote for Karnad and put my money where my mouth is. After all, I might seem suspicious after I've aggressively advocated for actual lynching and argued against passive play, branding it as toothless. My continued attacks on Hreo might seem like the act of someone attempting to ensure a lynch death. In addition, I have been actively defending Eoldren, a player accorded some degree of suspicion for his stunt, even though it seems I have little reason to. On these grounds, what suspicion we may have might accrue to me.

 

But most of all, I admit, I'm a fool who takes earnestly the dictum that you should not propose an idea if you're not willing to endorse it strongly, or have it done to you--as it may be, to the death.

 

Good luck be to you all.

[Wyrmhero he/him]

Ostrich, I'm aware that such a tactic can prove a little worrying or annoying for new players. I just wanted to bait you out a little and see your reasoning for not removing your vote. At this point, no votes I place are due to real suspicions, and they tend to be jump around a lot too
 

 ...Karand...

But most of all, I admit, I'm a fool who takes earnestly the dictum that you should not propose an idea if you're not willing to endorse it strongly, or have it done to you--as it may be, to the death.

 
A well-written post, Kas. You've lain out the points for why voting and discussing are so necessary very neatly there. To echo that point, it's all about information. Remember, people: even if you die, you can still win with your team. So we should not really be afraid of mislynching, provided that such a mislynch has a purpose. That's what is key to remember. We don't want to just all vote for someone at random together, we want to vote and discuss and counter-vote and so on.

However, Kas, your vote for yourself rather strikes me as strange. You aren't in any danger here, nor are you being looked at particularly suspiciously either. There's no point in a vote for yourself, other than to perhaps prove your innocence in the case of your death if you are indeed a Villager. But what does that gain us, exactly? If you were a Seeker, then perhaps you could do so to confirm that you were telling the truth about other players' Roles and Alignments, but this is way too early to try that, with just a single Cycle to check on. Nor do you have enough suspicions to make it a good way of checking the Villagey-ness of your arguments.

 

The only other thing I can see is that it's a trap, to get people to try and lynch you, and then have them turn on the lynchers when you are proven innocent (or turn on them before your lynch, if you are an Eliminators). But again, I'm not sure what the point of that is - The Eliminators don't need to force lynches this early, and generally you confuse the Villagers too much for that to bear any fruit - See Tulir in LG5.

 

So overall, I'm not sure what you're trying to do, other than perhaps confuse people and get them to not vote for you. Please explain why you are voting for yourself.
 
...Although, can I just confirm with Meta that there is no Fool/Wit Role this game? >>

Edited January 4, 2015 by Wyrmhero

[Renegade he/him]

Kas, stop trying to kill yourself. 

 

Right now, I'm going a little bit into voting stuffs.  Hopefully, I'll do some greater analysis later.  I think that my vote on Hero was justified, because I actually saw him as suspicious.  But both Araris and Unodus had other reasons for voting for Hero.

 

Araris’ is… meh.  Most of his reasoning is based off of pushing the vote away from Eoladdin, and I don’t think we would’ve needed to do so that soon, considering that we had plenty of time to make our minds up about who to vote for.

 

Unodus’ vote, I’d like some clarification on from him.  I don’t think trying to bandwagon onto someone, as you stated, is a legitimate reason to vote for them.  I’m not sure if you were trying to act like that, but I’d still like something more than “bandwagoning” to get a vote off on someone.  As far as I know, the Spiked could be trying to pass you off as an inexperienced player to allow you to slip around this kind of thing.

 

Also, we have 7 players (yes, I keep track of this sort of thing) who have still not posted this cycle: Dom, Peng, Dowanx, Jasnah, Sart, Macen, and Sarcomere.  I’d like to know what they think about this, if they’re reading this, or are being relayed it by one of their compatriots in the Spiked doc.

[Kasimir he/him]

You really think I'd be so lucky as to get Wit a second time? After the hash I made of the first?

 

Anyway, just to publicly state my reason: first, I admit I wanted to pre-emptively block objections (already hinted at in Hreo, even if he chose not to pursue them for the moment) that my aggressive defense of lynches was problematic and favoured Eliminators more. In addition, as I've mentioned, consistency is very important to me as a standard of argumentation. If I am defending the usefulness of lynches, then I should indicate that I do not find myself exempt from this, and reasonable grounds of suspicion can, too, be brought and found against me. I acknowledge it and raise it. What y'all want to do with it is another matter. I'm one voice and one vote in a group with the same power, after all. Imagine: you might actually have to play the game! The horror, the horror!

