Long Game 15: ...The Shards Themselves...

[Kasimir he/him]

The PM safety bit here feels redundant to me. That sort of talk, nailing down what should be mere convention, feels like filler grasping for easy town-cred. Sort of a scumtell in my eyes. The words aren't wrong exactly, but the needlessness coupled with the jumble appears to be showboating. Have there been issues of games being lost due to scum-sided PM conspiring in the past?

Funny thing is, in a game with so many new players mixed in with regulars, you'd think it a bit of an unwarranted assumption that we sharr the same norms of play...

There are many new players, some of whom have played Mafia/ToS in their free time regularly. I do not know what norms, 'conventions' and standard practices govern their communities. All I can speak from is my experiences playing here, and in the borrowed words of Samuel L. Jackson:

"I have had it with these [censored] roleclaims in these [censored] PMs!"

In the last game I played through to finish here, a role with a hostage revealed to me in a PM on Day Two. That was completely unnecessary, and if I'd been Evil, could've netted my team a double kill. Sadly, unjudicious reveals and the psychological tendency to trust unwisely continues to be a feature of these games. If it's 'convention' for you, then good for you and the people you play with.

But since slips do happen here, can happen and will happen, you bet I'll keep putting reminders, no matter what anyone else thinks/says.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Kasimir

[Elbereth she/her]

Funny thing is, in a game with so many new players mixed in with regulars, you'd think it a bit of an unwarranted assumption that we sharr the same norms of play...

There are many new players, some of whom have played Mafia/ToS in their free time regularly. I do not know what norms, 'conventions' and standard practices govern their communities.

This is a good point. To illustrate: In Mafia games I played in real life, you did not tell anyone your role. Ever. Even if it would benefit your team or even keep you alive, you were not allowed to tell anyone your role.

This was probably partly to keep the games a little simpler, since it's a lot harder to keep track of what's going on and who you suspect in real life.

[Clanky he/him]

I think Ada is innocent btw, unless he is trying to meta-game me in which case he is doing a great job. I won't say why but some other people playing this game should know why... and if they don't then good for me and him!

 

I'm not sure what this is about. "Some people should be able to know why." Is that a reference to something that was said in the Eliminator doc of the renowned LG15a? If it is something that can actually help the Adavantos guilt/innocence discussion then it would be useful for everyone to know.

 

Gylf was surprised at the amount of conversation surrounding the HI. She believed Hellscythe's robotic assurance that he would remain trustworthy, at least for the moment. However, she saw another flaw in Kipper's relatively foolproof plan. What if a traitor falsely informed the HI that they were a hemalurgist, when in reality, they were not? It would certainly mean that the entire ship would be misinformed and perhaps trust the HI for too long. She didn't want to be a critic; Kipper's plan could work fairly well. However, she didn't want to risk a potential oversight.

 

One thing that you forget is that HI can check roles. If someone is going to be claiming false roles to the HI then they must do so knowing that they could be found out at anytime if the HI finds them suspicious. Is it really worth it?

(I know I reminded someone of this in 15a, I can't recall if I did yet in this game, if I did sorry for being repetitive) 

[Biggoron he/him]

a role with a hostage

Ok, what??

@Wyrm  Your answer about someone who has died whilst holding a forged role is still mighty unclear.  In the write-up, does it show their forged role or their original role??

EDITED TO ASK WYRM THE THING

Edited November 5, 2015 by Biggoron

[Kaid he/him]

I will retract my vote on Adavantos for now. Anybody have a breakdown of the votes to this point? 

 

Edit: Just adding that I can put it together if no one currently has a list.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Kaid

[Wyrmhero he/him]

@Wyrm  Your answer about someone who has died whilst holding a forged role is still mighty unclear.  In the write-up, does it show their forged role or their original role??

 

In the write-up, it will show their original Role. Not the Forged Role.

[Biggoron he/him]

I will retract my vote on Adavantos for now. Anybody have a breakdown of the votes to this point?

Edit: Just adding that I can put it together if no one currently has a list.