 

And, as mentioned earlier, I do think we need to hear from the lurkers, from Ash, and from Dom.

 

Edit: Colour editor, stop eating my code. Really.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Kasimir

[Ashiok]

Whoops. Eol's right. I REPLIED a at noon, and that was the only time I saw on the message, first time around. I've been sleeping, and will respond to everything else in a bit

 

EDIT: After reading through:

 

@Kas... Self votes are bad, for yourself and the village. They distract, and that is bad. Also, if you're arguing for voting, vote somewhere that MATTERS, somewhere that gives info.

 

@Mail I seem to magically know how the CURRENT eliminators think? No, no, no. I just know what comes with being in a collective. (that was my thing with secondary clarifications)... But I guess that my activity, in it of itself, is suspicious? I've been quasi inactive, but when I post useful things, I post useful things to the best of my ability

 

@the whole Hero debacle: If we don't vote, we don't get much info. What else would we do in thread? We'd just be picked off by the spiked. We have to vote. I do doubt that Hero is Spiked, if only because this argument has been had many times, less so recently, but he hasn't played recently.

 

@Eol: The more I look at it, the less likely it seems to be a spiked plan, and more likely to be as he said.

 

@me not voting this cycle: I don't like voting cycle one... Not enough info. I do agree that it needs to be done, I just don't want to pull the trigger 

Edited January 4, 2015 by Ashiok

[Kasimir he/him]

Indeed, Ash, my vote hasn't mattered.

 

It hasn't told me that you prefer to merely cite the reasoning of another player, without any elaboration, or awareness of the weaknesses of such reasoning, or its refutation. It hasn't told me that despite endorsing the view that there are more meaningful (elaborate? Where are they?) places my vote could go to, you also endorse the contradictory position that these positions aren't really meaningful, because, in your words, you "don't want to pull the trigger."

 

No, it doesn't tell me things about how cautiously you say you want to play, and how I'm going to file your playstyle for this game. Your reactions cannot tell me about your consistency, about how you're trying to appear, about whether there's any shift in how you're sounding now, as compared to your previous actions.

 

Indeed, Ash, nothing about your reactions or your statements with regard to voting and my vote, in particular, radiates information. So noted.

[Herowannabe he/him]

Woah, such vehemence, Kas. But that's okay, because I really don't suspect you. It's not like the Eliminators to stick their necks out as strongly as you are doing, and I really don't suspect you in the least.

 

A quick response: You argue that the no-lynch strategy is a weak one. I see your point, and you are right. But it is also a safe® strategy. And I counter-argue that lynching people based off of their posts and reasonings (or lack thereof) is a reckless strategy, for all the reasons I've stated before.

 

Also, maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but the main reason for not-lynching and for dragging the argument is not so that we can sit around and wait for the seeker(s) to get a lucky hit and find someone who is spiked, it's so that they have time to build up a crew of people who can be trusted, hopefully one that will include a lurcher or two for protection of the seekers.

 

However, you pointed something out I hadn't considered yet- Meta said that there are no safe roles, which means that the Eliminators could very well have a Seeker. It would be a very cruel, twisted thing for Meta to do, but we all know that he isn't above being cruel or twisted (no offense Meta )

 

So with that in mind, now I am a bit more hesitant to wait and rely on Seeker informantion. However, I still don't think I have anywhere near enough information to guess at who is Spiked and who isn't. Statistically speaking, there is probably 1, maybe 2, Eliminators who have received a vote thus far this cycle. But I have no clue who it might be.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Herowannabe

[Wyrmhero he/him]

I am removing my vote from Karand for now, I have been convinced enough of innocence there for me to do so. Instead, I am going to comment on two things: Firstly, we have a high number of inactives. Secondly, we have a high number of no-votes. In the interest of changing at least one of these, I'm going to vote for Satrams. He's posted once so far during the previous Turn, but he hasn't said anything so far this turn after a day and a half to do so. What are your thoughts here, Satrams, and why haven't you said anything yet?