Adavantos (3): Kipper, Arrenae, Kaid

Paranoid King (1): Bridge Boy

Burnt Spaghetti (1): Deathclutch

Kasimir (1): Clanky

Bridge Boy (1): Bort

But yeah nope, it'd be nice if someone could make a more comprehensive list. One that included the retracted votes aswell.

EDITED TO BE A MINOR WHINER

Edited November 5, 2015 by Biggoron

[Burnt Spaghetti she/her]

Votes:

Detailed:

 

Explanation of this vote count layout:

Name(vote count): Player who voted {number signifying if it was their first, second, third vote etc.}   retracted vote

 

Alvron(0): Creccio{1}  Bridge Boy {1} 

Gylf(0): Alfa{1} 

Kasimir(0): Kipper{1} 

Burnt Spaghetti(1): DeathClutch19{1}

Sonder(0): Kasimir{1}

Orlok(0): Kasimir{2}

Bridge Boy(1): Bort{1}

Adavantos(2): Kaid{1} Kipper {2} Arraenae{1}

Mailliw(0): IrulelikeSTINK {1}

Clanky(1): Kasimir{3}

Paranoid King(1): Bridge Boy {2}

Shallan(1): phattemer{1}

 

Simple:

Adavantos (2): Kipper, Arraenae
Paranoid King (1): Bridge Boy
Burnt Spaghetti (1): Deathclutch
Bridge Boy (1): Bort

Shallan(1): phattemer

 

 

Edit: I finished this literally just as I saw the post asking for a more detailed one. Good timing much?

Edit 2: Explanation of the layout of the more detailed vote count

Edit 3: Spell checking the names...

Edit 4: Fixing errors

Edited November 5, 2015 by Burnt Spaghetti

[Amanuensis he/him]

"Adavantos, why are you suspecting me? As you stated, so far I've 'Use[d] RP to express suspicions of BB and Kas. Call[ed] Kas out for not waiting until he has some sleep to post something.' You've said nothing about why that makes me evil," Rae said. "You're also encouraging us to distrust the HI and to assume that the HI is already conspiring with the traitors. Right now, I feel like you're trying to discuss without meaningfully contributing. You feel the most like a traitor."

 

Edit:remembered how to put in color

 

That list of suspicions was yet another way to instigate more conversation out of players who in my opinion have been "skating by without contributing much." My intent is to get them to respond so that I can get a more efficient read on whether or not they are evil. Thank you for your help.

 

What? 

 

I did joke vote. More than one person did. I retracted within 10 mins i believe because it was just that, a joke.

 

I did not emphasize i was contributing, i even put it with * as implying i was doing it. After that I said "As for ACTUAL contribution"

 

Tell me, what do you believe that will happen? Do you not believe that you, as an experienced player, are a threat to the traitors and they want you dead? I was just assuming that it is what will happen. It IS what usually happens; be it fearkills or what have you, i believe one of the experience players will die, just based on the fact that the traitors dont want to deal with them. If you want to believe other wise, do so and lets talk about it, but I firmly believe someone "experienced" is dying.

 

I believe in the use of PMs as a way to gather information, in PMs people are just more open and can be more willing to cooperate instead of revealing their thoughts to 30+ people. Out of 32 players, at least someone will have something useful for their end, if they share it or not is a their thing.

 

On the point of the AMOUNT of information,  it just makes sense. The more checks, votes, posts, pms and discussion there is, there is just exponentially more information. Day 2 at this exact time we will have incredibly more information than we do now; if it is public or not, thats something else. Day 3 at this exact time there will be even MORE information. It just compounds.

 

I believe we can agree to disagree on points and im more than willing to discuss with anyone my ideas.

 

If you have more questions please let me know, let us work together 

 

That large post was just a summary of thing's that all players did / said that I think are worthy of taking note. I'm not saying I disagree with you on any of those points. An "experienced" player is very likely to die. PMs are very useful for gathering information and I expect a lot of players will take advantage of them. We will have a lot more information to work with Day 3 as opposed to Day 1. My reason for adding you to my list of suspicions is because you were making a conscious effort to contribute to the thread (post count) without commenting to anything specific regarding this game, only details that are true for all games. As stated above, I put you on that list to get you to talk more so I could get a more solid read on your intentions. Thank you for responding.

[Kaid he/him]

Thanks Spaghetti

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

 

For everyone's information, Dow had been watching the original thread for the last game to see which players visited it immediately after receiving their PM from Wyrm. Those five players were as follows: Deathclutch, Elbereth, Wilson, Mailliw and Lopen. If I'm not mistaken, three of those players were the Loyalist Hemalurgists. In fact, based on the vote tally I made majority actually voted that we would kill Lopen and forge Wilson to Voidbringer. How would that have turned out the next day? I wonder. My point is there are players out there who deliberately stake out these things for information, and right there shows how well it can work out. This is why I am not fond of the Hemalurgists claiming to the HI.

 

First off, you were gonna kill me on the first cycle last game?!   While I would've been sad, I also would've been honored to be the first Eliminator kill. But seriously, that was why you were gonna kill me? Not because of my amazing and renowned ability to find Eliminators?   That wasn't even the reason I was checking the thread. I was just checking on rule clarifications that might be important to the game. While you would've gotten lucky since I was a Hemalurgist, I don't think that's an efficient way for the Eliminators to find important roles. I think people have already said something to the same effect, but I just thought I'd put in my two cents.

 

 

Up until this point I have been keeping track of and summarizing every post each player has made throughout the game so far. Here they are for others to reference.

Adavantos

Provides advice to Uninvested Crewmembers. Page 3: Provides opinion on HI situation and advice for all players regardless of role / the Kandra specifically. I mention the possibility that Alvron, Kipper, Stink and myself will likely be killed early on to keep the crew guessing. I also remind people that with the Kandra gaining the ability to scan either role or alignment that the traitors may very well have one. Later uses math to predict when the HI will turn and asks that if a Kandra manages to find a Loyal Hemalurgist and Loyal Elantrian to have them work together to ensure the HI doesn’t switch sides. Challenges Kipper’s opinion of the HI turning himself into a traitor as "gamethrowing." Affirms that the HI is immune to all actions and that we need to focus on a subject other than him for the long term benefit of the village. Emphasizes the dangers associated with the Hemalurgists informing the HI of their identities.

 

Lopen

Supports Hemalurgists messaging the HI. Mentions possibility of 2 Mistborn to balance out increase in players. Guesses at the roles of the traitors, 5 with roles, 2 roleless. Mentions surprise that the traitors had a Surgebinder last game but ignores the fact that they could get him lynched themselves to remove conversation from the game and clear themselves of suspicion at the same time. Says he could vote for Wilson like last round but doesn’t really “feel like it.”

 

Emphasis mine to respond to specific things.

 

What exactly would one of the previous Eliminators(from LG15a) getting killed by the current Eliminators mean? I don't know what we could learn from that except that maybe someone was mad at you for ending the game the way you did. I don't remember anyone voicing complaints about it so I don't see how that would have any effect on what people think. 

 

I guess I can say why I voted for Wilson last game. It didn't look like there was gonna be a lynch when I posted so I was thinking that if the Eliminators wanted to get Wilson killed all they would've had to do was use there Feruchemist to change someone's vote to her, but they would only do that if there was a vote on her at the time. If you look back in the original game, I retracted my vote right before you guys swooped in and lynched Wyrm. I was hoping that the Eliminators would use their Feruchemist and vote on Wilson and that might indicate that she was good. There was also a single vote on Alvron at the time, so I thought it could also give us information if they moved a vote to him. I almost asked Orlok to remove his vote on Alvron to remove the threat of him dying, but decided against it since I thought it might reveal my plan. Too bad you guys didn't take the bait.   With a few people saying they were very much in favor of a Day 1 lynch in this game, I didn't think that tactic would work this time. Yeah, so that was my Master Plan.

 

Regarding my role guesses. I actually think that 5 roles might be a tad bit too much for the Eliminators to have. I'd say 4 is probably more likely, especially if they have a Forger. Which I think they do. Maybe take away the BioChromancer and replace it with another roleless. 4 roles and a Forger seems too good for them.