Edited January 4, 2015 by Wyrmhero

[Ashiok]

It's 90% certain that there's sBronze. Normal eliminator roles are seeker and protector and possibly Mistborn. But, seeing as GM almighty has decided that there will be no safe roles, we can't assume that.

@Kas: Meaningful like on one of the main suspects or somebody that would shed new light on the discussion, which I suppose you actually ended up doing (admittedly completely changing the track of the discussion, but I digress...) and while those positions are meaningfulness, usually when I get onto one of them, discussion is derailed, and I don't want to be responsible for that. Oops, too late...

[Metacognition he/him]

However, you pointed something out I hadn't considered yet- Meta said that there are no safe roles, which means that the Eliminators could very well have a Seeker. It would be a very cruel, twisted thing for Meta to do, but we all know that he isn't above being cruel or twisted (no offense Meta )

 

 

Offense? Heck, I revel in that!

 

 

...Although, can I just confirm with Meta that there is no Fool/Wit Role this game? >>

 

No hidden roles or anything like that. What you see in the OP is what you get, so nope, no Fool/Wit roles this time round!

[WeiryWriter he/him]

I'm going to go ahead and vote for Dom at this point in time.  (For completely arbitrary "They haven't posted yet so let's keep the people who are actually playing around" reasons)  I do have my eye on a couple people, Eol being one of them.  His explanation seems reasonable enough, but I can't say I'm totally convinced.

[Sart he/him]

Sorry I haven't posted yet. I've been busy in real life. Anyways, on to discussion. I'm going to move straight to voting for Kassad. He's been very active in the thread lately, but he hasn't been active in voting for anyone. Furthermore, he's voted for himself, which makes me very suspicious of why he's trying to buy trust. It's mostly a gut feeling, but I don't think I can really trust him this game.

[Sarcomere]

Well, I'm new to this all, and as a foreigner, Reeco's not used to the ways of 17thshardsfolk. I wanted to wait and get a clear idea about how this all worked.
 
From what I've gathered, I believe Hero is innocent.
 
Hero, in the beginning, chose not to vote for anybody. At the time, there truly was very little information to go off of. Also, casting any solid suspicion without much evidence to back you up at the very start of the game is almost a sure way to get yourself suspected as well. In fact, I did suspect Kas, if only because he was so quick to accuse. I don't see why Hero should be targeted any more than anyone else who hasn't voted.
 
Also, Hero has adamantly stated again and again that he is not a Spiked without being prompted. I don't think the Spiked would be so quick to say they aren't spiked when they aren't even being suspected, especially this early in the game. They might say so if they were confronted, but not on their own volition. That being said, I'll be extremely wary of anyone who directly claims not to be a Spiked from now on. 
 
On that note, I vote for Ostrich.  

I'm wondering why he wanted people who were "falsely accused" to contact him- almost as if he wanted to narrow down roles himself?

[Araris Valerian he/him]

@Ren: I mentioned that in my post where I voted for Hero, that we still had around 24 hours to discuss things. However, if the cycle had ended at that point in time then that's where I wanted my vote to be. I do disagree with the conclusions that Hero has reached, although the points he brings up are valid. Since the eliminators have more information than us, we should force them to use that info so that we gain some access to it as well.

 

@Ash: Not voting can be the same as pulling the trigger yourself since you can have the power to save or sink somebody.

 

I suppose that my original reason for voting for Hero is gone, so I need to find someone else. I'm not quite sure what is up with Kas. We just had a decently long discussion about eliminators and suiciding, which could be popping up again (Kas is a spiked tineye that wants to be dead). One thing that I am kind of surprised hasn't seen too much attention in the thread is the Wilson/Claincy strategy with decently sized group PMs. My group had a little talk about our opinions of the effectiveness of communicating like that, and I have seen several people saying that the bulk of conversation should go in the thread since the spiked work best in secrecy. One thing that I am considering is whether or not we should let everyone know who is in what group so the whole village can be a little more involved with using those PMs to the best for the whole group.

 

My vote will go on Jasnah for now, since she has a history of not doing very much of anything, and hasn't even read the PM that Wilson and Claincy started with her.