[Bort he/him]

Bort

Says he expected someone to make the joke and thus doesn’t suspect Alvron. Votes for BB for his “strong reaction.” A little later posts a small paragraph of RP and calls out two players and a spectator who was viewing the thread but had not said anything since the first page. After Kipper votes for Adavantos says that he agrees we should not reveal to the HI but someone needs to be in contact with him so all the information he gains is not lost to the traitors entirely upon him switching sides. Off-topic comment.

 

 

@Bort: My suspicion with you began with your vote on Bridge Boy. Personally I do not think any eliminator in their right mind would have reacted the way he did, especially one with experience in Sanderson Elimination. I think you put the second vote on him simply because at the time he was the best patsy available and hoped to instigate a bandwagon. While I approve of your next post where you call out two players and a spectator, you have not provided any significant imput on the discussion at hand. While you do provide the an alternative idea - that the HI be in contact with someone on the good side so that he can reveal what he learns through his scans - there is no way that he can know for certain that the player he is telling that information to is good and therefore I find it to be a poor plan and one that a traitor would suggest in a light that seems like it would be good for the crew. I am a firm believer in my interpretation of the contribution crusade, in that player's that are unhelpful to the crew / that are likely eliminators are the ones who attempt to skate by without investing themselves too much into the conversation for fear of making enemies or drawing attention to themselves. It has been consistently shown that the most vocal players are the ones who end up lynched or killed by the eliminators overnight, and thus it's an ideal zone of comfortable for one to hide in while the village tears at each other's throats.

 

I'd like to point out a few things here.

 

Talking to the HI... The HI scans roles, then sits on that information because he has no-one to pass it on to, and posting people's roles in the main thread is not the best of ideas. Having someone act as a relay between the loyalists and the HI is a way to circumnavigate this. This way, when the HI does turn, all of their gathered information is not lost.

 

This is how it should work...

 

1. HI is currently loyal (assuming we've not been trolled by Wyrm and there are loyalist hemalurgists).

2. A loyalist Kandra (or other alignment scanning role, I don't recall off the top of my head if there is another) scans someone to use as a relay between the loyalists and the HI.

3. Once confirmed, that person is told to contact the HI, and can relay any information from the HI to whoever the Kandra requests.

 

The HI won't know for certain the alignment of the person they are talking to, but the Kandra will. Hence, the Kandra chooses who the intel goes to. If multiple people contact the HI and tell him 'The Kandra said to contact you', the names of each of those players is given out to the contact person (or contact people), because that will allow the Kandra and the correct contact person to identify someone who is quite obviously going to be an Eliminator.

 

The Kandra can then rally support from among those people they have already scanned and bag a bad guy. Does this make more sense?

 

I agree, I've not contributed too much to the game so far, but that's because it has been a few months since my last game, so I'm having to get my head back in the game, so to speak.

 

As for my 'second' vote on BB, I didn't place a second vote on him to start a bandwagon. I've placed the one and only vote he has received this cycle. So, you've either got your intel wrong, or you are deliberately (if subtly) trying to make me look bad.

[queensteph she/her]

@Bort If a Kandra contacted one of us how would we know if he was loyal or even really a Kandra?

[Bort he/him]

If they come to you and say 'I'm a Kandra and I've scanned you. Your alignment is X,' then it's a pretty good indication.

 

You do bring up a good point about the Kandra's alignment though... I'm not too sure. I'm open to ideas.

[Kasimir he/him]

If they come to you and say 'I'm a Kandra and I've scanned you. Your alignment is X,' then it's a pretty good indication.

 

You do bring up a good point about the Kandra's alignment though... I'm not too sure. I'm open to ideas.

Disagree. Alignment is too easy; any Eliminator could just as well claim that they were a kandra, since by process of elimination, anyone who is not on their team is on Team Crew, so as to speak. I would personally only be more convinced if a kandra scanned me again the next night and told me my role. Until then, they get a preliminary, cautious sort of trust.

 

Granted, even that is not proof of their alignment. But I think for that, we'd have to fall back on their actions--the same way we figure out any person is likely not an Eliminator.

 

Burnt: Your simple vote count is wrong. Unless I'm misreading it, you're saying Clanky voted for me, when I in fact cast a vote for him.

 

Elbereth: Actually, I beg to differ, for two main reasons. First, I've checked with Wyrm. He's not firmly set on whether or not we need to include him with PMs, and frankly if you're just spamming PMs for the sake of doing so and generating cover, then I really doubt Wyrm needs to be in on each and every one of them. Second, to be very honest, I think there will be heavy PM use anyway, regardless of what I've just said. We've got many players here who love to take advantage of PMs, and I'd bet anything that they'd go wild when the Night comes. (In fact, I wouldn't put it past Wilson or Maili or Kipper to have a PM with every single player in this game.)

 

Still, your concern for the sanity of the GM is awesome, and you're right

 

Biggoron: It's not important. It was a mechanic from a previous game that allowed the player to 'take down' another player with him when he died. Hence my horror when he informed me of both his role and his target. (Keep in mind I was not the only person he told that to, and that another person eventually just dumped all the information into the thread upon death.)

 

PK, Elbereth: I disagree again.

 

As for the subject of the HI, I feel that while he is our guaranteed ally for now, we should not trust him too much. At the the same time, what use is a definitely loyal crewmember unless we trust him? As a compromise, I suggest that we tell our alignment suspicions to the HI, as that would be of no use to team evil anyway, but the HI may be able to draw connections between the points of evidence. And if team evil throws in some red herring suspicions? All the better, because that is more data the HI can use to draw a pattern.

1. He is not our guaranteed ally. The probability that Wyrm would give us zero loyal Hemalurgists is a small one, but it exists. As I said, I was in the spec doc in the previous playthrough and he was toying with the idea. It doesn't say anything about whether or not he did do it, but the probability is non-zero: it is a possibility. Whether or not it is the case can only be discovered later on. Furthermore, recall Wyrm's clarification that he didn't plan the role to be treated as a confirmed Good player. It's not impossible that he would decide to throw further spanners into any attempts by us to do so.

2. Why should we tell our alignment suspicions to the HI? Guys, we're in an Elimination game. We should be telling each other that. What's the point of only telling the HI? What if you die and the HI turns and simply manipulates what you say to tell the thread something completely different? My view is that alignment suspicions should always be reported to the thread. That way, if you die, your suspicions do not die with you, especially if you're on to something. The HI can get his own information from the thread, just like any of us. Even if the HI isn't malicious, he's still human fallible. He can misrepresent, by complete accident, what you are thinking. Why leave that risk open? I feel that we should simply put it in the thread so everyone can get it direct from the horse's mouth.

 

(Inb4 Blackfoot.)

[Burnt Spaghetti she/her]

 Burnt: Your simple vote count is wrong. Unless I'm misreading it, you're saying Clanky voted for me, when I in fact cast a vote for him.

 

 

..... *face palm*   Apologies. 

 

Edit: Fixed/ Updated vote tally:

 

Votes:

Detailed:

 

Explanation of this vote count layout:

Name(vote count): Player who voted {number signifying if it was their first, second, third vote etc.}   retracted vote

 

Alvron(0): Creccio{1}  Bridge Boy {1} 

Gylf(0): Alfa{1} 

Kasimir(0): Kipper{1} 

Burnt Spaghetti(1): DeathClutch19{1}

Sonder(0): Kasimir{1}

Orlok(0): Kasimir{2}

Bridge Boy(1): Bort{1}

Adavantos(2): Kaid{1} Kipper {2} Arraenae{1}

Mailliw(0): IrulelikeSTINK {1}

Clanky(0): Kasimir{3}

Paranoid King(1): Bridge Boy {2}

Shallan(1): phattemer{1}

 

Simple:

Adavantos (2): Kipper, Arraenae

Paranoid King (1): Bridge Boy

Burnt Spaghetti (1): Deathclutch

Bridge Boy (1): Bort

Shallan(1): phattemer

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry about all the errors- post exam weariness. Maybe next time I'll triple check before posting 

Edited November 5, 2015 by Burnt Spaghetti

[Amanuensis he/him]

...