[dominic1994 he/him]

Hi all,

 

I want to let you know that at the moment I am basically an inactive player. I'm unexpectedly very busy at the moment to the point where I haven't even got time to read through the posts let alone respond and do RP and stuff. This isn't going to change any time soon so you can consider me to be not playing. I've just seen that I've picked up a vote so if you want to lynch me please go ahead.

 

Dom 

 

 

(Again sorry for double posting)

(And yes it should be in blue - that's my phone again!!!)

Edited January 4, 2015 by dominic1994

[Peng the Just he/him]

Okay then... dom

[Lord Pifferdoo he/him]

Would voting for Dom be a thing to do? Or should we wait for the spiked to murder him?

[Ashiok]

Why should we kill an inactive? To keep an active alive one more cycle? Not reason enough. We lynch for info, and killing somebody because they're inactive is stupid. It grants much less info than killing somebody whilst discussing why to kill them. Therefore, we gain more info by killing somebody other than Dom, and if we're gonna kill Dom, we might as well not kill anybody.

 

We have three possible routes:

 

Killing Dom pros: Learn what his role is, no actives deaths, possibility of discussion (But unlikely)
Cons: Loss of a player, loss of the info granted by a lynch that was discussed (AKA loss of a cycle), somebody dies to Spiked next cycle and

This leaves: 25 people, mostly actives (AKA 25)

 

 

No Lynch Pros: Discussion, no deaths
Cons: Loss of info, somebody dies to spiked next cycle in the same way as Dom

26 people, one of which is confirmed inactive (AKA 25)

 

Lynching an active Pros: Gain info from discussing the lynch, possibly kill spiked
Cons: possibly kill innocent active

25 people, one of which is confirmed inactive (AKA 24)

 

While lynching an active leaves us with the least amount of functioning players, it gives us the most info for day one. Sure, I'll argue for lynches, I just don't know where to put my vote yet.

[Lord Pifferdoo he/him]

Thank you, Ashiok.

I shall return to quiet contemplation and RP writing.

[dowanx]

My two cents...

 

I don't think Eol is spiked.  In my opinion it was a risky gambit and I don't think a collaboration of people would come up with that plan.

 

I am a little confused as why so many people are voting for Hreo.  I have read the explanations, but it seems a little weak especially since it is causing such a bandwagon to form.

 

Honestly I am still trying to decide who I am going to vote for.  I was going to vote for Dom, but I don't think we should kill an inactive player as it would probably give us the least amount of information.

 

Anyways I am going to reread the thread and then make a vote.  Until then my vote is going to go to Ash.

 

Edit Color

 

I'm awesome because I'm Awesome!

Edited January 5, 2015 by dowanx

[Mailliw73 he/him]

 

@the whole Hero debacle: If we don't vote, we don't get much info. What else would we do in thread? We'd just be picked off by the spiked. We have to vote. I do doubt that Hero is Spiked, if only because this argument has been had many times, less so recently, but he hasn't played recently.

 

 

@me not voting this cycle: I don't like voting cycle one... Not enough info. I do agree that it needs to be done, I just don't want to pull the trigger

So, you tell Hero that we need to vote and then say that you don't like to vote??

  

Woah, such vehemence, Kas. But that's okay, because I really don't suspect you. It's not like the Eliminators to stick their necks out as strongly as you are doing, and I really don't suspect you in the least.

 

A quick response: You argue that the no-lynch strategy is a weak one. I see your point, and you are right. But it is also a safe® strategy. And I counter-argue that lynching people based off of their posts and reasonings (or lack thereof) is a reckless strategy, for all the reasons I've stated before.

 

Awes in LG5. That is all.

So, what, we're supposed to wait for the seeker to get lucky and in the meantime, hope we don't die? No thanks. Voting based on reasonings and posts is the best we can do if we aren't seekers. Aside from voting based of PM reasons, I suppose. We have to vote based off of the thread if we want to get anywhere.

Would voting for Dom be a thing to do? Or should we wait for the spiked to murder him?

I say leave him alone. If he's resigning then, as a spiked, he can't hurt us, and as a villager, he gives us a slight buffer.

[Ashiok]

It's a conscience thing. I don't want to choose somebody, and take them out of the game day one, on an impulse. That's just not nice. Pardon me for having a conscience. 

[ostrichofevil he/him]

I'm going to go back and once again vote Eoladdin, as I still have my suspicions about him.