 

That was actually very clever and it almost had worked too. We discussed using my ability to kill her off but Kipper and I agreed that we would rather her live (him so he could manipulate her through PMs and me because I wanted to see if we could keep her alive and still win the game for the fun/challenge of it). Anyway, for that you have just been elevated in my list of people to be wary of. Thanks for explaining it to me xD.

 

 

As for my 'second' vote on BB, I didn't place a second vote on him to start a bandwagon. I've placed the one and only vote he has received this cycle. So, you've either got your intel wrong, or you are deliberately (if subtly) trying to make me look bad.

 

That is 100% of my fault, Bort. Sorry for that. I swear I had seen someone vote for him earlier, but looking back I see that was not the case. Thank you for all of your responses.

 

 

 

EDIT: I am in the process of going over in detail all of the posts that I was not present for in a similar fashion to what I did earlier for the first half of the turn.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Adavantos

[Guest]

Kasimir, surely you jest. 32 PMs is too many for even the Kipper to keep up with. I'll definitely PM Mailliw, though, because I'll bet I can get a ton of information out of him. Note: I don't appreciate these PM warnings. They make my job significantly harder.

Burnt Spaghetti, I voted for Alvron first as well, but it doesn't really matter, as it was later retracted.

Lopen, you made it very tempting to kill Wilson with a vote switch. Very very tempting. I was not wanting to kill her outright, but if we had gotten a lynch on her to work out, I was fine with that. I think that the general consensus, ultimately, was to not lynch her, though. Clever trick though.

[Amanuensis he/him]

Stink: Thinks I am innocent but brings up the possibility that I am “meta-gaming” him. Stink, can you please explain this to everyone?

 

Death: I trust that he is being honest about working towards his current alignment. Personally I don’t think he began a traitor but the possibility still exists.

 

Bridge Boy: Retracts vote on Alvron in favor of Paranoid King hoping that it will get people off his back for what occurred in the beginning. When PK later responds he says he is going to leave his vote on him for now and claims it won’t get him lynched. Depending on what the Feruchemists decide to do this turn - good or evil - that is actually far from true. Considering that Feruchemists can only change a person’s already existing vote, you are giving them more ammo and another potential target. However, if the majority doesn’t get me killed already I expect one of the Feruchemists will ensure my death anyway, so PK should be safe.

 

Creccio: Overreacts about my putting him on the list of the players I’m suspicious of. Conclusion: likely loyal.

 

Ripple: Continues to put doubt into the plans of others without thinking them through fully (not including the fact that the HI can check the roles of anyone who approaches him).

 

Cow: Being brand new to the forums I had decided to leave him off my list of suspicions. I am glad that he joined the conversation without me needing to instigate it, however his conclusions about Kas and myself leave a particularly bad taste in my mouth. It might just be because of the term he uses (scum), though. Either way I am confident Kas is a loyalist and I already know whose side I’m on, so the fact that he’s zoning in on the two of us alone makes me wary. Conclusion; could be evil, could have a similarly aggresive play style to Deathclutch in MR9; more observation necessary.

 

Paranoid King: I appreciate that he attempts to add a new idea into the mix, though as later stated by Kas it would not help the crew. I’m a firm advocate of players announcing their suspicions in thread so that it can reach more loyalist’s ears and give them someone to look out for.

 

Steph: First post of decent length. Gut says she’s loyal. Difficult for me to analyze due to personal bias’. Would appreciate other player’s opinions.

 

Arraenae: Votes for me in response to me putting (him? her?) on my list of suspicions. Sadly this does not tell me much as I am unfamiliar with Rae as a player. Could be getting overly defensive because she’s evil and I pinned her. I think it’s more likely they are a paranoid loyalist and simply doesn’t want to draw anyone’s eye. Says they feel like I am “trying to discuss without meaningfully contributing,” which is an inaccurate stateent, to say the least. Not only have I been contributing more than most players but I have been instigating others into talking as well, allowing everyone a cornucopia of opportunities to dissect what everyone is saying and widening the margin between the helpful actives, the unhelpful actives and the inactives. Overall I’d say my strategy this turn has been very efficient.

 

Araris: Remains on my suspect list for now. I don’t like that he proposed lynching an inactive. First because killing inactive players is unhelpful to the long term victory of the crew as well as unfair for the people who genuinely cannot get online for real life reasons. Second because in doing so he could have indirectly drawn votes off of me - could be interpreted as a form of defending me. Will need to see more from him before I decide whether or not I think he’s evil.

 

Elbereth: Also new to Sanderson Elimination so I am unsure how to approach her. Gut is giving me mixed signals. Mostly think she’s good, however. Thing thing Kipper and I learned from Dow in LG15a has to do with what I said earlier about him staking out and how effective it was. I meant that Mail will likely be more active in the night turns than he will be during the day turns because we can use PMs then.

 

Elkanah: Short paragraph that doesn’t really add much to the conversation. However I appreciate (him? her?) expressing their opinions.

 

Phatt: I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen him post - let alone vote - on the first day since I began playing. Instantly suspicious.

 

Kipper: Nothing of note / out of character. I became convinced of him being good when he voted for me so nothing he has said since then has made me suspicious.

 

Kasimir: Brings up the same point I was going to provide Cow in response to why we are “stating the obvious.” When I came to join the Sanderson Elimination family it was my first mafia game ever. It wasn’t until after I finished my first two that I was introduced to Town of Salem. I didn’t have anyone in those games who stated the obvious for me, so I ended up learning a few lessons (some regarding manipulation, others ending with my death). Since then I have made sure to give out as much advice as I can, both to enlighten new first timers and to remind everyone else just in case they forgot about or didn’t realize something.

 

Clanky: I want to say good (likely because he’s sort-of-defending me in a way that reads genuine) but then again he could be using the same tactic I did in QF10 where I said I really don’t think a player is evil when they’re up for a lynch so that when they died and were revealed good I could pull an “I told you so” and start accusing the people who wanted them dead.

 

Biggoron: Brings up the question regarding what role is revealed in the write up if a forged player dies again. Doesn’t add much else. Receiving my benefit of the doubt for being brand new.

 

Kaid: At first I was pretty certain Kaid was good for putting his vote on me. Now that he’s retracted it without any explanation I am less certain. Could very well be a traitor trying to separate himself from a lynch that originally began.

 

 

 

Aaaaand that should be everything, barring what I’ve already responded to. For the record what Stink might be referring to is the fact that I was having a lot of difficulty posting in LG15a because I was too distracted by all the discussion we were having in the doc. I complained about it repeatedly because I would finish a sentence and get drawn back into it for another 20 minutes or so before writing another and so forth. Basically I think he’s saying I wouldn’t be able to do everything I am doing now if I’m evil again this round.

 

 

EDITED FOR SPELLING/GRAMMAR ERRORS

Edited November 5, 2015 by Adavantos

[Bort he/him]

So, you make one silly mistake, and suddenly I'm off your suspicions list... Braize you, Adavantos, I demand equal suspicions

[Amanuensis he/him]

No no no, you've got it wrong. Though my suspicion of you has lessened it's not because of the mistake about the vote. Besides, I wasn't suspicious of all the player's I put on that list. The entire purpose of it was to get players who had either posted very little or said something that seemed odd to talk more. It worked for some of you (yourself, Creccio, Arraenae, etc) in varying degrees. Your five's responses have given me a better picture of your alignments, and when people look back after my death I hope it helps them too. It's those who didn't respond yet (Spaghetti especially, since she has posted since then whereas Mail has not) that I am more convinced of being evil this round.

 

 

 

EDIT: Intended to vote the first time, color didn't go through.

 

EDIT2: Retracted vote.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Adavantos

[Elithanathile he/him]

Okay, I saw the vote count, so I'm now sticking my vote where it counts.

Paranoid King

Adavantos

[Araris Valerian he/him]

Ok, I'm going to place my vote now. I'm not too sure what is up with Adavantos, but I would like to hear more from Bridge Boy about that vote. Yeah, it is definitely counting toward something, and I am all for a day one lynch, but we still have some time to discuss at this point.

 

In response to Adavantos, this is both SE and a LG. So, there is a bit of an expectation to be cutthroat, and people have 48 hours to get on to see the thread. Now, if we lynch an inactive that honestly forgot or had an emergency that prevented them from posting, I might be less likely to endorse lynching one of them one cycle one at a future date. I almost did that in MR whatever that is running right now. But in this day and age, 48 hours is an awful lot of time to hop on a phone or use a computer to post something like: I'm super busy and will contribute more later. People on here respect that sort of thing, it happens to all of us. And if we lynch someone who just forgot, well, next game they will be less likely to forget. It doesn't pay to encourage inactivity by protecting those people from the lynch.

 

I said all this, but my vote isn't on an inactive player because I felt like I had a better option, at least for drawing out info. I'll hopefully be back one in around 3 hours to reconsider where to put my vote.

[Guest]

I meant to just PM the Cow about this, but now that you've mentioned it here, I'll say it publicly.

The term “scum" is used quite commonly in other Mafia venues. EpicMafia, is probably the biggest one that I can think of. There, you would never say “I am suspicious of Player X." You would say “I scumread Player X," or perhaps “Player X is acting scummy." Just a different way of expressing suspicion. However, I've personally gotten in trouble for saying that here, so obviously it doesn't translate well into the 17th Shard.

That said, I don't think it's worth any extra suspicion. Sure, the term is a little more edgy than we egalitarians are used to, but “scum" is VERY commonly used elsewhere.

That said, I'm watching you, Cow. If you try to play the noob card after that post, it ain't gonna fly.

Also, I saw someone say something ton the effect of “Kipper thinks Alvron is less suspicious because of his joke-vote (I'm on mobile right now, so can't link...)." That is NOT correct. My suspicion of him has simply not been affected by his joke-vote. I believe that the joke-vote itself has little to no analytical value, so aside from participating in the joke myself, it hasn't affected my suspicions at all.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Guest

[Burnt Spaghetti she/her]

It's those who didn't respond yet (especially, since she has posted since then whereas Mail has not) that I am more convinced of being evil this round.

I had honestly forgotten about your suspicion list by the time I finished catching up on the thread so didn't think to reply. I personally just find it surprising that people can build up suspicions first cycle since we shouldn't have any information (well, except the eliminators, but I can just imagine they are going to be the ones most keen on lynching someone), and honestly I'm a bit surprised that one of the most talkative players atm is up for being lynched; sure being talkative means you're more likely to say something thag might sound suspicious and thus can draw accusations more but still, are we trying to cut all the discussion off as soon as possible? Traitor or not, talkative people.arestill useful for discussion. I just personally wouldn't have chosen to lynch off a highly contributional playef day one, especially when we don't have solid information yet. Sure people may have their reasons for being suspicious of you, but idk.... I personally am finding Adavantos' post summaries very useful as a method of reveiwing a persons activity and kinda would have liked for it to continue a bit longer than day one. so if he dies, can someone else do it too? I guess that's where I would agree with you being more suspicious of the ones who haven't said much (sorry, I knoe I did mention when I signed up that I may not be as active in cycle one due to exams and even though their done my brain still isnt focussing on this game yet) I literally have no strong suspicions yet as I'm equally suspicious of everyone.

I can say I often find myself more inclined ti trust the talkative people (not always though...) and I especially am less suspicios of thosewho offer up advice on game strategies.

idk.

I need to sleep. Sorry if that made no logical sense. but I wanted to reply before rollover since I wont be awake when that happens (yay for time zones (2am atm) so provided you dont all lynch me I can prob clarify whatever I just said tomorrow...

that is all... I think... I dont even know anymore...

might say more later (and correct the errors too... :/ )